Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

[Phil Wyatt via Talk-au]

Actually – maybe it did!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PcmFQUWZuM

 

I will add the strip!

 

From: Phil Wyatt via Talk-au  
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:38 PM
To: 'Ewen Hill' 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

 

The Grand Design House is not in that location – its here. As Ewen indicated it 
didn’t actually go ahead as a runway.

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/-38.40343/145.31695

 

 

From: Ewen Hill mailto:ewen.h...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 7:46 PM
To: Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >
Cc: Andrew Welch mailto:m...@andrewwelch.net> >; 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

 

Hi all,

  There was a proposal of an air bnb and hangar and is next to a house on Grand 
Designs TV Show however the runway was never really specced for the type of 
aircraft that would want to use the runway. So it really is for very small or 
ultralights only on a 540m and 47m wide with prevailing winds, uneven surface, 
marine birdlife and ~3% gradient. Warin, any air evacs of the 100 are via HEMS 
helicopter or boat. Tyabb airport is just north of the Island and so there is 
probably not a lot of interest in an airfield for the 100 or so residents. I 
don't know if this proposal got up or as Andrew stated, it had stalled post 
incident or property sale.

 

Finally, there is a barge service that runs from Corinella to nearby properties 
with a pier so I would personally take the extra hour and arrive safely without 
meeting a bin chicken or other wildlife close up at the wrong time.

I'm inclined to bin chicken it

Ewen

 

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 18:51, Phil Wyatt via Talk-au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

May have been an eager mapper after this incident but certainly no sign of a 
formal or informal strip there

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/plane-flips-after-landing-gear-malfunctions-on-victorias-french-island/video/f61a249832fb86f3fad6be0aa92c3ce6

 

 

From: Andrew Welch via Talk-au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 6:32 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

 

Considering there's also a "hanger" there that doesn't seem to be visible on 
any aerial imagery I just checked, I'm in favour of deleting it. It just 
doesn't seem to actually exist, and I question where the name came from.

---

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net <mailto:m...@andrewwelch.net> 

 

On 29/04/2024 5:34 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

the DWG was contacted by the owner of some farmland about an aerodrome=airport 
that was mapped on their property and which they would like to have removed 
since it was not a published airstrip and while they occasionally used it for 
take-offs and landings they don't want ir promoted.

My standard response in cases like this would be "I can mark it access=private 
but if something is clearly there, I cannot remove it."

I have checked with aerial imagery though and there is absolutely nothing on 
the aerial imagery that would set this "airstrip" apart from the neighbouring 
grassland. Yes it looks like I could land a plane there, but I could also land 
a plane the next field over, or a little bit further east or west - it all 
looks the same. I assume that there might be a clue locally like a windsock or 
so, but other than that, nothing.

I'd therefore be tempted to delete the airstrip from OSM. Opinions about that? 
Here's the area:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-38.3681/145.3901

Bye
Frederik

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




 

-- 

Warm Regards

Ewen Hill

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

Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

[Phil Wyatt via Talk-au]

The Grand Design House is not in that location – its here. As Ewen indicated it 
didn’t actually go ahead as a runway.

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/-38.40343/145.31695

 

 

From: Ewen Hill  
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 7:46 PM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: Andrew Welch ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

 

Hi all,

  There was a proposal of an air bnb and hangar and is next to a house on Grand 
Designs TV Show however the runway was never really specced for the type of 
aircraft that would want to use the runway. So it really is for very small or 
ultralights only on a 540m and 47m wide with prevailing winds, uneven surface, 
marine birdlife and ~3% gradient. Warin, any air evacs of the 100 are via HEMS 
helicopter or boat. Tyabb airport is just north of the Island and so there is 
probably not a lot of interest in an airfield for the 100 or so residents. I 
don't know if this proposal got up or as Andrew stated, it had stalled post 
incident or property sale.

 

Finally, there is a barge service that runs from Corinella to nearby properties 
with a pier so I would personally take the extra hour and arrive safely without 
meeting a bin chicken or other wildlife close up at the wrong time.

I'm inclined to bin chicken it

Ewen

 

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 18:51, Phil Wyatt via Talk-au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

May have been an eager mapper after this incident but certainly no sign of a 
formal or informal strip there

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/plane-flips-after-landing-gear-malfunctions-on-victorias-french-island/video/f61a249832fb86f3fad6be0aa92c3ce6

 

 

From: Andrew Welch via Talk-au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 6:32 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

 

Considering there's also a "hanger" there that doesn't seem to be visible on 
any aerial imagery I just checked, I'm in favour of deleting it. It just 
doesn't seem to actually exist, and I question where the name came from.

---

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net <mailto:m...@andrewwelch.net> 

 

On 29/04/2024 5:34 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

the DWG was contacted by the owner of some farmland about an aerodrome=airport 
that was mapped on their property and which they would like to have removed 
since it was not a published airstrip and while they occasionally used it for 
take-offs and landings they don't want ir promoted.

My standard response in cases like this would be "I can mark it access=private 
but if something is clearly there, I cannot remove it."

I have checked with aerial imagery though and there is absolutely nothing on 
the aerial imagery that would set this "airstrip" apart from the neighbouring 
grassland. Yes it looks like I could land a plane there, but I could also land 
a plane the next field over, or a little bit further east or west - it all 
looks the same. I assume that there might be a clue locally like a windsock or 
so, but other than that, nothing.

I'd therefore be tempted to delete the airstrip from OSM. Opinions about that? 
Here's the area:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-38.3681/145.3901

Bye
Frederik

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




 

-- 

Warm Regards

Ewen Hill

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

Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

[Phil Wyatt via Talk-au]

May have been an eager mapper after this incident but certainly no sign of a 
formal or informal strip there

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/plane-flips-after-landing-gear-malfunctions-on-victorias-french-island/video/f61a249832fb86f3fad6be0aa92c3ce6

 

 

From: Andrew Welch via Talk-au  
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 6:32 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

 

Considering there's also a "hanger" there that doesn't seem to be visible on 
any aerial imagery I just checked, I'm in favour of deleting it. It just 
doesn't seem to actually exist, and I question where the name came from.

---

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net  

 

On 29/04/2024 5:34 pm, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

the DWG was contacted by the owner of some farmland about an aerodrome=airport 
that was mapped on their property and which they would like to have removed 
since it was not a published airstrip and while they occasionally used it for 
take-offs and landings they don't want ir promoted.

My standard response in cases like this would be "I can mark it access=private 
but if something is clearly there, I cannot remove it."

I have checked with aerial imagery though and there is absolutely nothing on 
the aerial imagery that would set this "airstrip" apart from the neighbouring 
grassland. Yes it looks like I could land a plane there, but I could also land 
a plane the next field over, or a little bit further east or west - it all 
looks the same. I assume that there might be a clue locally like a windsock or 
so, but other than that, nothing.

I'd therefore be tempted to delete the airstrip from OSM. Opinions about that? 
Here's the area:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-38.3681/145.3901

Bye
Frederik

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

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

[Phil Wyatt via Talk-au]

I have also contacted Stephen privately to see if he wants to chat

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 5:54 PM
To: Andrew Welch 
Cc: Mark Pulley ; OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 

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

 

NPWS have now contacted DWG again.

 

I was in the process of responding to his comments, was up to ~10 paragraphs, 
then hit the wrong button in our DWG system & deleted the lot!!! :-(

 

That's well & truly enough for today so I'll try again (after trying to 
remember what I said!) tomorrow.

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:10, Andrew Welch via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

I think it might also be important to state that OSM is a database, so if 
consumers aren’t rendering tracks properly if tagged as such, the issue is with 
them not us, and that what they are doing can be considered as vandalism by 
mappers. We have ways to reflect the current state, and ensure that mappers 
unaware of these discussions won’t go ahead and re-add the trails. 

 

Thanks,

Andrew Welch

m...@andrewwelch.net  

 

 

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 3:45 pm, Mark Pulley mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:

 

I had replied privately:

 

Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the 
talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the understanding 
that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but that did not 
eventuate.

For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the mailing 
list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my changeset 
regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back to the 
mailing list for further discussion.

 

I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.

 

He has replied to me:

 

I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed about 
the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground from 
OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks and 
Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request, have been 
removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce them.

It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land, and as 
part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these paths to be 
displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS wishes but also 
requires additional work hours from their end to rectify the situation.

It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to remove 
these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary challenges. I urge 
you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding these paths back onto 
OpenStreetMap.

Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will contribute to 
the effective management of the area.

Thank you for your understanding.

 

I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the changeset, 
or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private messages, as I don’t 
want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks to tonyf1 who has made the 
same suggestion on the changeset.)

 

Mark P.





On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pulley mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

 

I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had deleted 
these last time):

 

Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service has 
officially closed the track.

“Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by myself 
30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”

Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate its 
removal once again by NPWS.

 

So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.

I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been 
officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per our 
request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."

It’s a shame that NPWS hadn’t bothered to join the discussion on here.

I’ve added a comment to my reversion changeset, suggesting access=no (rather 
than deleting outright). Any relevant comments there are welcome!

 

Mark P.





On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

 

Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352


Mark P.

 

___
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

Re: [talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison

[Phil Wyatt]

Lots of the detail is there already

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths

 

Never know, they might even get to like mapping and start adding lots more 
detail like “operator” to existing tacks and notes to those under rehabilitation

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Ben Kelley  
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 3:44 PM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison

 

In the context of the tracks, there is always the risk that if you delete 
something that you don't think should be there, that someone else re-maps it 
because they see it in the aerial photo. (As we discussed.)

 

I guess the best is that we could detail a preferred approach (e.g. in 
Australian tagging guidelines). I think it's clear that there are a number of 
views on this though.

 

Then at least if something happens that differs from the preferred approach, it 
makes it clearer whether a revert is justified.

 

 - Ben.

 

 

On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

DWG have received a 

"Request for a Liaison Officer:

To enhance the accuracy of OpenStreetMap data pertaining to the NSW National 
Parks and Wildlife Service"

 

This has come up in regard to tracks that they say they have previously 
requested be deleted (I'm contacting them to confirm just which?)

 

What would be the easiest way for them to contact us with questions like this - 
here / Forum / Discord?

 

Question posed in all three places

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

Personally I think its best if they do become editors as well as
mailing/forum/discord participants. It's the best way to learn the ecosystem
and I have no doubt that their data group will have some GIS knowledge etc
so it wont be too onerous on them to participate.

The difficulty is that it may take them 'ages' to get some higher level
approval to be 'official' editors for the organisation. Not that this will
mean anything to OSM mappers but government organisations like to keep
control of what their employees do at a public level. 

I would also be happy to email/chat to them at any time.

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: stevea  
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 3:05 PM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick ; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au

Subject: Re: [talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison

My two cents.

Our forum and Discord require "accounts" to be registered at the OSM level
(via OAuth2 by registering for a volunteer Contributor account to OSM) and
at "the Discord level," something else again.  A mailing list "merely"
requires an email address as an "account" to be registered with the talk-au
mailing list, which could be argued (I begin, but offer nothing more than
this assertion) that this is an "easier" (for "easiest" I add a ?) or at
least "lower bar" and maybe "preferentially more anonymous" or "less privacy
invasive" method, for those reasons.

Registering on talk-au doesn't require agreeing to what we agree to to
become Contributors, "merely" to join a "talking community" about "things
Australia regarding OSM."  By providing an email address and registering
with a mailman account, that's both "low-bar" and "fairly sharply focused"
at the same time.

A great benefit are many relevant eyeballs who read the "contact us
questions" which seem to have arisen.

While I'm not, I could imaging myself as an IT person at a National P and
reading the analysis above, nodding my head, agreeing that it isn't a very
high bar to jump over to have a chat.  And then, having a chat.

> On Nov 1, 2023, at 8:52 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:
> 
> DWG have received a 
> "Request for a Liaison Officer:
> To enhance the accuracy of OpenStreetMap data pertaining to the NSW
National Parks and Wildlife Service"
> 
> This has come up in regard to tracks that they say they have previously
requested be deleted (I'm contacting them to confirm just which?)
> 
> What would be the easiest way for them to contact us with questions like
this - here / Forum / Discord?
> 
> Question posed in all three places
> 
> 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


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

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Phil Wyatt]

Personally I think it should be suburb and postcode (drop the country)

 

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 5:53 PM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick ; Yuchen Pei 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

 

 

On 16/10/23 14:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Do we need the country, city & post code fields?

 

No. 

 

Thanks 

 

Graeme

 

 

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 12:23, Yuchen Pei mailto:y...@gnu.org> > 
wrote:

On Tue 2023-10-03 19:51:13 +1100, Warin wrote:

> On 3/10/23 14:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:

> [... 12 lines elided]

> OK, what is needed to be done for "Stage 2 - Set unit from
> housenumber"?

> Further testing of the upload script. The changes themselves are
> pretty safe. It's using a custom uploader and if something isn't
> right it could make a mess. Sure the changeset could be reverted
> in the worst case scenario but you end up with more history so
> best to avoid this. I'll see if I can find some time to progress
> this further.

> Umm 'custom uploader' .. a file compatible with JOSM should be easy
> enough to create. Then selecting a small area to upload and test would
> be a simple manual operation, as would uploading the entire change
> set. 

The osc file[1] generated in Stage 2 is compatible with JOSM.

[1] https://ypei.org/assets/tmp/unitFromNumber-1.osc

I spot checked a few nodes and they look correct too. See also the
attached screenshot.


My understanding of this Stage is to fix all the discrepancies between
streetnumber=X/Y in osm and streetnumber=Y;unit=X in the vicmap dataset,
before Stage 3 - uploading new addresses from the latter.

I can do the test upload of a small area (say ~100 addresses) and report
back.

I will check the scripts that generate this file, to find out whether
the logic indicates the file has full coverage corresponding to the
datasets.

> [... 5 lines elided]


Best,
Yuchen

--
Timezone: UTC+11
PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
  
___
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] Overpass question

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Bob,

Is there any reason why you cant just export to GPX from overpass and then
drag and drop the GPX file into ID (edit mode) for all the locations ?

Repeat the process after you have done some edits and you will get the
remaining unedited locations.

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cameron  
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 4:14 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] Overpass question

A question for an overpass expert.

I am cleaning up a lot of the parking tags I have created so they follow the
same rules etc. I have successfully generated a text list of nodes where I
can cut/paste the co-ords into the ID editor to research/fix as needed. This
was done with a gpsbabel command line on the exported gpx into unicsv.

Way/area tags are not so simple. gpsbbel yields zero output. Is there
function in overpass that will just extract the first node of the way, or
possibly the centre co-ords of the polygon? That will be good enough to get
me close enough.

Tnx


___
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] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Yuchen,

For me it's a lack of programming skills. In some other cases its lack of
open data for the addresses. There is also a requirement for good
documentation and community support for any imports.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import

We have open data for some states

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources

If you have the skills to assist with imports then I am sure the community
will assist where possible in identifying issues that will need to be
resolved (ie like rural addresses that are often at the centroid of large
holdings).

In my home state of Tasmania we have access to the full address data as
OpenData if you are looking to start somewhere, but I also see that the VIC
import is well progressed and the code for that project may well be useful
for other state imports.

Cheers - Phil (aka tastrax)




-Original Message-
From: Yuchen Pei  
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 12:31 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

Hello,

I read in a 6-year old post[1] that the Netherlands had an address coverage
of over 99%. This made me curious what would be the Australian number. G-NAF
boasts 15M addresses[2], whereas according to metrics.improveosm.org there
are less than 1.2M address points mapped in AU[3], so that makes it less
than 8%, way lower than the Netherlands.
But please correct me if my stats are flawed.

[1]
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/adding-housenumbers-with-streetcomplet
e/81323
[2]
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/geocoded-national-address-file-g-naf
[3]
https://metrics.improveosm.org/address-points/total-metrics-per-interval?dur
ation=weekly=country=13=km=2022-01-01=2
023-09-24

Is there a way to efficiently improve the address coverage in Australia?
What are the main roadblocks?

For Victoria there was an initiative to import vicmap addresses[4][5], I
wonder how many addresses it will add, and why it apparently got stuck
(0 edits from the importer user[6])

[4]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-May/014622.html
[5] https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm/
[6] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/vicmap_import

Best,
Yuchen

--
Timezone: UTC+10
PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
  

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


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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be 
removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do everything 
possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers also have a 
responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area is high use then 
signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help.

 

Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many years 
and there will likely be remains of the closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks 
showing in some environments, on some imagery, for an extended period of time.

 

I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the 
desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see those 
tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to previous 
levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency.

 

In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going there. 
I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being undertaken then a 
better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=type along with access=no. Many such 
tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the ‘take off points’ only and the 
rest of the track will be left to very slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some 
occasional bars to impede water flow and allow buildup of debris. Again, it 
will take many years for full rehabilitation to take place. 

 

So my view is…

 

*   If you cant see the track on the imagery – delete it.
*   If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately to 
discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the managers to 
actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if you are concerned on the 
tagging then its also likely that the area is a favourite place for you. Work 
with the managers!
*   Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged tracks 
do not appear on public maps

 

Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)

 

Full disclosure – I ran Track Management for Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife for 
many years so I am slightly biased.

 

From: Sebastian S.  
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey ; Mark 
Pulley 
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

 

I recall these discussions vaguely.
Was not one of the reasons for removing them from the map as the rangers or gov 
wanted them to be renaturatin etc. So from that perspective I understand why 
not having them in a map is in their interests.

 

On 21 September 2023 11:25:02 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

 

On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has deleted 
some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National Park).

 

These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were 
reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.

These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a different 
NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)

 

I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as 
informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case access=no 
can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a policy to the 
wiki for similar situations?

 

We have 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path
 

 

 

Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but with 
the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc.

 

Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) - These 
should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for users 
looking for closed paths.

 

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

[OSM-talk] OSRM Update

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

Does anyone know the frequency of updates for OSRM? It doesn't look to have
been updated in a while? If there is an issue is there a dashboard somewhere
that tells of its status?

 

>> OSRM hasn't updated since 2023-07-09T04:00:00Z
http://map.project-osrm.org/timestamps/

 

Cheers - Phil

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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

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

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

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

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

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

It is a mystery what's happening.

