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

[cleary]

I think you are on the right track, Andrew.  Australian Bureau of Statistics 
(ABS) is a credible and independent statistical authority that we are lucky to 
have in this country.  I would be confident of their data and analyses. Their 
Urban Centres and Localities (UCLs) looks suitable for our purpose.  Your 
suggested population sizes to classified as cities, towns etc seem reasonable 
to me, but others may have different suggestions. However, I am not sure that 
we have clarified if OSM has permission to use current ABS data. 



On Wed, 11 Oct 2023, at 4:22 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 6/10/23 18:14, Little Maps wrote:
>> Thanks Graeme, it’ll be great to hear what others think too. Cheers Ian
>
> The first thing to keep in mind is how concentrated the AU population 
> is. Sydney and Melbourne both have 20% of the population living in them. 
> If we add on Brisbane we reach the 50% mark, which means the majority of 
> people live in one of three cities. As a result there is not much to go 
> around for the rest.
>
> If we adopted 50,000 as the cutoff for a city we're going to more than 
> halve the number of currently mapped cities. 50,000 might work for the 
> US (and is also the value the UN has adopted for global comparisons) but 
> it's too big for AU. At the other end 15,000 is too small, we'd end up 
> creating an additional 25% of cities.
>
> I would suggest that we adopt the ABS's threshold of 20,000. This is the 
> population level at which they consider a settlement starts to have 
> "gravity" and pulls in surrounding urban areas. It used to be 30,000 
> back in the early days of their methodology but I assume they think 
> people are more mobile so the "pull in" starts earlier now. 20,000 also 
> has the benefit of not changing the number of cities we have by much. 10 
> currently mapped cities would become towns and 13 current towns would 
> become cities.
>
> For towns the US threshold of 10,000 is way too crazy high. There are 
> 1,000+ things currently mapped as towns. If we adopted 10, this 
> would drop to 101. Even 5,000 would only get that to 198.
>
> I was thinking that we would just use the ABS's UCL list. This divides 
> settlements into urban centres and urban localities. If a settlement is 
> on the urban centres list and its population is over 20,000, then that's 
> a city, otherwise it would be a town. In effect this is a cutoff of 
> 1,000, which the ABS has used for more than 50 years suggesting that 
> it's getting relatively smaller over time.
>
> The urban localities would be villages (a lower cutoff of ~200) and 
> settlements not on the list hamlets.
>
> The bigger shifts are going to be in the towns and villages. The UCL has 
> (using the rules above):
>
> 72 cities
> 657 towns
> 1080 villages
>
> but we currently have 1,000+ towns and 1,800+ villages. It is hard to be 
> very precise, as these will include place nodes nested inside other 
> urban centres and localities.
>
> I looked at the ratio of CTVs from the US/CA/NZ on the assumption that 
> being new world settlements the ratios should be similar. The 9 towns 
> for each city in AU is similar to the others 7/9/8. What is different is 
> the ratio of villages to towns. AU is 1.6 the others 2.4/4.0/2.3, which 
> suggests:
>
> 1. There are a lot of villages in CA
> 2. Settlements in AU are more thinly spread.
> 3. 200 might be too high. The problem being it is a lot of work to get 
> population numbers for places too small to register on the UCL.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

[cleary]

Thanks Andrew. You are clearly well-informed on the availability and use of ABS 
data.  

Population size correlates fairly closely with the range and level of services 
that are available in a place. I support using population data to determine 
city/town/village/hamlet classification. 




On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, at 6:20 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 5/10/23 18:01, cleary wrote:
>> the small central district? Or is it the much larger Tamworth LGA? I
>> think it would include the suburbs but not the outlying
>> towns/villages in the LGA. There are also city/suburbs such as "City
>> of Ryde" which is the name of a local government area in the Sydney
>> metropolitan area but the actuality is that, for all practical
>> purposes, Ryde is a suburb of Sydney.
>
> The ABS has population stats at different geographical levels. For 
> Tamworth we have LGA:
>
> Tamworth Regional: 63,070
>
> This would be the population you would put on the admin_level 6 
> boundary. From the suburb and localities you get:
>
> Tamworth: 189
>
> This would be the population that would go on the admin_level 9 
> boundary. From the urban centres and localities you get:
>
> Tamworth: 35,415
>
> This is the population of the settlement, which I have been adding to 
> the place node. The UCL is the ABS's attempt to answer the question 
> "what is the population of ?"
>
>> 
>> Leaving aside cities and suburbs, our discussion has mainly been
>> about non-city rural areas. While  there may be some fuzziness around
>> the population of the business and residential districts of a
>> settlement and whether the population in its surrounding areas should
>> be counted, I would support population numbers as a reasonably
>> objective and useful determinant of town/village/hamlet status.
>
> How to subdivide an urban settlement into subdivisions is another set of 
> problems.
>
> I would prefer a system based on just population, but I got the feeling 
> that we wouldn't get agreement on that, as we have mappers who want to 
> adjust.

