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

[Little Maps]

Thanks Brendan, the VicMap Lite Public Land Classification dataset doesn't
contain the names of each State Forest, just their boundaries. But this
works fine in cases where we already have a State Forest mapped and named
in OSM but our boundaries are a bit off. You can open the dataset as a
layer in JOSM (don't know about iD editor) and then trace the outline of
each state forest to refine existing osm boundaries, which is really fast
and simple. (I can write some instructions if anyone is keen).
I've been looking at the Wombat State Forest borders in central Vic. The
VicMap Lite data may not be super high resolution but it's way more
accurate than some of the borders we have at the moment and will greatly
upgrade the osm state forest boundary. Cheers Ian


On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 6:55 PM Brendan Barnes  wrote:

> A relevant open source dataset would be Vicmap Lite - Public Land
> Classification Polygon (CC-BY 4.0 with waiver)
> https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-6WFVT7Kbk2STaCyQsxWl8CiRaic
> Note Vicmap Lite already has softwood plantation polygons on public land.
>
> Public Land Management PLM25 (CC-BY)
> https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-NWpWstpxTV460Xf5VoZa2BDVN3 is
> a great product to look at, however I don't believe we have a waiver for
> DELWP datasets that might include non-Vicmap (waivered) products within the
> dataset. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 17:07, Little Maps  wrote:
>
>> Thanks folks, I’ll use just leisure=nature_reserve, as suggested.
>> landuse=forest will probably only be needed for plantations now I guess.
>> Ewen, many of the OSM State Forest boundaries in Vic are ‘guesstimate’
>> boundaries that were first mapped many years ago. Some are really rough and
>> very approximate. The Wombat SF boundary includes lots of obvious private
>> land in many places. At least it’s a lot easier to see the problems when
>> the admin boundary is mapped separately from the vegetation patterns, after
>> landuse=forest is replaced by nature reserve and a separate wood layer.
>> Thanks again all, best wishes for 2024, 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 mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

Thanks folks, I’ll use just leisure=nature_reserve, as suggested. 
landuse=forest will probably only be needed for plantations now I guess. Ewen, 
many of the OSM State Forest boundaries in Vic are ‘guesstimate’ boundaries 
that were first mapped many years ago. Some are really rough and very 
approximate. The Wombat SF boundary includes lots of obvious private land in 
many places. At least it’s a lot easier to see the problems when the admin 
boundary is mapped separately from the vegetation patterns, after 
landuse=forest is replaced by nature reserve and a separate wood layer. Thanks 
again all, best wishes for 2024, Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests

[Little Maps]

Hi all, landuse=forest is widely used to denote State Forests in OSM, due to 
legislated landuse of timber harvesting. However, from 1 Jan this year, timber 
harvesting is now banned in all native forests in Victoria, so the problematic 
landuse=forest tag is no longer appropriate. 

I’m seeking feedback on the most appropriate tag to use now. Down the track, 
individual decisions will be made on conservation / recreation / Indigenous 
management priorities in each reserve. In the interim, are there any objections 
to replacing landuse=forest with the following tags…

boundary=protected_area
leisure=nature_reserve

plus name tags etc, and mapping separate natural=wood etc boundaries as needed. 
Among other advantages, getting rid of landuse=forest will make vegetation 
mapping a lot simpler in State Forests in Vic.  Cheers Ian



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

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

[Little Maps]

Thanks for the great analysis Andrew. To clarify that I’ve understood it 
properly, I think your suggestion boils down to the following. Correct me if 
I’m wrong…

City:  > 20,000 population. Based on ABS ‘gravity pull’ centres. Some back and 
forth on OSM but gives similar numbers of cities to currently in OSM. Creates 
72 cities in total.

Town:  1,000 - 20,000 pop. Based on ABS ‘urban centres’ list. Gives 657 towns 
across Aus in total.

Village:  ~250 - 1,000 pop. Based on ABS ‘urban localities’ list. Gives 1,080 
villages in total.

Hamlet: < ~ 250 pop. Not listed by ABS. All the rest in OSM else that’s not 
coded as a locality or farm etc.

The 20,000 / 1,000 / 250 pop cutoffs work fine by me. Following the ABS groups 
as best we can is simple, and will accord with patterns that map/database users 
are used to seeing elsewhere, which is an asset imo. I fully support it.

Rather than nail the village vs hamlet distinction immediately, we could tackle 
the issue in 2 steps by first gaining agreement on the city / town / village 
cut offs, and then nailing the more challenging village / hamlet cut off in 
phase 2.

Much of the discussion has focused on listing services / amenities that might 
be used to ‘boost’ places up the village / hamlet hierarchy. Once we can 
separate all the potential villages and hamlets from the other higher levels 
(towns and cities), I’m curious to see how often services / amenities just 
follow the breakdown you’ve suggested anyway. It may well be that most services 
/ amenities are in ABS Urban Localities and above and that very few of the 
remaining hamlets have many services anyway. For isolated places, this would be 
relatively simple to test using OSM data. For example, how many ‘hamlets’ vs 
villages have hospitals etc and how many outlier hamlets are there (which might 
be boosted up a level).

Thanks again for all your work, Ian


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

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

[Little Maps]

Thanks Graeme, it’ll be great to hear what others think too. Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

 Hi all, building on Andrew's great work, I've provided an Overpass query
below that allows users to change population cutoffs to see how different
values affect which places are categorised as cities, towns, villages and
hamlets.

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Bug (yep, that's the random link name, its not
a bug!)

I've used the following cut-offs in the query, as these align with how I
view cities/towns etc in Vic and southern NSW (which I know best) but you
can change the values to whatever you like to see how different values
change how places are categorised.

City = > 50,000 people
Town = 5000 - 50,000
Village = 1000 - 5000
Hamlet = < 1000

This kind of query gives a broad-brush pattern of how we can classify
places into cities, towns etc. If we can gain consensus on broad cutoffs,
we can then explore how services such as health and educational facilities
influence outcomes.

The query only shows places that have 2021 ABS population data (most/all of
which Andrew D has entered). Other places aren't shown. Andrew has
described other limitations in earlier posts.

For a simple way to explore how cutoffs will change the outcomes, Wikipedia
provides lists of cities in each state, ranked by population:

Aus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia_by_population

Qld:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_in_Queensland_by_population

NSW:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_in_New_South_Wales_by_population

Vic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_in_Victoria_by_population

Tas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_in_Tasmania_by_population

SA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_in_South_Australia_by_population

WA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_in_Western_Australia_by_population

Hope this is useful. Thanks again to everyone for a stimulating
conversation. Cheers Ian



On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 10:48 AM Little Maps  wrote:

> I agree with others that setting up a long list of services is probably
> unworkable, and would prefer to focus on population cut offs as the key
> criterion, with secondary, minor consideration to a very short list of key
> services. However, can we focus on what the key cut offs are before we
> discuss the fine details of scoring extra services? Once we’ve decided on
> the population cut offs it could be relatively simple to use overpass
> queries to see how often population cut offs address most of the service
> issues anyway (because doctors etc tend to be in bigger centres) and how
> often we have anomalies. Then we can work out scoring systems to address
> the anomalies. Until we agree on broad population-based categories we can’t
> move forward much imo. Thanks again Andrew for all your work and info, and
> everyone else for input. Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

I agree with others that setting up a long list of services is probably 
unworkable, and would prefer to focus on population cut offs as the key 
criterion, with secondary, minor consideration to a very short list of key 
services. However, can we focus on what the key cut offs are before we discuss 
the fine details of scoring extra services? Once we’ve decided on the 
population cut offs it could be relatively simple to use overpass queries to 
see how often population cut offs address most of the service issues anyway 
(because doctors etc tend to be in bigger centres) and how often we have 
anomalies. Then we can work out scoring systems to address the anomalies. Until 
we agree on broad population-based categories we can’t move forward much imo. 
Thanks again Andrew for all your work and info, and everyone else for input. 
Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

Great work again Andrew, many, many thanks. I’m curious what process we could 
use to move forward on this. 

As I understand your message, we have and/or can get population data for a 
small proportion of places in Aus (probably with comprehensive data for most 
larger places and less data for the many smaller ones). This means that, if we 
develop a guideline based primarily on population data we then have to develop 
a simple way to extrapolate the guidelines to places without pop data. Yes?

As a simple starting point, I’m curious whether it’s possible to first try to 
get agreement on general cut-offs for villages/towns/cities etc using only the 
places that have pop data (i.e. those you’ve mapped). We could present some 
different scenarios so that everyone could see the implications of different 
decisions for areas that they know. 

If agreement can be reached on this, we could then try to develop a simple way 
to generate guidelines for places without population data. This might use 
township area as a proxy for population for example (or other features).

The overpass patterns you generated are great to see. I imagined that the OSM 
city/town division might have been based on features like whether a place had a 
hospital etc, as others have suggested. But your analysis suggests that we may 
just have major regional differences in what people consider to be towns vs 
cities. For example, lots of regional centres in Vic have been tagged as cities 
(and are indeed called ‘cities’ in Victoria), whereas many places of similar 
size in other states have been tagged as towns. That points to broad 
social/cultural differences between Victoria and other regions, rather than 
fine detailed factors at individual localities. It’s great to see this big 
picture view.

I’m happy to devote some time to the topic too if others think it’s a useful 
topic to progress. Thanks again, Ian




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

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

[Little Maps]

Hi again, fyi. I was curious to see how variable city/town tags were in
relation to population. About 1500 places spread around Aus have a
population tag according to an Overpass Turbo search. This number includes
place= village, hamlet, town and city. I didn't include place=locality or
other place tags. The table below shows how many places were tagged as
town, city, etc for each population group.

*Population* *hamlet* *village* *town* *city* *Total count*
0-199 138 106 83 0 327
200-999 42 251 270 0 563
1000-4999 2 84 280 0 366
5000-4 0 6 140 54 200
5+ 0 0 7 31 38
*Count* *182* *447* *780* *85* 1494

Thus, 327 places with a population tag had less than 200 people. Of these
327 places,138 were tagged as hamlet, 106 as village, 83 as town, etc.
At the other extreme, of 38 places with more than 50,000 people, 7 were
tagged as towns, while the rest were tagged as cities.

It'd be interesting to analyse these patterns further to see if there are
systematic spatial trends (e.g. places along the east coast may have
different tags to places further inland). But, at a national level,
town/village/hamlet allocation is amazingly variable. It'd be great to
develop some clear guidelines to guide future changes.

Cheers Ian





On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 10:12 AM Little Maps  wrote:

> Hi all, I’m late to this but, my two bobs worth… I’d prefer it if a
> simple, flat rule was used to define towns/villages etc, preferably based
> on population alone, but using proxies such as area or number of houses
> where pop data aren’t available. A few reasons…
>
> Vector based maps (such as Osmand uses) enable users to change what
> features appear at different zoom levels. Not my specialty, but my
> impression is vector based maps are more likely to inc in future c.f. tile
> based maps (which OSM carto uses). These alleviate the ‘empty map’ problem
> as users can adjust different zoom settings to work in cities or rural
> areas as they please.
>
> Simple definitions are more practical. Complicated definitions will end up
> getting more complicated as different users add their own spin (e.g. 2
> closed pubs + 1 footy oval - a doctors office = a town).
>
> The discussion is focused on map rendering but OSM is a database which (in
> theory) could be used for lots of purposes. This gets harder to do if
> places (such as towns vs hamlets etc) have definitions that incorporate
> lots of other features (such as presence of pubs, ovals, hospitals).
>
> Using Ockham’s razor, the simplest (best?) approach would be to start
> super simple and then see what we’re missing. For example, map all
> locations using population (or proxy) and then overlay presence / absence
> of hospitals, schools, etc and see where and how often anomalies occur, and
> then discuss how to deal with these. There may not be many. Otherwise we
> end up debating local issues only, like the merits of the Windorah coffee
> shop, which doesn’t get us far imo.
>
> More broadly, I’m not convinced that many users care whether a locality is
> called a hamlet/village/town/city. Who calls a place a ‘hamlet’ in
> Australia apart from mappers? We want to show whether one place is markedly
> bigger than the next, and more importantly, whether it’s got petrol, a
> grocery store, pub and hospital, etc.
>
> Hence, I’d keep the town vs hamlet definitions as simple as possible, and
> focus on mapping features like residential landuse (which describe how big
> the place is) and POIs. Let’s avoid ‘town-flation’ and let ongoing
> developments in map rendering (inc vector maps?) fix empty map problems.
>
> Great conversation, thanks to all. Cheers Ian
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

Hi all, I’m late to this but, my two bobs worth… I’d prefer it if a simple, 
flat rule was used to define towns/villages etc, preferably based on population 
alone, but using proxies such as area or number of houses where pop data aren’t 
available. A few reasons…

Vector based maps (such as Osmand uses) enable users to change what features 
appear at different zoom levels. Not my specialty, but my impression is vector 
based maps are more likely to inc in future c.f. tile based maps (which OSM 
carto uses). These alleviate the ‘empty map’ problem as users can adjust 
different zoom settings to work in cities or rural areas as they please.

Simple definitions are more practical. Complicated definitions will end up 
getting more complicated as different users add their own spin (e.g. 2 closed 
pubs + 1 footy oval - a doctors office = a town).

The discussion is focused on map rendering but OSM is a database which (in 
theory) could be used for lots of purposes. This gets harder to do if places 
(such as towns vs hamlets etc) have definitions that incorporate lots of other 
features (such as presence of pubs, ovals, hospitals).

Using Ockham’s razor, the simplest (best?) approach would be to start super 
simple and then see what we’re missing. For example, map all locations using 
population (or proxy) and then overlay presence / absence of hospitals, 
schools, etc and see where and how often anomalies occur, and then discuss how 
to deal with these. There may not be many. Otherwise we end up debating local 
issues only, like the merits of the Windorah coffee shop, which doesn’t get us 
far imo.

More broadly, I’m not convinced that many users care whether a locality is 
called a hamlet/village/town/city. Who calls a place a ‘hamlet’ in Australia 
apart from mappers? We want to show whether one place is markedly bigger than 
the next, and more importantly, whether it’s got petrol, a grocery store, pub 
and hospital, etc.

Hence, I’d keep the town vs hamlet definitions as simple as possible, and focus 
on mapping features like residential landuse (which describe how big the place 
is) and POIs. Let’s avoid ‘town-flation’ and let ongoing developments in map 
rendering (inc vector maps?) fix empty map problems.

Great conversation, thanks to all. Cheers Ian



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

Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

[Little Maps]

On 6 Jun 2023, at 2:29 pm, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
> 
> 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?

Ian, I stand corrected. NSW National Parks use a dash, not a slash, in the 
example I gave from  The Rock Nature Reserve - Kengal Aboriginal Place. Sorry 
for the confusion.

Having said that, Australian geographic names boards do use slashes for dual 
names. This extract is from the Vic Gov guidelines…

“If a visual separator is required for clarity, it should be a solidus ( / ) 
preceded and followed by a space…. The following examples would be acceptable:
Nambruc / Aberfeldy State Forest
Colquhoun State Forest / Boyanga Gidi.”

“Dual names once registered are to be used in full, shortened versions are not 
to be used.”

(Hence dual names are not seen as alternatives.)

From “Naming rules for places in Victoria 2022 - Statutory requirements for 
naming roads, features and localities”

https://www.land.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0018/501093/Official-Naming-rules-for-places-in-Victoria-2022.docx
 

The Vic Gov report refers to the National “Principles for the Consistent Use of 
Place Names. Includes Principles for the Use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait 
Islander Place Names and Dual Naming Depiction Principles” which also 
recommends that a “solidus” (i.e. a slash) is the recommended standard.

https://www.icsm.gov.au/sites/default/files/consistent_place_names_principles.pdf
 ___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

[Little Maps]

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

Re: [talk-au] Streams and dams

[Little Maps]

I don’t know if there’s a “correct” method as at least 3 different methods are 
(or were) common in Vic, where I map. (1) continue named stream through dam, 
(2) continue stream through dam but with no name tag, and (3) stop stream at 
dam edge and start again the other side. Method 2 means dam name is rendered 
but not stream/river as well inside the dam. If the stream/river is in a 
relation this isn’t a problem as the whole named stream can be found using the 
relation.

I prefer continuing the waterway through the dam as it makes it a lot easier to 
find gaps in waterways and to show connected watersheds, etc. If dams are often 
dry or rarely full, it also shows where waterway is at low lake levels. 
Logically, also the Murray River flows through Lake Hume. It doesn’t stop at 
one side and start again on the other.