Thanks

Ian

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



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


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

Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Ian,

 

I cant actually find a FULL policy in NSW

 

https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/aboriginal-land-use-planning/nsw-dual-naming-policy

https://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/aboriginal_place_naming/dual_naming

 

However sixmaps does find indigenous names and seems to use the reverse of 
Tasmania with the English name first then the slash then the indigenous name 
(search for wahluu)

 

Interestingly, in Tasmania the Aboriginal and dual naming layer in LIST has the 
indigenous name in the ‘name’ field and a separate ‘Dualname’ field for the 
extended naming. However the actual mapping shows only the dualname which 
abides by the actual policy. Not all indigenous named features are dual named.

 

https://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map?bookmarkId=884426 and 
click on the orange polygons

 

Maybe over time the dual naming will be replaced with indigenous names only, 
but only time will tell. In the meantime, in Tassie, I will stick with the 
options below to give data users the most options.

 

name=kunanyi / Mount Wellington

name:en=Mount Wellington

name:xtz=kunanyi

 

 

Does anyone know of examples overseas with dual naming?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Ian Sergeant  
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 2:26 PM
To: Ben Ritter 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ian.

 

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 12:45, Ben Ritter mailto:benjaminarit...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I agree that in places where a joint name is in use, that should be documented 
as `name=Booraghee / Bradleys Head`as. From a data perspective, I think it is 
also useful to know that the english called it (in english spelling) 
`name:en=Bradleys Head` and the locals called it (in local romanised spelling) 
`name:aus=Booraghee`.

 

I have no great understanding of the languages involved, but I want to see it 
as "Booraghee / Bradleys Head" on most maps (because that's part of our 
cultural style, as documented in the quoted policy). On the other hand, when I 
hook up a routing text-to-speech engine, I'm going to have a much better time 
pronouncing the spelling of `name:en` and `name:aus`. Even better after someone 
in the know replaces the vague and non-specific `:aus` form with the actual 
language(s).

 

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 09:27, Little Maps mailto:mapslit...@gmail.com> > wrote:

This may depend on the specific place but in many places I believe Phil’s 
interpretation is correct and Andrew’s is inappropriate. Many places and 
reserves now have joint management or co-ownership, and dual/joint names. Joint 
names are not alternative names. John Roberts-Smith is John Roberts-Smith. He 
is not John Roberts and/or alt-name John Smith. The Rock Nature Reserve / 
Kengal Aboriginal Place is a legislated reserve. This is the legislated name, 
as described in the management plan and signposted on all new signs. Since OSM 
maps what is on the ground, we should include the entire joint name in the one 
name tag. We are not listing alternatives, we are presenting the entire, 
signposted, legal name in the one tag.

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

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

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

Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

In Tasmania I have started to use the following for dual named locations

name=kunanyi / Mount Wellington
name:en=Mount Wellington
name:xtz=kunanyi

where xtz is the language code for the indigenous language of the area

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australia%
27s_First_Peoples#Indigenous_Languages_and_Place_Names
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_languages

Most states are also likely have some policy on implementation.

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Documents/Aboriginal-and-Dual-Naming-Policy-2-Jul20.p
df

5.9 Both parts of a dual name are to be shown on all official signage,
directories, maps and all
official documents and publications without any distinction between the two,
other than the
sequence. The Aboriginal name will appear first, separated by a solidus to
be preceded, and
followed by spaces.

5.10 Official signage, maps and other information products will be updated
incrementally as
maintenance budgets for signage allow, or as new editions of maps and
visitor information
publications are released.

Hope this helps

Cheers - Phil


-Original Message-
From: Tom Brennan  
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 8:06 AM
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

There are an increasing number of places/features in NSW that are getting
dual (aboriginal) naming.

For example:
- Booraghee / Bradleys Head
- Cooyoyo / The Castle
- Fort Denison / Muddawahnyuh

 From the point of view of the Geographic Names Board, there doesn't appear
to be any primacy given to one name or the other.

Is there a view as to how to record these in OSM?

The specific aboriginal language is not necessarily known.

There are obviously tags like 'alt_name' that can be used to store a second
name, but not sure if that's most appropriate in cases like this.

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try
http://bushwalkingnsw.com

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


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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Many thanks for this Andrew,

Not being a coder, I asked ChatGPT if it could convert this to output the 
geometry (so I could pull it into ID editor easily via gpx) and it responded 
with this...

[out:json][timeout:900];
area["ISO3166-2"="AU-VIC"]->.a;
relation["type"="waterway"](area.a);
foreach -> .rel {
  way(r.rel)(if:t["name"] != rel.u(t["name"]));
  (._;>;);
  out body;
}


This seems to give a similar number of ways so hopefully its correct.

So useful for finding errors

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Davidson  
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 7:51 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Waterway data check overpass query

On 8/5/23 19:59, Little Maps wrote:
> 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

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;
relation["type"="waterway"](area.a);
foreach -> .rel(

   way(r.rel)(if:t["name"] != rel.u(t["name"]))->.ways;

   foreach .ways -> .reach (
 convert object way_id = reach.u(id()),
 riv_name = reach.u(t["name"]),
 rel_id = rel.u(id()),
 rel_name = rel.u(t["name"]);
 out;

 );
);


___
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

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Little Maps,

One simple way would be just to look at the members in a relation

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2181945#map=9/-36.4017/146.8309

but I assume you want to do this on a much larger scale?

What have you tried so far and what were the results?

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Little Maps  
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 7:59 PM
To: OSM Aust Discussion List 
Subject: [talk-au] Waterway data check overpass query

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


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

Re: [talk-au] Tasmania Spatial Data

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Ewen,

 

Its not just my lobbying – Alex Leith and Andrew Harvey had both been pursuing 
this in the past. I think it was a personal visit and past work interactions 
with those involved that clinched the deal. We are also hopeful that a licence 
change to the LIST basemap imagery may come about in the future giving us 
access to that as well which will be great for smaller rural towns. Land 
Tasmania organises and runs many of the photography flights on behalf of 
smaller councils etc and I think they are keen to make the imagery more 
available (even if some is older it’s really high resolution!)

 

If there are others layers that folks have an interest in accessing just let me 
know and will see how we go with other Tasmanian government agencies.

 

If anyone would like a spreadsheet with all the layers we gained access to, 
just drop me a private email. We only listed the more relevant ones on the wiki.

 

Cheers – Phil (on behalf of all the lobbyists!)

 

From: Ewen Hill  
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 4:34 PM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tasmania Spatial Data

 

Superb work again Phil, one dataset at a time, you are slowly making Tasmania 
the leader of the state pack!

 

Regards

 

Ewen

 

On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 10:09, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Hi Folks,

 

Just a heads up that we have recently obtained a waiver for a limited subset of 
data from the LIST Open Data portal 
(https://listdata.thelist.tas.gov.au/opendata/). Data for which Land Tasmania 
is the custodian is now available for use in OpenStreetMap (waiver 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Land_Tasmania_Signed_Waivers.pdf> ). 
You need to check the metadata of individual layers to ensure the custodian is 
Land Tasmania. We also obtained a waiver for the Topographic Basemap tiles and 
have commenced the process to get that available in editors.

 

The wiki has been updated to indicate layers that may be useful to mappers.

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Tasmania

 

The usual caveats apply – some data is old and no longer maintained so be 
careful with its use. Also please follow all community and import guidelines if 
considering any mass imports.

 

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines

 

Cheers - Phil

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




 

-- 

Warm Regards

Ewen Hill

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

[talk-au] Tasmania Spatial Data

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

Just a heads up that we have recently obtained a waiver for a limited subset
of data from the LIST Open Data portal
(https://listdata.thelist.tas.gov.au/opendata/). Data for which Land
Tasmania is the custodian is now available for use in OpenStreetMap (waiver

). You need to check the metadata of individual layers to ensure the
custodian is Land Tasmania. We also obtained a waiver for the Topographic
Basemap tiles and have commenced the process to get that available in
editors.

 

The wiki has been updated to indicate layers that may be useful to mappers.

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Tasmania

 

The usual caveats apply - some data is old and no longer maintained so be
careful with its use. Also please follow all community and import guidelines
if considering any mass imports.

 

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines

 

Cheers - Phil

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Andrew,

 

One way would be by using a ref key https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref

 

Maybe even something as long as 

 

ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=2252 or maybe

 

ref:AU:VIC:DOT=SN2252

 

On the culvert makes sense to me but given you seem to want it related to the 
way I will let others chime in on whether it could go on a node on the way 
(similar to the signs we have recently been discussing). Its not something I 
remember having seen in the past (but I have never looked for any such points)

 

Either way it would be beneficial to at least describe this in the Ozzie roads 
wiki when its settled, maybe under an infrastructure heading. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Andrew Hughes  
Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2023 1:25 PM
To: Talk Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

 

Hi All,

 

I am resurrecting this thread after quite a long time of silence. I think it 
reached an impasse and went down a lot of rabbit holes. But I do need to try my 
best to get resolution on this.

 

To bring it back to life I will ask the question again, hopefully far more 
clarity than I once did in 2020.

 

Pretext: For many, culverts are considered to be road infrastructure (they are 
even owned/managed by Govt. transport departments), while others consider them 
to be part of the water course. These question(s) below are in the context of 
those who consider them as road infrastructure. This isn't a question around 
water courses that tag the culvert because that already has a (good) tagging 
convention.

 

Context:

Given we have more than 50K culvert's

And a culvert is considered to be part of the road infrastructure (and/or 
independently a watercourse)

And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian Dept 
of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)

 

Q: How should we create/tag each culvert so that it is (more than just 
geographically) related to the road (way) including its asset/ref 
identification?

 

Here's a real world example:

 

The culvert (structure SN2252) as GeoJSON can be seen here...

 

http://geojson.io/#data=data:application/json,%7B%22id%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22Feature%22%2C%22geometry%22%3A%7B%22type%22%3A%22Point%22%2C%22coordinates%22%3A%5B144.29174897%2C-37.098997806%5D%7D%2C%22properties%22%3A%7B%22LAT%22%3A-37.099%2C%22LONGIT%22%3A144.29175%2C%22Archived%22%3A%22N%22%2C%22OBJECTID%22%3A8626%2C%22CD_DIRECTION%22%3Anull%2C%22ID_STRUCTURE%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22Archived_Reason%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22FEATURE_CROSSED%22%3A%22UN-NAMED%20WATERCOURSE%22%2C%22LOCAL_ROAD_NAME%22%3A%222740%20PYRENEES%20HWY%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_1%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_2%22%3Anull%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_3%22%3Anull%7D%7D

 

The location in OSM is...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=219077864#map=20/-37.09900/144.29175 or 
the closest node 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=97560366#map=19/-37.09897/144.29190 

 

I will leave it at that for now and let people respond with a fresh slate.

 

Thanks Everyone,

Andrew 

 

 

 

 

 

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 20:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

 

 

 

Dec 2, 2020, 05:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com  :

On 2/12/20 3:54 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:

 

 

 

Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by 61sundow...@gmail.com  :

On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:

 

 

 

Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com  :

On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:

This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a conclusion 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section

 

>From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e. 
>river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water 
>traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many scenarios. 
>However, it doesn't help with road usage.

 

We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.

 

Would a node that connects both road and water way be sufficient? 

That would break current tagging methods that do not merge in one node 
vertically separated

objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge or road under road 
on a viaduct.

 

OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to footways at a singular 
shared node. 

In this case you can transition/move between this features.

Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert indication 
separate from the waterway culvert indication?

No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anything on a road.

 

And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they can process OSM data,

there is no need at all to tag it manually for over one million of culverts.

 

And the OP wants to tag weight 

Re: [Talk-transit] [OSM-talk] Automated Populate/Update Problem

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Rob,Given you are in Australia I would try the talk AU list as well. Maybe also the discord channels as there are a few Ozzie folks there in the Oceania channel with lots of transport experience. Cheers - Phil(On the phone so apologies for any typos)On 28 Sep 2022, at 6:36 pm, rob potter  wrote:Thanks for your reply.I have read the guidelines.I'm in Victoria, AustraliaRobOn Wed, 28 Sept 2022, 18:07 Eugene Alvin Villar,  wrote:Hi,I work for the state transport departmentSorry if I missed this somewhere, but which state and which country? Depending on the answer, there might be a local community that can help and provide guidance as well with the conflation/import process.Thanks,Eugene On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 3:24 PM rob potter  wrote:Hi,I work for the state transport department and we are looking to become an active member of the community and as a first dataset we have focused on is our public transport stops, bus and tram initially and then stations.I would like your advice on how to achieve the outcome.There are a number of considerations:Currently in the state there are ~9,100 highway:bus_stopour GTFS - stops.txt has ~27,000 stopsthe current accuracy of highway:bus_stop needs review.stops.txt location appears to be of a much better qualityMy initial thought was extract current, match data location, enrich what stops.txt has then create all new and remove existing as final step.I would guess there are people screaming NO!! if so, please advise of a viable way of making such a significant Regards,Rob
___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___talk mailing listt...@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Phil Wyatt]

I have just done Hobarts ‘Southern Outlet” as an example (and Mapillary 
available at this location)

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-42.91186/147.30856

 

From: Bob Cameron  
Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2023 4:09 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

 

Some Mapillary "data rich" slow vehicle locations. (ie for checking/testing 
sign recognition)

- Dorrigo mountain - Waterfall Way. (Just west/north of Thora) NSW
- Bendemeer to Moonbi - New England Hwy NSW
- Black Mountain south - New England Hwy NSW

On 22/1/23 15:01, Andrew Harvey wrote:

 

Would anyone like me to create a mapillary challenge so we can tag a few of 
these examples?

 

Looks like Mapillary does detect some of this signage, under signs "Trucks 
rollover" and "Steep descent", a MapRoulette challenge would be a great idea. 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

I think I have seen something whereby you can use the designations on this page 
(ie R6-22) for the actual signs but I could be completely wrong! May have been 
used in ref tagging?? I think it was in NSW somewhere.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2023 12:30 PM
To: Andrew Hughes 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

 




 

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 10:40, Andrew Hughes mailto:ahhug...@gmail.com> > wrote:

There are other signage like "No Engine Breaking", could anyone propose a 
convention inline with the above that could be extended for such additional 
signage?

 

Answering in reverse!

 

I thought I remembered something about "quiet zones" for traffic, so did some 
searching & found: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dlevel_crossing#Quiet_zones,
 but which has apparently never been used.

 

Also found https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#Quiet_lanes

 

The same idea could possibly be used as designation=quiet_zone, possibly with 
quiet_zone=hgv?

 

Can anyone suggest the most appropriate way to take ways where the road is 
signed with "Use Low Gears"?

 

& maybe the same concept as designation=low_gears? 

 

That one could even come in under 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards as 
hazard=low_gear_required?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

[Phil Wyatt]

For multiple chargers you could use a 'named' area rather than individual
chargers. The individual chargers could also be points with details on
output etc, especially if they differ

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Ian Steer  
Sent: Monday, 26 December 2022 9:56 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

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

Ian

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


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


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

Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Andrew,

 

I think that was the general idea behind this 
https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/4985

 

Leave the name there and HOPE that folks add the extra details but in reality 
most folks didn’t (in Oz). Problem is, it is only implemented on selected EV 
charging_point entries so the consistency is the issue for me. The name could 
be used as an ‘advertising space’ for either a brand, operator or network so 
which should we consistently try to apply. I suspect as these roll out on a 
wider basis folks may wish to see their network in the name (Ie Tesla, Evie, 
NRMA, Chargefox, NextCharge) as they use these apps to discover sites, however 
the operators (like small businesses) might prefer their name up in lights.

 

I have edited a lot of the site names but all the Tesla ones will likely 
reappear due to the ID editor validation. I would like to ensure there is a 
consistent approach to all if possible.

 

Also some of the Tesla  unique names in their systems are somewhat spurious

 

https://www.tesla.com/en_au/findus?v=2 
<https://www.tesla.com/en_au/findus?v=2=-41.41258012536085%2C150.17672076757816%2C-43.04954513167433%2C145.8563472324219=9=store%2Cservice%2Csupercharger%2Cdestination%20charger%2Cbodyshop%2Cparty=dc75696>
 
=-41.41258012536085%2C150.17672076757816%2C-43.04954513167433%2C145.8563472324219=9=store%2Cservice%2Csupercharger%2Cdestination%20charger%2Cbodyshop%2Cparty=dc75696

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2022 1:33 PM
To: Sebastian S. 
Cc: Phil Wyatt ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Warin 
<61sundow...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

 

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

 

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 00:02, Sebastian S. mailto:mapp...@consebt.de> > wrote:

Hi Phil,

I think you are getting to the real question...

So I did some checking and the charging invoice from Tesla does not give any 
REF or Name. It simply states the address.
The map in the car and on the phone gives ' Tesla Supercharger Hollydene, NSW' 
in bold as the identification token (trying to avoid using ame here).

For me as an user I want to find this charger when I search for it. I want to 
see the full token to easily distinguish between several chargers. I also would 
be happy to see the token on a rendered map.

Weather the text is in the REF or NAME tag I don't care.

I do think the chargers should also have tags for address details, plug , 
access and cost, network, operator and brand details. We are allowed to dream 
right?

So back to the real question. Is the argument that 
' Tesla Supercharger Hollydene, NSW' is not a name and should not be used as a 
single text string? Or should the text string simply not be a NAME tag and 
instead a REF tag?

Or lastly is the expectation that data consumers 'construct' the information 
from other tags? For the last point I think it is a great idea but unrealistic 
see my ' Tesla Supercharger Central Coast NSW' example where the city=Tuggerah.

I'm happy to use REF if this is the majority preference.

Cheers Seb

On 15 December 2022 11:07:47 pm AEDT, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Hi Sebastian,

 

I suppose for me it’s a question of should OSM hold a name which can be made 
from other attributes and does it fit with the name and charging wikis?

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station

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

 

Do tesla chargers/charge areas also have reference numbers like other networks? 
This usually goes in the ref key.

 

I suspect many of these are ‘named’ simply so they get a label in the carto map 
without people realising that the operator and ref are used for labelling 
charging stations in that map instance. 

 

Other apps may well use other OSM attributes.

 

Some interesting ‘name’ insights in this post as well

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/397565

 

Cheers – Phil

 

From: Sebastian S. mailto:mapp...@consebt.de> > 
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2022 10:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> ; Phil Wyatt 
mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >; 'Warin' 
<61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

 

Hello all,

As an EV driver I think that some charge stations have names.