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

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

[cleary]

It seems to me that the presence and types of services correlate reasonably 
closely with population, which is a verifiable number.  

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) statistical boundaries approximate but 
are not exactly the same as state government suburb/locality boundaries but are 
close enough. Prior to gaining permission to use administrative boundaries 
data, OSM was using ABS boundaries as the best available data. I am presuming 
we still have permission to use ABS data.

I can think of issues about cities and suburbs such as whether one counts 
Sydney locality ("suburb boundary") which is just the central city area while 
the City of Sydney LGA is larger again and  the Sydney metro area is much 
larger. There would be similar issues in other cities.  Does Tamworth's 
population include its suburbs or just the small central district? Or is it the 
much larger Tamworth LGA? I think it would include the suburbs but not the 
outlying towns/villages in the LGA. There are also city/suburbs such as "City 
of Ryde" which is the name of a local government area in the Sydney 
metropolitan area but the actuality is that, for all practical purposes, Ryde 
is a suburb of Sydney. 

Leaving aside cities and suburbs, our discussion has mainly been about non-city 
rural areas. While  there may be some fuzziness around the population of the 
business and residential districts of a settlement and whether the population 
in its surrounding areas should be counted, I would support population numbers 
as a reasonably objective and useful determinant of town/village/hamlet status. 

I will be pleased to have a consistent approach to classifying settlements, 
whatever is agreed, 





On Thu, 5 Oct 2023, at 4:05 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:50 PM David Bannon  wrote:
>> I'd wonder if we are building an impossible to manage rule set. For example, 
>> many small town doctor's clinic only have a doctor there one or two days a 
>> week. So, a full time doctor is worth 40 points, so, a one day a week one is 
>> 8 points ? Many, many "towns" have a community hall (or even a Mechanic's 
>> Institute) but very many of them have fallen into such disrepair its unsafe 
>> to go in. And a Hospital, thats one with an Emergency
>
> Yeap, exactly. That's why I was suggesting only four classes of
> services and only their presence or not. That way you can check them
> with an Overpass query.
>
> If it's all too hard, then the obvious solution is to just make the
> definition of a village a settlement with a population greater than
> 200 and less than 1000.
>
> ___
> 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 towns by relative importance, not just population size

[cleary]

I agree that population is not necessarily the only factor but, in practice, 
population correlates closely with the services and facilities available in a 
location which is effectively the "relative importance", isn't it?

I presume you are considering putting bigger dots and bigger writing on the map 
 for small settlements in isolated areas. Map renderers can do that for 
themselves if they wish. It is more important for OSM to show on-the-ground 
truth.  If a small settlement has few services,  then showing it as a town is 
misleading. 

Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in OSM but 
neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a hotel, small 
primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a coffee in either place 
last time I visited. I don't think either place had even a small supermarket or 
convenience store. Unlikely to find a doctor.  Probably wouldn't find a car 
mechanic, couldn't buy a new tyre if you needed one. The locals all travel a 
couple of hundred kilometres for shopping, health care etc.  I find it very 
misleading to label these places as towns, just because they are the largest 
settlements in their respective vicinities.  The towns are the places where 
people go to get the goods and services they need.







On Wed, 27 Sep 2023, at 2:18 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Have just raised this for discussion on both the Forum & Discord, so 
> also throwing it out here.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_towns_by_relative_importance%2C_not_just_population_size
>
> Any thoughts or comments welcome, in any place!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

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

[cleary]

I agree with your proposed action to separate the lake from the remainder of 
the river.  Related to this is the question of whether riverbanks should be 
named. I would name a waterway and its relation but not a riverbank 
multipolygon. I would have thought that a search for "Murray River" would not 
be assisted by lots of water area multipolygons all named Murray River.  I'm 
not sure what is best practice.