I’ve been editing heaps of streams in Vic over past few months, and it’s common 
for waterways to cross dams but not actually connect with them. It’s important 
that they share a node at each place they cross a dam. Lot’s don’t (or didn’t). 
The same thing applies on the coast, where many streams cross the 
natural=coastline polygon but don’t connect with it.

If all streams that connect with the coast connect properly you can easily do 
an overpass query to find all watersheds that drain into a section of coast. If 
all streams properly cross and connect with dams, it’s easy to find all streams 
that enter the Murray - Darling Basin, for example.

A fine-detail issue on your query below is that, on the ground, streams don’t 
normally pass over earthen dam walls. If they did the wall would erode. 
Instead, there’ll be a side route where water will flow beside the dam when the 
dam is full. Sometimes this can be seen on imagery, often not. IMO this is an 
issue of mapping scale, and it’s fine to map a stream waterway as passing 
through a dam. If someone wants to add the fine detail later they can, while 
still maintaining the connectivity of the waterway.

So, broadly, yes, I think it’s much better if waterways pass through 
constructed reservoirs.

Cheers Ian

> On 4 Jun 2023, at 9:48 pm, Tom Brennan  wrote:
> 
> Quick question on streams and dams/reservoirs.
> 
> If a stream has been dammed, the centreline of the stream should still be 
> mapped as a waterway. Correct?
> 
> 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] Murray River relation deletion?

[Little Maps]

Hi Graeme, that’s a whopper isn’t it. It contains a hotch potch of adjacent 
waterbodies, but the m/polygon works well to define outer and inner boundaries 
(islands). Given it’s not all a ‘river’, the multipolygon tags would perhaps be 
more accurate if the tag water=river was removed, leaving just ‘natural=water’. 
This aside, I don’t know that there’s any simpler way to map the area.

The big m/polygon could perhaps be broken up into separate ones, with each 
defining the banks of a river, stream or separate canal complexes, and each of 
these could have an appropriate water tag, eg water=river, water=stream, 
water=canal, but in practice this would replace one m/polygon with many. This 
has been done in the relation on Lake Capabella a bit further west, for 
example. This would also be necessary if someone wanted to add a name on a 
subset of the big m/polygon.

Given the complexity of the landuse, I imagine that there isn’t a simple 
alternative :(
Putting the relation issue aside, there’s certainly been some wonderful mapping 
up your way! Cheers Ian


On 23 May 2023, at 9:26 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> Have spotted a bit of a similar issue here: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6168517#map=13/-28.0105/153.4332, 
> which has a natural river & a few "streams" running through lots of dredged 
> out canals e.g. 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593943553#map=13/-28.0018/153.3810.
> 
> Does this really need the relation included?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
>> 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?

[Little Maps]

Thanks Warin and Cleary, I’ll remove the lake from the relation and cut the 
relation back to the river banks. I agree, there’s no need to add name or other 
tags to the riverbank (natural=water) tags as these details are already on the 
waterway and the waterway relation. Warin, I’ve never seen a lake that has a 
river name on its boundaries like this, the river details are usually on a 
central waterway, if one has been mapped. Thanks again, Ian


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

[talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?

[Little Maps]

Hi folks, just checking to make sure I'm not missing something here...

There's a large relation called 'Murray River' which covers all of Lake
Hume, plus an upstream section of the Murray. This is a natural=water
'riverbank' relation, not a waterway relation.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8327459#map=11/-36.1129/147.3280

There's also another, nearly identical, relation called 'Lake Hume' that
covers Lake Hume only. This only covers the lake, not the river upstream,
and looks fine.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531635#map=11/-36.0960/147.2417

Are there any objections if I severely truncate the Murray River relation
so it excludes Lake Hume, and includes only the river upstream of Lake
Hume, where it will join the eastern edge of the Lake Hume relation?

The southern arm of Lake Hume is fed by the Mitta Mitta not the Murray, so
calling the entire lake the Murray River is problematic. Again, this
relation covers the boundary of the lake, not the central waterway.

Anything I'm missing here? Thanks again, Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

Aah, you’re a genius Andrew, there’s no way I could have written that query! 
Thanks heaps, Ian

> On 9 May 2023, at 8:09 pm, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> 
> On 9/5/23 19:51, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1uIC
>> Which should be this code:
>> [timeout:900][out:csv(way_id,riv_name,rel_id,rel_name;true;",")];
>> area["ISO3166-2"="AU-VIC"]->.a;
> 
> Apologies, I should have used make rather than convert. The corrected version 
> is here https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1uIF
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Waterway data check overpass query

[Little Maps]


Sorry all for dodgy message above, not sure what happened there. Thanks Phil, 
that works fine but I was hoping for a tool I could use across large areas. 
I’ve used a series of overpass queries to do things like display all waterways 
in Vic named river that are in a relation, show those that aren’t, and overlaid 
ways and relations in different colors, etc, which show various anomalies that 
I’ve then checked and fixed where needed. The most common issues were probably 
relations that were much shorter than named ways (extra ways were probably 
added and named more recently) and the inclusion of creeks and rivers with 
different names in some relations, especially in headwaters but some flotsam 
and jetsam that was probably left over when relations were edited in the past. 
Just as I was about to turn the laptop off tonight I found the example below, 
where the relation for the Thomson River in Gippsland follows another creek for 
a long stretch SW of Heyfield. I’ll fix this tomorrow. If there was a simple 
way to display all ways in a relation that had a different name to the 
relation, it’d be a really useful tool. Thanks again, cheers Ian

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2211661#map=12/-38.0079/146.7550

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

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

[Little Maps]

Thanks Phil, yes, this works fine on individual relations but I was hoping to find a tool that works across much larger areas, statewide preferably. I’ve done a series of overpass queries across Vic for all waterways with river in their name, including things like find all river ways that are in relations, those that aren’t in relations, overlaying waterway ways and relations in different colors, and more, each of which has been useful. The most common issues were probably relations that were shorter than named ways, and to a lesser extent, relations that included sections of other rivers or creeks (esp in headwaters but also some flotsam and jetsam). I’ve found the latter by looking for strange color patterns in the overpass outputs, but I’m sure I’ve missed lots. Just as I was about to close the laptop today I found the example below (which I’ll fix next time) where the relation for the Thomson River follows another creek for a long stretch, just west of Heyfield. If there was a way to search for all relations that contains ways with a different name, it’d be fantastic. Thanks again, IanRelation: ‪Thomson River‬ (‪2211661‬)openstreetmap.org___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Waterway data check overpass query

[Little Maps]

Hi all, does anyone know if it’s possible to use Overpass Turbo or another 
tool to find waterway ways for which the way has a different name to the 
relation that the way is a part of? As an example, imagine that the relation 
for Ovens River includes a way called Castle Creek. Can this be found? I’ve 
been data checking river relations and can’t work out how to make a query that 
would detect this issue. Many thanks for your help, Ian

___
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?

[Little Maps]

Hi all, this thread has deviated lots from the initial question about high 
water marks but on a broader level, it’s important to note that statewide maps 
like the NSW Base Map are not the basis for legal questions. Individual 
property title plans are. The statewide maps just give a good (sometimes 
excellent) representation of relative patterns across broad areas. To quote 
from the NSW Six Maps FAQ: 

“It is important to note that cadastral data displayed within SIX Maps has no 
legal status and is intended for viewing purposes only. Only the registered 
deposited or strata plan of survey is recognised as the legal definition of the 
boundaries.”

The NSW Base Map we use in OSM is the same as that shown at the Six Maps 
website.

The reliance on property titles is shown in the two examples Cleary provided 
which refer to lot numbers. The property plans for the individual lots provide 
the legal basis for the boundaries of those lots. (Some of these might refer to 
natural features perhaps.). The schematic maps are indicative only.

The NSW Base Map is compiled from layers, each of differing precision/accuracy. 
Roads, POIs, houses, etc are often very accurate. Streams are extremely coarse. 
Property boundaries are usually accurate in towns but often very imprecise in 
regional areas (inc National park boundaries etc). The “shape” of each 
allotment is broadly accurate, but there are a lot of offsets and imprecision 
in where the boundary actually is. As described in the six maps FAQ page, many 
of these boundaries were transcribed from old, broad-scale, paper plans. The 
process of increasing the accuracy of the statewide datasets is on an as-needs 
basis. Broadly, the bulk of attention is on newly subdivided lots in towns and 
cities, and remote properties, inc public lands, get little attention (unless 
there’s some legal appeal presumably).

You can easily see these inaccuracies on the nsw base map by seeing how often 
road alignments deviate out of the road easements. The actual roads are 
geospatially accurate. On imagery and on the ground, the roads lie within 
fenced easements. On the base map, the easements are often offset, so roads 
appear to go through private paddocks. For public lands, the same issue arises.

The statewide maps are the best we have usually, but they’re not the legal 
representation of boundaries. The Base Map is a fantastic resource, but actual 
boundaries often need to be moved to better align with fence lines. Where the 
boundaries follow creeks and the like, the boundaries are probably best treated 
as indicative and left untouched, as there’s no verifiable way of knowing where 
they should lie without chasing up individual property plans.

Cheers Ian
___
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?

[Little Maps]

Slightly different issue… but the accuracy of governmental admin boundaries can 
vary a lot depending where you are in Aus. In regional NSW, allotment 
boundaries (and associated park, state forest and local gov boundaries) as 
shown on the NSW gov base map (and as often used in OSM) are often inaccurate 
by 20-50 m and sometimes lots more. This inaccuracy is clearly stated on the 
Six Maps FAQ page (see Q 6&7).

https://www.spatial.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/216383/SIXMapsFAQ.pdf

Basically, this statewide dataset is not intended to be used at the high zoom 
levels that we can use in OSM. Personally, I’d echo Frederick and Andrew’s view 
that we may be seeking a false sense of exactitude by focusing on small 
apparent differences between statewide datasets and natural features. Cheers Ian___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tracks from Strava heatmap

[Little Maps]

On 27 Feb 2023, at 9:05 am, Tom Brennan  wrote:
> 
> Sounds like the general consensus is:
> - Strava heatmap is good for aligning *existing* tracks
> - Strava shouldn't be used for the creation of new tracks without some ground 
> truthing.

Hi all, nice discussion. I agree but would broaden the 2nd point. The focus for 
the thread was walking tracks (paths etc in OSM). For vehicle tracks (fire 
trails etc), there’s not always a need to compare Strava against ground 
truthing (great though this would be) and careful inspection of imagery may 
often suffice. OSM’s vehicle tracks / fire trails are incomplete (or absent) in 
many areas, and Strava’s heat map is a great way to prioritise mapping of well 
used tracks using imagery, using the same care as all other mapping from 
imagery. So, I’d suggest broadening the 2nd point to ‘… without ground truthing 
or careful inspection of imagery, where appropriate”.  Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] New blog using OSM data: are there more roads in the city or the bush?

[Little Maps]

Hi all, some summer reading on the question: are there more roads in the city 
or the bush?  More precisely, ‘is the total length of roads inside all cities 
and towns more or less than the total length of all roads that run between all 
cities and towns in NSW?’ Based on roads, landuse tags and other features in 
OpenStreetMap. Hope you find something of interest. Cheers Ian

https://little-maps.com/2023/01/09/city-or-the-bush-where-are-the-most-roads/

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

[talk-au] Blog post on NSW road surfaces based on OpenStreetMap data

[Little Maps]

Hi all, I’ve written a new blog post on sealed and unsealed roads in NSW. 
OpenStreetMap now has comprehensive coverage of road surface tags in NSW and 
the post provides lots of maps and tables to illustrate the patterns. Hope you 
enjoy it. Best wishes Ian

https://little-maps.com/2022/12/16/openstreetmap-now-has-comprehensive-data-on-sealed-and-unsealed-roads-across-new-south-wales-australia/


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

Re: [talk-au] Import Telstra Payphones

[Little Maps]

wow, that’s a big import. Worth noting that that the previous 2 edits by the 
same user added more of the same, but disguised under the innocuous changeset 
comments, ‘just adding some street names’. No street names were added.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] add boundary=forest tag to Qld State Forests and Timber Reserves

[Little Maps]

> On 13 Sep 2022, at 8:53 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Usually the type of tree - not a native to oz = Radiata pine and Southern 
> Pine.
> Apparently some are using Hoop Pine .. native to oz ... so not 100% accurate 
> .. but would get most of them?
> 
There are enormous areas of blue gum plantation in W Vic and SE SA, plus Pinus 
radiata. Spotted gum is planted elsewhere too. Species or genus are great tags 
to add where known, but having a generic tag that encompasses all plantations, 
such as plantation=yes or equivalent, makes a very simple way to search for all 
planted forestry areas. See for example, the tagging here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11661722#map=13/-37.4429/141.5230
Best wishes.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] add boundary=forest tag to Qld State Forests and Timber Reserves

[Little Maps]

> On 13 Sep 2022, at 6:01 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There are some 'private' forestry areas too, at least in NSW ... these are 
> visible as they are not native and in organized rows, so easy to identify.

Heaps in W Vic too. As state govts move from timber harvesting in native 
forests to plantation based forestry it’ll become increasingly important to 
have a robust tagging scheme to differentiate native forests from plantations. 
The informal tag “plantation=yes” is widely used in SW WA and W Vic, albeit by 
a small number of editors. I’m not aware of a formal tag that conveys the same 
information.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] add boundary=forest tag to Qld State Forests and Timber Reserves

[Little Maps]

> Nev, great initiative. I’ve been contemplating how the new boundary=forest 
> could be used in Vic and S NSW. Rather than view it a tag to use in addition 
> to land use=forest, I saw it as a useful replacement.

> By replacing landuse=forest with boundary = forest, we could generate State 
> Forest (SF) tenure boundaries, similar to conservation reserves, and remove 
> all ambiguity about whether landuse=forest infers a vegetation type 
> (forest/wood), a landuse (forestry) or a tenure (State Forest). (It means all 
> 3 things to different people). We could then accurately map SF tenures 
> independent of vegetation type and (perhaps?) the finer-scale mapping of 
> actual landuse.

> We could also more accurately map vegetation types in SFs, whereas atm, it’s 
> a complete mess to map scrub, grassland, etc in SFs, especially where they 
> cross SF boundaries. Also, it clearly acknowledges that only a small part of 
> many SFs is actually used (and can be used) for timber production.

> It seems to me we have a fantastic opportunity to greatly reduce the 
> horrendous vagaries that are implicit in landuse=forest across Aus SFs if we 
> use boundary=forest to apply to tenure, and natural=wood, scrub, etc to apply 
> to the vegetation type, within SFs. In reality, we have little way of mapping 
> which parts of many SFs are available for logging unless we import far more 
> detailed datasets from gov agencies.

> I look forward to other thoughts on the matter. Cheers Ian

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

[talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways

[Little Maps]

 Hi folks, is there any consensus on how to tag cycling on motorway
shoulders?

In some places, the simple tag bicycle=yes (or no) is used. This is
straight forward. In others, the left hand shoulder is tagged as a cycle
lane, using "cycleway=lane" or "cycleway:left=lane". Others have  used
"cycleway=shoulder".

On the ground, the signs I know (in Vic and S NSW) usually read, "cyclists
use left shoulder" and "emergency lane, bicycles excepted". It's not
explicitly called a cycle lane in Vic or NSW road guidelines, only that
bicycle access is permitted along the road shoulder (as on any other
non-motorway road).

In my mind, there's a big difference between tags that imply, "you're
allowed to ride on the motorway" (as on any other road) versus, "there's a
dedicated bike lane here".

FYI, this overpass turbo query shows some common tagging options in
different colours: https://bit.ly/3TaYR8P

Any thoughts? Thanks, Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] suspicious edits in Victoria need reverting?

[Little Maps]

I chanced upon the supposed new “Ballan - Corio Motorway (M8)” this morning 
too. This must be a complete fabrication. It goes straight through the Brisbane 
Ranges NP and there would have been an outcry if such a road was even proposed, 
let alone completed. I fully support reverting all of the changes. Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OSM Wiki Cleanup Update: 6th Tagging Guidelines Page ready

[Little Maps]

Thanks heaps for all of your work on the tagging guidelines Dian, it’s really 
appreciated. Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

Thanks again, and hats off to everyone for their great work.