I do agree that 'Tesla Supercharger ' is not a name with much value. Tesla has 
names in their app for these charging stations, e.g. 'Tesla Supercharger 
Hollydene,

Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks folks,

 

For me its also about the name suggestion index adding a default name to a 
limited set of chargers that is not unique. In some cases the ‘name’ it adds is 
the same as the operator and network which just seems superfluous. Below are 
some links to the issue. What I am looking for is consistency of application.

 

https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/4985

https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/da630160e174cbe7682357cef7c91d6a6923d0be/data/brands/amenity/charging_station.json

 

As for searching, that’s up to the individual app designer or search engine on 
how they interpret the attributes that are in OSM (if they use that as a data 
source)

 

Personally, I think the ref field is where the unique reference for the 
operator/brand should be.

 

I think that much of the case for a ‘name’ is so it gets a label on the carto 
map but lets be honest, a consumer of EV chargers is unlikely to be using OSM 
as their primary source for charging information. Its more likely to be an app 
or in car service. Maybe the labelling of chargers via carto needs a revisit if 
this is the case.

 

There are some well attributed chargers out there - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7814409569/ 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Sebastian S.  
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2022 11:56 PM
To: Phil Wyatt ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org; 'Warin' 
<61sundow...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

 

Hi Phil,

I think you are getting to the real question...

So I did some checking and the charging invoice from Tesla does not give any 
REF or Name. It simply states the address.
The map in the car and on the phone gives ' Tesla Supercharger Hollydene, NSW' 
in bold as the identification token (trying to avoid using ame here).

For me as an user I want to find this charger when I search for it. I want to 
see the full token to easily distinguish between several chargers. I also would 
be happy to see the token on a rendered map.

Weather the text is in the REF or NAME tag I don't care.

I do think the chargers should also have tags for address details, plug , 
access and cost, network, operator and brand details. We are allowed to dream 
right?

So back to the real question. Is the argument that 
' Tesla Supercharger Hollydene, NSW' is not a name and should not be used as a 
single text string? Or should the text string simply not be a NAME tag and 
instead a REF tag?

Or lastly is the expectation that data consumers 'construct' the information 
from other tags? For the last point I think it is a great idea but unrealistic 
see my ' Tesla Supercharger Central Coast NSW' example where the city=Tuggerah.

I'm happy to use REF if this is the majority preference.

Cheers Seb

On 15 December 2022 11:07:47 pm AEDT, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Hi Sebastian,

 

I suppose for me it’s a question of should OSM hold a name which can be made 
from other attributes and does it fit with the name and charging wikis?

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station

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

 

Do tesla chargers/charge areas also have reference numbers like other networks? 
This usually goes in the ref key.

 

I suspect many of these are ‘named’ simply so they get a label in the carto map 
without people realising that the operator and ref are used for labelling 
charging stations in that map instance. 

 

Other apps may well use other OSM attributes.

 

Some interesting ‘name’ insights in this post as well

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/397565

 

Cheers – Phil

 

From: Sebastian S. mailto:mapp...@consebt.de> > 
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2022 10:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> ; Phil Wyatt 
mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >; 'Warin' 
<61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

 

Hello all,

As an EV driver I think that some charge stations have names.

I do agree that 'Tesla Supercharger ' is not a name with much value. Tesla has 
names in their app for these charging stations, e.g. 'Tesla Supercharger 
Hollydene, NSW' or 'Tesla Supercharger Central Coast, NSW'. For the latter the 
name is not the same as the address which is one of my key reasons to have the 
name tag, full length.

Aside from the Tesla supercharger there will be other large high current or DC 
charging stations that in my view warrant a name. Mainly because the are or 
will be key stopover points that people will navigate to.

But I'm also of the opinion that the name of the Woolworths in Dee Why is ' 
Woolworths Dee Why '

Seb

On 15 December 2022 8:23:19 pm AEDT, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Thanks Warin,

 

Its pretty obvious that most are not real names but actually descriptions or 
operators/networks and locations

 

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1p4

Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Sebastian,

 

I suppose for me it’s a question of should OSM hold a name which can be made 
from other attributes and does it fit with the name and charging wikis?

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station

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

 

Do tesla chargers/charge areas also have reference numbers like other networks? 
This usually goes in the ref key.

 

I suspect many of these are ‘named’ simply so they get a label in the carto map 
without people realising that the operator and ref are used for labelling 
charging stations in that map instance. 

 

Other apps may well use other OSM attributes.

 

Some interesting ‘name’ insights in this post as well

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/397565

 

Cheers – Phil

 

From: Sebastian S.  
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2022 10:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Phil Wyatt ; 'Warin' 
<61sundow...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

 

Hello all,

As an EV driver I think that some charge stations have names.

I do agree that 'Tesla Supercharger ' is not a name with much value. Tesla has 
names in their app for these charging stations, e.g. 'Tesla Supercharger 
Hollydene, NSW' or 'Tesla Supercharger Central Coast, NSW'. For the latter the 
name is not the same as the address which is one of my key reasons to have the 
name tag, full length.

Aside from the Tesla supercharger there will be other large high current or DC 
charging stations that in my view warrant a name. Mainly because the are or 
will be key stopover points that people will navigate to.

But I'm also of the opinion that the name of the Woolworths in Dee Why is ' 
Woolworths Dee Why '

Seb

On 15 December 2022 8:23:19 pm AEDT, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Thanks Warin,

 

Its pretty obvious that most are not real names but actually descriptions or 
operators/networks and locations

 

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1p4N

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2022 8:00 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

 

 

On 15/12/22 17:11, Ben Kelley wrote:

My thoughts:

 

I wouldn't remove the names. It's a big call to say that this thing definitely 
does not have a name, when someone else says it does, especially if 50% have a 
name.

 

"Tesla supercharger" is not an individual name, probably a brand. And there 
would be many that have that "name" in the world. It would be like tagging some 
petrol stations with 'name=Shell'. 

The easiest thing to do is change the key 'name' to 'description', that way OSM 
looses no information. 

Then add tags for brand/operator/ref/*. 

 

 

 - Ben.

 

On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 14:24, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Hi Folks,

 

Thoughts on 'named' EV chargers? Around 50% of chargers in Oz have some 'name'.

 

Most look to be adding the either the location or name of the operator etc (ie 
Freds Shop, XYZ carpark, Tesla supercharger etc), I suspect so it gets rendered 
on the map. 

 

Are folks happy if I remove the names. I will ensure that no details are lost 
by making sure any operator or network details gets added to the correct tags.

 

(I will also post to Oceania Forum and Discord)

 

[Overpass query](https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1p4u)

 

Cheers - Phil

 




 

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

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

Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Warin,

 

Its pretty obvious that most are not real names but actually descriptions or 
operators/networks and locations

 

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1p4N

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2022 8:00 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

 

 

On 15/12/22 17:11, Ben Kelley wrote:

My thoughts:

 

I wouldn't remove the names. It's a big call to say that this thing definitely 
does not have a name, when someone else says it does, especially if 50% have a 
name.

 

"Tesla supercharger" is not an individual name, probably a brand. And there 
would be many that have that "name" in the world. It would be like tagging some 
petrol stations with 'name=Shell'. 

The easiest thing to do is change the key 'name' to 'description', that way OSM 
looses no information. 

Then add tags for brand/operator/ref/*. 

 

 

 - Ben.

 

On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 14:24, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Hi Folks,

 

Thoughts on 'named' EV chargers? Around 50% of chargers in Oz have some 'name'.

 

Most look to be adding the either the location or name of the operator etc (ie 
Freds Shop, XYZ carpark, Tesla supercharger etc), I suspect so it gets rendered 
on the map. 

 

Are folks happy if I remove the names. I will ensure that no details are lost 
by making sure any operator or network details gets added to the correct tags.

 

(I will also post to Oceania Forum and Discord)

 

[Overpass query](https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1p4u)

 

Cheers - Phil

 








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

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

[talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

Thoughts on 'named' EV chargers? Around 50% of chargers in Oz have some
'name'.

 

Most look to be adding the either the location or name of the operator etc
(ie Freds Shop, XYZ carpark, Tesla supercharger etc), I suspect so it gets
rendered on the map. 

 

Are folks happy if I remove the names. I will ensure that no details are
lost by making sure any operator or network details gets added to the
correct tags.

 

(I will also post to Oceania Forum and Discord)

 

[Overpass query](https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1p4u)

 

Cheers - Phil

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

Re: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell

[Phil Wyatt]

Many thanks Sigurjon

I don’t suppose you have accessibility data as well? That would be great to 
know as well.

 

*   wheelchair=yes/no – suitable for wheelchairs?
*   tactile_writing:braille:lg=yes/no?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson  
Sent: Monday, 24 October 2022 3:37 PM
To: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Cc: Phil Wyatt ; OSM Australian Talk List 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description 
elevator shell

 

Hi Warin,

 

Apologies for not getting back to you and acting on this.

We will revisit all these locations and update in the coming days.

 

 

Below is how we plan to tag the two typical scenarios:

 

inside a building 

 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900 

 

highway=elevator

building:levels=2

indoor=room

room=elevator

 

outside building (stand alone) 

 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993533793> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993533793

 

highway=elevator

building:levels=3

building:yes

description=elevator shell

 

 

Please let me know if you are not happy with this approach.

 

 

Regards,

Sigurjon

TfNSW

 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 at 22:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com> > wrote:


On 23/10/22 21:46, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> Hi Warin,
>
> Both of those examples were previously build:part=elevator. Its probably
> worth asking why they changed them to building:levels=elevator. That seems
> to be a more appropriate tagging.


building:part should be a 'part' of a building .. not the entire 
building .. they are both tagged with building=yes.

One example

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524/history

has no past history .. so no previous key of building:part.


I'd have no problem with building=elevator_shell, but they are 
building=yes. I am happy to change that too, if acceptable?

I have been using building=silo with man_made=silo (key building for 
rendering the area .. man_made just does a symbol).


>
> Cheers - Phil
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com> >
> Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2022 8:41 PM
> To: OSM Australian Talk List  <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
> Subject: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator
> shell
>
> Hi
>
> There are ~260 of closed ways with the tag 'building:levels=elevator'.
>
> This tag should have numbers as the value not text, the number being the
> number of levels.
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels.
>
>
> These object all are associated with railway stations around Sydney and
> appear to have been added by members of TfNSW team. I have left a message on
> one of their members changeset but have had no reply.
>
> There are no other uses of this tag elsewhere in the world.
>
>
> My thoughts are to change the tag to 'description=elevator shell' as these
> look to be the walls around the outside of the moving elevator that is
> presently mapped as a node in these cases.
>
>
> Examples
>
> Way 993829900 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900
>
> Way 996164524 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

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

Re: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Warin,

Both of those examples were previously build:part=elevator. Its probably
worth asking why they changed them to building:levels=elevator. That seems
to be a more appropriate tagging.

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2022 8:41 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator
shell

Hi

There are ~260 of closed ways with the tag 'building:levels=elevator'.

This tag should have numbers as the value not text, the number being the
number of levels.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels.


These object all are associated with railway stations around Sydney and
appear to have been added by members of TfNSW team. I have left a message on
one of their members changeset but have had no reply.

There are no other uses of this tag elsewhere in the world.


My thoughts are to change the tag to 'description=elevator shell' as these
look to be the walls around the outside of the moving elevator that is
presently mapped as a node in these cases.


Examples

Way 993829900 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900

Way 996164524 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524


Any thoughts?



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


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

Re: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Graeme,

 

I reckon the vast majority of the ‘sheds’ are currently tagged 
building=fire_station.

 

I think I will start in Tassie, as I have been to many of the stations, and see 
what else crops before moving to any other states.

 

Thanks for all the thoughts folks

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2022 9:21 AM
To: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project

 




 

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 18:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
 > wrote:

The name of the station/brigade/* goes on the 'plot' not the building. 

I'm not certain of the operator tags - I think only on the amenity/plot not on 
the building .. ? 

 

Both of those are how I currently do it, except in the cases of joint use 
buildings, in which case that name etc goes on a node inside the building.

 

Question re building=fire_station though - do we still use that, when it's only 
a shed to look at?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging fire stations

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

Well I am not too sure that the correct tagging of buildings is applied at
all in Australia as I can only see about 200 uses of building:use=* in all
of Oz! Seems most folks use the building tag to denote current use rather
than initial construction intention. I am sure there are more than 200
building adaptations across the country.

 

I could think of several building in my state that have had second or third
lives from the original intention and none have building:use tagging and
there must be 10,000's across the country. I also understand that the fire
station tagging will likely be much harder in cities than in rural areas
where most will be a shed on a block somewhere. Also the more recent trend
of combining fire, ambulance and maybe SES is also something that sort of
hinders a 'generic' standard approach but nodes really help for each of
these functions across a single site with combined building use.

 

I am inclined to think that the gold standard for a standalone fire station
would be

 

*   amenity=fire_station for the block of land on which it stands
*   operator, wikidata etc and all other details on the block rather
than the building
*   combined with building=fire_station (if built specifically) or
building:use=fire_station if its known that it was built for another purpose

 

Sample - standalone = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102488871

 

and the gold standard for a combined facility

 

*   amenity=emergency_service on the block (no tagging for the  renderer
by using amenity=fire_station!)
*   building tags of building=government (if not specific buildings for
each service)
*   nodes for each service if there are not specific buildings dedicated
to each service and include all the operator, wikidate etc on these nodes
*   If specific buildings then tag the buildings (operator, wikidata
etc) instead of individual nodes

 

Sample - separate buildings = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102327375

Sample - combined buildings = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102321688

 

More thoughts?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Mark Rattigan  
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2022 10:24 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Cc: p...@wyatt-family.com
Subject: Re: Tagging fire stations

 

Hi Phil

 

I suspect that 'cleaning-up' these tags would require local knowledge for
each location, and is certainly not as clean-cut as making sure that either
one or the other is used.

 

There are cases when only the building tag should be used, and some when
only the amenity tag should be used. And others when both are appropriate.

 

 

The building tag is intended for the original purpose of the building - ie,
built as/to be a fire station. A historical/defunct fire station is still
tagged as building=fire_station, even when it's no longer in use as such.
(The same philosophy applies to building=church, even when it's no longer a
place of worship)

 

The amenity=fire_station indicates a location from which fire brigades
(currently) operate.

 

For example, the DFES Education and Heritage Centre in Perth could be tagged
as building=fire_station because that was its original purpose - it was
originally No. 1 Fire Station. It couldn't be amenity=fire_station as it's
not used as a fire station.

 

There are also plenty of minor RFS brigades which operate out of buildings
that weren't originally built to be fire stations. 

 

 

As for the amenity and whether it's an area or a point - it could possibly
depend on whether the facility is solely for a fire brigade.

For example, my local emergency service building houses all of Police,
Ambulance, Fire, RFS and SES. It seems to have the following tags:

 

For the building (perhaps this is incorrect though!)

building=government

amenity=fire_station

 

Within this building there are separate nodes:

1: emergency=ambulance_station (for Ambulance)

2: amenity=fire_station (for RFS) 

3: amenity=emergency_service and emergency=ses_station (for SES)

4: amenity=police

(I thought there used to be a node tagged amenity=fire_station for
Fire, but it's no-longer.)

 

Cheers

Mark

 

 

 

 

Message: 4

Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2022 20:10:15 +1100

From: "Phil Wyatt" mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >

To: "OSM-Au" mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project
Message-ID: <000401d8dbbe$f3cbf990$db63ecb0$@wyatt-family.com
<mailto:000401d8dbbe$f3cbf990$db63ecb0$@wyatt-family.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi Folks,

 

I am looking for my next tagging clean-up project and wondered about amenity
and building tags for fire stations

 

amenity=fire_station -
 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfire_station>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfire_station -
 <https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAq> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAq

 

building=fire_station -
 <h

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

Its also worth looking at planning documents that highlight the “shared trails” 
and ‘key pedestrian circulation” areas as well as ‘On Road cycle lanes”

 

https://vpa-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Botanic-Ridge-Precinct-Structure-Plan-updated-May-2017.pdf

 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au  
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2022 10:17 PM
To: Dian Ågesson 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

 

Dian,

 

The permissive tag can be a bit misleading as it assume that permissions is 
allowed until such time that it is revoked. The reality is that the State 
Government  or local council arent going to go and specifically revoke access 
to a user.

Whatever happened to mapping what’s on the ground?

 

 

I want to draw you attention to an example I can across today. This was had no 
visible sign to indicate it was a shared way but it is tagged as a shared way 
in OSM. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903736648#map=17/-38.15145/145.29173

Can I get peoples opinion when it is acceptable to change the way too something 
more appropriate such as a footpath or set permissions to bicycle=no ?

 

 

 

 

regards,

Sebastian





On 9 Oct 2022, at 12:18 pm, Dian Ågesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> > wrote:

 

Hi all,

The “best” tagging for some of these paths are inherently subjective, as there 
isn’t a tagging method that captures the subtleties involved.

Firstly, distinguishing between a “foot way” and a sidewalk is a subjective 
decision. How far from a road does a parallel path be before it is no longer a 
sidewalk, for example.

Secondly, there are multiple overlapping jurisdictions. In addition to each 
state’s road laws, each council’s local laws may prohibit or allow cyclists in 
specific areas. I don’t expect an average mapper to have a law degree, and, 
though it should be easy, it may not able to work out the exact legality of 
riding a bicycle in all situations.

The best mapping will always rely on discretion. I don’t believe it is correct 
to assume a lack of signage is, on its own, enough to tag one way or another. 
At most, I would suggest a “bicycle=permissive” restriction to indicate the 
unclear legality on even well used paths.

I don’t think going around adding a specific bicycle permissions to every 
footway is particularly productive. A routing service could easily make this a 
non-issue by offering an “ignore sidewalk” button.

Dian

On 2022-10-09 09:43, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:

An interesting post by aharvey in that thread.  

 

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/38

regards,

Sebastian





On 9 Oct 2022, at 9:19 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

To open another can of worms, just spotted this linked from discussions on a 
completely different proposal:

 

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/23

 

So, what is the relation between designated & yes?