 

On Mon, 22 May 2023, at 4:09 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi folks, just checking to make sure I'm not missing something here...
>
> There's a large relation called 'Murray River' which covers all of Lake 
> Hume, plus an upstream section of the Murray. This is a natural=water 
> 'riverbank' relation, not a waterway relation.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8327459#map=11/-36.1129/147.3280
>
> There's also another, nearly identical, relation called 'Lake Hume' 
> that covers Lake Hume only. This only covers the lake, not the river 
> upstream, and looks fine.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531635#map=11/-36.0960/147.2417
>
> Are there any objections if I severely truncate the Murray River 
> relation so it excludes Lake Hume, and includes only the river upstream 
> of Lake Hume, where it will join the eastern edge of the Lake Hume 
> relation?
>
> The southern arm of Lake Hume is fed by the Mitta Mitta not the Murray, 
> so calling the entire lake the Murray River is problematic. Again, this 
> relation covers the boundary of the lake, not the central waterway.
> 
> Anything I'm missing here? Thanks again, Ian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map

[cleary]

I agree with much of what you wrote, but not all. Your final sentence implies 
that you think that where OSM and the DCS NSW Base Map are different, then the 
latter must be correct and OSM wrong. I have been frustrated when I have 
visited locations and mapped features such as road names or road class 
(secondary/tertiary/unclassified etc) noted during my survey and then have 
someone change my contributions because they were contradicted by the DCS NSW 
Base Map. When I have subsequently investigated (usually by revisiting the 
location or by contacting the local council), I have found that the DCS Map 
contained outdated information that had not been updated - sometimes for many 
years. I think I did previously mention the OTC Overseas Telecommunications 
structure at 744 Carnarvon Highway at Moree - still on the DCS Base Map more 
than 30 years after it was decommissioned and the building re-purposed. Some 
things just do not get updated on the DCS Map. 

As I once mentioned on talk-au, when I visited Lake Mungo, the indigenous guide 
said that the lake had not been covered with water for about 15,000 years. My 
subsequent reading supports that claim. Nevertheless, DCS Base Map shows it no 
differently to lakes that are always full of water. I have come to see the DCS 
NSW Base Map as generally more accurate in "legal" matters such as surveyed 
land lots, boundaries etc but I would suggest that OSM can do a lot better in 
mapping natural features such as lakes, wetlands, and various forms of land 
cover.

I agree that the DCS NSW Base Map is a wonderful resource and has been very 
helpful. However it contains errors. It should not necessarily be considered as 
more authoritative than other sources, especially survey by individual mappers. 
I value the DCS NSW Base Map but, if there are differences in information, it 
should not be presumed that the DCS Map is to be preferred.



On Sat, 13 May 2023, at 4:52 PM, Warin wrote:
> In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map? Some have criticized the DCS Base 
> Map .. a response below. 
>
>
>
> “We don’t want OSM to be a copy of the DCS Base Map”? Umm OSM has 
> capability of far more than the DSC Base Map e.g. pubs, petrol 
> stations, farm fields, vineyards etc. So it should be far more than the 
> DCS Base Map. Where OSM is missing stuff that is in the DCS Base Map 
> why should it not be copied? That is a gain for OSM. 
>
> “The DCS Base Map is out of date”? So is the OSM data! I don’t see that 
> point of this ‘argument’ at all. If something in OSM is ‘out of date’ 
> then correct it. If something is missing from OSM but is in the DCS 
> Base Map then copy it. Those who know it is out of date can correct it, 
> arguing that it should not be added because ‘it may be out of date’ 
> could be applied to all sources other than those sighted in the last 
> day. Should any data that ‘may be out of date’ be rejected? I have 
> found some things in the DCS Base Map to be more upto date than the DCS 
> imagery having to resort to Maxar to confirm the existence of the 
> objects. So the DCS Base Map maybe ‘out of date’ for some things but 
> more ‘upto date’ for other things. Such are the joys of our changing 
> world. 
>
>
>
> “On the ground truth” Some take the view that they have been there and 
> seen X. Ok, the DCS Base Map says Y.. Humm. Where this is some land 
> form or land cover I take it the mapper involved has more expertise 
> than those that contribute to the DCS Base Map to determine that land 
> form or land cover. I would not put myself in that category. As an 
> example the ability to determine an area is an arid wetland, I have no 
> expertise to determined that and would take DCS Base Map as more 
> authoritative than my poor observations. 
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Me? 
>
> I have added libraries (those facilities that lend books) from the DCS 
> Base Map .. using a list from a copyright source to direct me to the 
> area and then searching the DCS Base Map for it. The location and name 
> comes from the DCS Base Map not the copyright source. This is not all 
> the libraries as some are ‘private’ e.g. schools. But it has got at 
> least most of the public ones into OSM. I call that a win for OSM. 
>
>
>
> Mangroves. These are well defined by the DCS Base Map. I have been 
> questioned as to how reliable they are .. well on 5 that I gone to 
> those all appear to be accurate .. and others can be seen on imagery. 
> So I am quite confident that these can be transferred from the DCS Base 
> Map into OSM. 
>
>
>
> And I have copied other stuff, missing in OSM, from the DCS Base Map. 
> There is a lot of it! I plan on continuing to do so. The DCS Base Map 
> is a great resource that we should use. I have even found errors in OSM 
> from the DCS Base Map. 
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[cleary]