> On 17 May 2022, at 6:55 pm, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> 
> On 17/5/22 18:19, Little Maps wrote:
>> Andrew, of all the options that have been suggested, is cleary’s
>> approach the one you’d most recommend? And thanks again for importing
>> the reserve boundaries. If you never did anything else on osm you’d
>> still be my hero for this alone - plus maybe the admin boundaries.
>> :) Cheers.
> 
> I think it's the neatest way to do it. It keeps the relation for the whole 
> area while letting you put names on the sections that you know.
> 
> It's not just me doing the CAPAD stuff, I know that Nev W has done a lot of 
> work on this too (and I'm sure there are others). Also don't forget, Mr 
> Harvey did all the heavy lifting on getting us access to the PSMA data and 
> writing the scripts to get it ready for import.
> 

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

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

[Little Maps]

Thanks Cleary, that’s an interesting approach. Two questions: (1) would you be 
open to the same approach being used if the local relation contained just a 
single closed way, rather than a pair of polygons as in your example? (2) in 
your example, the relation for the local area contains just the boundary tag 
and the local name tag, and all the other tags that describe the entire network 
are provided in the broader relation. This seems to be a good way to avoid 
duplicating tags unnecessarily?

As far as I know, we don’t have permissions to use gov maps that show the names 
of individual reserves. Like you I have used signs at reserve entrances as the 
source of local names. Thanks again, Ian

> On 17 May 2022, at 1:00 pm, cleary  wrote:
> 
> 
> I had looked at this a few years ago. I edited one area , making it part of 
> two relations :
> South West Woodland Nature Reserve   (relation 5825677)
> South West Woodland Nature Reserve - Hiawatha Precinct  (relation 7477098)
> 
> The first relation includes all twenty or more areas that comprise the 
> reserve, while the second shows just the particluar local area with its 
> particular name.
> 
> The reason I did not try to add names for more precincts or sub-areas is that 
> I could not, at the time, find a permitted source for the names.  Looking 
> now, I see that I was remiss in not adding a source for the name of the 
> Hiawatha Precinct - I had visited the area and I am guessing it was probably 
> signposted or there was some other local source. Not sure if the names of all 
> precincts are now available to OSM - if so, I think use of dual relations 
> works well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, 16 May 2022, at 8:31 PM, Little Maps wrote:
>> Hi folks, some advice please…
>> 
>> In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves 
>> (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to 
>> be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South 
>> West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, 
>> the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has  >20 
>> isolated segments, all called the same name:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485
>> 
>> On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of 
>> these patches are known and signposted with different names for 
>> different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the 
>> “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. 
>> “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after 
>> Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray 
>> Valley Regional Park”.)
>> 
>> I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names 
>> that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) 
>> whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do 
>> so.
>> 
>> I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members 
>> of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this 
>> change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the 
>> boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a 
>> separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the 
>> existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the 
>> isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the 
>> newly separated patch.
>> 
>> This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the 
>> CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. 
>> However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, 
>> I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves 
>> are signposted as and known in the regions.
>> 
>> Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many 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 mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

On 16 May 2022, at 8:57 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Not quite all with the 'same name'?
> 
> While they are all members of the same relation some carry a name. e.g. 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225222372
>> 

Thanks for that example. As I understand it, this puts a name on the way but 
does not specifically put a name on the section of the protected area, unless 
one devises a query that searches for all named ways in the broader relation? 
Hence the name never appears on any map unless one knows that this indirect 
technique was used, and devises a query to show such names. I might have 
interpreted the example wrongly? 

> Yes .. desirable to add the names that appear 'on the ground'.
> 
> Possibly best to add the names on the individual ways .. assuming the single 
> way encompasses the area concerned?

This becomes much more difficult along rivers, where ways delineating named 
reserves may need to be split from longer ways, and the newly divided segment 
would need to be delineated by a multipolygon, with some shared boundaries. 
Thanks again.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

Hi folks, some advice please…

In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves (those that 
include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to be given the generic 
name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South West Woodland Nature Reserve” 
or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, the South West Woodland Nature Reserve 
across western NSW has  >20 isolated segments, all called the same name:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485

On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of these 
patches are known and signposted with different names for different patches. 
The ones I know are compound names comprising the “local patch” name plus the 
name of the broader reserve network, e.g. “Collendina Murray Valley Regional 
Park”. (Which was named after Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed 
into the newer “Murray Valley Regional Park”.)

I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names that 
are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) whether this is 
considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do so.

I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members of a 
broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this change would 
require: (1) removing the individual patch from the boundary relation for the 
entire reserve network, (2) creating a separate polygon or m/polygon for the 
isolated segment using the existing imported line work, and (3) entering the 
new name for the isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into 
the newly separated patch.

This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the CAPAD 
boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. However, given the 
huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, I believe it’s important 
to include the names that individual reserves are signposted as and known in 
the regions.

Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian




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

[talk-au] Vic gov data request denied

[Little Maps]

Hi all, some disappointing news. Our request to extend our existing waiver to 
the Vic Gov Vic Topo datasets to other gov departmental datasets has been 
denied. See the message below. For background, this request was discussed here 
late last year:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015230.html

By my reading this doesn’t invalidate our existing waiver, just the use of 
other datasets not covered by it, but I’ll leave others to decode it further. 
Best wishes Ian

Begin forwarded message:

> From: GIS HelpDesk 
> Date: 11 March 2022 at 12:57:44 pm AEDT
> To: 
> Subject: SRQ0216617 New Comments Added re: OpenStreetMap DELWP data request
> Reply-To: GIS HelpDesk 
> 
> 
>  
> Service Request SRQ0216617 has been commented on
> 
> The following Service Request has been commented. Should you have any 
> updates, or are seeking additional information specific to this Service 
> Request please reply to this email.
> NumberSRQ0216617
> Requestor 
> Affected User 
> Business Service  Enterprise Spatial Services
> State Pending Customer
> Short Description
> OpenStreetMap DELWP data request
> Comments
> 11-03-2022 12:57:28 AEDT - George Mansour Comments to Requestor
> Hi Ian,
>  
> We are not in a position to sign any agreement as most of the Departments 
> data is open, therefore under the Creative Commons License, you may use and 
> distribute the data as you wish. The only requirement is acknowledgement to 
> DELWP.
>  
> If you wish to add to the Vicmap Suite of products of require specific detail 
> regarding Vicmap Data, please contact vicmap.h...@delwp.vic.gov.au.
>  
> Regards,
> George
> Description
> Received from: 
> Email subject: OpenStreetMap DELWP data request
> To: vicmap.h...@delwp.vic.gov.au
> EXTERNAL SENDER: Links and attachments may be unsafe.
>  
> Dear DELWP staff,
>  
> I wish to request an update to the permission and waiver that DELWP
> provided to the OpenStreetMap project in 2018 (Ref: SRQ0062658) which
> covered VicMap datasets. If your department agrees, we would like to extend
> this permission to cover all of DELWP's open data that is available under
> the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. The attached document contains more
> details on the 2018 agreement and this request. Please contact me if you
> require any further information.
>  
> Thank you for your assistance.
>  
> Ref:MSGE3393959
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Little Maps]

Hi all, thanks for a really informative discussion. I’m puzzled by the comments 
I’ve copied below. I’m uncertain when legislative defaults apply (and hence 
explicit access tagging isn’t required) and when tagging is needed. In the 
instance mentioned below, bicycle = no should not be added to urban footways in 
Vic as routers etc should work that out for themselves based on state 
legislation. (Or they could look at the entry in the state’s boundary relation, 
but it seems agreed that few data consumers do that). 

On bushwalking tracks in Tassie, bikes are banned on walking paths because 
they’re classed as vehicles. Again this is legislated and, as I interpreted the 
comments below, it’s suggested that data users should know this from 
legislation, and hence not need explicit access tags for bikes, unless access 
on a specific path deviates from the legislation.

However, bikes are allowed on footpaths (footways) in Tassie, so the same 
features (highway=footways) is, I assume, subject to 2 different legislations 
in the same state, depending on whether it’s an urban footpath or a bushwalking 
track. I’m curious how a data consumer / router would know which role a footway 
(or a path) was playing unless access restrictions were added to all? 
(Especially if it’s agree that few if any consumers use the National or state 
access guidelines, as was stated earlier). Isn’t it impossible for them to draw 
any conclusion unless tags are added? Or is the consensus that urban footpaths 
(footways) don’t need access tags but bush walking paths (footways) do?

Hope this make sense, thanks again, Ian
“ > Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as 
vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads') (from Phil)

Hi. This sounds a bit like the issue a couple of months ago with the User who 
wanted to tag all footpaths in Victoria with bicycle=no and the community 
consensus was that it wasn't OSM's role to document legislation, the data 
consumers could worry about what to do with cyclists and footpaths and OSM 
would concentrate on ground truth. Tony. “___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Little Maps]

RE: 
> Are the issues any different for motor vehicles and cyclists? The frequency 
> and severity are different, the  reference photos are different but I would 
> expect the issues and principles to be the same. Maybe just have a single 
> page about tracks?

Hi Tony, yes, I agree, most issues would be the same. I think it’d make it 
easier for newby editors to follow if the pages were separate or if there were 
separate sections on a single page) to reduce ambiguity about popular vs OSM 
definitions of tracks vs trails vs paths etc. One of the things I like about 
the US page and Andrew’s version here is that it starts from the questions that 
users want to answer, not from tagging labels first. If a common question is 
how do I tag this type of walking path/track/trail, it’d be great to have a 
page/section that answers that alone, without combining it with other questions 
(eg how do I tag a vehicle track etc). I only raised this as a matter of 
clarity, not definitions or principles. Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Little Maps]

Hi Andrew, thanks for compiling the walking tracks page, it’s a great resource. 
It would be good to extend this later on to have separate pages for walking 
tracks, vehicle tracks and MTB paths, since these issues keep coming up on the 
forum. 

I think the section “why shouldn’t closed tracks exist within OSM” needs to be 
re considered. The sentiments are fine, but presently as baldly as this, it 
simply leaves a novice reader to ask, ‘well, what do you guys want? Make up 
your mind.’ To my mind the goal is to provide clear tagging advice. We might 
also note some of the complexities involve, but if we do so, this needs to be 
framed well so it can be seen as background info rather than a negation of the 
purpose of the web page. atm, the two sections simply cancel each other out. 
Regardless, this is a great step forward. Thanks again, Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New blogs on unsealed roads in Victoria

[Little Maps]

Thanks everyone for the kind comments, I’m glad you enjoyed it. Many thanks for 
sharing it on social media Ewen and Graeme, Ewen’s FB post has dominated the 
traffic to the blog today. :)  Two small comments…

Re: “I was prompted to think about steep Alpine grades and cyclists... It's an 
issue I don't think OpenStreetMap can handle as we don't map the steepness of 
grades.“

Most cycling apps overlay OSM data and routes etc on a digital terrain model to 
create slope profile drawings for their routes. You can see a good example of 
this on the Gippsland section on the Vic gravel route here… 
https://ridewithgps.com/routes/38337498. There are definitely some sections 
that would require some hard bike-pushing both up and down hill.

Re: “how in the hell do you get to Nelson and back from Mallacoota? ” 

Yes, it’s definitely an impractical route! Stay tuned for the next installment. 
I suspect that some parts of the route will stay the same no matter where you 
start or finish. If so, it would create a map that looked like tributary 
streams feeding into a major river (the shared route). I’ve got to explore this 
a lot more and work out how to display the results best. Shall be interesting! 

Thanks again everyone, it couldn’t have been done without all of the work done 
by the OSM community. Cheers Ian___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] New blogs on unsealed roads in Victoria

[Little Maps]

 Hi folks, for everyone interested in OpenStreetMap's fantastic road data…
I've just posted a series of blogs about unsealed roads in Victoria. I've
pitched it at cyclists rather than mappers to widen the audience, but you
should still find lots of interest I hope.

https://little-maps.com/2022/01/12/the-great-vic-gravel-route-exploring-victoria-on-unsealed-roads/

It starts with the question, how far can you ride across Victoria without
hitting a paved road? Then displays Victoria's major 'gravel zones', and
plots the route that crosses Victoria from west to east which contains the
shortest possible distance of paved roads. It's very circuitous.

A series of supplementary posts expand on the main theme and describe how
the maps and routes were made. I hope you find it interesting. Best wishes
Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] US Trails Working Group

[Little Maps]

On 3 Jan 2022, at 5:06 pm, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
> 
> I think lots of their issues will require close cooperation with the map 
> renderers to be in any way effective.

That’s an interesting initiative, and potentially with some ramifications for 
Aus. Two of the 3 apps they target as key hiking apps in the USA -  Gaia and 
AllTrails - are commonly used in Aus. I imagine that the app developers would 
respond positively, as it would benefit their users. App take up would 
presumably await widespread adoption of the tagging scheme in the USA. If both 
of those things happened, Aus users would probably get the same rendering as US 
users (since both apps are very US focused), so we’d also be on the receiving 
end of the initiative, for users of these apps at least. Happy new year to all.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

Thanks Graeme and David, I’m glad you liked it. Lots of great work to report on.

> RE: You obviously have wwwaaayyy too much time on your hands! :-)

I thought that was OpenStreetMap’s business model!  ;)___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

Hi folks, for anyone interested in rural roads, I’ve put together a very nerdy 
review of the super accuracy of OpenStreetMap’s road surface tags (sealed vs 
unsealed) in Victoria. Lots of maps and tables. Hope you find it informative. 
Cheers Ian

https://littlemaps692810600.wordpress.com/2021/12/03/openstreetmap-on-australian-roads-how-accurate-are-road-surface-tags-in-victoria/

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

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

[Little Maps]

> Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, thanks for all your work Dian 
> to change the “towns” back to suburbs. I downloaded a copy of the Victorian 
> place names data a little while ago for a GIS exercise and it was a real pain 
> to discover that an enormous number of purported towns were actually just 
> Melb suburbs. It will be fantastic to see them all tagged correctly again. 
> Cheers Ian

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

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

[Little Maps]

Thanks Andrew, I've submitted the data request to DELWP and updated the Aus
data catalogue wiki. Cheers Ian

On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 9:26 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Ian, yes templates are at
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
> which includes a generic cover letter. It would be a good idea to reference
> the existing Vicmap specific waiver we have and link to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf
> (maybe even quote the original request number SRQ0062658), as asking for an
> updated one would be easier than starting from scratch again.
>
> I would try asking for the waiver to cover all CC BY 4.0 licensed datasets
> from DELWP.
>
> ie. instead of
>
> With respect to Vicmap Datasets made available under Creative Commons
> Attribution 4.0 International Public License (“the License”) for the
> purposes of the OpenStreetMap Project, the State of Victoria agrees to the
> following:
>
> we request
>
> With respect to DELWP open data made available under Creative Commons
> Attribution 4.0 International Public License (“the License”) for the
> purposes of the OpenStreetMap Project, the State of Victoria agrees to the
> following:
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 08:43, Little Maps  wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew, yes, happy to take it on. Is there a template for data
>> requests online somewhere that explains why the waiver is needed, that I
>> can use as an example?
>>
>> Do you think we should try an ambit request for all DELWP CC datasets
>> that are available online, on sites like Data Vic and MapShare, or should
>> we be a bit more restrictive? Given your comments it seems worthwhile
>> trying for the lot, it might just take a bit longer to get a reply. Cheers
>> Ian
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

Hi Tony, DELWP can only give approval to use datasets that they create/control. 
Lots of the datasets on Data Vic aren’t from DELWP and wouldn’t be covered, but 
many of the useful ones are theirs. Unless DELWP created the Vic subset of the 
emergency markers dataset, I don’t imagine that they would have any ability to 
say yes/no. We’d have to ask a different agency. Happy to stand corrected. 
Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

Hi Andrew, yes, happy to take it on. Is there a template for data requests 
online somewhere that explains why the waiver is needed, that I can use as an 
example?

Do you think we should try an ambit request for all DELWP CC datasets that are 
available online, on sites like Data Vic and MapShare, or should we be a bit 
more restrictive? Given your comments it seems worthwhile trying for the lot, 
it might just take a bit longer to get a reply. Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Little Maps]

Hi all, a brief update on Vic State Forest datasets... My suggestion that the 
VicMap Crown Land Tenure database was "a mess" probably had anyone who knows 
about GIS data structures rolling their eyes at my ignorance. It didn't make 
any sense to me either, so I spent a couple more days studying metadata files 
and joining multiple VicMap datasets (which we have a waiver to use) to try to 
find the elusive State Forests boundaries.