 

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] Cycle permissions by a user

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Sebastian,

 

In the case you have highlighted, it looks to me that through that subdivision 
there is a wide path in some areas and a narrow path in others (Maxaar 
Imagery). That would seem to denote to me that the wider one is a shared 
path/cycleway. That also seems to match with the current tagging.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au  
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2022 10:17 PM
To: Dian Ågesson 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

 

Dian,

 

The permissive tag can be a bit misleading as it assume that permissions is 
allowed until such time that it is revoked. The reality is that the State 
Government  or local council arent going to go and specifically revoke access 
to a user.

Whatever happened to mapping what’s on the ground?

 

 

I want to draw you attention to an example I can across today. This was had no 
visible sign to indicate it was a shared way but it is tagged as a shared way 
in OSM. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903736648#map=17/-38.15145/145.29173

Can I get peoples opinion when it is acceptable to change the way too something 
more appropriate such as a footpath or set permissions to bicycle=no ?

 

 

 

 

regards,

Sebastian





On 9 Oct 2022, at 12:18 pm, Dian Ågesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> > wrote:

 

Hi all,

The “best” tagging for some of these paths are inherently subjective, as there 
isn’t a tagging method that captures the subtleties involved.

Firstly, distinguishing between a “foot way” and a sidewalk is a subjective 
decision. How far from a road does a parallel path be before it is no longer a 
sidewalk, for example.

Secondly, there are multiple overlapping jurisdictions. In addition to each 
state’s road laws, each council’s local laws may prohibit or allow cyclists in 
specific areas. I don’t expect an average mapper to have a law degree, and, 
though it should be easy, it may not able to work out the exact legality of 
riding a bicycle in all situations.

The best mapping will always rely on discretion. I don’t believe it is correct 
to assume a lack of signage is, on its own, enough to tag one way or another. 
At most, I would suggest a “bicycle=permissive” restriction to indicate the 
unclear legality on even well used paths.

I don’t think going around adding a specific bicycle permissions to every 
footway is particularly productive. A routing service could easily make this a 
non-issue by offering an “ignore sidewalk” button.

Dian

On 2022-10-09 09:43, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:

An interesting post by aharvey in that thread.  

 

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/38

regards,

Sebastian





On 9 Oct 2022, at 9:19 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

To open another can of worms, just spotted this linked from discussions on a 
completely different proposal:

 

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/23

 

So, what is the relation between designated & yes?

 

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

[talk-au] Next tagging clean up project

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

I am looking for my next tagging clean-up project and wondered about amenity
and building tags for fire stations

 

amenity=fire_station -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfire_station -
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAq

 

building=fire_station -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dfire_station -
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAr

 

This is partly in response to an issue logged for the ID editor requesting a
preset for fire stations buildings.

 

https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/603

 

There is already an ID preset for 'Fire Station' that uses the
amenity=fire_station key/value but it did get me looking at the differences
and how its been applied in Australia. There is a clear mix of buildings and
amenity tagging on both station areas and buildings, and some with both
tags!

 

https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania/australia/tags/amenity=fire_s
tation#combinations

 

Should it always be the case that the 'plot' on which the fire station
building resides is the 'amenity' and the 'building' should be separate
within the plot? To me, its not 100% clear in the wiki's.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Cheers - Phil

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

Re: [talk-au] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

[Phil Wyatt]

Here is a better option for overpass

 

It will find those A roads where the network tag doesn’t start with AU:

 

[out:xml][timeout:25];

{{geocodeArea:South Australia}}->.searchArea;

(
relation["route"="road"]["type"="route"]["ref"~"^A"]["network"!~"^AU:"]["addr:country"="AU"]["addr:state"="SA"](area.searchArea);

);

out meta;

>;

out meta qt;

 

From: Dian Ågesson  
Sent: Sunday, 2 October 2022 11:59 AM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

 

Hey Graeme,

The network= tag for each route relation with a ref=* needs to be updated from 
the old scheme to use the AU:state prefix. For example network=S in Queensland 
becomes network=AU:QLD:S.

Phil included a really useful overpass query that I’m now going to be using to 
track where I need to make changes.

Dian

 

On 2022-10-02 09:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




 

On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 20:51, Dian Ågesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> > wrote:

I will continue updating relations where I can, but any help would be greatly 
appreciated tagging highway segments. 

Happy to help where I can, Dian.

 

What's involved?

 

 Thanks 

 

Graeme

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

Re: [talk-au] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Dian,

 

I have done all the route relations for the A, B and C roads in Tassie and 
added the network=AU:TAS. I wasn’t aware that it was also needed on the 
individual ways?? I understand they have the corresponding ref tag (A1, B22 
etc) but is there a need for the network tag on all the ways? It’s a bit 
unclear on the wiki as it only talks about routes.

 

I think Tassie is a bit easier as we only have one National route and no 
numeric routes.

 

I used the following Overpass Turbo to collect up the appropriate class of roads

 

[out:xml][timeout:25];

{{geocodeArea:tasmania}}->.searchArea;

(
relation["route"="road"]["type"="route"]["ref"~"^A"]["network"!="AU:TAS"]["addr:country"="AU"]["addr:state"="TAS"](area.searchArea);

);

out meta;

>;

 

Easily edited for other classes

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Dian Ågesson  
Sent: Saturday, 1 October 2022 8:49 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

 

Hello,

 

Just an update regarding this piece of work.

I was able to complete a bulk edit in Western Australia, however I found that 
it took a significant amount of effort. WA is the "easiest" of the states to 
convert, as it has less numbered routes and no alphanumeric routes to worry 
about.

Unfortunately, I don't believe a bulk edit for the other states is practical. 
Relations are much easier to update, but segments of highways that are shared 
by multiple routes are inherently manual tasks.

I will continue updating relations where I can, but any help would be greatly 
appreciated tagging highway segments. 

Dian

On 2022-09-20 20:13, Dian Ågesson wrote:

Hello list,

You may recall earlier this month the road route tagging guidelines were 
updated to adopt the "AU:" country prefix in the network field. 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-September/016533.html

In order to make the transition as quick and seamless as possible, I'd like to 
propose a bulk edit to adjust the network tabs across Australia.

The edit would:

*   Change all road network tags to use the AU prefix in alignment with the 
new tagging guidelines 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes)

If there is support for this effort, I will make the change in one weeks time.

 

Would appreciate your thoughts and concerns.

Dian

 

___
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: [OSM-talk] Automated Populate/Update Problem

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Rob,Given you are in Australia I would try the talk AU list as well. Maybe also the discord channels as there are a few Ozzie folks there in the Oceania channel with lots of transport experience. Cheers - Phil(On the phone so apologies for any typos)On 28 Sep 2022, at 6:36 pm, rob potter  wrote:Thanks for your reply.I have read the guidelines.I'm in Victoria, AustraliaRobOn Wed, 28 Sept 2022, 18:07 Eugene Alvin Villar,  wrote:Hi,I work for the state transport departmentSorry if I missed this somewhere, but which state and which country? Depending on the answer, there might be a local community that can help and provide guidance as well with the conflation/import process.Thanks,Eugene On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 3:24 PM rob potter  wrote:Hi,I work for the state transport department and we are looking to become an active member of the community and as a first dataset we have focused on is our public transport stops, bus and tram initially and then stations.I would like your advice on how to achieve the outcome.There are a number of considerations:Currently in the state there are ~9,100 highway:bus_stopour GTFS - stops.txt has ~27,000 stopsthe current accuracy of highway:bus_stop needs review.stops.txt location appears to be of a much better qualityMy initial thought was extract current, match data location, enrich what stops.txt has then create all new and remove existing as final step.I would guess there are people screaming NO!! if so, please advise of a viable way of making such a significant Regards,Rob
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___talk mailing listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Adding intermittent to water south of Alice Springs.

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Andrew,

That's a great resource - someone should show that to Googlemaps! They have
hundreds of 'lakes' in Tassie that don't exist.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-43.4647476,146.1809558,15z

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Davidson  
Sent: Friday, 23 September 2022 7:36 PM
To: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Adding intermittent to water south of Alice Springs.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> HI,
>
> I have just add the tag intermittent=yes to several water bodies south 
> of the approach road to Ayres Rock (A4 Lasseter Hwy).
>

Almost every hydrological feature in Australia is intermittent=yes. GA has a
satellite product that shows how often a water body has water in
it:

https://maps.dea.ga.gov.au/#share=s-j1nHpeX2mVRcfFHm3crnBuGUR7u

only the blue and purple areas are "perennial".

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


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

Re: [talk-au] Adding intermittent to water south of Alice Springs.

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Warin, 

I have been doing much the same as part of the land use=reservoir cleanup. I 
suspect some of it got added when some imagery appeared showing “a flood year” 
when in reality most folks would know that is not the norm. Often, switching 
imagery will show the real “normal”.


Cheers - Phil, 
On the road with his iPad 

> On 23 Sep 2022, at 6:04 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> HI,
> 
> I have just add the tag intermittent=yes to several water bodies south of the 
> approach road to Ayres Rock (A4 Lasseter Hwy).
> 
> Most of these were mapped some 3 years ago by the Microsoft Open Maps team.
> 
> 
> While some water is visible in various imagery there is also large reductions 
> of water areas in other imagery, this plus various travels in the are suggest 
> that these water bodies, particularly the larger ones are at best 
> intermittent.
> 
> 
> Any comment/objections?
> 
> 
> -- For those interested...
> 
> I have been mapping around 'Lyndavale Station'. 10 miles away in 1936 a 
> school teacher lost their life having fallen from their motorcycle and died 
> from lack of water, plenty of fuel and oil though. Water could be found some 
> 4 miles from where he was found.. his grave is there where he died. The 
> motorcycle is at Curtin Springs .. though like most things that old and used 
> has had various parts replaced, some with 'alternative parts'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] "Wrong" phone numbers

[Phil Wyatt]

Personally, I would just do the 6 as the others are redundant

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2022 3:47 PM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] "Wrong" phone numbers

 

Just fixing a Note, & the company's phone number is listed on their website as 
1300 xx xx, as they have their name in it. If you dial it though, the 
system will ignore the last two digits, as the first 10 make a valid number

 

So how do we map it?

 

Phone numbers are supposed to be formatted as 1300 xxx xxx, so will including 
the last two digits cause an error?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

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

Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

I suspect most agencies run the ESRI suite of products in the background for 
all their GIS and incident mapping and they may port data or maps to other apps 
(maybe in realtime or daily, weekly or at least seasonally). Collector is an 
ESRI app for collecting field data which is likely fed back in realtime during 
fires to a centralised location for updating maps that may then get pushed back 
to tablets/apps in the field. OK if you have a connection.

 

>From experience, if something doesn’t ‘feel right’ at a fire then folks, 
>especially volunteers, will grab their phone and use what they are familiar 
>with – be it Google, Avenza, OSM or one of many other apps. The further you 
>move from the city the less folks trust Google as its woeful in many areas (as 
>we have all no doubt heard on many occasions).

 

The beauty of exposing folks to OSM is that once they understand the process 
they get the ability to update the maps and see results either immediately or 
on the next update. If you have ever tried getting more remote features updated 
on Google you will know what a hassle that can be (if at all!!).

 

I generally would not consider adding Lot/Plan details to OSM. Generally when 
land is sold/subdivided then addresses are assigned ‘fairly quickly’ and become 
the norm for locating the places.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2022 4:33 PM
To: stevea 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

 

Thanks all for thoughts, including yours from over there, Steve!

 

It may be worth approaching "Fire & Rescue" in each State to ask them directly?

 

A bit of feedback from another forum, says that in NSW the RFS still use a lot 
of paper maps, although I of them thinks that officially a system called 
Collector is in use, but he doesn't know t much about it?

 

He & another bloke from Vic RFS both use an "RFS Buddy" app, which gives 
lat/long or grid coords, but doesn't include a map.

 

I've been adding some street numbers to a couple of rural roads that I know 
(using a public source!) - would there be any advantage to including Lot & Plan 
numbers? eg  154 FOREST HOME RD, RATHDOWNEY is Lot 10 of Plan RP178426. If so, 
what would we add them as?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

PS Good luck with your planned return & career change, Adam!

 

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

Re: [talk-au] TomTom - OSM Collaboration

[Phil Wyatt]

Welcome aboard Will,

 

There is no shortage of tasks to make a better Australian map in OSM. There
are plenty of map roulette challenges for updating addresses, fixing
deprecated tagging on features and fixing road tagging to name just a few.

 

https://maproulette.org/dashboard/

 

The community is also very grateful for folks 'in the know' who may be able
to source data in truly open formats that can be ingested into OSM using the
normal import procedures or via the RapID editor (for ESRI community layers)

 

https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Esri-Arc
GIS-FAQ

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Esri/ArcGIS_Datasets - as you can see
there are no layers from Australia.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines - import guidelines

 

If there is going to be concerted effort by Tom Tom then it might also pay
to have a read of the organised editing guidelines and maybe set up a wiki
page with some details of the company intentions (and maybe a list of OSM
editors that will be editing on behalf of Tom Tom.

 

We look forward to your edits and conversations in the mailing lists.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: William Ireland  
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2022 10:12 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] TomTom - OSM Collaboration

 

Hi Australia OSM Community,

 

My name is Will from TomTom. From one mapper to another, I can say that we
truly admire how the OSM community collaborates to shape a map product that
benefits everyone, and we would love to be a part of it. I would like to let
you know that we are planning on contributing to OSM by providing meaningful
leads to improve map quality and to locate missing features. Some initial
ideas include but are not limited to providing leads from media sources
extracted by our web scraping tool or locating missing highways from new
housing developments.

 

We would love to hear from you. What do you think of these ideas? And are
there any other areas where you need assistance or fields we can collaborate
on? We are open to all suggestions and ideas. As for me, I am based here in
Australia and happy to answer any questions or be part of any discussions.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Will

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

Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

[Phil Wyatt]

Well done Alex,

 

Events such as that are a great opportunity to chat to folks about opening
up their data so we can have complete coverage. I notice that many of the
Police Station points (especially remote ones) are missing in OSM but it
also looks like some of their pins could also be inaccurate.

 

Given that lots of government agencies are also ESRI clients they could also
make them available as part of 'Community Maps Data Sharing Program' with a
suitable licence and then they would become available in the RapID editor

 

https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-living-atlas/mapping/commun
ity-maps-data-sharing/

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Alex Sims  
Sent: Friday, 26 August 2022 11:34 AM
To: talk-au OSM - 
Subject: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

 

Hi,

 

I'm at the EMSINA (Emergency Management Spatial Information
Network Australia) PDP day as part of AFAC (Australasian Fire and Emergency
Service Authorities Council) 2022 Conference in Adelaide and finding a few
"OpenStreetMap used here".

 

Feedback from participants I've spoken to:

*   The price is right, free!
*   Good coverage of health facilities

 

Uses of OpenStreetMap I've not noticed before, mainly background maps 

*   Find a police station (SA Police)
https://www.police.sa.gov.au/about-us/find-your-local-police-station (via
ESRI)

 

And oddly an attribution where OpenStreetMap is credited but its SA
government mapping

*   Bus Stop location map
https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/stops?id=16490 

 

My own observation and I suppose the reason I'm here is there are plenty of
users of our mapping but not much feedback from users as to what they want,
which we are probably willing to map.

 

Alex

 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping surf breaks

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

It might also be good to see how current surf sites rate and classify breaks 
and try and incorporate common language in the tagging

 

https://www.wannasurf.com/spot/Australia_Pacific/Australia/TAS/Hobart/index.html

 

https://www.wannasurf.com/spot/Australia_Pacific/Australia/TAS/Hobart/seven_mile_point/index.html

 

https://surfing-waves.com/atlas/asia/indonesia/bali.html

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 2:21 PM
To: Jake Coppinger ; Josh Marshall 

Cc: OSM Aust Discussion List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping surf breaks

 

On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 18:18, Josh Marshall mailto:josh.p.marsh...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Are there any concerns on me taking the idea and running with it? It would be 
good at least to flesh out the wiki page on what tags can or should be applied. 
I already have a spreadsheet from the grommie on the various attributes of a 
surf break (left and right waves, tide/swell/wind required). Does this require 
a formal proposal? 

 

My own pause relates to how even though surf breaks are physical locations 
(would be mapped as either areas or points), they are tied to underwater 
features and topography such as reefs, not necessarily visible from the 
surface. And so will rely heavily on local knowledge. But if not rendered by 
default, there’s no problem with that, right?

 

It would be great to see surf breaks better mapped!

 

I would suggest just start tagging ones you know well, invent your own tags, no 
proposal needed so you can be liberal with experimenting with the tags and how 
the features are represented. Over time I'd recommend documenting your tags on 
the wiki, if eventually into a proposal, to gain a more global point of view 
and consensus.

 

natural=surf_break

surf_break=* (beach, reef, shipwreck, etc)

sport=surfing

name=* if named

 

Points or areas should be good. Would linear ways make sense sometimes? Right 
hand side could indicate direction waves break? 

 

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 13:45, Jake Coppinger mailto:j...@jakecoppinger.com> > wrote:

> tl;dr - I’m interested in getting more surfing-centric tagging into OSM, 
> hopefully leading to an open surfing map.

As an avid surfer (Sydney region) and OSM contributor I love the sound of this!

 

Something I note that is missing on the wiki 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dsurfing) is how to tag 
something when surfing isn't an option at a beach - the absence of 
`sport=surfing` on a beach node may just mean it hasn't been surveyed yet. 
Being able to query all surfable (or exclude non-surfable) beaches would be 
great for a road trip or choosing a campsite.

 

For example, Brighton-Le-Sands never has waves as it's in Botany Bay. 
`sport=none` wouldn't make sense as it's a great spot for windsurfing (and 
beach cricket etc :D). Is there space for a tag like `surfing=unsuitable` or 
`waves=minimal` to be added to a `natural=beach`?

 

If we could start over I'd advocate for natural=coastline on the land/sea 
border only, and natural=shoreline for other borders. Would it be safe to 
assume beaches along the sea/ocean edge are surf beaches and beaches along bays 
or harbours are not?

 

surfing=yes/no should act like the rest of the access tags, meaning are you 
allowed to surf or not, rather than is it any good for surfing.