Apologies for a couple of errors in my previous posts:
1. DCS is acronym for Department of Customer Services (not Community Services)
2. reference to national park boundary was for Wadbilliga National Park (not 
Wadbilla)



On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, at 12:14 PM, cleary wrote:
>> I'm not necessarily disputing this, but there are so many anecdotes and 
>> opinions being expressed on this topic.  Could I ask if we have any 
>> source or citation for this?  I mean the Department of Community 
>> Services doesn't even exist any longer, and doesn't sound like it 
>> should have been producing authoritative maps even when it did?  I 
>> don't even know what "as authoritative as can be obtained", even means. 
>>  Is there legislation, regulation, gazette?  
>
> See  https://six.nsw.gov.au/content/about which states:
>
> Spatial Services, on behalf of the Surveyor General, creates and 
> maintains a spatial representation of the State and acts as a 'single 
> source of truth' for foundation spatial information and survey 
> infrastructure and services in NSW. It supports the legislative and 
> statutory requirements for the NSW Surveying and Spatial Information 
> Act 2002.
>
> Spatial Services provide leadership to NSW in the production and 
> maintenance of foundation spatial datasets and services by capturing, 
> sourcing, aggregating and quality-assuring information so that 
> government, industry and the community can make informed decisions and 
> create social and economic value.
>
> It also digitises and preserves NSW state records including historic 
> aerial imagery, land titles, plans and state survey records.
>
> Spatial Services will be part of Government and Corporate Services within DCS.
>
>
>>And the government paying 
>> a royalty to "surveyors", just sounds odd. Wouldn't a government 
>> normally engage surveyors in the normal way, rather than paying 
>> royalties?
>
> Some Government authorities do have their own surveying staff (but even 
> Government projects such as roads and railways etc may be outsourced). 
> A lot of Government data is taken from the work of private surveyors.
>
> see 
> https://www.copyright.com.au/2019/07/surveyors-in-the-west-receive-first-payment-in-august/
>
> I understand that these plans are the source of data that are used to 
> show lots etc. on government maps. Suburb, LGA and national park 
> boundaries are then derived from this information.
>
> I found a some examples of statutes referring to national park boundaries :
>
> One example referred to expansion of Wadbilla National Park with the 
> added area described as "An area of about 6 735 hectares, being the 
> balance of Murrabrine State Forest No 947, dedicated 4 November 1955, 
> and the balance of No 1 Extension thereto, dedicated 14 September 1979, 
> and being the land shown by diagonal hatching on diagram catalogued 
> Misc F 1289 in the Forestry Commission of New South Wales. Subject to 
> any variations or exceptions noted on that diagram" (from Schedule 1 of 
> National Park Estate (Land Transfers) Act 1998)  
>
> One is ultimately referred to a diagram and to any variations or 
> exceptions noted on the diagram.
>
> Another example referred to revocation of part of Kosciuszko National 
> Park {Clause 27, Schedule 2 to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 
> No 80) which described the affected parts of the national park by lot 
> numbers :  (a)  Lots 12–22, DP 1171834, (b)  Lots 21–22, DP 1171835, 
> (c)  Lots 30–48, DP 1171836, (d)  Lots 40–45, DP 1171838, (e)  Lots 
> 50–53, DP 1171839,  (f)  Lots 60–73, DP 1171841, (g)  Lots 
> 7–15, DP 1171844, (h)  Lots 27–50, DP 1171846.  Again one has to go to 
> the government sources of this data to work out the boundary lines.
>
>
>> Clearly, if you change the location, you should update the source.  
>> It's an issue, but OSM does track that changes have been made and by 
>> who and why.  Our licence allows us to do this - and I'd argue it's the 
>> specific purpose for the existence of OSM - that is you can change the 
>> data.  Nothing is immutable.  All you need is a source, or ground-truth.
>
> I agree. The problem is that there does not appear to be any other 
> source for administrative boundaries - they are government data. If we 
> had another source, then we could choose to use that other source. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