The upshot is that either: (1) they definitely aren't there, or (2) I'm missing 
something blatantly obvious, because after trial after trial, I couldn't find 
them - other than the coarse outlines in the VicMap Lite data. (Any suggestions 
on things to try are most welcome).

Ironically, the best approximation I could get to the real boundaries (as shown 
in the new PLM25 dataset, which we don't yet have a waiver to use) was to 
subtract all of the crown reserves in the Crown Lands Tenure database from all 
of the crown lands in the larger Property database (which contains every land 
parcel in the state). In theory, this should have deleted all of the state 
forests from the results, but they remained, plus a lot of flotsam and jetsom. 
Essentially you can find the State Forests boundaries through a process of 
elimination, but not by explicit filtering it seems.

With a few extra steps, it is possible to get a good approximation of a 
statewide map of State Forests, with extremely accurate parcel boundaries on 
each, but no-one would ever want to go through the process. So, yes, it is 
possible to extract accurate parcel boundaries for most State Forests from the 
VicMap dataset, but it's a real pain. The newer Public Land Management PLM 25 
delivers everything in one simple step, and is a lot easier and more 
confidence-inspiring to work with. Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Vic State Forest boundary files

[Little Maps]

Hi all, I started a new thread so these links can be easily found in the 
future. This builds on a recent thread on permissible data sources  to answer 3 
questions: (1) Which data layers from the Vic gov contain State Forest (SF) 
boundary data? (2) Which of these layers do we have permission (with waiver) to 
use? (3) Do these permissions enable editors to use of State Forests boundaries 
on the Vic gov MapShare site? Happy to hear back from everyone and to fix up 
any stuff-ups.

As stated on the Aus data catalogue and confirmed on the forum by Andrew 
Harvey, we have a waiver to use all of the CC by 4.0 datasets that are listed 
on DELWP's Vic Map catalogue. (I'll call these the 'core' VicMap datasets for 
brevity). DELWP has many other CC4.0 datasets that we don't have explicit 
permission to use according to the Aus data catalogue (I'll call these 
'non-core' DELWP/VicMap data).

Aus data catalog: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue
DEWLP VicMap Catalogue: 
https://www.land.vic.gov.au/maps-and-spatial/spatial-data/vicmap-catalogue

Core VicMap datasets

I checked through the metadata files and/or downloaded the GIS datasets for all 
of the core VicMap datasets to try to find a full set of State Forests 
boundaries. The core VicMap files contain 3 versions of the State Forests 
boundaries.

The VicMap Lite dataset [VMLite_PUBLIC_LAND_SU5] has a simple, low-res dataset 
that shows the boundaries of all SFs and other types of public land. It doesn't 
show their names. A single polygon might contain many contiguous SFs (each of 
which has a different name in reality). The dataset is old, and was last 
updated in 2008. The Lite datasets were intended for use  at broad zoom levels 
on web devices.  The dataset isn't much use for our purposes (although some of 
the Lite boundaries are of comparable 'accuracy' to some of the coarser SF 
boundaries that currently exist in osm.)

https://www.land.vic.gov.au/maps-and-spatial/spatial-data/vicmap-catalogue/vicmap-lite

The VicMap Crown Land Tenure dataset [CL_TENURE_VIEW] is where you'd expect to 
find SF boundaries. It does contain some, but it's a mess. Most SFs aren't 
included in the dataset, and when the dataset is compared against more recent 
(non-core) DELWP data, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to why most 
SFs were omitted. [I'm guessing that this resulted from inter-agency rivalries 
between DELWP and the privatised VicForests, but that's speculation on my part. 
Public land tenures other than SFs seem to be well represented on the Crown 
Land Tenure map and are also shown on a few other core datasets. SFs are 
conspicuously absent.]

https://www.land.vic.gov.au/maps-and-spatial/spatial-data/vicmap-catalogue/vicmap-crown-land-tenure

The VicMap Property dataset (VMPROP.PARCEL_CROWN_APPROVED) contains detailed, 
accurate boundaries of all land parcels on crown lands. But it doesn't show 
which parcels are in SFs and which are other crown lands. Nevertheless, if 
local editors know where a SF is on the ground, this dataset does provide 
accurate boundary data which could be used I guess. This dataset can also be 
accessed and data subsets can be downloaded in MapShare.

https://www.land.vic.gov.au/maps-and-spatial/spatial-data/vicmap-catalogue/vicmap-property

More recent, non-core DELWP datasets

The best sources of boundaries for SFS and other public lands are two, recent 
datasets: (1) Public Land Management (PLM25) and (2) Public Land Management 
(PLM25) Generalised.

https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/public-land-management-plm25
https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/public-land-management-plm25-generalised

PLM25 is described as "... a derived layer, using VMPROP.PARCEL_CROWN_APPROVED 
as the base layer. It relies on tabular and spatial sources to get the land 
description. PORTAL, PRIMS are the tabular sources of information. PARKRES, 
VEACRECS25 and CL_TENURE are the spatial sources. Additional layers were 
also created to describe areas of state forests, plantations, water 
frontages and commonwealth land." [my italics]

The "generalised" dataset is said to have fewer tags and some dissolved 
boundaries. However, the line work for the two seems to be identical, and 
equally precise along complex, curved boundaries, with one key difference. Many 
SFs contain a number of parcels of land, some contiguous (i.e. adjoining with 
shared boundaries), and some adjacent, but separated by easements. In both 
datasets, adjacent parcels that are separated by easements are shown as 
separate polygons. However, the base PLM25 dataset also contains separate 
polygons for contiguous, adjoining parcels that have shared boundaries, whereas 
the Generalised dataset dissolves all the internal boundaries to form one 
single polygon for the contiguous parcels. 

(Hope this makes sense. If not, imagine two rows of 5 residential house blocks 
on opposite sides of a road, giving 10 houses in total. Now imagine that these 

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[Little Maps]

> On 19 Oct 2021, at 9:34 pm, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> 
> I think State Forests can be found in:
> 
> https://www.land.vic.gov.au/maps-and-spatial/spatial-data/vicmap-catalogue/vicmap-crown-land-tenure

Thanks Andrew, I checked this dataset and, strangely, it doesn’t contain most 
state forests in the state. I’ll start a new thread with more info on all 
available datasets that I could find. Cheers Ian


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

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[Little Maps]

Hi Andrew, a query… The Aus data catalog lists 10 Vicmap datasets that we have 
permission to use (Vicmap address, Vicmap admin, etc).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue#Victoria

All of these link to the same waiver letter which gives permission to use 
“Vicmap datasets” in OSM.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf

By contrast, the list of Vicmap datasets on the department’s VicMap catalog 
includes 4 extra datasets as part of Vicmap, namely (1) VicMap Imagery, (2) 
Vicmap Index (contains boundary and coastline data), (3) Vicmap Lite and (4) 
Vicmap Topographic Mapping (topo maps).

https://www.land.vic.gov.au/maps-and-spatial/spatial-data/vicmap-catalogue

Do you know, were these datasets not listed on the Aus data catalog because 
they weren’t thought to be relevant to OSM or because we didn’t seek permission 
to use them? I haven’t looked at all of them yet but Vicmap Lite existed long 
before the waiver was written so isn’t a newer addition. If it contains some 
info that isn’t in one of the other datasets (unlikely perhaps but possible) 
then that would widen the range of data we have permission to use.

The reason I ask is that , in addition to determining whether we have 
permission to use the Vic State Forests boundary dataset, it would be useful to 
try to answer a broader question of, does the existing waiver provide 
permission to use all features that are shown on Mapshare and other Vic gov 
data portals. If we can pin down precisely which datasets each mapped feature 
type in these portals derives from we might be able to provide more explicit 
guidance of what is and isn’t allowed to be used atm. I’m not sure how 
tractable this broad question will be but it’s worth investigating.

Hence, clarifying what VicMap datasets we have permission to use might help 
this broader question. Thanks again for your help, Ian___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[Little Maps]

Thanks Thorsten, I’ll spend some time later this week to examine all of the Vic 
gov datasets that look like they might contain a version of the State Forests 
boundaries and I’ll post a summary of what all the potentially relevant 
datasets do and don’t contain. This will (hopefully) help to resolve questions 
about copyright permissions and help editors find the most useful datafiles to 
use. Cheers Ian

> On 19 Oct 2021, at 12:05 am, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
> 
> I might be wrong, but from reading the metadata of the derived dataset, I 
> think the base dataset basically only has parcels, but not forestry specific 
> information attached to that, while the derived dataset uses the parcels and 
> then adds forestry specific information to them.
>  
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[Little Maps]

Brendan, the original (i.e. pre-derived) VMPROP.PARCEL_CROWN_APPROVED file is 
also available at:

http://services.land.vic.gov.au/SpatialDatamart/dataSearchViewMetadata.html?anzlicId=ANZVI0803004688=1

Hence, if there were to be any issues in using the derived file, the original 
file could still be used (if permission has been granted). I imagine that it is 
a much bigger file and contain lots of other info. The SF boundary data should 
be the same in both presumably. Cheers Ian

> On 18 Oct 2021, at 7:38 pm, Brendan Barnes  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ian, I was getting lost in all the Forestry datasets! Cheers.
> 
> Unfortunately I'm also unclear as to whether we have permission to use these. 
> If a CC-BY-4.0 dataset is "derived" from a base layer, and we have permission 
> for that base layer, is permission inherited? That is assuming the "VMPROP" 
> product listed is "Vicmap Property", of course. Two assumptions made just 
> then.
> 
> @Andrew Harvey, or anyone else familiar with our requirements, is it 
> worthwhile revisiting the Vicmap waiver to get clarity on Vicmap derivatives? 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf
> 
> ..Brendan
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[Little Maps]

Hi Brendan, there appear to be 2 different versions of the Vic State Forests 
boundaries - one with “generalised” boundaries without lots of internal 
boundaries, and the other with the full dataset. I haven’t examined them to see 
how they differ. See these 2 web pages:

https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/state-forest-public-land-management-wms

https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/state-forest-generalised-public-land-management-wms

I don’t know whether we have permission to use these datasets and, like you, 
would be keen to find out. It’s difficult to work out precisely what Vic data 
we have permission to use, partly because the Vic gov has changed the way they 
have provided the data over the years and their current data file names differ 
from the general labels on the OSM wiki.

A metadata page for the State Forests data states that it’s a derived subset of 
the “ VMPROP.PARCEL_CROWN_APPROVED” base layer. I’m guessing that a key 
question is whether we have permission to use that base dataset? Keen to hear 
what everyone thinks.

http://services.land.vic.gov.au/catalogue/metadata?anzlicId=ANZVI0803003978=guest=1

Cheers Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[Little Maps]

Hi all, can I offer a different spin on this - interested to hear feedback. I 
think the question of whether we have permission to use MapShare is 
inappropriate.  (And hence the original changeset comment is inaccurate). 
MapShare is just a data portal. We have permission to use a number of Vic gov 
datasets in OSM, as listed on the permissions waiver wiki (eg the roads 
dataset). The Vic gov provides these datasets to the public in a range of ways, 
including as GIS datasets, on the MapShare page and the VicNames register, 
amongst others.

Hence we have explicit permission to use *some* of the data that is shown on 
the MapShare site (roads, POI, etc), but not all of it. Similarly, we have 
permission to use some of the data shown on the VicNames register, but not 
everything that is shown on the register.

This makes it really hard for users to judge which info we can and can’t use, 
but there’s probably not a simple way around that. The key question here, imo, 
is whether we have permission to use the dataset that contains the State 
Forests boundaries.

If we do, then the data could be accessed through Mapshare or any other means. 
If we don’t, then the official boundaries can’t be obtained from any available 
source. That’s how I interpret it, but I’m basing this interpretation off the 
fact that we need to seek permission to use each dataset, not the portal it is 
obtained from. Hope that makes sense. Curious to hear how others view things. 
Thanks for raising the question Andrew. Cheers Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Little Maps]

>> RE: Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been 
>> very carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the 
>> fence lines and tracks then marked on top. Not necessarily wrong, but 
>> tracing the exact line of where the trees finish and the road side has been 
>> cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?

Ian, in addition to accuracy, there’s a practical advantage for mappers when 
separate natural=wood polygons are mapped on opposite sides of some roads (i.e. 
with a cleared break along the roadside). In SW Vic, the vegetation mapping 
includes a lot of complex multipolygons, with smaller areas of scrub, water, 
grass etc, embedded as inner boundaries within the larger wood areas. These get 
really complex to edit when they cover large areas. By breaking them up into 
smaller units, it makes editing a lot easier and helps prevent accidental 
damage to the relations. Wide, roadside clearings provide a very handy place to 
place the breaks. This is much the same reason that Brendan described for the 
excellent vegetation mapping in eastern Vic. Cheers Ian

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

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

[Little Maps]

Bob, Quilpie seems to have a good coverage on the Strava Heatmap. I can only 
see the low res version atm. I’ll have a look at the high res version next time 
I’m on the computer.  It’s quite likely that the high res heatmap has a much 
higher density of gps traces than do the OSM gps tracks. If so, they probably 
provide the most accurate gps traces to orientate things around. I’ll send you 
a screen grab as soon as I can. Enjoy your travels. Cheers Ian


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

Re: [talk-au] Import vs filtering query

[Little Maps]

Thanks everyone for your feedback. I suspect I’m being over-cautious so I 
appreciate everyone’s expertise. Thanks Steve too for the broader thoughts to 
consider.

RE: “How would you match the different map set, the government one to OSM? And 
how will you validate the matching is correct?”

I’m a GIS novice so welcome any suggestions. This is what I’ve done so far, 
which works well:

1. Open regional subset of Vic gov road data in QGIS. Remove unwanted road 
types (paths etc) and separate into sealed and unsealed subsets
2. Create a buffer around all sealed gov roads
3. Open OSM roads in a new layer, clip to the buffered sealed gov roads, and 
save as a new layer. This file contains all the OSM tags so I can easily 
compare surface tags across both datasets.
5. Filter the data to show only those roads that have a different surface tag 
in the 2 datasets. Then repeat the process for unsealed roads in the gov 
dataset.
6. Sort the final dataset from long to short ways and work down the list 
starting at the longest. I’ll ignore the very short segments, lots of which are 
analysis artefacts.
7. Edit OSM roads in JOSM as normal.

The method seems to work well so far. The only error I’ve found so far is when 
a track ran parallel to a main road in OSM, but that became obvious as soon as 
I opened the data in JOSM. I don’t think there’s any need to validate the 
matched data beyond this atm but am happy to refine the method. The method 
won’t work in dense built-up areas but I’m only focusing on non-urban areas. If 
there’s a faster or more accurate method that doesn’t require coding skills 
I’ll be keen to try it when I start the next region.

Thanks again everyone, cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Import vs filtering query

[Little Maps]

Hi all, my understanding is that the process described below is a big filtering 
exercise rather than a data import, but since I’ve never been involved in an 
import before, I’d like to check before progressing. Thanks in advance for your 
feedback.

Goal: to update road surface tags across regional Victoria where necessary. 
Many surface tags were added 8-10 years ago and a surprising number of roads 
have been surfaced since then. (I’m only interested in sealed/paved vs 
unsealed/unpaved options, not subsets of these.)

Method: compare road surface data in OSM against data in the Vic government’s 
transport dataset which we have permission and waiver to use. All rural roads 
from motorways to unclassified (not residential, service, etc) that have 
different tags in OSM and the gov dataset will be examined against satellite 
imagery and Mapillary, and any decisions on whether to update the surface tags 
will be made based solely on the imagery. No data will be directly copied from 
the gov dataset. Hence, as I understand osm’s import guidelines, this is a big 
filtering exercise rather than an import. Is that a correct interpretation? 
I’ve added a longer explanation below to help answer any questions.

Basic assumptions: (1) I assume both datasets were made independently, as I’ve 
not seen any evidence that OSM surface tags were copied from the Vic data (or 
that the gov copied from OSM). (2) If the 2 independent datasets both indicate 
the same surface then I assume it is most likely to be correct. If they 
indicate different surfaces then one must be in error. At the outset, I have no 
idea how accurate the Vic gov dataset is, so I’m not assuming it is infallible 
(it’s definitely not; see comment below). 

Methods: for every road segment that has a different surface tag in the 2 
datasets, I’d inspect the road using available imagery, as is normally done 
when adding or updating a surface tag. Existing OSM tags will either be altered 
or retained, as required. There’s no ambiguity involved in updating a tag from 
unpaved to paved. It’s much less common to need to update a tag from paved to 
unpaved. Again, this will be done based on imagery, regardless of what the Vic 
data says. 