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

Re: [talk-au] OSM Attribution Q

[Phil Wyatt]

They have been requested at least once before. I have just sent another
email

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution

-Original Message-
From: Paul Norman via Talk-au  
Sent: Sunday, 14 August 2022 8:47 PM
To: Bob Cameron ; OSM Australian Talk List

Subject: Re: [talk-au] OSM Attribution Q

On 2022-08-14 3:23 a.m., Bob Cameron wrote:
> I likely have this wrong, but worth a question.
>
> Looking at petrolspy.com.au website for Theodore Qld and note that the 
> sport and rec ground shows a remarkable similarity to the 
> changes/updates I did 10 months ago, right down to the service road 
> loop around the RV dump. In addition the petrolspy map has copied the 
> campsite rather than the reserve name.
>
> There is no attribution I can see, but the site does have Google ads. 
> The contact domain (email) is MX'd to Google.


They are using a map from maptiler, which uses OpenStreetMap data. I would
contact them at the email on their site, explaining that they're using a Map
based on OpenStreetMap data, and they are required to attribute, which is
generally done in one of the bottom corners of the map.


___
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] Tagging Gazetted Road Routes (National, State, Regional...)

[Phil Wyatt]

I also looked at this briefly in Tasmania but couldn't see a lot of
consistent use

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

This also suggests that maybe the networks should also be country and state
based, especially if different signage is used per state ( I also think that
is how the Americana style map is sorting shields etc by states)
https://github.com/ZeLonewolf/openstreetmap-americana

Ie network=AU:TAS

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Davidson  
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2022 2:48 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging Gazetted Road Routes (National, State,
Regional...)

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andrew Hughes  wrote:
> Some worldwide/geographic tagging guidelines exist, that are based on a
combination with the "network" tag: see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes
>

Have you read
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Rout
es
?

___
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] Tagging silos?

[Phil Wyatt]

They look fine – I have also done one set as ways which is the other alternative

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-26.55069/151.83033

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2022 11:08 AM
To: Ewen Hill 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging silos?

 

Tried the first group of them: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-26.55053/151.83027

 

Still not convinced that individual is the way to go?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Is addr:housenumber=2/20 likely to be valid?

[Phil Wyatt]

In some locations a number such as ‘511/240-250 Example Street’ also indicates 
that the unit 511 is on the 5th floor

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Wednesday, 13 July 2022 12:17 PM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Is addr:housenumber=2/20 likely to be valid?

 

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 11:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

The other awkward one is when the POI's address is Level 5 of This Building. 
Should we include that as part of the address, usually under Unit Number, or 
just as level=*?

 

You should do both,

 

level=5 for indoor mapping to know which level the POI is on

addr:floor=5 indicates that the floor number forms part of the full address

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:floor describes this a bit. 

___
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

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

This is probably the best reference for the AWTGS

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

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Kim Oldfield via Talk-au  
Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2022 8:21 PM
To: Dian Ågesson 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OSM Wiki Cleanup Update: 6th Tagging Guidelines Page 
ready

Hi Dian,

The AWTGS page referenced isn't much use. As a trail user it doesn't tell me if 
1 is easy or hard.

Searching for other references I found
https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/safety/bushwalking-safety/australian-walking-track-grading-system
https://naturetrail.com.au/australian-walking-track-grading-system/
https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/things-to-do/hiking-and-bushwalking/choose-the-right-hike/how-walking-tracks-are-rated

all of which use almost identical descriptions and symbols for grades 1 to 5. 
Does anyone know what the source for this is, and if we are allowed to include 
the descriptions verbatim in wiki.osm?

Is Pump track missing a key=value pair in the Value column? 
bicycle=designated by its self doesn't imply pump track.

The "Bike Lanes and Street Cycling" section is vague. What does "map according 
to what is on the ground, rather than relying on technical, legal definitions" 
mean? Isn't what is signposted on the ground what the legal definition is? 
Given that many signposted bike lanes and trails in Australia are not fit for 
purpose (eg they have parked cars in them or cyclist dismount signs) I don't 
know how they can be tagged in a consistent and useful manner.

The rest of the page looks good.

Kim

On 26/6/22 22:02, Dian Ågesson wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The sixth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycl
> ing_and_Foot_Paths
> is ready for review.
>
> This page took a significant amount of effort, as there is ongoing 
> discussions, conflicting global guidelines, and the previous content 
> was quite out of date. This is also likely to be the subpage with the 
> most controversy, so I would strongly encourage contributions and 
> feedback from all.
>
> Please, as always, don't be shy about providing feedback or raising 
> concerns. There are only one subpages to go with the Tagging 
> Guidelines pages: Utilities and Infrastructure.
>
> Dian
>
>
> ___
> 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] TheSwavu

[Phil Wyatt]

Anthony,

 

I would suggest stopping the personal attacks on the email list and
concentrating on the actual issues, specifically in changeset comments with
the actual issue discussed. Expend your energy on the actual edits. 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

From: Anthony Panozzo  
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:01 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] TheSwavu

 

Notice how TheSwavu himself has stopped replying... that's because he has
just learnt he really doesn't have a clue and is waiting for one of these
vocal people in his small group to come to rescue his arguments. If what he
said about trying to correct me on the road rules and he didn't even realize
he does understand them properly, does he even have his licence?

 

 

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

[talk-au] FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

[Phil Wyatt]

 

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 2:00 PM
To: 'Anthony Panozzo' 
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

 

Hi Anthony,

 

There are multiple tools out there for finding 'errors' in OSM data and many
people use them to keep the OSM data up to date. You might also like to
share the OSM software that you are using on your vehicle GPS as it may turn
out that it doesn't handle relations or routing of some situations.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com> > 
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:35 AM
To: Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

 

The biggest issue I have with this account is that they don't find routing
errors on their own, this person stalks other peoples edits and "correcs"
them using knowledge as their source, I find these routing errors 100%
myself in real world situations, I have been editing and using OSM on my car
gps for many years, this user edits other users edits based on no knowledge
of the intersection at all, having a user like this should put anyone off
making any routing edits when this person randomly edits 10 different
intersections in 10 minutes and says they have knowledge.

 

 

 

From: Phil Wyatt <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:44 AM
To: 'Anthony Panozzo' <mailto:pan...@outlook.com> ;
talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

 

Hi Anthony (slice0),

 

Can I suggest the best way to get some resolution is to actually spell out
in a changeset comment why you think the change made by Swavu is incorrect.
That way everyone gets to learn from 'conflicts'. I also suggest you
restrain your language or you may also face the wrath of the DWG.

 

PS Swavu is not a bot.

 

Cheers - Phil (tastrax)

 

From: Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com> > 
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 12:46 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

 

User TheSwavu

This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know more
than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing correction
this account comes along and "fixes" it based on "knowledge" from the notes,
let me just say I looked over some of the edit this account does and it
breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: 120344373 | OpenStreetMap
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373>  and Changeset:
120198383 | OpenStreetMap
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.5930
1>  are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my
time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to
come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask DWG
to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be banned from
any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out vandalism! 

 

 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44)

[Phil Wyatt]

Many thanks for the detailed explanation

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Davidson  
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 11:54 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, 
Issue 44)

On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

> This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know 
> more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing 
> correction this account comes along and “fixes” it based on “knowledge”

Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction relation needs 
to have:

1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways 4. The 
members must connect in a way that you can travel

When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I say 
"knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.

> from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this 
> account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset:
> 120344373 | OpenStreetMap

This changeset deleted this turn restriction:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961

which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it only had 
a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to delete it because it 
would only duplicate this turn restriction:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389

which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it.

>  and Changeset: 
> 120198383 | OpenStreetMap

This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761169
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761170
https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13991446

You broke 14 and added one new broken relation (13991446). While I was deleting 
these I noticed that the intersection had some sort of cross-your-heart thing 
going on with added ways for turn lanes, so I simplified it to a standard 
traffic light box intersection:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.76387/138.59277

You can turn right from each arm which means we don't have to have any no-right 
turns. There are 4 no-left turns because each approach has a slip lane. Since 
it's SA and at traffic lights then there are four no u-turns to cover that. 
This is exactly the same routing information that was there before, but now in 
a simpler easier to maintain format.

>  8.59301> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been 
> wasting my time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this 
> shitty bot to come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I 
> would like to ask DWG to take a real close look at this account and 
> see if it can be banned from any further edits under the bot edit 
> policy or straight out vandalism!

I am not a bot. Just a mapper with overpass, the JOSM validator, the to-do 
plugin, and many hours of puzzling over the question of what a broken turn 
restriction relation was supposed to be doing.

A couple of years ago I spent quite a bit of time fixing all the turn 
restrictions around AU, but I have to keep coming back every couple of months, 
as 100-200 newly broken ones get created every month. Mostly because iD will 
quietly break existing turn restrictions or let you create invalid ones and 
then upload them to OSM. I used to put changeset comments on the ones that had 
broken them until a user asked me how they could stop doing it and I discovered 
that there isn't a way to do that in iD.

My fixes should not be changing any routing outcomes as they are almost all 
deleting turn restrictions that iD didn't clean up after a mapper reconfigured 
an intersection. None of the examples you have pointed to have changed the 
routing outcomes as I check to make sure I understand what someone was trying 
to map before I fix it.

___
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] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Anthony (slice0),

 

Can I suggest the best way to get some resolution is to actually spell out
in a changeset comment why you think the change made by Swavu is incorrect.
That way everyone gets to learn from 'conflicts'. I also suggest you
restrain your language or you may also face the wrath of the DWG.

 

PS Swavu is not a bot.

 

Cheers - Phil (tastrax)

 

From: Anthony Panozzo  
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 12:46 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44

 

User TheSwavu

This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know more
than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing correction
this account comes along and "fixes" it based on "knowledge" from the notes,
let me just say I looked over some of the edit this account does and it
breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: 120344373 | OpenStreetMap
  and Changeset:
120198383 | OpenStreetMap
  are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my
time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to
come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask DWG
to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be banned from
any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out vandalism! 

 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Country homesteads?

[Phil Wyatt]

Completed Australia wide

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cameron  
Sent: Wednesday, 27 April 2022 6:25 PM
To: Phil Wyatt ; 'OSM Australian Talk List' 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Country homesteads?

Hi Phil

Well they are all scattered plus/minus the road I travelled/captured on in the 
last week or two.

Tnx

On 27/4/22 17:44, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> I have changed all the South Australian locations for you. I checked a 
> few random locations and they all looked to be placed within a farm 
> type cluster of buildings.
>
> If anyone spots any problems - let me know. I will move to other 
> states in the next few days
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hZS
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>


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

Re: [talk-au] Country homesteads?

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Bob,

I have changed all the South Australian locations for you. I checked a few
random locations and they all looked to be placed within a farm type cluster
of buildings.

If anyone spots any problems - let me know. I will move to other states in
the next few days

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hZS

Cheers - Phil


-Original Message-
From: Bob Cameron  
Sent: Tuesday, 26 April 2022 9:33 AM
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Country homesteads?

So I'll ask some assistance from a mass edit guru here...

I'd like to change all my own landuse:farm nodes to place:farm, leaving all
child keys as they are. Since I only use ID is there anyone can help do
this? Does it require any kind of formal control?

Oh and I have found that DCS base and topo is sometimes dated with
station/farm names, so much so that I include a fixme to that effect if I
use it as single data source. That way I get to wander down remote farm
roads (re)checking on the mailbox signs!


On 22/4/22 18:34, cleary wrote:
> Generally, I would suggest a node at the hub of the farm (usually in 
> the vicinity of the main residence) place=farm
> name=*
> operator=*
>
> --snip--

___
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] Creating a Mapping Team?

[Phil Wyatt]

https://github-wiki-see.page/m/mapbox/osmcha-frontend/wiki/Mapping-Teams

 

From: Andrew Hughes  
Sent: Tuesday, 26 April 2022 4:45 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Creating a Mapping Team?

 

Hi Andrew,

 

I don't know the terminology so this might be annoying sorry.

 

I'd like to discover all the changes made by "NHVR team members". I suspect 
that these teams are somewhat related to the osmcha option as seen here:

 



 

What I would like to know is how can I setup a team so that our users 
contributions can be discovered.

 

Cheers!

AH

 

 

 

 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 22:33, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

The organised editing guidelines at 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines should be 
followed if the whole team is working together on mapping activities in a 
coordinated way. Any questions feel free to ask.

 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 14:30, Andrew Hughes mailto:ahhug...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi All,

 

Would anyone be able to please point me in the right direction? I am looking to 
learn more about mapping teams and how to create one for the National Heavy 
Vehicle Regulator  https://www.nhvr.gov.au/

 

I have looked high and low, but I can't anything.

 

Thanks in advance,

Andrew

 

 

___
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] Map Note Flood

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Andy, 

 

I have never received any emails from those addresses so I will also 
investigate the issue at my end now I have some information. I also don’t see 
anything in my junk bin (where my filters send any spurious mail).

 

Cheers - 

 

From: Andy Townsend  
Sent: Monday, 4 April 2022 6:57 PM
To: Phil Wyatt ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

 

On 04/04/2022 09:41, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Andy,

 

I am aware of the volunteers doing this great work. My concern was that I had 
not received a confirmation that the email had been received and a ticket 
created. This has happened once before and I was led to believe the ticket 
creation to be automatic on receiving an email.

Our ticketing system thinks it sent you a message with subject 
"Ticket#202204021063] Re: Our phantom note creator is back ..." at 6:51 on 
2nd April.  Depending on how people have spam filters set up it's not unheard 
of for mails to end up in there.  The email will likely have come from  
<mailto:o...@otrs.openstreetmap.org> "o...@otrs.openstreetmap.org".

 

 

If its not an automatic process then please accept my apologies and I will make 
a suggestion that an autoresponder is installed so that we at least know that 
the email has arrived at the correct location.

 

Is the correct email address  <mailto:d...@openstreetmap.org> 
d...@openstreetmap.org or is it d...@otrs.openstreetmap.org 
<mailto:d...@otrs.openstreetmap.org>  which others seemed to have used.

The full "I've seen a problem; what should I do?" story is on 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group , but addresses that 
will work include

*   d...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:d...@openstreetmap.org> 
*   d...@osmfoundation.org <mailto:d...@osmfoundation.org> 

and likely others involving "otrs" and a ticket number on the subject line, but 
the "official one that is likely to work best for most people" is  
<mailto:d...@openstreetmap.org> "d...@openstreetmap.org".

Best Regards,

Andy

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Andy,

 

I am aware of the volunteers doing this great work. My concern was that I had 
not received a confirmation that the email had been received and a ticket 
created. This has happened once before and I was led to believe the ticket 
creation to be automatic on receiving an email.

 

If its not an automatic process then please accept my apologies and I will make 
a suggestion that an autoresponder is installed so that we at least know that 
the email has arrived at the correct location.

 

Is the correct email address d...@openstreetmap.org 
<mailto:d...@openstreetmap.org>  or is it d...@otrs.openstreetmap.org 
<mailto:d...@otrs.openstreetmap.org>  which others seemed to have used.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andy Townsend  
Sent: Monday, 4 April 2022 6:26 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

 

Hello,

 

Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. 

 

> Is there any other way to alert the Data working group? 

 

With respect, which part of "Please understand that our working group consists 
of volunteers only who do this job in their spare time. All incoming messages 
are read but processing them can take a little time." (in the acknowledgement 
that gets sent out to every DWG ticket) was unclear?  We got Phil's message 
6:51 UTC Saturday morning.  The user was blocked in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5875 about 49 hours later, across a 
weekend.  Is that response not snappy enough for you? :)

 

With regard to the data that they've added, we'll give them a few days to 
respond to the questions that they have been asked and if we don't hear 
anything we'll revert and then likely redact the data.

 

With regard to the original notes, looking at the country feeds such as 
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Australia , 
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20States and 
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Canada it seems that most 
or all of the original notes have been closed and will disappear from the map 
in a few days.  I'm aware that there are "note cleanup" projects going on in 
Australia and elsewhere, so hopefully any stragglers will also get dealt with.

 

Best Regards,

 

Andy

 

 

 

On 04/04/2022 04:28, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Another 60 changesets this morning!

 

Is there any other way to alert the Data working group? I suspect there will be 
over 400 changesets to revert and they will get harder the longer he adds data.

 

Cheers

 

From: Phil Wyatt  <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com>  
Sent: Monday, 4 April 2022 10:29 AM
To: 'Graeme Fitzpatrick'  <mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> 
; 'Andrew Davidson'  <mailto:thesw...@gmail.com> 
; 'OSM - Andrew Harvey'  <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> 

Cc: 'OpenStreetMap'  <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

 

Hi Folks,

 

Can someone else please log a request to the Data Working Group re this user. I 
suspect me email is not getting to them as I have not even received an 
acknowledgement as yet (which I gather should be instantaneous)

 

He is still working away adding road names

 

Changesets in Australia by PopeyePopcord

 

 <mailto:d...@openstreetmap.org> d...@openstreetmap.org

 

suggested reverts

 

 

119223580

119223590

119223592

119223605

119223620

119223637

119223650

119223659

119223666

119223674

119223683

119223719

119223741

119223758

119223766

119223781

119223790

119223806

119223819

119224021

119224028

119224065

119224109

119224938 - maybe dont revert this - SWAVU comment

119225009

119225018

119244811

119244940

119247805

119247832

119247850

119247892

119247910

119247919

119247973

119248033

119248057

119248118

119248169

119248239

119248274

119248322

119248753

119248767

119248789

119248810

119248822

119248862

119248914

119248959

119249026

119249073

119249093

119249135

119249266

119250024

119276663

119276678

119276773

119276793

119276824

119276841

119276875

119276933

119276992

119277068

119277105

119277136

119277169

119277230

119277248

119277257

119277364

119277377

119277756

119277793

119277821

119277902

119277945

119277971

119278013

119278024

119278060

119278075

119278139

119278155

119278198

119278239

119278334

119278421

119278439

119278464

 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Phil Wyatt < <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> p...@wyatt-family.com> 
Sent: Sunday, 3 April 2022 12:32 PM
To: 'Graeme Fitzpatrick' < <mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> 
graemefi...@gmail.com>; 'Andrew Davidson' < <mailto:thesw...@gmail.com> 
thesw...@gmail.com>; 'OSM - Andrew Harvey' < <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> 
andrew.harv...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'OpenStreetMap' < <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

 

Hi Folks,

 

He is back at it in

Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

[Phil Wyatt]

Another 60 changesets this morning!

 

Is there any other way to alert the Data working group? I suspect there will be 
over 400 changesets to revert and they will get harder the longer he adds data.