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

[cleary]

> I'm not necessarily disputing this, but there are so many anecdotes and 
> opinions being expressed on this topic.  Could I ask if we have any 
> source or citation for this?  I mean the Department of Community 
> Services doesn't even exist any longer, and doesn't sound like it 
> should have been producing authoritative maps even when it did?  I 
> don't even know what "as authoritative as can be obtained", even means. 
>  Is there legislation, regulation, gazette?  

See  https://six.nsw.gov.au/content/about which states:

Spatial Services, on behalf of the Surveyor General, creates and maintains a 
spatial representation of the State and acts as a 'single source of truth' for 
foundation spatial information and survey infrastructure and services in NSW. 
It supports the legislative and statutory requirements for the NSW Surveying 
and Spatial Information Act 2002.

Spatial Services provide leadership to NSW in the production and maintenance of 
foundation spatial datasets and services by capturing, sourcing, aggregating 
and quality-assuring information so that government, industry and the community 
can make informed decisions and create social and economic value.

It also digitises and preserves NSW state records including historic aerial 
imagery, land titles, plans and state survey records.

Spatial Services will be part of Government and Corporate Services within DCS.


>And the government paying 
> a royalty to "surveyors", just sounds odd. Wouldn't a government 
> normally engage surveyors in the normal way, rather than paying 
> royalties?

Some Government authorities do have their own surveying staff (but even 
Government projects such as roads and railways etc may be outsourced). A lot of 
Government data is taken from the work of private surveyors.

see 
https://www.copyright.com.au/2019/07/surveyors-in-the-west-receive-first-payment-in-august/

I understand that these plans are the source of data that are used to show lots 
etc. on government maps. Suburb, LGA and national park boundaries are then 
derived from this information.

I found a some examples of statutes referring to national park boundaries :

One example referred to expansion of Wadbilla National Park with the added area 
described as "An area of about 6 735 hectares, being the balance of Murrabrine 
State Forest No 947, dedicated 4 November 1955, and the balance of No 1 
Extension thereto, dedicated 14 September 1979, and being the land shown by 
diagonal hatching on diagram catalogued Misc F 1289 in the Forestry Commission 
of New South Wales. Subject to any variations or exceptions noted on that 
diagram" (from Schedule 1 of National Park Estate (Land Transfers) Act 1998)  

One is ultimately referred to a diagram and to any variations or exceptions 
noted on the diagram.

Another example referred to revocation of part of Kosciuszko National Park 
{Clause 27, Schedule 2 to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 No 80) which 
described the affected parts of the national park by lot numbers :  (a)  Lots 
12–22, DP 1171834, (b)  Lots 21–22, DP 1171835, (c)  Lots 30–48, DP 1171836, 
(d)  Lots 40–45, DP 1171838, (e)  Lots 50–53, DP 1171839,  (f)  Lots 
60–73, DP 1171841, (g)  Lots 7–15, DP 1171844, (h)  Lots 27–50, DP 1171846.  
Again one has to go to the government sources of this data to work out the 
boundary lines.


> Clearly, if you change the location, you should update the source.  
> It's an issue, but OSM does track that changes have been made and by 
> who and why.  Our licence allows us to do this - and I'd argue it's the 
> specific purpose for the existence of OSM - that is you can change the 
> data.  Nothing is immutable.  All you need is a source, or ground-truth.

I agree. The problem is that there does not appear to be any other source for 
administrative boundaries - they are government data. If we had another source, 
then we could choose to use that other source. 






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

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

[cleary]

My knowledge is limited to NSW as that is the state in which I have previously 
made enquiries. Verbal descriptions of administrative boundaries have not been 
used in recent years. Boundaries are now defined geospatially, with the NSW 
Department of Community Services being responsible for producing the official 
maps. It is my understanding that the DCS NSW maps are as authoritative as can 
be obtained (except for the surveyors' charts from which the DCS maps are 
derived). I think the government pays a royalty to surveyors in order to be 
able to use the surveyors' data in government maps and licence others to use 
these maps.   DCS NSW certainly does not snap the boundaries to nearby features.