Some prelim observations: I’ve trialled the method in NW Vic, where the method 
works fine on longer road segments/ways. The approach would have to be 
restricted to ways > 1-2 km long, and short ways will be ignored. From an 
initial subset of about 50 roads > 5 km long in NW Vic, I found about 2/3 of 
the discrepancies between the 2 datasets did not warrant any change in OSM and 
about 1/3 did. The Vic gov data doesn’t seem to be as up-to-date as the imagery 
and isn’t by any means perfect. Regardless, the approach looks to be a very 
effective way to find out-of-date and inaccurate road surface data across the 
state.

At this stage I don’t know how many ways will be examined or changed, as it 
will depend on the minimal length of road I inspect. I’m envisaging about 1000 
at the max, and probably fewer.

My guess is that, if the process was completed across Vic, then the surface 
data in OSM would be extremely accurate, and more accurate than in the Vic gov 
database. If I get through enough of it without going bonkers, I’m interesting 
in summarising the findings to show which discrepancies were most common, etc.

So, back to the original question, is this process ok to pursue, given that the 
sole function of the gov dataset is to provide a filtering mechanism to 
identify roads to investigate, and all decisions will be made based on legally 
available imagery, not the gov data?

Thanks very much for your feedback, Ian___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Little Maps]

Hi again, I’ve dominated this discussion to a painful extent so this will be my 
last message on the topic unless explicit questions are raised. (Thank god, I 
hear everyone exclaim!). We’ve moved away from the original topic of this 
thread so i suggest we start a new thread if there’s interest in discussing 
track access imports more broadly.

AH: I guess it comes down to the data, if it's reliable enough. Maybe I could 
try to compared existing tracks in Victoria which have an access value with 
Vicmap to see if it's usually in agreement or not. How do you rate the accuracy 
of the Vicmap data when it comes to track access?

Vic Gov agencies advertise track closures (permanent, seasonal and short term; 
we don’t care about the latter) on web and in apps, and these closures are 
legally enforced, so I guess the question is: how close is the Vic Transport 
dataset to what is advertised on those web pages?

My *guess* is they’re extremely close and if anything the VicTransport dataset 
might just be a bit behind the times, but I emphasise that’s a guess. We could 
easily test that though (where ‘easily’ means conceptually but someone still 
has to do it).

These types of tests would cover tracks on public land, but not tracks marked 
private on gov maps. (I’m unclear from your earlier messages if this tag is in 
the Vic Transport dataset or held elsewhere but it must exist somewhere). 

For private tracks (most are on farmland), the only accuracy assessment I can 
think of would be to take a large, random subset of all private tracks and 
visually assess whether we are confident they are on private land, using air 
imagery, Mapillary, land tenure maps and perhaps cadastral maps too. Such a 
test would be more robust if more than one person did the visual assessments, 
but that may not be an option. I imagine that most would be perfectly obvious. 
The question is, how many aren’t? How (and whether) we proceed on tagging 
private tracks would be best left until everyone saw the results of an agreed 
accuracy test I think.

If the broader community accepted this approach, then we could step by step get 
to a stage where OSM provides an up-to-date map of track restrictions on major 
public lands and accurate depiction of tracks on private land on Vic.

Effectively, this is a strategy of reducing uncertain in access=unknown by 
focusing on restrictions first, so we have greater confidence that remaining 
tracks without an access tag in osm are more likely to be, by default, 
access=yes.

If we ever got to that stage,  it would be informative to analyse all the 
remaining tracks on public land that don’t have an access tag. These could be 
separated into 2 categories: those that are also on the Vic gov maps, and those 
that aren’t. The former would most likely be access=yes, based on all available 
data, and the latter access=uncertain. How we deal with that is another 
question. But that question is a long way down the track.

AH: it's just about how to bridge that gap in the meantime before all access 
tags can be set.

Yes, I guess these suggestions highlight that, if we want to accurately add 
access tags at large scales, and the community is ok with using rigorous 
imports of gov data to work towards this, then it will be easier and more 
accurate to keep chipping away at tagging known access restrictions first. My 
feeling is that the Vic Gov mapping is among the best in Aus (maybe ACT is 
better?) so Vic would be an ideal state to start discussing and developing 
these procedures. 

Thanks for promoting the discussion. Cheers Ian


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

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Little Maps]

 Andrew, thanks for the super fast reply, and for the overpass query which
I'll cut and paste from! A few thoughts…

AH: 1.98% of tracks have public vehicle access and 8.7% of tracks have no
public vehicle access (of all tracks). So where we know the vehicle access
then 18% are public and 81% are not public access.

This makes sense. To date, in Vic at least, most mapped tracks are on
public land or on the public road network (the opposite trend may exist in
outback areas). So existing mapping is strongly biased to public tracks,
and access tags have mostly been used to indicate restrictions.

I just re-read the Aus tagging guidelines and it has a similar emphasis. It
explains how to add access restrictions but doesn't say that public access
isn't a default on tracks or that access=public is a worthwhile tag to add.
I'll put together some draft text to add to the page and will circulate for
comment in a day or two.

AH: In my view, data consumers should treat incomplete access/motor_vehicle
tags as no access because I'd rather it miss out on a potentially available
route then route down a private track, but that's a decisions for each data
consumer.

I have a different take, but I think you'd be happy with my ideal router.
It would give me 2 options: (1) use all available tracks (public + unknown)
vs (2) only use known public tracks. Given how few tracks have an access
tag, most users would default to "show me all of them", but they'd have a
choice. Globally, only 3.8% of tracks have an access tag: 20.7 million of
21.5 million tracks don't. Any app that only used known public tracks would
be viewed as crippled by users and would go broke. The market would force
developers to show all tracks, regardless of their personal intentions.

Luckily for me, the strong bias of osm mappers for mapping public rather
than private tracks is why routers that do assume that access is public
unless indicated otherwise actually work pretty well in Vic (prob not in
central Aus). As more and more private roads are added we can expect this
convenient correspondence to fall apart though. That's why I was so
concerned about the Challenge adding lots of private tracks without having
an access tag on them, as it will be the first major influx of untagged
private roads to Vic.

AH: So I can understand, do you think we should have a default value and
mappers should not set the access tag if it's the "default"?

A question: I don't understand how the "default value" approach differs
from Joe's suggestion, which as I understood it, was that if access is
assumed to be no, then he wouldn't have to bother adding access tags (inc
access=unknown) when doing armchair mapping. Doesn't this have the same
outcome as a default position of not needing to add a tag? However, despite
the fact that I don't comprehend the distinction, I don't think it matters
a great deal.

If there was a discussion to try to reach consensus on whether we should
assume that access=yes or no when there is no access tag, I would take one
of two positions: support access=yes or continue to make no assumption
about access. I wouldn't support an assumption that access=no for the
reasons I've described above. I think I'd probably just take the long term
view and say, avoid the debate and tag everything.

By analogy, until recently the Aus community took the view that there was
no need to add paved surface tags on roads and only unpaved tags needed to
be added. Paved was taken as the default value. As lots of roads had no
tags it was impossible to know which were actually paved and which just
hadn't been tagged. Same problem to here. Fortunately, heaps of mappers
added paved tags anyway, which enabled us to get to the stage this year
where virtually every road down to tertiary level across the whole country
now has a surface tag (except in Melb and Perth). Soon every unclassified
road in Vic will have one as well. Keep chipping away at the job is my
suggestion.

If we want to make progress on access tags, I suggest we need to discuss
loosening the restrictive (IMO) approach that we currently take to adding
access tags, which is to avoid adding them unless we see it on the ground.
That's unscaleable across Australia in any meaningful timeframe. I'd be
happy to support well-designed imports and challenges that used reputable
datasets that contain access restrictions (e.g. Vic transport data; Dry WO,
MVO, seasonal closures, etc.) and (perhaps) to use these datasets to
indicate access=public, which is where we have the biggest gap in our data.
This way we could make much faster progress. We'd make some mistakes but
the system is iterative and editors continue to do an awesome job to refine
an amazing map.

Ultimately, I'm with you in that, we can develop the best map if we
accurately tag access everywhere. Thanks again, Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Little Maps]

Hi Joe and Andrew, thanks again for the feedback. Andrew's post raised lots
of points which need to be addressed separately, but can I test your
patience by focusing on a key issue that was raised, which is how to
interpret access conditions on tracks that do not have an access tag.
Namely, these two comments:

JG: "I'd suggest the problem is with routers assuming that a missing access
tag should be interpreted as access=yes. If a common understanding was
reached that a missing access tag on a highway=track is *assumed* to imply
access=no until proven otherwise, then it seems the problem goes away?"

AH: "no access tags don't mean access=yes (public) it just means access
hasn't been set. "

Joe, when you talk about reaching consensus, I assume you mean consensus
among the Australian osm community, not the global osm community. Is that
right? The highway=track wiki states: "highway=track does not imply any
particular access=* value", and different countries have adopted different
positions on the issue, as described here (thanks for the link Andrew):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions

In most countries that have reached consensus, the absence of an access tag
on tracks is implicitly taken to mean that access=yes for motorcars. This
includes Austria, Belarus, France, Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain,
Switzerland and the Ukraine. (Brazil, Germany, Iceland and Belgium have
partial/proposal variations on a yes approach). In contrast, two countries
went with access=no (Finland and Denmark). Many countries haven't reached
consensus, including Australia. Have I interpreted this correctly?

This message isn't meant to be part of any process for reaching a consensus
in Australia. That discussion needs to be approached far more deliberately
and inclusively. I'm trying to understand whether, to some degree, Andrew
and I have been talking past each other because we have different views on
this fundamental issue.

About 92% of tracks in Australia do not have an access tag (TagInfo
Australia), about 5% have access=private, 1% have yes and 1% have no. If I
understand things correctly (and this is the whole point of this email),
this means that:

- Strictly speaking, since no consensus has been reached in Australia, 1%
of tracks are known to be open to the public, 1% are known to be closed,
and access is considered to be unknown on 92% of mapped tracks.

- If the community accepted a default position of access=no (i.e. all
tracks without an access tag are implicitly assumed to be closed to public
vehicles), 1% of tracks are known to be open to the public, 1% are known to
be closed, and access is assumed to be closed on 92% of mapped tracks.

- If the community accepted a default position of access=yes (i.e. all
tracks without an access tag are implicitly assumed to be open to public
vehicles), 1% are known to be closed to the public, 1% are known to be
open, and access is assumed to be open on 92% of mapped tracks.

Have I got this right? If I have, then would this lead to the following
implications for tagging decisions?

- Under the current position of no consensus, a "maximilist" tagging
approach is required, and it's equally important to add access tags to all
tracks, whether open or closed on the ground.

- If the community accepted a default position of access=no (i.e. all
tracks without an access tag are implicitly assumed to be closed to public
vehicles), then it's most important to add access tags to all tracks that
we know are open on the ground (with evidence of course). It's less of a
priority (but still useful) to add tags on tracks where access is known to
be no/private/etc.

- If the community accepted a default position of access=yes, then it's
most important to add access tags to all the tracks that we know are
closed/restricted on the ground. It's less of a priority (but still useful)
to add tags on tracks where access is known to be open.

- Alternatively, as Andrew suggested, some editors may prefer to adopt the
maximilist approach (tag 'em all) regardless of what decisions we adopt,
because many data consumers (routers etc) may not be aware of, or have the
capacity or interest in basing their products on our consensus.

Thank you all for your tolerance, I'm keen to make sure I haven't
misunderstood any of these principles and their implications. Best wishes
Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Little Maps]

Hi Andrew, you raised lots points so rather than replying with a complex 
embedded messages, I’ve summarised my key thoughts below. I’ve indicated 
comments that you made by prefixing them with AH.

TL;DR version

Tracks are not just for forestry and agriculture, they are for recreation too, 
and are definitely seen as public by data consumers.

It’s been repeatedly stated on this forum that public access on private roads 
is a huge social problem. Hence, roads on private land (tracks, service, etc) 
should not knowingly be added to the map unless they carry an access=private 
tag.

If you ignore everything else below, P-L-E-A-S-E use “access=private” as the 
default tag for every driveway/service road/track that is not clearly on public 
land.

The long version…

(1) TL;DR: Tracks are definitely seen as public roads by many data consumers.

AH: “highway=track are documented as forestry, agricultural or fire trails, so 
shouldn't be considered as public roads by data consumers.”

This is not the what the wiki says. As well as agriculture and forestry, the 
wiki lists “outdoor recreation and similar activities” as key activities on 
tracks. Also, it does not state that tracks are not “public roads”.  Instead, 
tracks are not seen as part of “the general purpose road network” (ie the roads 
most 2wd cars drive down).

All outdoor apps that I’m aware of (cycling, bushwalking, off-roading etc) 
treat tracks as open to the public unless they are tagged otherwise. 

For example, if you set the routing options in OsmAnd to prefer unpaved roads, 
it preferentially selects dirt roads and tracks. If you want to exclude private 
roads and tracks you can select an option to avoid private roads. Komoot and 
other cycling routers do a similar thing if one selects gravel bike or mountain 
bike mode. A key problem in using it in Vic is that it often sends users down 
roads that are obviously private farm roads (when viewed on a sat image) but 
which haven’t been tagged as such. I actually use it as a tool to find private 
farm roads (driveways, tracks etc) so I can add an access=private tag to them 
so that other users don’t get sent down them ever again.

(2) TL;DR version: Roads on private land (tracks, service, etc) should not 
knowingly be added to the map unless they carry an access=private tag.

AH: “Do you suggest that maybe tracks on private land shouldn't be mapped at 
all or are you suggesting that they shouldn't be mapped without any access tags 
set?”

Happy to see private tracks on the map if - and only if - they are tagged 
access=private. Otherwise I see them as a cancer.

Over and over again in the last year or two, this forum has repeatedly lamented 
the problems of having private roads marked as open access, including issues 
like biosecurity, conflict with landowners, safety, fire hazards, etc. I can’t 
think of a topic has been mentioned as often apart than copyright breaches. 
Neville circulated a newspaper article on the problem in Google maps just a 
month ago. There is no benefit to anyone to be routed up a road that isn’t open 
to the public. All it does is make OSM unreliable and unsafe.

IMO, the key problem with the Aus road network in OSM (except perhaps in Qld 
and N Aus) is not that it has too few roads, but that it has too many. We 
already have a big problem in Victoria with heaps of “paper roads” and private 
roads that are tagged as open and public. It’ll take years to remove those we 
already have. I dread to think that 1000s of new ones will continue to be drip 
fed onto the map from a Map Roulette challenge.

AH: “If we add the access tag from Vicmap, then in my view that becomes more 
like an import and less like armchair mapping which this quest is geared 
towards? So we need to decide if we err on the side of caution, omit the tag 
and let on the ground surveys fill in those details or blindly trust Vicmap 
access restrictions.”

It may seem crude but, given the immense size of these datasets, I actually 
view this “soft launch” as you call it, as a “TIGER import by stealth”.  yeah, 
I know it’s not a formal import but if an organised mapping team took up the 
challenge and added 200,000 roads without including suitable access tags, local 
mappers will be cursing this initiative for decades.

I can’t believe that you think you are erring on the side of caution by 
omitting suggested government access data. In what way can this be a prudent 
approach? Even if 10% are wrong, the rest are going to be helpful. Hence in 
contrast to your approach, I suggest “we err on the side of caution and include 
the government tag”. 

So, please add as many tags as possible that indicate likely access and trust 
the gov data for now. That’s a better default position than no data. Perhaps 
add a note tag saying something like “access data is from Vic gov and may need 
to be updated after ground truthing” or the like.

[As an aside, your code says that “4: 'motor_vehicle=no', // permanently 

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Little Maps]

And one final, short post… the 122,886 “unmapped tracks” in the SA tracks map 
roulette challenge are also predominantly private roads on private land, 
especially in farming areas. Again, the challenge wrongly assumes that access 
is public not private. 