 

Cheers

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Monday, 4 April 2022 10:29 AM
To: 'Graeme Fitzpatrick' ; 'Andrew Davidson' 
; 'OSM - Andrew Harvey' 
Cc: 'OpenStreetMap' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

 

Hi Folks,

 

Can someone else please log a request to the Data Working Group re this user. I 
suspect me email is not getting to them as I have not even received an 
acknowledgement as yet (which I gather should be instantaneous)

 

He is still working away adding road names

 

Changesets in Australia by PopeyePopcord

 

d...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:d...@openstreetmap.org> 

 

suggested reverts

 

 

119223580

119223590

119223592

119223605

119223620

119223637

119223650

119223659

119223666

119223674

119223683

119223719

119223741

119223758

119223766

119223781

119223790

119223806

119223819

119224021

119224028

119224065

119224109

119224938 - maybe dont revert this - SWAVU comment

119225009

119225018

119244811

119244940

119247805

119247832

119247850

119247892

119247910

119247919

119247973

119248033

119248057

119248118

119248169

119248239

119248274

119248322

119248753

119248767

119248789

119248810

119248822

119248862

119248914

119248959

119249026

119249073

119249093

119249135

119249266

119250024

119276663

119276678

119276773

119276793

119276824

119276841

119276875

119276933

119276992

119277068

119277105

119277136

119277169

119277230

119277248

119277257

119277364

119277377

119277756

119277793

119277821

119277902

119277945

119277971

119278013

119278024

119278060

119278075

119278139

119278155

119278198

119278239

119278334

119278421

119278439

119278464

 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, 3 April 2022 12:32 PM
To: 'Graeme Fitzpatrick' mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> 
>; 'Andrew Davidson' mailto:thesw...@gmail.com> >; 'OSM - 
Andrew Harvey' mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> >
Cc: 'OpenStreetMap' mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

 

Hi Folks,

 

He is back at it in Australia, mainly in aboriginal communities – adding street 
names and population and still no response for any changeset comments.

 

I am collecting all the changeset numbers but no response from the data working 
group as yet

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> 
> 
Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2022 4:52 PM
To: Andrew Davidson mailto:thesw...@gmail.com> >; OSM - 
Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> >
Cc: OpenStreetMap mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

 

Looks like we have somebody playing games?

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3111672#map=15/-12.5048/135.8049

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PopeyePopcord

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PopeyePopcord/history#map=6/-18.272/136.714

 

AndrewH - you may need to swap to DWG hat for a moment?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 15:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Just had a comment made by somebody in the US on one of the Notes I worked on: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3111658

 

Apparently copying from HERE.com

 

They have referred to DWG.

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:50, Andrew Davidson mailto:thesw...@gmail.com> > wrote:

> On looking at the notes added in Australia, they do seem to be an automated 
> script comparing what’s in OSM to an external source.
>
> The notes added to Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt and Maningrida don’t seem to be 
> coming from a suitable NT give source. One of the notes suggests a street 
> name for a road I was only able to find in Google Maps.
>

That's the weird bit. They seem to be a mix of stuff from Google Maps
and completely fictional stuff. Maningrida as far as I can tell
doesn't have street names.

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

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

Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

Can someone else please log a request to the Data Working Group re this user. I 
suspect me email is not getting to them as I have not even received an 
acknowledgement as yet (which I gather should be instantaneous)

 

He is still working away adding road names

 

Changesets in Australia by PopeyePopcord

 

d...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:d...@openstreetmap.org> 

 

suggested reverts

 

 

119223580

119223590

119223592

119223605

119223620

119223637

119223650

119223659

119223666

119223674

119223683

119223719

119223741

119223758

119223766

119223781

119223790

119223806

119223819

119224021

119224028

119224065

119224109

119224938 - maybe dont revert this - SWAVU comment

119225009

119225018

119244811

119244940

119247805

119247832

119247850

119247892

119247910

119247919

119247973

119248033

119248057

119248118

119248169

119248239

119248274

119248322

119248753

119248767

119248789

119248810

119248822

119248862

119248914

119248959

119249026

119249073

119249093

119249135

119249266

119250024

119276663

119276678

119276773

119276793

119276824

119276841

119276875

119276933

119276992

119277068

119277105

119277136

119277169

119277230

119277248

119277257

119277364

119277377

119277756

119277793

119277821

119277902

119277945

119277971

119278013

119278024

119278060

119278075

119278139

119278155

119278198

119278239

119278334

119278421

119278439

119278464

 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Sunday, 3 April 2022 12:32 PM
To: 'Graeme Fitzpatrick' ; 'Andrew Davidson' 
; 'OSM - Andrew Harvey' 
Cc: 'OpenStreetMap' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

 

Hi Folks,

 

He is back at it in Australia, mainly in aboriginal communities – adding street 
names and population and still no response for any changeset comments.

 

I am collecting all the changeset numbers but no response from the data working 
group as yet

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> 
> 
Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2022 4:52 PM
To: Andrew Davidson mailto:thesw...@gmail.com> >; OSM - 
Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> >
Cc: OpenStreetMap mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

 

Looks like we have somebody playing games?

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3111672#map=15/-12.5048/135.8049

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PopeyePopcord

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PopeyePopcord/history#map=6/-18.272/136.714

 

AndrewH - you may need to swap to DWG hat for a moment?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 15:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Just had a comment made by somebody in the US on one of the Notes I worked on: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3111658

 

Apparently copying from HERE.com

 

They have referred to DWG.

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:50, Andrew Davidson mailto:thesw...@gmail.com> > wrote:

> On looking at the notes added in Australia, they do seem to be an automated 
> script comparing what’s in OSM to an external source.
>
> The notes added to Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt and Maningrida don’t seem to be 
> coming from a suitable NT give source. One of the notes suggests a street 
> name for a road I was only able to find in Google Maps.
>

That's the weird bit. They seem to be a mix of stuff from Google Maps
and completely fictional stuff. Maningrida as far as I can tell
doesn't have street names.

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

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

Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

He is back at it in Australia, mainly in aboriginal communities – adding street 
names and population and still no response for any changeset comments.

 

I am collecting all the changeset numbers but no response from the data working 
group as yet

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2022 4:52 PM
To: Andrew Davidson ; OSM - Andrew Harvey 

Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

 

Looks like we have somebody playing games?

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3111672#map=15/-12.5048/135.8049

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PopeyePopcord

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PopeyePopcord/history#map=6/-18.272/136.714

 

AndrewH - you may need to swap to DWG hat for a moment?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 15:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Just had a comment made by somebody in the US on one of the Notes I worked on: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3111658

 

Apparently copying from HERE.com

 

They have referred to DWG.

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:50, Andrew Davidson mailto:thesw...@gmail.com> > wrote:

> On looking at the notes added in Australia, they do seem to be an automated 
> script comparing what’s in OSM to an external source.
>
> The notes added to Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt and Maningrida don’t seem to be 
> coming from a suitable NT give source. One of the notes suggests a street 
> name for a road I was only able to find in Google Maps.
>

That's the weird bit. They seem to be a mix of stuff from Google Maps
and completely fictional stuff. Maningrida as far as I can tell
doesn't have street names.

___
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] Map Note Flood

[Phil Wyatt]

I have sent an email to DWG

 

It’s the phantom Note poster from yesterday

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2022 4:52 PM
To: Andrew Davidson ; OSM - Andrew Harvey 

Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

 

Looks like we have somebody playing games?

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3111672#map=15/-12.5048/135.8049

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PopeyePopcord

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PopeyePopcord/history#map=6/-18.272/136.714

 

AndrewH - you may need to swap to DWG hat for a moment?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 15:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Just had a comment made by somebody in the US on one of the Notes I worked on: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3111658

 

Apparently copying from HERE.com

 

They have referred to DWG.

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:50, Andrew Davidson mailto:thesw...@gmail.com> > wrote:

> On looking at the notes added in Australia, they do seem to be an automated 
> script comparing what’s in OSM to an external source.
>
> The notes added to Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt and Maningrida don’t seem to be 
> coming from a suitable NT give source. One of the notes suggests a street 
> name for a road I was only able to find in Google Maps.
>

That's the weird bit. They seem to be a mix of stuff from Google Maps
and completely fictional stuff. Maningrida as far as I can tell
doesn't have street names.

___
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] Help with bikeways on roads please

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Graeme,

 

It appears that there is no cycle route relation attached to the street in 
question. 

 

https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/

 

Maybe ask the person to add the required route (if known)

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Tuesday, 15 March 2022 11:52 AM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] Help with bikeways on roads please

 

I don't often map bikeways so need some help please.

 

Spotted two Notes saying that there are bikeways on these streets:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1772764

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1772749.

 

I had a look at both of them & they appear to already have bike info on them:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172324363#map=18/-33.88605/151.17192

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/178411646#map=18/-33.87695/151.16670

I closed them as already mapped, but the OP has re-opened them with the comment 
"Doesnt show on OpenCycleMap".

 

Should the existing bike details be sufficient to tag them as bikeways, or is 
there more needed?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

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

Re: [talk-au] Charter boats & similar mapped as ferry terminals?

[Phil Wyatt]

I think when floatplanes are in the water the are considered as vessels so 
where they ‘park’ would just be a pier.

 

Where the booking office for flights are located they could be shop=ticket or 
tourism=attraction (maybe) …

and there is also landuse=port/industrial=port/port=seaplane

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Sunday, 6 March 2022 4:51 PM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] Charter boats & similar mapped as ferry terminals?

 

Just spotted a number of things like charter boats, cruises & similar water 
based activities that have been mapped as ferry terminals:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5604984621#map=19/-31.95978/115.85767

https://www.facebook.com/RedBaronAdventures/

https://crystalswan.com.au/

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5604984630

https://www.gondolasontheswan.com.au/

 

After doing some searching, it would appear that at least some of them should 
be https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:attraction%3Dboat_ride, but how 
about the seaplane base?

 

The aeroway page says:

" For seaplane landing areas, use seamark:type 
 =seaplane_landing_area 
 
. 

but doesn't say anything about where it moors?

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

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

Re: [talk-au] Mass fix-me's with very strange comments

[Phil Wyatt]

This might help for a start via overpass

 

[out:json][timeout:25];

(

  nwr["fixme"](user:"aaronsta")({{bbox}});

);

out meta;

>;

out skel qt;

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 11:09 AM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] Mass fix-me's with very strange comments

 

Fixing a note yesterday arvo to add a cafe in Perth 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118044124#map=19/-31.90414/115.86993 

 =N, but when I moused over the next house just to check the street 
number, it had a Fix-Me on it, saying "21".

 

Thinking that may be a street address, despite being next door to Number 4, I 
checked further along the street & all the mapped houses have Fix-Me 21 on 
them, while across the street has Fix-Me 22?

 

Having a good look this morning & there are apparently 1000+ of them! :-(

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-31.90392/115.87030

 

Checking one of them further, & what do we find?:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424520629#map=19/-31.90435/115.87189 

 =N

 

Does the name aaronsta mean anything to anybody? /s :-(

 

Any way of clearing 1000+, on the surface, apparently pointless Fix-Me 
comments? 5 years old so they may be difficult to just wind back?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

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

Re: [talk-au] Licence mention for static mapon NiceLocal.com.au

[Phil Wyatt]

https://fuelprice.io/ has just been fixed

-Original Message-
From: Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au  
Sent: Thursday, 24 February 2022 2:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Stéphane Guillou 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Licence mention for static mapon NiceLocal.com.au

Thanks Ben.

In my experience, people rarely reply to my notice. What is the next step, once 
I have waited for a few days/weeks and no one has answered?

One more I found today: https://fuelprice.io/

I've already contacted them. Let's see what happens.

Cheers

On 18/2/22 15:01, Ben Kelley wrote:
> It needs attribution for the static map as well I think.
>
>
>  - Ben Kelley.
>
> On 18/2/22 15:55, Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I just sent a message to NiceLocal.com.au about the copyright 
>> requirements of OSM, because my understanding is that the static map 
>> on their shop profiles does not respect them.
>>
>> For example: https://nicelocal.com.au/brisbane/shops/campus_news/
>>
>> However, because clicking the map opens a slippy map that does 
>> mention the data source, I wanted to ask the list: does it follow 
>> OSM's requirements, or does it need to add an OSM mention next/over 
>> the static map as well?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
--
Stéphane Guillou
http://stragu.gitlab.io/

You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 is 
available on the keys.gnupg.net server.

Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page: 
http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/


___
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] Licence mention for static mapon NiceLocal.com.au

[Phil Wyatt]

In that instance, as its using Mapbox, you can also advise Mapbox at the 
contact form at the bottom of this page.

They will also contact the people and make sure it gets the correct attribution.

https://docs.mapbox.com/help/getting-started/attribution/#reporting-attribution-problems

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au  
Sent: Thursday, 24 February 2022 2:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Stéphane Guillou 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Licence mention for static mapon NiceLocal.com.au

Thanks Ben.

In my experience, people rarely reply to my notice. What is the next step, once 
I have waited for a few days/weeks and no one has answered?

One more I found today: https://fuelprice.io/

I've already contacted them. Let's see what happens.

Cheers

On 18/2/22 15:01, Ben Kelley wrote:
> It needs attribution for the static map as well I think.
>
>
>  - Ben Kelley.
>
> On 18/2/22 15:55, Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I just sent a message to NiceLocal.com.au about the copyright 
>> requirements of OSM, because my understanding is that the static map 
>> on their shop profiles does not respect them.
>>
>> For example: https://nicelocal.com.au/brisbane/shops/campus_news/
>>
>> However, because clicking the map opens a slippy map that does 
>> mention the data source, I wanted to ask the list: does it follow 
>> OSM's requirements, or does it need to add an OSM mention next/over 
>> the static map as well?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
--
Stéphane Guillou
http://stragu.gitlab.io/

You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 is 
available on the keys.gnupg.net server.

Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page: 
http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/


___
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] Consistent addr:state format?

[Phil Wyatt]

Many thanks for doing this update

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: tabjsina  
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 11:26 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

So all of Australia with the exception of Victoria is now fixed to use
capitalized state abbreviations. As mentioned before, Victoria was the state
that had a much closer (though still not entirely close) split between
"Victoria" and "VIC", which leaves a whopping 32k addresses that need to be
updated to "VIC".

While it is entirely possible (and easy) to do this via maproulette, I've
removed the challenge as someone had pointed out to me that 32k individual
changes might be a bit much as far as changesets go.

Are there any concerns with me doing this as a single batch change?

Thanks,
Justin


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


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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[Phil Wyatt]

I am happy to send an email to DWG with an overview of concerns. Maybe other 
folks can gather a listing of any desired changesets for reversion and if all 
or just some wiki edits should be reverted.

-Original Message-
From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2022 2:19 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

There is also that he seems to be deleting all source tags on any loaded 
objects with many of his changesets.

I wrote a changeset comment on one of the changesets that do that, to which he 
has simply not replied. (My changeset comments about that and the PBN have been 
made at the same time, he replied to the later, not the former).

This is exactly the behaviour that earned him a block and a mass revert of 
scores of changesets 5 years ago. (See my link to the talk-au archive with 
posts about that earlier in this discussion).

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2022 10:37
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

Graeme

Yes, he has made big changes to the documentation and the map. The same 2 
issues apply to both, some of the changes are contrary to community 
expectations and changes of such scale should be made after consultation. I 
believe he is acting in good faith but his balance between contribution and 
consultation is badly out.

The issue for us is to explain to him what the expectations are for 
consultation without alienating him.

Tony
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 at 09:55, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
>>
>> The other thing that occurs to me about this discussion is that 
>> aaronsta is not actually subscribed to this list — does anyone 
>> know? I might leave a comment on the changeset instead...
>>
>
> Not having a go at you blokes interested in the bike routes :-), but 
> the whole conversation started because Aaronsta made massive changes 
> to how bikeways etc are written up on the Guidelines!
>
> I don't know about anywhere else, but he has changed them to say that 
> cycling on footpaths is illegal in Qld, which is totally wrong!
>
>  Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> _
> 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


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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Ian and Thorsten,

 

I was also thinking that there may be instances where the grade is not
signed but is known from things like brochures etc. This may well be
mainstream information from the operator but not located on site.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: ianst...@iinet.net.au  
Sent: Friday, 11 February 2022 12:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

 

Message: 2

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:26:38 +1100

From: "Phil Wyatt" mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >

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

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

Message-ID: <007601d81e0c$7f095af0$7d1c10d0$@wyatt-family.com
<mailto:007601d81e0c$7f095af0$7d1c10d0$@wyatt-family.com> >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 

>Hi Folks,

>Thanks for the great discussion on this issue. I have tried to summarise
the discussion and it seems like there is some consensus around the
following tagging

>hiking_scale:awtgs= as the general tag for the grade of the WHOLE track as
that is what is detailed in the AWTGS guidelines 

>and

>source:hiking_scale:awtgs= for the source of the data with values such as

>*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=user  - Where a user has defined the
grading

>*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=operator  - Where the grading has
been applied by the operator of the track (and the operator should also be
applied to the track)

>*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=as_signed  - Where the data has come
from a sign located at the start of the track

>There has also been some discussion on sections of track being graded as
well. I think this needs further work as it doesn?t seem to match the
guidelines and may also depend on how operators have defined the tracks >ie
Is the Larapinta ?Track? all graded the same or are ?sections? rated
differently? I know in the case of Tasmania the Overland Track that PWS has
a single grading for the whole track but some other websites have >graded
each ?section/days travel?.

>There also needs to some further clarification if this goes on the ways or
relations in regards to longer defined tracks with relations.

>If we are close then I reckon an updated wiki with these values on both

>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks and

>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bush_Walk
ing_and_Cycling_Tracks

>Cheers - Phil

 

That sounds great to me Phil (nearly ready for me to reapply my deleted
tags).  

However, I'm not sure I understand the difference between your suggested
sources "operator" and "as_signed".  I suggested "as-signed", but surely the
operator is the body that installs the signs - so wouldn't they normally
mean the same thing ?

regards

Ian

 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[Phil Wyatt]

Mmm, given the amount of bike edits they may be another wandrer.Earth user 
trying to game the system

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116654835#map=12/-31.9131/115.8548

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 6:23 PM
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aaronsta/history#map=3/-17.14/139.83 

 

… would be my best guess, Certainly a few strange changeset comments there.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au>  mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > 
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 5:11 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

 

Seeing the large number of changes to the ATG being made in the last 2 days by 
Aaronsta <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aaronsta> , I got some 
questions.

 

Who is Aaronsta? 

Is it anyone participating in this mailing list?

 

Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines=revision=2262794=2250661>
 =revision=2262794=2250661 (ignore the street cabinet stuff at 
the bottom, that’s from someone else)

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick < <mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> 
graemefi...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 08:41
To: OSM-Au < <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

 




 

 

 

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:35, OpenStreetMap Wiki mailto:w...@noreply.openstreetmap.org> > wrote:


The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been
changed on 9 February 2022 by Aaronsta, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for
the current revision. 

Editor's summary: Fix undiscussed changes 

 

Sorry but that's a bit ironic, or did I miss the discussion about these changes?

 

One I noticed is that you've taken it upon yourself to include:

"Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW, QLD, or Vic." 

 

Would you like to share this with Qld Transport?

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle


Riding on a footpath or shared path


On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians.

You must:

*   keep left and give way to all pedestrians
*   always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.

Looks like we may need a major reversion done here?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[Phil Wyatt]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aaronsta/history#map=3/-17.14/139.83 

 

… would be my best guess, Certainly a few strange changeset comments there.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 5:11 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

 

Seeing the large number of changes to the ATG being made in the last 2 days by 
Aaronsta  , I got some 
questions.

 

Who is Aaronsta? 

Is it anyone participating in this mailing list?

 

Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines 

 =revision=2262794=2250661 (ignore the street cabinet stuff at 
the bottom, that’s from someone else)

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <  
graemefi...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 08:41
To: OSM-Au <  talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines 
has been changed by Aaronsta

 




 

 

 

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:35, OpenStreetMap Wiki mailto:w...@noreply.openstreetmap.org> > wrote:


The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been
changed on 9 February 2022 by Aaronsta, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for
the current revision. 

Editor's summary: Fix undiscussed changes 

 

Sorry but that's a bit ironic, or did I miss the discussion about these changes?

 

One I noticed is that you've taken it upon yourself to include:

"Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW, QLD, or Vic." 

 

Would you like to share this with Qld Transport?

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle


Riding on a footpath or shared path


On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians.

You must:

*   keep left and give way to all pedestrians
*   always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.

Looks like we may need a major reversion done here?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

Thanks for the great discussion on this issue. I have tried to summarise the 
discussion and it seems like there is some consensus around the following 
tagging

 

hiking_scale:awtgs= as the general tag for the grade of the WHOLE track as that 
is what is detailed in the AWTGS guidelines 

 

and

 

source:hiking_scale:awtgs= for the source of the data with values such as

 

*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=user  - Where a user has defined the grading
*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=operator  - Where the grading has been 
applied by the operator of the track (and the operator should also be applied 
to the track)
*   source:hiking_scale:awtgs=as_signed  - Where the data has come from a 
sign located at the start of the track

 

There has also been some discussion on sections of track being graded as well. 
I think this needs further work as it doesn’t seem to match the guidelines and 
may also depend on how operators have defined the tracks ie Is the Larapinta 
‘Track’ all graded the same or are ‘sections’ rated differently? I know in the 
case of Tasmania the Overland Track that PWS has a single grading for the whole 
track but some other websites have graded each ‘section/days travel’.

 

There also needs to some further clarification if this goes on the ways or 
relations in regards to longer defined tracks with relations.

 

If we are close then I reckon an updated wiki with these values on both

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks and

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bush_Walking_and_Cycling_Tracks

 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Graeme, 

 

That’s correct – however the defaults can be set on very specific tags 
(def:highway=footway;access:bicycle=no) and if absolutely necessary even down 
to within a single park/reserve/area/track rather than a blanket ruling. It 
would get very fiddly at that degree of detail.

 

That’s why my initial enquiry was very specific about ‘tracks for exclusive use 
by walkers’ as I knew that it quickly gets murky when you start and get into 
bikes, horse, 4WD’s etc, let alone ebike and escooters (don’t even go there!!) 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Friday, 4 February 2022 10:06 AM
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 




 

 

 

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 19:32, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a 
boundary relation.

 

In which case it would be possible to either:

 

a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with the rules that apply
or (maybe better in this case)
b) create a type=defaults relation “Tasmania National Parks Defaults” with all 
the defaults that apply in national parks, then add that relation to any 
national park boundary relation where it applies as member with the role of 
defaults

(b) is basically following the defaults proposal exactly, and allows to define 
the defaults once and the re-use them for all national parks.

 

A problem with that would be that in a number of cases that I know of, you can 
ride a bike along the roads into the National Park, but you can't then take 
your bike onto the walking tracks, so a Park-wide default may not work?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Thorsten,

 

That would work however there has been a fairly recent regulation change that 
does allow bicycle use within signed areas, but those signed/specified/leased 
areas could also get the same defaults relation. At the moment I am not aware 
of any areas within National Parks but some in other reserve types.

 

Maydena Bike Park is one such example, however I would need to obtain the 
leased/licenced area boundary to create the required area - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/478043164#map=15/-42.7664/146.6467

 

https://www.maydenabikepark.com/

 

The relevant bit of legislation if anyone is interested

 

https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sr-2019-076?query=((PrintType%3D%22act.reprint%22+AND+Amending%3C%3E%22pure%22+AND+PitValid%3D%40pointInTime(2022020300))+OR+(PrintType%3D%22act.reprint%22+AND+Amending%3D%22pure%22+AND+PitValid%3D%40pointInTime(2022020300))+OR+(PrintType%3D%22reprint%22+AND+Amending%3C%3E%22pure%22+AND+PitValid%3D%40pointInTime(2022020300))+OR+(PrintType%3D%22reprint%22+AND+Amending%3D%22pure%22+AND+PitValid%3D%40pointInTime(2022020300)))+AND+Title%3D(%22parks%22)=Document+Types%3D%22%3Cspan+class%3D%27dq-highlight%27%3EActs%3C%2Fspan%3E%2C+%3Cspan+class%3D%27dq-highlight%27%3EAmending+Acts%3C%2Fspan%3E%2C+%3Cspan+class%3D%27dq-highlight%27%3ESRs%3C%2Fspan%3E%2C+%3Cspan+class%3D%27dq-highlight%27%3EAmending+SRs%3C%2Fspan%3E%22%2C+Search+In%3D%22%3Cspan+class%3D%27dq-highlight%27%3ETitle%3C%2Fspan%3E%22%2C+All+Words%3D%22%3Cspan+class%3D%27dq-highlight%27%3ENational+Parks+and+Reserves+Management+Regulations+2019%3C%2Fspan%3E%22%2C+Point+In+Time%3D%22%3Cspan+class%3D%27dq-highlight%27%3E03%2F02%2F2022%3C%2Fspan%3E%22#GS22@EN

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 8:27 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a 
boundary relation.

 

In which case it would be possible to either:

 

a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with the rules that apply
or (maybe better in this case)
b) create a type=defaults relation “Tasmania National Parks Defaults” with all 
the defaults that apply in national parks, then add that relation to any 
national park boundary relation where it applies as member with the role of 
defaults

(b) is basically following the defaults proposal exactly, and allows to define 
the defaults once and the re-use them for all national parks.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Phil Wyatt < <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> p...@wyatt-family.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 18:38
To: 'Little Maps' < <mailto:mapslit...@gmail.com> mapslit...@gmail.com>; 
'OSM-Au' < <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

I probably should have qualified my comment as I am dealing solely with tracks 
within National Parks (at this stage). I know there are tracks outside of 
National Parks where such bike restrictions do not apply.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Little Maps < <mailto:mapslit...@gmail.com> mapslit...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 7:19 PM
To: Phil Wyatt < <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> p...@wyatt-family.com>; OSM-Au 
< <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Phil Wyatt]

I probably should have qualified my comment as I am dealing solely with tracks 
within National Parks (at this stage). I know there are tracks outside of 
National Parks where such bike restrictions do not apply.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Little Maps  
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 7:19 PM
To: Phil Wyatt ; OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

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] Path versus Footway

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Thorsten,

 

Many thanks for that detailed explanation. 

 

Sounds like your request is to at least update the footway/bicycle restrictions 
in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
 to at least what is listed in the state relations, even though this has not 
been ‘endorsed’ by the community in any process (but appears to be the legal 
status of bikes on footpaths?), and may not be used by data consumers. 

 

…. and then work on getting the def:syntax incorporated as defaults into the 
database somehow?

 

I am happy to edit that wiki, with community guidance, to at least show what is 
in the relations def:’s if that is acceptable. I also note other countries have 
notes in respect of some restrictions so if folks have links to relevant 
material I don’t think it hurts to add them.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 11:13 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

Tasmania:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652

There seems to be only a single default key defined for Tasmania currently:

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

There are no default values defined on Australia:  
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/80500> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/80500

 

Now, it’s worth pointing out that the proposal that this tagging scheme is 
based on:

 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults> 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults

 

a.  Never went through RFC or voting
b.  Envisions that the def tags are placed on a separate type=defaults 
relation which is then a member of role defaults of the boundary relation, 
instead of being applied directly to the boundary relation as we have done.

 

As such it is exceedingly unlikely that any type of data consumer is actually 
using them.

 

Nonetheless, that proposal represents the only attempt I’m aware of to actually 
define defaults inside the OSM database instead of simply throwing your hands 
up in the air and shout “Who knows? Whatever..”

 

So really, in reality, defaults are whatever the developer of every single data 
consumer decided.

 

Our choices come down to:

a) Just shrug and let all data consumers and mappers make up their mind on 
their own
b) At least attempt to somehow write down on the wiki what defaults mappers 
should assume, and data consumers hopefully accept
c) use (and extend use of) that somewhat unwieldy def: syntax to make our 
wishes in regards to defaults explicit in the database. It would at least allow 
us to point to it and say “see, we explicitly and in a machine readable form 
recorded our assumed defaults,” if any data consumer asks.

 

For the other states and territories, currently defined defaults are:

 

SA:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316596> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316596

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

WA:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316598> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316598

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

 

NT:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316594> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316594

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

 

Qld:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316595> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316595

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

 

NSW:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=no

"def:highway=living_street;maxspeed"=10

"def:highway=residential;maxspeed"=50

 

Vic:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=no

 

ACT:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2354197> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2354197

 

"def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes

 

Jervis Bay Territory:  <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2357330> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2357330

none

 

From: Phil Wyatt < <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> p...@wyatt-family.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 20:46
To:  <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> 
osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au' < 
<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

Hi Thorsten,

 

Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its not 
usually editable by mappers?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From:  <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> 
osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au < <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> 
osm.talk

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Thorsten,

 

Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its not 
usually editable by mappers?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 9:00 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

That table is just the suggested defaults.

 

We actually have default values specified on the state boundaries currently I 
think using the format specified here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults I think.

 

Any use of explicit access tags will override defaults.

 

There isn’t really a fully accepted way used by all data consumers to specify 
defaults in OSM currently.

 

So at the end, it really comes down to whatever defaults any particular data 
consumer applies.

 

As long as you explicitly tag access, any type of path, foot/cycle/bridle-way 
can be made to reflect whatever you want.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> 
> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:32
To: Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >
Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> ; OSM-Au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 




 

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 17:24, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

 

So reading from that chart and in regard to my query about ‘tracks that are 
exclusively for foot traffic’ you would say it can ONLY be a footway?

 

By that list, yes?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Phil Wyatt]

So how do YOU decide which to use when the track is for ‘exclusively for foot 
traffic’ or do you just mix it up on a whim, change each week, go with whatever 
is similar around the object you are mapping?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 8:58 PM
To: 'OSM-Au' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

In the end, the only thing that counts is what is tagged on the objects in the 
database, and the OSM database API does not impose any restrictions about that.

 

I believe even iD allows you in the end to just freely specify any tags you 
like on any object?

 

I’m sure it’s possible to work out some tagging scheme that adequately 
describes the situation you linked to.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> 
> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:29
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
 
Cc: OSM-Au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

 

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 16:54, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, footway, cycleway, path(, and bridleway) are all 
essentially the same thing, a non-motor_vehicle path, just with different 
implied default access restrictions.

 

We should probably have a discussion about how appropriate the ones listed here 
are:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia

 

Yep!

 

How do we handle this: https://goo.gl/maps/x39C4ky1w6S7XoLUA when motorway says 
bicycle=no?

 

& similarly, you can't (at least in iD) add bike lanes to trunk roads.


 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Tom - all opinions welcome and yours seems to partly equate with the
current reality in OSM (at least in Australia)

-Original Message-
From: Tom Brennan  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 8:27 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

I suspect it might be hard to come up with definitive criteria, but I think
you could come close.

I agree that there do tend to be some edge cases - typically:
1. Dirt/roughly paved paths in urban areas - I prefer "path" for these, as
they might be less suited to people with mobility issues 2. Paved tracks in
national parks - I also prefer "path", as they tend to connect up to the
rest of the track system

I would be happy enough if footway just disappeared and we tagged all paths
with the relevant extra tagging (surface is probably the most important).
But that's probably going off topic...

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try
http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 2/02/2022 11:59 am, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> 
>   
> 
> I am contemplating a review of 'walking  tracks' tagging in Tasmania, 
> outside of urban areas. In my case I am starting with tracks that are 
> exclusively for foot traffic. My investigation has led me to what 
> appears to be a conflict within OSM of what is the correct tagging to use.
> 
>   
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath would suggest 
> that most could be a 'path' and this seems to be verified on existing 
> data with this styled overpass query (by bounding box) 
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fGX
> 
>   
> 
> * Blue represents a path
> * Red represents a footway
> * Black represents steps
> 
>   
> 
> The path tag also considers extra tagging such as the sac_scale, 
> visibility, surface, operator etc etc which is useful extra 
> information. Sac_scale and operator are certainly used less frequently on
footway.
> 
>   
> 
> The footway tagging
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway seems to 
> have been written with urban infrastructure in mind and as usual for 
> OSM tagging does not provide definitive detail (ie  it could have said 
> 'used exclusively by pedestrians', instead it say mainly or exclusively).
> 
>   
> 
> Of course there are always cases on the margins of both and an example 
> would be a high use, possibly with disabled access, tracks such as 
> Russell Falls in Tasmania (to highlight one that is likely known by 
> many) https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fGZ
> 
>   
> 
> So that brings me to the recently created Australian Walking Track 
> page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks 
> which gives the options to use both tags (path and footway) but 
> without any real qualification about choosing between the two. This 
> still seems to be in conflict with the Australian tagging guidelines 
> on Bushwalking (and cycling
> tracks)
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bush
> _Walki ng_and_Cycling_Tracks that definitively says 'Do not use 
> highway=footway'.
> 
>   
> 
> So my question is - do you think we can come up with some criteria 
> where a footway ends and path commences or should we just go with the 
> flow and stick with OSM  
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like> 'any tags you 
> like'? My main goal is to make sure the two Australian wikis are not in
conflict with each other.
> 
>   
> 
> I am aware there is some controversy re footway/pathway and bikes but 
> I would like to ignore that in this context
> 
>   
> 
> Cheers - Phil
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Path versus Footway

[Phil Wyatt]

Probably worth starting a routing thread rather than merge with a specific 
questions on foot traffic only thread

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 6:29 PM
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

 

 

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 16:54, mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, footway, cycleway, path(, and bridleway) are all 
essentially the same thing, a non-motor_vehicle path, just with different 
implied default access restrictions.

 

We should probably have a discussion about how appropriate the ones listed here 
are:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia

 

Yep!

 

How do we handle this: https://goo.gl/maps/x39C4ky1w6S7XoLUA when motorway says 
bicycle=no?

 

& similarly, you can't (at least in iD) add bike lanes to trunk roads.


 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

[talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

I am contemplating a review of 'walking  tracks' tagging in Tasmania,
outside of urban areas. In my case I am starting with tracks that are
exclusively for foot traffic. My investigation has led me to what appears to
be a conflict within OSM of what is the correct tagging to use. 

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath would suggest that
most could be a 'path' and this seems to be verified on existing data with
this styled overpass query (by bounding box)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fGX

 

*   Blue represents a path
*   Red represents a footway
*   Black represents steps

 

The path tag also considers extra tagging such as the sac_scale, visibility,
surface, operator etc etc which is useful extra information. Sac_scale and
operator are certainly used less frequently on footway.

 

The footway tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway seems to have been
written with urban infrastructure in mind and as usual for OSM tagging does
not provide definitive detail (ie  it could have said 'used exclusively by
pedestrians', instead it say mainly or exclusively).

 

Of course there are always cases on the margins of both and an example would
be a high use, possibly with disabled access, tracks such as Russell Falls
in Tasmania (to highlight one that is likely known by many)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fGZ

 

So that brings me to the recently created Australian Walking Track page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks which gives the
options to use both tags (path and footway) but without any real
qualification about choosing between the two. This still seems to be in
conflict with the Australian tagging guidelines on Bushwalking (and cycling
tracks)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bush_Walki
ng_and_Cycling_Tracks that definitively says 'Do not use highway=footway'.

 

So my question is - do you think we can come up with some criteria where a
footway ends and path commences or should we just go with the flow and stick
with OSM   'any tags
you like'? My main goal is to make sure the two Australian wikis are not in
conflict with each other.

 

I am aware there is some controversy re footway/pathway and bikes but I
would like to ignore that in this context

 

Cheers - Phil

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

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

I think Class 1 specifically mentions disability access so I would hate to see 
that combined in any way with other classes.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Monday, 31 January 2022 2:23 PM
To: ianst...@iinet.net.au
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

 




 

 

 

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 11:05, mailto:ianst...@iinet.net.au> > wrote:

 

I think we should just stick with the AWTGS as it stands.  It seems to be 
gaining widespread government support, and even if it is not perfect, it seems 
like a standard that is going to stay with us.

 

So, working on this idea, looking at 
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/21475/dse_trail_grade_brochure_tagged.pdf,
 & having a play, a first draft comes up with something like:

 


AWGTS Class 1

Criteria

OSM


Distance 

Xxx (<5k)

Distance=4.5



Gradient

Flat

incline=no


steps=no



Quality

Well formed

surface=paved / compacted


Wheelchair OK

wheelchair=yes



Markings

Sign-posted

trail_visibility=excellent



Time

(closest 15 / 30 minutes /

Duration=00:15 / 15 minutes


Hour / half-day / day)




Experience

Nil



 

All the rest slot rather well into existing tags, although "incline" may be a 
bit iffy?, but don't know what to do with the "Experience" field?