> On 18 Aug 2021, at 6:11 pm, Little Maps  wrote:
> 
> Apologies for repeated posts on this issue, but a data dump of 250,000 ways 
> is worth some discussion I believe… Andrew, if it is not possible to separate 
> public and private roads using tags in the Vic gov database, can the Vic 
> Tracks MapRoulette Challenge please be pulled down immediately? If you scan 
> around the state, it’s obvious that the great majority of the “unmapped 
> tracks” are on private property and not on public land. Even in the forested 
> highlands of Gippsland, there are far more “unmapped tracks” on private 
> property around the margins of the forests, and in the surrounding farmlands 
> than in the forest itself.
> 
> With no better data available, it seems reasonable to suggest that this 
> MapRoulette Challenge includes 100,000-150,000 roads/tracks/driveways on 
> private land (maybe more), with no indication of that fact to inform well 
> intentioned mappers, and no suggested tagging to indicate access=private. 
> Many of the private roads are indeed short driveways that have no through 
> connectivity, but many are longer and create through ways. In private 
> forestry plantations in W Vic for example, all of the private internal roads 
> are included in the challenge, which creates a wide grid of new “public” 
> roads. I’ve only looked at the Vic challenge so far and have no feedback yet 
> on the challenges in other states. 
> 
> A couple of months ago, Microsoft’s mapping team was told to cease and desist 
> after they mapped a few 1000 private roads without indicating private access 
> (they responded to that request admirably). This challenge dwarfs that issue 
> 100-fold. I’m confident that the intentions were good but this implementation 
> is fundamentally flawed. The fact that the data dump and challenge were 
> sponsored and paid for by a government department with no notification or 
> discussion from the Australian mapping community until after the fact makes 
> the issue even more problematic in my mind.
> 
>> On 18 Aug 2021, at 4:40 pm, Little Maps  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I missed the last part where it mentions driveways are included, I'll take 
>>> another look to see what can be improved to filter these out.
>>> 
>> Andrew, the 1:25,000 Vic gov topo mps show tracks/driveways on private 
>> properties in a different colour to those on public land and the map legend 
>> clearly distinguish the two. So hopefully there is a public/private field in 
>> the dataset that can be used to distinguish the two. Cheers Ian
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Little Maps]

Apologies for repeated posts on this issue, but a data dump of 250,000 ways is 
worth some discussion I believe… Andrew, if it is not possible to separate 
public and private roads using tags in the Vic gov database, can the Vic Tracks 
MapRoulette Challenge please be pulled down immediately? If you scan around the 
state, it’s obvious that the great majority of the “unmapped tracks” are on 
private property and not on public land. Even in the forested highlands of 
Gippsland, there are far more “unmapped tracks” on private property around the 
margins of the forests, and in the surrounding farmlands than in the forest 
itself.

With no better data available, it seems reasonable to suggest that this 
MapRoulette Challenge includes 100,000-150,000 roads/tracks/driveways on 
private land (maybe more), with no indication of that fact to inform well 
intentioned mappers, and no suggested tagging to indicate access=private. Many 
of the private roads are indeed short driveways that have no through 
connectivity, but many are longer and create through ways. In private forestry 
plantations in W Vic for example, all of the private internal roads are 
included in the challenge, which creates a wide grid of new “public” roads. 
I’ve only looked at the Vic challenge so far and have no feedback yet on the 
challenges in other states. 

A couple of months ago, Microsoft’s mapping team was told to cease and desist 
after they mapped a few 1000 private roads without indicating private access 
(they responded to that request admirably). This challenge dwarfs that issue 
100-fold. I’m confident that the intentions were good but this implementation 
is fundamentally flawed. The fact that the data dump and challenge were 
sponsored and paid for by a government department with no notification or 
discussion from the Australian mapping community until after the fact makes the 
issue even more problematic in my mind.

> On 18 Aug 2021, at 4:40 pm, Little Maps  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> I missed the last part where it mentions driveways are included, I'll take 
>> another look to see what can be improved to filter these out.
>> 
> Andrew, the 1:25,000 Vic gov topo mps show tracks/driveways on private 
> properties in a different colour to those on public land and the map legend 
> clearly distinguish the two. So hopefully there is a public/private field in 
> the dataset that can be used to distinguish the two. Cheers Ian
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Little Maps]

> I missed the last part where it mentions driveways are included, I'll take 
> another look to see what can be improved to filter these out.
> 
Andrew, the 1:25,000 Vic gov topo mps show tracks/driveways on private 
properties in a different colour to those on public land and the map legend 
clearly distinguish the two. So hopefully there is a public/private field in 
the dataset that can be used to distinguish the two. Cheers Ian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Little Maps]

> Thanks for a great series of projects Andrew. One query… is there an error in 
> the Victorian all tracks challenge? It includes nearly 250,000 tracks to be 
> reviewed and potentially added to OSM. By contrast, taginfo states that there 
> are “only” 188,000 tracks (highway=track) in OSM across all of Australia at 
> the moment. At the suggested rate of nearly 6 minutes per track, that’ll take 
> more than 6 person-years of mapping, if one were to map non-stop for 10 hours 
> every day and 7 days every week. It certainly makes the ACT challenge look 
> attractive - they have less than 100 to do. Cheers Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?

[Little Maps]

My apologies Thorsten and Frederik, I stand humbly corrected. Best wishes Ian

> On 30 Jul 2021, at 6:27 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On 30.07.21 01:43, Little Maps wrote:
>> If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully
>> build upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. “Necessary”
>> vs “unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM.
> 
> It has, and it should. Anything added to OSM makes editing more
> complicated for mappers to come - *especially* when it's relations that
> always have the potential to trip up the newbie mapper.
> 
> Something that is completely unnecessary reduces the ease of editing of
> our map while adding no value to compensate for that. It makes it harder
> for us to achieve what we want - a map editable by anyone.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> 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] Can anyone make sense of this?

[Little Maps]

If the edits are accurate, legally acquired, ethical and respectfully build 
upon the work of previous mappers then, imo, so be it. “Necessary” vs 
“unnecessary” has never been a criteria for inclusion in OSM. If it were, heaps 
of edits would be up for challenge. You’ve informed the editor that the edits 
are not necessary and, assuming they’ve read your comment, they are clearly 
happy to continue adding them. So be it. We all have different interests and 
pre-occupations. That’s what makes OSM so unique and interesting, even if it is 
frustrating at times. It’s a big map.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Little Maps]

> For any other non-programmers (like me) looking for good resources on 
> Overpass code, I’ve found this site to be really useful. It’s got lots of 
> practical examples and good, simple explanations. I find it simpler to follow 
> than the overpass wiki pages, although the combination of both is invaluable. 
> https://osm-queries.ldodds.com/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Australian Road Review by littlemaps

[Little Maps]

Hi Warren, thanks for your feedback. You sent me back to my computer to
re-check some numbers. Remember that the 57,828 kms in the blog post only
includes OSM highway tags from highway=motorway to highway=tertiary. Other
road types, including highway=unclassified, track, residential etc, are not
included in the totals. I just ran some Overpass Turbo queries to calculate
the total length of other road classes in WA, and this what you get:


OSM ROAD CLASS

DISTANCE (km)

CUMULATIVE TOTALS

Motorway to tertiary

57,828 (as in blog)

57,828

Unclassified

87,195

145,023

Track

77,339

222,362


If you add motorways to tertiary plus unclassified roads in OSM you get
145,023 kms. This is very close to the total length of roads that is not
managed by DPAW, as you quoted from the WA Main Roads report: 147,676 km.
In fact the difference is only 1.8%.

In addition to this, there are 77,339 kms of highway=track in WA in OSM.
This vastly exceeds the length of DPAW managed roads (National Parks,
Forestry) that you quoted from the WA Main Roads report (38,333 km). (I
assume that at least some of these "extra" tracks must be on private
property?) It's difficult to compare the numbers any more closely than
this, as Main Roads WA and OSM categorise roads in different ways.

Thus, the total length of highway=motorway + trunk + primary + secondary +
tertiary + track in WA in OSM = 222,362 km. The total length of roads that
are and are not managed by DPAW that you quoted from the WA Main Roads
report is 186,009 km. So I reckon OpenStreetMap is doing pretty well
really, *especially *on unsealed roads. (Plus, about 20,000 kms of
residential roads have also been mapped in WA, as well as other road types).

Having said all that, I'm sure that extra roads will be added to OSM in WA
and the NT, as you suggest. Northern Qld is probably in the same boat.
However, the total length of these roads will be very minor compared to
what's already been mapped.

Anyhow, thanks for keeping me honest, I'm glad I didn't stuff the numbers
up that badly!  Best wishes Ian :)

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 6:54 PM Warren via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> An impressive effort Ian but I think you have underestimated the length
> of Roads in WA.
>
>  From Main Roads WA report:
>
> Road length excluding DPAW managed  roads = 147,676
>
> DPAW managed Roads (National Parks, Forestry etc) = 38,333
>
> Mappers in WA have a long way to go.  I suspect a large percentage of
> the sealed roads have been mapped on OSM.  The remainder are almost all
> unsealed.
>
> The NT may be in a similar position.
>
> Nonetheless an interesting  report.  Thanks for sharing.
>
> Warren
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Australian road review

[Little Maps]

Thanks folks! 

> On 21 Jun 2021, at 2:06 pm, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 1:35 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
>  wrote:
>> 
>> & I meant to ask ...
>> 
>> Is it OK to pass it on to other groups / sites / forums?
>> 
> 
> Crikey, I hope so. Already put it into weeklyOSM ;-)

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

[talk-au] Australian road review

[Little Maps]

Hi folks, I've written an overview of the patterns of major roads across
Australia, based on OpenStreetMap data.
https://littlemaps692810600.wordpress.com/2021/06/21/australian-roads-in-openstreetmap/

There's lots of colourful maps, charts and tables. It's a deep dive that
breaks down the total length of motorways, trunk, primary, secondary and
tertiary roads in all Australian states, and the proportion of each that is
paved and unpaved. (With two big exceptions, virtually all of these roads
now have surface tags.) It focuses on the patterns of the roads themselves,
not tagging patterns. So, if you've ever wondered: (1) what proportion of
all major roads is unsealed and unsealed; (2) how the Tasmanian road
network varies from that in other states; (3) where to find the longest,
unpaved, trunk road in Australia; and (4) many other nerdy road facts,
please take a read. Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] highway=track update

[Little Maps]

Thanks for the detailed history Michael!

As you say, most of the ways tagged ‘gravel’ in Australia could probably be 
re-tagged as ‘fine_gravel’ to more accurately follow the wiki and to accord 
broadly with common usage of the word gravel. 

Re compacted vs fine_gravel, personally I can’t tell the difference from the 
descriptions in the wiki. Both descriptions could be applied to the same 
stretches of rural road in many parts of Australia. Two problems are: the 
descriptions require mappers to know what is underneath the top surface layer 
and to know how the surface was made or applied (e.g. was it ‘rolled’ or not?). 
These aren’t mutually exclusive I’d have thought. Neither feature is common 
knowledge presumably, and both might be somewhat irrelevant if the road hasn’t 
been re-surfaced for a decade or so.

In an earlier message you said that you distinguished fine_gravel from 
compacted surfaces depending on whether the surface was loose (fine_gravel) or 
firm (compacted) when ridden on a bike. This seems to be a completely different 
distinction to that described in the wiki.  Wouldn’t this vary seasonally, and 
across the road surface from the edge to the middle, and over time, depending 
on how recent the road was maintained? 

It would be valuable to have a reliable distinction between earth/dirt/ground 
road surfaces (which may be bulldozed every so often but little more) from 
‘improved’ compacted/fine_gravel/gravel surfaces, but distinctions beyond this 
seem unlikely to eventuate anytime soon. In the meantime, the numbers show that 
mappers prefer to use ‘gravel’ to indicate ‘improved’ road surfaces (i.e. 
compacted/fine_gravel etc), even though this usage contradicts the 
idiosyncratic definition in the wiki. The most obvious downside to this 
practice is that we don’t have a reliable way to distinguish the small number 
of road surfaces that are covered with coarse ‘railway ballast’ unfortunately.

If you’re interested, the taginfo data on surfaces in Australia is really 
interesting...

https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania/australia/keys/surface#values

Thanks again for your insights and for 16 years of great mapping!  Best wishes 
Ian


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

Re: [talk-au] highway=track update

[Little Maps]

 Hi Brian and co, in Victoria and southern NSW where I've edited a lot of
roads, highway=track is nearly totally confined to dirt roads in forested
areas, as described in the Aus tagging guidelines, viz: " highway=track
Gravel fire trails, forest drives, 4WD trails and similar roads. Gravel
roads connecting towns etc. should be tagged as appropriate (secondary,
tertiary or unclassified), along with the surface=unpaved or more specific
surface=* tag."

In your US-chat someone wrote, "...in the USA, "most" roads that "most"
people encounter (around here, in my experience, YMMV...) are
surface=paved. Gravel or dirt roads are certainly found, but they are less
and less common." By contrast, in regional Australia, most small roads are
unpaved/dirt/gravel.

In SE Australia, public roads in agricultural areas that are
unpaved/dirt/gravel/etc are usually tagged as highway=unclassified (or
tertiary etc), not highway=track. There are some exceptions in some small
regions (for example in the Rutherglen area in NE Victoria) where really
poor, rough 'double track' tracks on public road easements have
systematically been tagged with highway=track rather than
highway=unclassified. See here for example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-36.1424/146.3683
. However, this is not the norm in SE Australia and across the border in
southern NSW, this type of road is nearly always tagged as unclassified, as
it is elsewhere in Victoria. In SE Australia, my experience is that tracks
are tagged in the more traditional way, and not as has been done in the
USA.

If I could ask you a related question, what do you US mappers call
"gravel"? The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel
 refers to railway
ballast, not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that usually occurs
on unpaved roads in Australia. However we call the fine unpaved surface
"gravel" in common parlance, and many unpaved roads that don't constitute
gravel as described in the OSM wiki have been tagged as gravel here,
erroneously depending on your point of view. How do you use the
surface=gravel tag in the USA? Cheers Ian

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 2:49 PM Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Recently, there was a discussion on the talk-us list regarding how we use
> the tag highway=track.  That discussion begins here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-February/020878.html
>
> During that discussion, someone suggested that Australian mappers may also
> be using the highway=track tag in a similar way to US mappers.  Hence this
> message :)
>
> I've recently made edits to the wiki page for highway=track describing how
> the tag is used in the USA:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack#Usage_in_the_United_States
>
> If there is similarly a local variation in how this tag is used, I would
> encourage the Australian community to document their usage as well.
>
> Brian Sperlongano
> Rhode Island, USA
> ___
> 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 "off track" hiking routes

[Little Maps]

Hi Kim, I don’t believe this problem would exist given the use case described 
in the text, which is as follows...

A mapper has evidence from a legal source (eg Bing, Strava, GPX trace) of a 
track which they are contemplating adding to OSM. Should they decide to add it, 
then the source:geometry tag would be Bing etc, as normal.

If they find a management plan that provides adequate reasons why it is 
preferable that the track not be mapped then the mapper may decide not to add 
the track. By not proceeding, no copyright breach can occur.

However, your point is a good one, and it may be useful to add a caveat to the 
end of the text like the following...

“As always, copyrighted material in published reports should not be added to 
OSM.”

> On 26 Oct 2020, at 9:53 am, Kim Oldfield  wrote:
> 
>  Will this cause copyright problems, particularly as many government 
> agencies don't understand the benefits of open licenses?
> 
>> On 25/10/20 5:31 pm, Little Maps wrote:
>> MAPPERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO PERUSE RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLANS ON THE WEB OR TO 
>> DISCUSS EDITS WITH AGENCY STAFF WHEN CONSIDERING ADDING TRACKS IN 
>> CONSERVATION RESERVES.
> 
> ___
> 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 "off track" hiking routes

[Little Maps]

Hi Phil, thanks for drafting this, it’s great to have a concrete statement to 
discuss. I agree with the broad sentiment but suggest two changes, one minor 
and the other more substantive, as follows (deletions in strike through and 
additions in all caps)

4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
pads’ in remote CONSERVATION reserves, as they may well be covered by 
management plans, standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. 
Such regulations or standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such 
‘tracks’ are not publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the 
managing authority prior to adding such tracks. MAPPERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO 
PERUSE RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLANS ON THE WEB OR TO DISCUSS EDITS WITH AGENCY 
STAFF WHEN CONSIDERING ADDING TRACKS IN CONSERVATION RESERVES.


Rationale for changes... (1) not all sensitive areas are remote, and many 
issues arise in reserves close to major cities. (2). Understanding the broader 
context surrounding a potential mapping change may well be a hallmark of good 
mapping, but mappers bear no responsibility to await a decision from a 
management agency *before* they add or edit tracks.

A likely response from an under-staffed government agency to an unknown mapper 
is something like, “Thank you for your message. Your call is important to us. 
We will endeavour to respond to you at the earliest opportunity.” Repeatedly. I 
would suggest that a less declarative statement is far more appropriate in this 
instance.