 

The Guide says:

Class 1 / 2 - "No experience required"

Class 3 - "Some bushwalking experience recommended"

Class 4 - "Experienced bushwalkers"

Class 5 - "Very experienced bushwalkers"

 

A new key perhaps: AWGTS_scale=1-5, with descriptions as above?

 

What do you all think?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Folks,

 

For me its also about correcting invalid information that is currently in OSM. 
I have found cases where the suburb has been entered as a city, the city as a 
suburb, the state as a province, AU as the state etc. I suspect there may be an 
app or two that may not place the attributes in the correct fields (I will 
check this later on)

 

I would certainly be happy NOT to have both city and suburb (where there are 
legitimate answers to both) as I suspect that can be very confusing especially 
if displayed in apps etc for tourists. 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Monday, 31 January 2022 1:16 PM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au ; tabjsina 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

 

 

 

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

& to clarify, we only need to include the street address for anything, & not 
the suburb / town / city?

 

Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they should 
not be Australia wide from an import), then data consumers can infer the rest 
of the attributes. Check out Nominatim, 
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N 

 =6496603926=place it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, 
postcode, state.

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

[talk-au] Address corrections

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

I am just checking addresses in Tasmania and have found many with addr:city
versus the correct addr:suburb. I suspect this is from early ID editor prior
to defining AU settings on address values. Is it OK to do suburb by suburb
bulk edits of this key? Tasmania only has a few cities and the details are
not used in addressing.

 

Cheers - Phil

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

Re: [talk-au] Water tanks as buildings?

[Phil Wyatt]

Was that a point or an area Graeme?

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Sunday, 30 January 2022 4:49 PM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Water tanks as buildings?

 

 

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 15:15, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

That’s the standard tagging for a water tank in ID editor. 

 

I've just tried it using the iD "water tank" preset & it only put in:

content=water + man_made=storage_tank?

 

There will be 1,000’s of them across the globe I suspect

 

:-(

 

 


Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Water tanks as buildings?

[Phil Wyatt]

…and rather ironically, Emergency Water Tank does not have the building tag

 

content=water

emergency=water_tank

man_made=storage_tank   

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Phil Wyatt  
Sent: Sunday, 30 January 2022 4:15 PM
To: 'Graeme Fitzpatrick' ; 'OSM-Au' 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Water tanks as buildings?

 

Hi Folks,

 

That’s the standard tagging for a water tank in ID editor. The project was a 
SSSI project in Australia. They had access to high res imagery for the project.

 

building=yes

content=water

man_made=storage_tank

 

There will be 1,000’s of them across the globe I suspect

 

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7587

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> 
> 
Sent: Sunday, 30 January 2022 3:44 PM
To: OSM-Au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: [talk-au] Water tanks as buildings?

 

Just working on notes & one of them took me here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-35.73637/137.59784

 

Started wondering what the little "reservoirs" were along the beach?, then 
noticed that the same mapper who did them, has also tagged all the rain-water 
tanks around the houses as man_made=storage_tank, but also as building=yes.

 

All done a year ago as part of the HOT Fire project, & they apparently haven't 
mapped since.

 

Backyard water tanks definitely aren't buildings, so is there any easy way of 
fixing this, without just deleting the buildings one by one?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

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

Re: [talk-au] Water tanks as buildings?

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

That’s the standard tagging for a water tank in ID editor. The project was a 
SSSI project in Australia. They had access to high res imagery for the project.

 

building=yes

content=water

man_made=storage_tank

 

There will be 1,000’s of them across the globe I suspect

 

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7587

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Sunday, 30 January 2022 3:44 PM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] Water tanks as buildings?

 

Just working on notes & one of them took me here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-35.73637/137.59784

 

Started wondering what the little "reservoirs" were along the beach?, then 
noticed that the same mapper who did them, has also tagged all the rain-water 
tanks around the houses as man_made=storage_tank, but also as building=yes.

 

All done a year ago as part of the HOT Fire project, & they apparently haven't 
mapped since.

 

Backyard water tanks definitely aren't buildings, so is there any easy way of 
fixing this, without just deleting the buildings one by one?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

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

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

The main reason I have used capitals in the state is because of Address 
Presentation Standards with Australia Post

 

https://auspost.com.au/content/dam/auspost_corp/media/documents/australia-post-addressing-standards-1999.pdf

 

Having said that, I don’t use capitals for suburbs!

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Sunday, 30 January 2022 10:10 AM
To: tabjsina 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

 

G'day Justin & welcome!

 

Asking any question that you've got is quite definitely the best way of doing 
things - thanks!

 

I agree fully about the acronyms rather than spelling the name in full, with 
the exception that I personally use Qld rather than QLD.

 

If I was down there, I'd probably also use Tas, but all capitals for the 
others. 

 

I don't think there's any hard & fast rules for capitalisation though?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 00:32, tabjsina mailto:sinatabr...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hello,

I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies 
if I'm doing it wrong :)

I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm 
updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia to "WA", 
if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already "WA", 9% 
were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), and the 
remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a suburb/city name.

Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed 
that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym, 
NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full name.

Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the 
rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes 
sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, VIC, 
SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory, 
etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise this value at all.

Thanks,
Justin


___
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] Consistent addr:state format?

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Justin,

I am all for standardisation, especially as many folks copy what they see on
other objects so if there is a consistent approach they learn much quicker.

I say, go for it!

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: tabjsina  
Sent: Saturday, 29 January 2022 11:56 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Hello,

I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies if
I'm doing it wrong :)

I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm
updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia to "WA", if it
was something else. Previously, about 90% were already "WA", 9% were a
variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), and the remaining were
something completely wrong, like "AU" or a suburb/city name.

Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed that,
while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym, NSW and
moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full name.

Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the rest of
the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes sense to
standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, VIC, SA, TAS),
full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory, etc), or whether
we should not be trying to standardise this value at all.

Thanks,
Justin


___
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] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Graeme,

 

The two systems are not 100% directly relatable because they are designed for 
very different purposes. One is essentially for promotional purposes and the 
other has legal ramifications for safety, infrastructure construction. Only two 
aspects of the standard are benchmarked to the AWTGS.

 

Here is another opinion (and policy) using the various Tasmanian track 
‘systems’ (including the Australian and the AS2156) and how they are applied in 
different ways.

 

https://parks.tas.gov.au/Documents/Walking_Track_Classification_Policy_.pdf

 

The Australian system is used in Tasmania but primarily on ‘tourist tracks 
brochures’

 

It may bring up an issue as AS2156 Class 6 tracks (and hence some Class 5 in 
the AWTGS) in Tasmania are not on printed maps (however they are supplied to 
emergency services). Most are simply ‘known routes to peak X or Y’ where on the 
ground definition will be sparse or non existent. Parks Tas also has a class of 
tracks even lower than AS2156 class 6.

 

I agree that for the average punter/tourist the Australian Walking Track 
Classification is the ‘simplest to understand in plain language’. Now can we 
benchmark that against the sac_scale?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 5:30 PM
To: Michael Collinson 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

 

Just doing some looking & spotted:

https://qorf-media.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/11153757/TrackGradingSystem_UserGuide.pdf

 

which includes

 

Glossary
AS 2156.1-2001 Walking Tracks - Classification and Signage
The Australian Walking Track Grading System benchmarks to AS 2156.1-2001.
A Grade 1 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 1 track
A Grade 2 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 2 track
A Grade 3 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 3 track
A Grade 4 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 4 track
A Grade 5 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 5 and 6 track 

 

So it appears there may only be 5 levels?

 

Would make sense as Grade 5 refers to multi-day, long-distance, remote-area 
walks!

 

Another slightly different, & possibly a bit clearer version:

https://www.trailhiking.com.au/preparing-to-hike/track-grading/

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:22, Michael Collinson mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz> > wrote:

Ian,

+1.  The AWTGS looks excellent as it works from an international perspective. 
I've also struggled with the SAC scale in the UK and Sweden, also both 
countries where the bulk of rural footpaths are barely "alpine" and also came 
to the conclusion that what matters is the type of people wanting to use the 
path rather than specific physical attributes of the path. And particularly at 
the less hardcore end.  If one substitutes "hiking" for "bushwalking", it works 
in those countries as well, IMHO.

The categories I've played with conceptually are:

- I could take my very elderly mother

- Suitable for inexperienced walkers in everyday footwear (which could include 
high heels). Less charitably: City folks stroll.

- Could I get a push-chair/stroller down here? (and by extension assisted 
wheel-chair)

- I'm fine with walking but don't want to be using my arms, (balance, 
holding-on, hauling myself up).

- I'm fine with scrambling but don't take me anywhere where I'll be nervous 
about falling off.

- Bring it on

 

I think the system satisfies the above in a nice linear fashion without too 
many categories. I'd be interested to know what the mysterious AS 2156.1-2001 
6th one is. Copied from the URL provided:

*   Grade One is suitable for people with a disability with assistance
*   Grade Two is suitable for families with young children
*   Grade Three is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience
*   Grade Four is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
*   Grade Five is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers

Mike

On 2022-01-28 16:41, ianst...@iinet.net.au   
wrote:

I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading System.  
It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire Management - 
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system).
  The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.

 

It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, QLD and 
NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.

 

I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a “Class”) 
as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted those tags without 
reference to me!)

 

Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1: 
Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to read the 
contents of this standard to see how it compares with the AWTGS.  Other 
documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as having 6 levels

 

Ian

 

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

[Phil Wyatt]

It certainly differs greatly in metropolitan areas – try using ‘Greater Hobart’ 
as the search criteria. Seems like most folks change to path if it in a ‘park’ 
of some sort and use ‘footway’ in the streets

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 10:25 AM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: Tony Forster ; talk OSM Australian List 

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

 

Impressive overpass query you've got there! I'd say 90% are tagged path, 10% 
footway.

 

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 22:30, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as
vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')

Here is a quick Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe try
it o your local parks

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au>  
mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > 
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM
To: Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> >
Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> 
>; 'talk OSM Australian List'
mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

Hi

Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an explicit
prohibition of bicycles.

But I could be wrong

Tony

> Thanks folks,
>
>
>
> OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the   
> ?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing  
> strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs, Hartz  
> Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more where  there 
> is infrastructure but that will also be an issue as something  like 
> the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split from path  to 
> footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.
>
>
>
> I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so   
> it can be nailed down before I start a QA across the network.
>
>
>
> I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> From: Andrew Harvey  <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> >
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
> To: talk OSM Australian List  <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt  <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com>
> <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > > wrote:
>
> Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use  
>  do not use  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>   
> highway= <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway>  
>  footway and the preference is
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=   
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath> path, but   
> the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the   
> differentiation?
>
>
>
> That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my   
> view which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for   
> use mostly by people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with  
> no clear intended mode, but not wide enough for cars.
>
>
>
> So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway   
> with this view.
>
>
>
> An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and   
> remote bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that   
> view is outdated now.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32,  <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au>
> <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > > wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I assumed that
> highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not 
> allow bicycles
>
> highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not 
> allow pedestrians
>
> and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes
>
>
>
> For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still  
>  remains best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but   
> which is the main mode it was built for/designed for/actively in use  
> for.
>
>
>
> At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data   
> consumers really distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?
>
>





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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Try this query - it will work on any area (by bounding box) and also
includes cycleways

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fvX

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 8:26 AM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: Phil Wyatt ; talk OSM Australian List

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

>> Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park
> It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway?

No, Phil's query works for me, there is very little footway so its hard to
see at low zoom. I changed the colours from red and orange to blue and green
and its a bit better

Tony



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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Try the very northern end of the park – the major walkway (that has the power 
and sewerage pipes under it) is a footway, as are some of the other local 
tracks, but boardwalks (not tagged) on the Overland Track are still paths

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 8:22 AM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: fors...@ozonline.com.au; talk OSM Australian List 

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

 




 

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:35, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park

 

It all just appears to show orange path, with no red footway?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Yep, its tough sometimes to get definitive answers to tagging issues when
sometimes there are multiple tags that mean the same thing

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 11:33 PM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' ; 'talk OSM Australian List'

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

> Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified 
> as vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Mmm, certainly bikes are banned on walking tracks (they are classified as
vehicles in tas and need to stick to 'roads')

Here is a quick Overpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe try
it o your local parks

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM
To: Phil Wyatt 
Cc: 'Andrew Harvey' ; 'talk OSM Australian List'

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

Hi

Out in the middle of nowhere I would use path unless there was an explicit
prohibition of bicycles.

But I could be wrong

Tony

> Thanks folks,
>
>
>
> OK ? It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the   
> ?bushwalking? track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing  
> strange footway out the middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs, Hartz  
> Mountains). I did suspect that footway is being used more where  there 
> is infrastructure but that will also be an issue as something  like 
> the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split from path  to 
> footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.
>
>
>
> I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so   
> it can be nailed down before I start a QA across the network.
>
>
>
> I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> From: Andrew Harvey 
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
> To: talk OSM Australian List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt  <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:
>
> Just a quick thing I noticed ? the main tagging page says not to use  
>  do not use  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>   
> highway= <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway>  
>  footway and the preference is
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway=   
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath> path, but   
> the walking track page mentions that tag regularly ? what is the   
> differentiation?
>
>
>
> That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my   
> view which is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for   
> use mostly by people on foot and highway=path is a generic path with  
> no clear intended mode, but not wide enough for cars.
>
>
>
> So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway   
> with this view.
>
>
>
> An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and   
> remote bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that   
> view is outdated now.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32,  <mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I assumed that
> highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not 
> allow bicycles
>
> highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not 
> allow pedestrians
>
> and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes
>
>
>
> For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still  
>  remains best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but   
> which is the main mode it was built for/designed for/actively in use  
> for.
>
>
>
> At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data   
> consumers really distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?
>
>





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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks folks,

 

OK – It would be good to clarify that as the vast majority of the ‘bushwalking’ 
track network in Tasmania is path but I am also seeing strange footway out the 
middle of nowhere (ie Eastern Arthurs, Hartz Mountains). I did suspect that 
footway is being used more where there is infrastructure but that will also be 
an issue as something like the Overland Track or the Southcoast will get split 
from path to footway everywhere there is some infrastructure.

 

I might even start compiling some images of track infrastructure so it can be 
nailed down before I start a QA across the network.

 

I will also do a scan across other bushwalking areas around the country.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 9:54 PM
To: talk OSM Australian List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

 

 

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Just a quick thing I noticed – the main tagging page says not to use do not use 
 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway= 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway> footway and the 
preference is  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway= 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath> path, but the walking 
track page mentions that tag regularly – what is the differentiation?

 

That part may be controversial, but I've documented it based on my view which 
is highway=footway is for paths built for/intended for use mostly by people on 
foot and highway=path is a generic path with no clear intended mode, but not 
wide enough for cars.

 

So a hiking track is specifically for walking so highway=footway with this view.

 

An alternative view is that highway=footway is for urban paths, and remote 
bushwalking tracks should be highway=path, but I think that view is outdated 
now.

 

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 21:32, mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au> > wrote:

Hi

I assumed that
highway=footway is a path mainly for pedestrians that may or may not  
allow bicycles

highway=cycleway is a path mainly for cyclists that may or may not  
allow pedestrians

and highway=path is not saying anything about allowed transport modes

 

For me it's not really about the allowed transport modes, that still remains 
best tagged explicitly with foot=*, bicycle=*, etc. but which is the main mode 
it was built for/designed for/actively in use for.

 

At the end of the day, it's probably all for nothing, do data consumers really 
distinguish highway=footway from highway=path?

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

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

[Phil Wyatt]

Just a quick thing I noticed – the main tagging page says not to use do not use 
 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway= 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway> footway and the 
preference is  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> highway= 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath> path, but the walking 
track page mentions that tag regularly – what is the differentiation?

 

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Monday, 24 January 2022 10:54 PM
To: talk OSM Australian List 
Cc: Tony Forster ; nwastra nwastra 
; Phil Wyatt 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

 

 

 

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 17:26, Phil Wyatt mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:

Hi Folks,

I agree that a good discussion is useful but at the same time the OSM
community needs to understand what a hassle it can be to have these tracks
in OSM and having no, or little, control on how any other app/web interface
may show them.

I actually favour deletion as well but understand that is not the 'OSM way
of doing things'. A full discussion may help the agency, and OSM
contributors understand the issues on both sides.

I also think it would be useful for others to join in the US trails group so
that a more international perspective can be applied to this issue. The
situation can be very different across countries (especially legally).

 

Inspired by the US trails group work, I thought maybe we can attempt something 
localised for Australia.

 

I started sketching something out at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks. If anyone thinks 
this is a good idea, please feel free to contribute to that page.

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

Re: [talk-au] OSM Notes

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Graeme,

 

I will have a crack at a few in Southern Tasmania (which has nearly 1900 of 
them!). I am hoping ‘Multi Pass’ and his import account of ‘Round Circle’ is 
intending to come back and fix  a few of his!

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Wednesday, 26 January 2022 2:48 PM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] OSM Notes

 

Changing subject from tracks for a minute :-), I was reading the weekly 
Newsletter yesterday & spotted this article 
https://www-openstreetmap-org.translate.goog/user/AngocA/diary/398423?_x_tr_sl=auto
 

 &_x_tr_tl=EN&_x_tr_hl=en-GB, concerning clearing up all the outstanding OSM 
Notes in Colombia.

 

Strangely enough, I've been working on clearing them around the GC over the 
last several days, & thought, good on 'em, why don't we do the same?

 

According to Pascal, there are currently ~4500 open Notes across Australia, but 
the creation of new ones seems to be smashing the pace at which they're 
resolved:

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Australia

 

Looking at open notes only:

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country-custom?c=Australia 

 =open

they go all the way back to 2013! Just glancing at them though, most of them 
could probably just be closed, as the "problem" is already mapped, there's not 
enough detail / info to resolve it & so on?

 

So, what do we all think? 

 

As I said, I've cleared almost all of the GC, except for a few that need 
further work / survey. How would we like to do things - work on our own local 
areas / go through the list from old > new or vice versa / pick random items?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

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