 Thanks once again, I appreciate everyone’s input on the issue. Best wishes Ian


> On 25 Oct 2020, at 10:59 am, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
>  
> For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as 
> point 4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….
>  
> 4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
> pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management plans, 
> standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such regulations 
> or standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such ‘tracks’ are not 
> publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the managing authority 
> prior to adding such tracks.
>  
> Cheers - Phil
>  
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Little Maps]

Hi folks, thanks for a very interesting discussion. It was great to hear from 
people who don’t often pipe up on the forum. Whilst it started off informative 
and insightful, it didn’t take long to reach into rhetoric about Russia and 
guns/maps don’t kill people ... neither of which is particularly helpful.

The original issue is clearly very important, so can I ask a much more basic 
question what text should we add to the Australian Tagging Guidelines, 
which give no guidance on the matter? The proportion of mappers who read the 
guidelines may be small but must be much larger than those who read this 
listserve. If the outcome of this discussion isn’t consolidated I for one would 
see this a somewhat wasted opportunity.

Best wishes Ian


> On 23 Oct 2020, at 9:12 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 23 Oct 2020, 11:59 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
> Don'tRender tag
> 'That is fortunately impossible' why is it impossible?
> Technically it is possible but it would require license
> change that would be problematic
> both from legal viewpoint (making such rule effective
> would be tricky at best)
> and unlikely to be accepted by osm community.
> 
> It is not impossible as in "can be established
> with math proof to be illogically and therefore impossible"
> but impossible as in "I will stop conflict in
> Middle East by posting on Twitter'.
> 
> 'Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not 
> an acceptable edit'
> I don't think anybody suggested it was.
> This "solution" regularly appears in such
> topics about illegal or unwanted paths.
> 'Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped 
> and rendered in OSM.'
> Nobody said that Russia should should be able to
> It was just proposed that owners or operator 
> of an area would be able to suppress 
> rendering of objects there.
> 
> Its a point for discussion. What do you think should happen?
> Paths existing but illegal to use should
> be marked and tagged with access tags.
> 
> Path destroyed should be deleted from OSM.
> 
> Paths but existing should not be mapped in OSM.
> 
> Why single out Russia?
> AFAIK they have laws forbidding mapping
> locations of military bases.
> 
> PS thanks Steve for your second email.
> thanks Phil for your clarification on 'illegal'
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
> I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a women's 
> refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the process. And it 
> doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard at the door because I 
> have mapped a refuge.
> Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not mapping 
> private info.
> 
> See 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
> for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.
> Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM, only 
> slightly more red.
> This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)
> 
> You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand and 
> Strava.
> Any decent router will not route over them.
> Graeme
> Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought and don't 
> have any really good answers. Please think of a better scheme.
> 
> I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too complicated for the 
> benefit that results but here goes:
> 
> a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
> OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode
> This is a bad idea.
> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
> Don'tRender tag
> That is fortunately impossible.
> 
> By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of addition 
> and deletion and edit wars.
> You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.
> 
> Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not 
> an acceptable edit.
> Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land owner or 
> manager is credible, if two organisations have credible claim to that then 
> Don'tRender=disputed
> Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped and 
> rendered in OSM.
> 
> I knowingly and deliberately violated
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China
> by mapping objects in China.
> 
> _
> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
> ___
> 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] Fwd: vine row tagging

[Little Maps]

That’s an interesting development in OSM micro-mapping John. Can I put a vote 
in for using natural=tree_row rather than barrier=fence, if no better options 
are available. I’m not arguing from the point of rendering, but from the 
perspective of developing a tagging scheme that will be useful in other 
orchards and even perhaps timber plantations, if future mappers extend this 
process. Most (all?) orchards and plantations have woody plants in rows, but 
only a few have fence-like trellises. Natural=tree_row would be suitable for a 
wide range of orchards and plantations whereas barrier=fence is much more 
restricted. It would be a pain if the almond plantations and citrus orchards in 
a region used one tagging scheme while the nearby vineyards used a different 
one. I’m certainly glad I don’t have to map them all! Best wishes Ian

> On 16 Oct 2020, at 8:37 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> Resending message to the list :-(
> 
> How do we fix it so that "Reply" goes to the list, not just the last poster?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> 
> 
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 17:20
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] vine row tagging
> To: John Bryant 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 16:34, John Bryant  wrote:
>> 
>> Well, they want to map rows, to use OSM in a way that will be useful to the 
>> viticulture community. The idea is to add more detail to vineyards than is 
>> currently in OSM, which has vineyard areas but not rows.
>>  
>> To some degree, but for viticulture people it would be useful to use 
>> *actual* rather than assumed locations.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
>> Referring to the OSM carto rendering? That's a good point. What else could 
>> we use to describe a vine row?
> 
> As Brendan mentioned, mark them in as fences, which will show a nice straight 
> line, although that could be called tagging for the renderer! :-) It wouldn't 
> be altogether wrong though, as they do form a barrier to movement across the 
> rows!
> 
>> do features like vine rows belong in OSM? Does the difficulty in finding a 
>> tagging schema for vine rows point to an incompatible feature type? I had 
>> assumed that because they're readily observable on the ground, and 
>> relatively persistent, it would make sense to map them... but if there's a 
>> reason they shouldn't be in OSM it would be good to know, so the folks I'm 
>> helping can change course.
> 
> I guess that's a question of what do the end-users want to see about "their" 
> land? Most would probably be happy just to see it as a vineyard, but if 
> somebody wants extra detail, is it up to us to say "No"? I wouldn't have said 
> so, myself! 
> 
> 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] Re-tag rural residential roads to unclassified?

[Little Maps]

Thanks everyone for your fast replies. They are consistent with how roads in 
the neighbouring LGAs are tagged. I’ll updated the road tags in Federation 
Shire in the next couple of days to bring them in line with your feedback and 
nearby areas. Thanks again and have a good weekend, Ian

> On 2 Oct 2020, at 4:59 pm, cleary  wrote:
> 
> 
> I usually tag such roads in rural areas as highway=unclassified. 
> 
> I would use highway=residential for towns, suburbs or outer-suburban areas 
> with residential housing or large housing blocks up to about 2 hectares - 
> where the landuse is primarily residential or other urban use such as 
> commercial. 
> 
> In rural areas, the land is usually used for agricultural or other purposes, 
> with a few buildings on each farm. I would not regard this as residential and 
> I would use the "unclassified" tag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020, at 2:43 PM, Little Maps wrote:
>> Hi everyone, I was reviewing highway tags in south-central NSW 
>> (initially to add in missing paved and unpaved tags) and noted that 
>> road classification differ greatly between adjacent local gov areas. In 
>> central Federation Shire Council, north of Mulwala and Corowa, the bulk 
>> of rural roads are tagged as residential whereas in all surrounding 
>> LGAs they are tagged as unclassified, as shown in this Overpass query: 
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YCa
>> 
>> 
>> (the query shows 4 adjacent LGAs, with the Federation Shire in the 
>> lower centre). 
>> 
>> 
>> This is a rural cropping /grazing region, not a densely settled 
>> irrigation area. Is it appropriate to re-tag the rural "residential" 
>> roads as "unclassified'' for consistency, after inspecting each on 
>> satellite images, leaving residential roads in and around small towns 
>> only? Thanks for your help, 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 mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Re-tag rural residential roads to unclassified?

[Little Maps]

Hi everyone, I was reviewing highway tags in south-central NSW (initially to 
add in missing paved and unpaved tags) and noted that road classification 
differ greatly between adjacent local gov areas. In central Federation Shire 
Council, north of Mulwala and Corowa, the bulk of rural roads are tagged as 
residential whereas in all surrounding LGAs they are tagged as unclassified, as 
shown in this Overpass query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YCa
(the query shows 4 adjacent LGAs, with the Federation Shire in the lower 
centre). 
This is a rural cropping /grazing region, not a densely settled irrigation 
area. Is it appropriate to re-tag the rural "residential" roads as 
"unclassified'' for consistency, after inspecting each on satellite images, 
leaving residential roads in and around small towns only? Thanks for your help, 
Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Suburbs & admin boundaries stopping streets being found?

[Little Maps]

Hi Graeme, I use the Gaia GPS app on an iPhone instead of OSMAND, so I can’t 
comment on the OSMAND search results, but just to highlight the erratic 
behaviour of search results in different apps, I got exactly the opposite 
results to you when I searched all three addresses using Gaia. (Gaia uses OSM 
for its search and routing but I don’t know what engine it uses for each).

When I searched for the first two streets with Gold Coast appended (eg Dawn 
Parade Gold Coast), both streets came up first in the search listings, which is 
the opposite to what you found. But when I searched for Rio Vista Boulevard 
Gold Coast, it didn’t come up at all, although the street did if I omitted Gold 
Coast. Again the opposite of what you found. Given this opposing behaviour to 
OSMAND, I’d guess it’s a quirk of each apps search function rather than purely 
being a structural problem in the OSM coding. Cheers Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] URL for viewing Vic Gov data layers in JOSM

[Little Maps]

Thanks for that clarification Andrew, it’s most helpful. Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] URL for viewing Vic Gov data layers in JOSM

[Little Maps]

Andrew, as far as I can see, there is no formal differentiation between 
“VicMap” and the layers available on “Data Vic”. The 2018 OSM Waiver refers to 
“VicMap Datasets” in general, with no more specific information. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf

The “VicMap Data” web page (dated 2017) mentions “more than 600 different data 
sets available” - 
http://services.land.vic.gov.au/landchannel/content/productCatalogue

This web page now links directly to a more recent “DataVic” web page, which is 
where the URL I provided links back to: https://www.data.vic.gov.au/

“DataVic” appears to be the latest incarnation of “VicData” but I could not 
find any explicit statement to this effect on either web site. Hence I have no 
idea how anyone, in or out of government, could identify which datasets we do 
or don’t have permission to use under the 2018 waiver. In the absence of any 
information to the contrary (and given the explicit web link between the two 
sites), “DataVic” appears to be synonymous with “VicData”.

Sorry to be so non committal!  Ian


> On 2 Jul 2020, at 7:18 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> 
> Just make sure that all those layers are in fact the same as the VicMap data 
> products that we have permission to use.
> 
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 17:24, Little Maps  wrote:
>> Thanks again Andrew. If anyone else is interested in viewing any of a myriad 
>> of Vic Gov maps as background images in JOSM, you can view them by selecting 
>> the Imagery/Imagery Preferences tab at the top of the JOSM screen, then 
>> pushing the +WMS button and entering the following URL in the 'Entering 
>> GetCapabilities URL' box. There's an amazing array of base maps available. 
>> Cheers Ian
>> 
>> http://services.land.vic.gov.au/catalogue/publicproxy/guest/dv_geoserver/wms?request=getcapabilities=WMS=1.1.1
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Vic State Forests WMS imagery

[Little Maps]

Hi folks, apologies for repeated queries... I asked a couple of weeks
ago about the preferred tags for mapping production forests (i.e.
landuse=forest), in preparation for mapping tree cover across SW
Victoria. Thinking about this more, it makes more sense to first map
all State Forests in the region (hardly any are mapped to date), and
then perhaps later move onto other bushland and plantations.
State Forests are not included in the VicMap Lite (Public Land ) Parks
and Reserve map layer in JOSM.The State Forests dataset is available
form Vic Gov at
https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/state-forest-public-land-management
This has a CC Attribution 4.0 International licence. Two questions:

(1) My understanding of OSM agreement with the Vic Gov copyright is
that this info is available for use in OSM. Is this correct?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Imports#Victoria
If so, I can trace the data to add it to OSM, yes? (I don’t have the
knowledge to do an automated import, even if that was allowed).
(2) I think I should be able to view the State Forests data layer as a
background image in JOSM. Is this correct? These are the instructions
I’ve found:https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Preferences/Imagery
(3) If so, can someone tell me how to re-format the WMS URL for the
State Forests layer so I can view it in JOSM? This is the URL that is
displayed when I click on the WMS URL button on the Vic Gov page
above:http://services.land.vic.gov.au/catalogue/publicproxy/guest/dv_geoserver/wms?SERVICE=WMS=1.1.1=GetMap=512=512=CROWNLAND_PLM25_STATE_FOREST==image%2Fpng=EPSG%3A4283=141%2C-39%2C150%2C-34
I’m happy to plug away on this project for many weeks so I assure you
that any help will be worthwhile. Thanks in anticipation (once again).
Best wishes Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to tag plantations?

[Little Maps]

Many thanks Warin, that seems much more variable in Vic, esp in Gippsland where 
natural=wood is a common tag for areas tagged as State Forests. Plantations in 
SW Vic are quite a mix. I wonder if it’s worth adding a section to the Aus 
tagging guidelines page to specify a preferred usage for landuse=forest and 
natural=wood, and perhaps other vegetation tags? I’d be happy to draft some 
text if more seasoned mappers were happy to comment and edit it. Thanks again 
Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to tag plantations?

[Little Maps]

Thanks Andrew and Mateusz, 
> 
> Two comments...
> 
> I learned of the plantation=yes tag on this wiki. However on re-reading it 
> now, it uses it as a tag under landuse=forest, not natural=wood. Sorry for my 
> mistake. 
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dplantation
> 
> If I only use landuse=forest, then the tag doesn’t distinguish pine and 
> eucalypt plantations from timber harvesting in native forests. All three 
> units are extensive, easy to discriminate, and worth distinguishing.
> 
> Perhaps then, landuse=forest and plantation=yes would be a better 
> combination, instead of natural=wood?
> 
> Thanks again, Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] How to tag plantations?

[Little Maps]

Hi folks, I’m planning on mapping tree cover in an area with lots of pine and 
eucalypt plantations as well as native forests, and want to check on the 
preferred way of tagging plantations in Australia before I begin. 

I realise that plantations don’t render in the standard OSM render and that 
there’s no international consensus on landuse=forest vs natural=wood etc, but 
see that as beside the point. There are so few plantations mapped as such in 
eastern Australia that it should be reasonably easy to develop a consistent 
approach. Do you think the following method is optimal to distinguish the three 
forest types?

1. Native eucalypt forests (not plantations, may or may not be used for 
forestry):

natural=wood
leaf_type=broadleaved
leaf_cycle=evergreen (somewhat superfluous in Aus but comprehensive)
source:geometry... etc.

2. Pine plantations (invariably Pinus radiata in my region)

natural=wood
plantation=yes
leaf_type=needleleaved
leaf_cycle=evergreen (again superfluous in Aus but comprehensive)

3. Hardwood plantations (mostly blue gum here)

natural=wood
plantation=yes
leaf_type= broadleaved
leaf_cycle=evergreen (again superfluous in Aus but comprehensive)

Thus, “plantation=yes” distinguishes plantations from natural forests, and 
leaf_type=broadleaved vs needleleaved distinguishes pine from euc plantations.

According to Taginfo, all existing tags for “plantation=yes” in Australia 
(about 1200 of them, and nearly all in WA) use “landuse=forest” and none use 
“natural=wood”. However I’m assuming that this group prefers to use 
“natural=wood” over “landuse=forest” - but I may be wrong.

Thanks once again for your helpful advice. Best wishes Ian



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

Re: [talk-au] What do you prefer for Barmah-Millewa: swamp or wood?

[Little Maps]

Thanks Michael. Sorry, my last email overlapped with yours. I think a major 
problem is that the way the LPI Basemap, and folks in Australia generally, use 
the terms forest, swamp and wetland differs slightly from the way they are 
described in the OSM wiki pages. For example, the OSM guidelines restrict the 
term ‘swamp’ to areas with dense trees, whereas the Basemap calls many treeless 
wetlands ‘swamps’. 

I initially mapped most of the forest as ‘swamp’ as this followed the OSM wiki 
page guideline, but wasn’t really happy with this, as I always thought of the 
place as a ‘flooded forest’ rather than a ‘forested wetland’. Hence my query to 
the list server. I’ll follow your suggestion below and will change the polygons 
back to wood in the next day or two, with a ’Wetland’ overlay in most areas to 
show its seasonally flooded. In practice there won’t be any great precision to 
the wetland overlay as it’s such a mosaic.

Thanks again for everyone’s great feedback. Best wishes Ian


> On 12 May 2020, at 9:55 pm, cleary  wrote:
> 
> 
> One further consideration is that NSW LPI BaseMap shows most of the NSW side 
> of this area as wetland, subject to periodic inundation, while only small 
> areas are shown as swamp.   At the moment, OSM shows most of it as swamp 
> while the named swamps are shown as wetland - exactly the opposite of the LPI 
> BaseMap.  
> 
> While the BaseMap is not perfect, it is a reasonably reliable guide in the 
> absence of better information. 
> 
> While the BaseMap shows wetland and swamp, it does not show wooded areas. So 
> perhaps the suggestion to show natural=wood and natural=wetland as separate 
> polygons might be a useful approach although I suspect that the two together 
> might then be rendered much the same as natural=swamp.  I too would 
> appreciate other views on this topic. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, 12 May 2020, at 8:37 AM, Little Maps wrote:
>> Hello everyone, I don’t know if there is any right / wrong answer to 
>> this question, hence I’m keen to know your preferences...
>> 
>> I’m mapping wetlands and vegetation along the Murray River upstream of 
>> Yarrawonga, and am now mapping in Millewa forest. Millewa (in NSW) and 
>> Barmah forest (in Vic) support large red gum forests which flood 
>> regularly. Some areas flood annually, others less frequently. It 
>> depends on how much water flows down the Murray and which stream 
>> regulators in the forests are opened or closed.
>> 
>> My question is: would it be better to map this as a forest (i.e. 
>> natural=wood) or as a ‘swamp’, which OSM defines as ‘an area of 
>> waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation’, tagged as natural=wetland, 
>> wetland=swamp, seasonal=yes. I’ve read the OSM wiki pages on both 
>> options.
>> 
>> I’ve made a first stab at the area 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-35.8026/145.1484
>> and have mapped all but the extremes as swamp as this indicates that 
>> the area floods regularly, which natural:wood does not show. However 
>> most other areas on the river I’ve come across are mapped as 
>> natural:wood with relatively small inliers for treeless wetlands and 
>> some treed swamps.
>> 
>> It’s a quick job to change from wetland:swamp to natural:wood and vice 
>> versa and I don’t hold any strong preferences myself. If the general 
>> consensus is that the area would be better called a wood (i.e. forest) 
>> rather than a seasonal wetland I’ll change it immediately.
>> (I haven’t mapped Barmah forest in Vic, as that was already mapped as 
>> natural:wood but much of Barmah actually floods even more frequently 
>> than Millewa).
>> 
>> Thanks very much for your advice. Best wishes 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 mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Barmah thanks

[Little Maps]

Thanks everyone, it’s been useful to hear the wide range of thoughts. I guess 
I was uncertain to what degree the Aus OSM group followed the strict 
definitions of the OSM categories or adapted them to suit the way the terms are 
used locally. The way the OSM wiki page describes a swamp is very different 
from how we generally use the term in Australia.

Michael’s suggestion of using the forest and wetland tags as separate overlays 
is a useful idea. In practice, all that can be sensibly mapped in Millewa are 
the extreme wet and dry areas, i.e. treeless wetlands (or swamps as we tend to 
call them) at one extreme and the dry grasslands and some dry forests in places 
such as the higher sandhills. Everything else grades between these extremes, 
and the patterns vary enormously, often at really fine scales, and between 
years as evidenced by the dry Bing and wet ESRI images available to OSM. So in 
practice, the bulk of the forest has to be put into one category or the other 
(either wood or swamp) with grasslands and open wetlands as minor outliers.

I’m new to OSM, so if there’s a general acceptance that the vegetation 
categories are somewhat flexible, then my tendency is to follow Ian’s 
suggestion and to map it as a forest (natural=wood) with a ‘wetland’ overlay in 
most places. I can then map treeless wetlands and some big wet swamps 
separately.

Thanks again for all your feedback, it’s been really useful. Cheers Ian.


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

[talk-au] What do you prefer for Barmah-Millewa: swamp or wood?

[Little Maps]

Hello everyone, I don’t know if there is any right / wrong answer to this 
question, hence I’m keen to know your preferences...

I’m mapping wetlands and vegetation along the Murray River upstream of 
Yarrawonga, and am now mapping in Millewa forest. Millewa (in NSW) and Barmah 
forest (in Vic) support large red gum forests which flood regularly. Some areas 
flood annually, others less frequently. It depends on how much water flows down 
the Murray and which stream regulators in the forests are opened or closed.

My question is: would it be better to map this as a forest (i.e. natural=wood) 
or as a ‘swamp’, which OSM defines as ‘an area of waterlogged forest, with 
dense vegetation’, tagged as natural=wetland, wetland=swamp, seasonal=yes. I’ve 
read the OSM wiki pages on both options.

I’ve made a first stab at the area 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-35.8026/145.1484
and have mapped all but the extremes as swamp as this indicates that the area 
floods regularly, which natural:wood does not show. However most other areas on 
the river I’ve come across are mapped as natural:wood with relatively small 
inliers for treeless wetlands and some treed swamps.

It’s a quick job to change from wetland:swamp to natural:wood and vice versa 
and I don’t hold any strong preferences myself. If the general consensus is 
that the area would be better called a wood (i.e. forest) rather than a 
seasonal wetland I’ll change it immediately.
 
(I haven’t mapped Barmah forest in Vic, as that was already mapped as 
natural:wood but much of Barmah actually floods even more frequently than 
Millewa).

Thanks very much for your advice. Best wishes Ian___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Practicality of mapping high-speed motor-traffic routes as cycle routes

[Little Maps]

Hi everyone, I’m very new to OSM so can’t comment on the technicalities but to 
add some data to the question of frequency of usage, the Strava heat map shows 
that the M1 and M2 are among the most frequently ridden roads in Sydney, by 
those cyclists who log their tracks in Strava. A biased subset of cyclists to 
be sure, but the heat map does provide unambiguous data on usage and the 
motorways definitely get used a lot. See here... (you have to log in to Strava 
to see closeup images).

https://www.strava.com/heatmap#11.94/151.13897/-33.87583/hot/ride

Best wishes Ian



> On 13 Apr 2020, at 9:07 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I have bicycled on the M2. I much prefer it the the alternative that has a 
> lot of up and down, dangerous cross streets where some drivers assume right 
> of way over bicycles and a less direct route. There are people who commute to 
> and from work on it, if there were a convenient safer route they would use 
> that instead. 
> 
> 
> On 13/4/20 8:01 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>> I think it's a fair argument to say it's not an actual route (but still 
>> designated bicycle infrastructure since it's signposted), I can see 
>> arguments both ways. 
>> 
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 19:27, Dongchen Yue  wrote:
>>> It’s certainly true that some people rely on motorway routes (I agree that 
>>> the solution for family-friendly routes would be a different renderer, 
>>> until conditions change in Australia). However, regarding the bike symbol 
>>> on the M2 on the Mapillary example, it’s designed to be a sign of caution 
>>> instead of a route guide 
>>> (https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/business-industry/partners-and-suppliers/lgr/cycling-aspects-of-austroads-guides.pdf).
> 
> The document is 177 pages long... which page? 
> 
> 
> 
> Some bicycle signs are to caution motor vehicle operators as to the presence 
> of bicycles, not to caution the bicycle rider.
> 
>>> 
 Am 13.04.2020 um 7:21 PM schrieb Andrew Harvey :
 
 Example of a dedicated bicycle crossing on a motorway entry ramp on the M2 
 in Sydney https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3HCnt9rSnC2Z9OLn0GSslA and on 
 the M7 in Sydney https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/JGrFtWbs5DYbMywYpVetoA.
 
 The M7 Shared Path is is a completely different thing, it's a shared path 
 and off road, but as you can see above on the M7 motorway itself there is 
 clearly dedicated bicycle signage and infrastructure.
 
 Who says it's not recommended to cycle on the motorway? I've never seen a 
 sign to say this. Whether it's common or not is irrelevant we mostly map 
 the infrastructure on the ground not the traffic level of the road. 
 
 On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 19:11, Dongchen Yue  wrote:
> The most noticeable example in Sydney would be the M7 Shared Path 
> (https://www.westlinkm7.com.au/about/shared-path), which is a ~40km 
> uninterrupted bi-directional path alongside the M7 Motorway with normally 
> (though obviously not currently) very high usage for recreational 
> cycling. However, although cycling on the motorway shoulders is neither 
> recommended nor common, it’s been mapped on OSM as the cycle route „M7s" 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-33.83065/150.85767=C) 
> along with the „M7 Cycleway“ route.
> 
>> Am 13.04.2020 um 6:52 PM schrieb Ewen Hill :
>> 
>> Hi Dongchen,
>>Can you provide a couple of examples please so we can review and 
>> discuss them. There may be good reasons (the red carpet Gardiners Creek 
>> cycle path in Melbourne hangs under the freeway might appear incorrect 
>> but is not). 
>> 
>>  Ewen
>> 
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 18:20, Dongchen Yue  
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I’ve noticed many motorway shoulders in Australia (especially in 
>>> Sydney) being mapped as cycle routes on OSM. Although this seems to be 
>>> a common approach for motorways/other high-speed roads in Australia of 
>>> which cycling is allowed on, I can hardly imagine it to be of any 
>>> practical use (i.e. providing convenient and safe connections for 
>>> people cycling).
>>> 
>>> Foremostly, this mapping approach defies the general purpose of cycle 
>>> routes (both from an engineering perspective and the official OSM 
>>> Wiki), that is, guiding people onto safe & convenient ways. Although 
>>> cycling on most motorway shoulders in Australia is technically 
>>> permitted and commonly done by the very few “strong and fearless” 
>>> people (only ~1%, as indicated in past transport research), it’s both 
>>> subjectively and statically quite unsafe, which gives no use to most 
>>> people when rendered on tiles such as OpenCycleMap.
>>> 
>>> Also, these mapped motorway/high-speed road routes aren’t officially 
>>> endorsed routes whatsoever, and are always referred to as separate 
>>> pieces of 

Re: [talk-au] How to label ill-defined places?

[Little Maps]

Thanks very much Ewen and Michael, I’ll use those tags where they, and nothing 
much else, seems to fit best. Ewen, I’ve been admiring your amazing land use 
mapping around Rutherglen and Mildura! Best wishes Ian

> On 13 Apr 2020, at 12:56 pm, Little Maps  wrote:
> 
> Hi again everyone, hope you’re all enjoying Easter. A simple newbie 
> question...
> 
> How do you label localities that have no precise boundaries? I’m working on 
> part of the Murray River and adding locality names from Vic Gov data. Many 
> can be placed on mapped features (e.g. campsites and beaches) but lots cannot.
> 
> The most common examples are ‘bends’ and ‘points’, such as Horseshoe Bend, 
> Hideaway Bend, Cray Point, Killers Point, etc. These areas have no mapped 
> boundaries. Should these be added by placing a node / point in the 
> appropriate place and labelled it as follows, or is there a better way?
> 
> Place:locality
> Name: Killers Point
> Source geometry:
> Source name: xxx
> 
> Thanks again, and thanks too to Warin for answering my earlier question.
> 
> Best wishes Ian
> 

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

[talk-au] How to label ill-defined places?

[Little Maps]

Hi again everyone, hope you’re all enjoying Easter. A simple newbie question...

How do you label localities that have no precise boundaries? I’m working on 
part of the Murray River and adding locality names from Vic Gov data. Many can 
be placed on mapped features (e.g. campsites and beaches) but lots cannot.

The most common examples are ‘bends’ and ‘points’, such as Horseshoe Bend, 
Hideaway Bend, Cray Point, Killers Point, etc. These areas have no mapped 
boundaries. Should these be added by placing a node / point in the appropriate 
place and labelled it as follows, or is there a better way?

Place:locality
Name: Killers Point
Source geometry:
Source name: xxx

Thanks again, and thanks too to Warin for answering my earlier question.

Best wishes Ian


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

[talk-au] Murray River #2. Thanks heaps.

[Little Maps]

Hello again everyone, many thanks for your fast and informative feedback! It’s 
great to join such a welcoming group.

There’s lots of great advice in everybody’s emails. If I distill it to one key 
point, I think it is...

1. Don’t touch admin boundaries or you’ll “rip me bloody arms off”, to quote an 
old TV personality. Further to this, don’t join natural features with admin 
boundaries etc. Point taken, I’ll steer clear of them all.

2. From what I can deduce from your points, the river itself (in real life and 
as mapped on OSM) doesn’t carry any administrative information whatsoever. It’s 
purely a natural feature like clearings, tree cover, beaches etc. (This is 
obvious from a technical point of view but not something I had properly 
understood in a broader sense before). Please correct me if I’m wrong in this.

3. Taking on board the helpful comment to “work on what interests you”, I think 
I’ll focus on natural features and recreational features such as tracks and 
popular campsites. I worked out today how to hide all administrative boundaries 
in JOSM to make sure I don’t accidentally link to or alter them.

4. I spent today reading tutorials and working out how best to map natural 
features. I selected a small unmapped area, mapped everything I could and then 
deleted the day’s work to make sure I didn’t upload any mistakes I might have 
made before I worked out the process and a coherent workflow.

5. The natural features I’d like to add are tree cover (i.e. “wood”), large 
clearings, beaches and oxbows, wetlands etc, especially on public land. Apart 
from some large wetlands and oxbows, there are many stretches where none of 
these features have been mapped. Could I ask for your feedback on the following 
process please?

6. In many places, the area to be mapped is bounded on one side by the river 
and on the other by the outer edge of tree cover. Nearly all other features lie 
within this envelope. The approach I trialled is as follows...  (this approach 
is only workable if small sections are done at a time.)

7. In a small area, map the outer boundary of tree cover, starting and 
finishing this way at the river. Split the river way at the start and end of 
the new tree cover way and create a multi polygon using the river boundary and 
the tree cover boundary as the outer boundaries. Then work within this area and 
map all sizeable clearings, beaches, oxbows and wetlands etc as inner 
boundaries etc within this multi polygon.

8. This approach provides a uniformly mapped area from the river outwards, with 
no gaps between adjacent polygons. A potential sequence along a transect from 
the river outwards might include for example, the river, a large beach, woods 
and trees, interrupted by a series of oxbow lakes and wetlands etc. The slowest 
part of the process will be mapping the many large wetlands as there are lots 
in some places.

9. If the river itself carries no administrative meanings (see above) then it 
is ok to refine the river boundary. Life is too short to do this along long 
stretches but some refinement would be useful where popular campsites, most of 
which are on big sandy beaches, abut the river. This way the river-beach 
boundary would be accurately placed (acknowledging changes in river water 
levels).

9. I can then add tracks and campsites etc within the mapped area before 
uploading it all and starting a new section.

10. There are natural gaps in tree cover in many places along the river which 
means that the above process can be repeated on sections that are not 
immediately adjacent which simplifies things. I haven’t contemplated how to map 
very large areas of continuous tree cover without creating a nightmarish multi 
polygon but I can avoid this more complex problem for some time as there’s lots 
of small, discrete gaps to fill.

10. After a few sections I’ll probably go bonkers and give it all up, but I’ll 
be driven up the wall even faster if I stay locked up under the important 
coronavirus laws without a task like this to keep me occupied.

My apologies for sending you all such a long message but once again I’d really 
welcome your feedback and suggestions. I’ll then work on a small area as a 
pilot, upload it, and welcome your feedback on things I can improve on, if you 
can bear hearing from me again.

Thank you once again for your generous help. Best wishes Ian




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

[talk-au] Murray River mapping by a newby?

[Little Maps]

Hello everyone, I’m Ian, I’m new to this group and pretty new to OSM. Being 
stuck inside for the foreseeable future, I’m keen to do something useful. 

I live on the Murray River and have noticed that many sections of the river 
along the NSW-Vic border could benefit from some extra work. In lots of places, 
the boundaries of the river, local government areas, reserves and tree cover 
are all mapped differently, creating a mess of intertwining boundaries. I hope 
I’m not offending anyone who has done great work on the river in the past.

I’ve got a lot of time on my hands and am happy to try to improve the mapping, 
taking on small chunks at a time. (I imagine it’s an enormous job to do it 
all.) However I realise that it would be easy to stuff up a lot of adjoining 
relationships so am keen to solicit advice from this sage group.

Is this a task you think worthy of working on? Is it something that can be done 
by a relative newby? (I worked as a research scientist for 25 years before I 
retired, but not in spatial sciences, so I’m used to working accurately and 
methodically on big projects). More to the point, if the task is worthwhile, is 
it possible to invite a mentor or two to provide advice and feedback on 
techniques and results before I make any big changes, so the results reach your 
high standards?

Thanks very much for your interest, I look forward to your feedback. Best 
wishes and stay healthy. Cheers Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au