I'm uncertain about the terms of use of the government data but, generally, 
when reproducing another person or organisation's resources (images, text etc) 
with permission, one is required not to distort that resource so as to not 
embarrass the donor.  Where a source such as the NSW Government has given 
permission to use its data in OSM, I feel we have an obligation to use it 
correctly. It would be wrong to show inaccurate boundaries and attribute them 
to the Government source.  As the person who initiated obtaining access to the 
NSW data a few years ago, I feel particularly embarrassed that we might mis-use 
it.

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

I will abide by any collective decision of mapping colleagues but I believe 
that if we are going to do something, we should do it properly and, in OSM, 
that would mean as accurately as we can manage  - even if it is inconvenient 
and untidy.





On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, at 9:42 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Personally I'd prefer to snap them, it makes it easier for us to 
> maintain, better for data consumers, and overall cleaner data.
>
> I speculate these departmental GIS teams are creating the boundaries 
> from their own coastline datasets anyway, so why not just have them 
> match OSM's coastline?
>
> I think it's unlikely these GIS representations are the absolute set in 
> stone authority, if they rebuild their GIS data with newer coastline 
> data their boundary geometry will change.
>
> I agree with Frederik here, if someone wants the boundaries exactly as 
> they appear in the government published dataset they should go there 
> and not expect OSM to be exactly the same. They shouldn't be 
> untouchable objects in OSM, we can hold a different representation of 
> the boundary to the department's GIS dataset that doesn't make OSM 
> wrong.
>
> I think you'll find exactly what Frederik says, that the moment you 
> step foot on the land out of the water you'll be deemed in the national 
> park for most purposes, except particular cases where the boundaries 
> does extend out in the water.
> ___
> 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] NSW Bridle Track

[cleary]

I have previously suggested in several posts that we should not rely on the NSW 
Base Map if there is another source of information, primarily because outdated 
information is often not updated in the Base Map.

However, in this instance, I think the Base Map shows the correct name. 

When OSM was initially permitted access to a range of NSW Government sources 
including the Base Map, Imagery, Topographic Map etc, one of the resources was 
the NSW Address Location Service. I understand that this is used for emergency 
services (fire, ambulance, police etc) and there has been an imperative to 
maintain its accuracy. I have found it very useful in instances where there is 
uncertainty over the name of a road. When the Base Map is wrong, the Address 
Location Service shows the correct name.  I'm not sure if there are other ways 
to access it, but I do so by inserting  a housenumber, road name, road type, 
suburb and postcode in a string that confirms if an address is correct or 
provides no output if wrong. If the housenumber is the only incorrect data, it 
may return a result with a nearby housenumber.  When I inserted "Bridle" and 
"Track" no output was produced, indicating this was an incorrect address. When 
I inserted "The Bridle" and "Track", I received a positive output indicating 
that "The Bridle Track" is the officially correct name.

If anyone is interested, here are two URLs that I used in this exercise:

https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/services/public/Address_Location?houseNumber=4176=Bridle=Track=Bruinbun=2795=EPSG%3A4326

https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/services/public/Address_Location?houseNumber=4176=The
 Bridle=Track=Bruinbun=2795=EPSG%3A4326

The way the output is displayed seems to vary slightly with different browsers 
(I prefer Firefox)  but the essential information is the same, whichever 
browser one uses.




On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, at 8:59 PM, Mark Pulley wrote:
> One question I forgot to ask yesterday - what do I call the track?
>
> When I did my original survey in 2009, I called it ‘Bridle Track’. At 
> some stage it was changed to “The Bridle Track” as that is the name 
> used on the DCS NSW Base Map.
>
> All the road name signs I saw on this trip have “Bridle Track” (without 
> the “The”)
>
> The signs on the camp areas had “Bridle Track” at the top near the 
> reserve name, but “The Bridle Track” on the map on the signs.
>
> Should I remove the “The” from the name? 
>
> 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

Re: [talk-au] NSW Bridle Track

[cleary]

Survey is the most reliable source. Thanks for doing it.


On Sun, 5 Mar 2023, at 10:35 PM, Mark Pulley wrote:
> I’ve just uploaded my edits from yesterday’s Bridle Track trip. I got 
> as far as Monaghans Bluff in my 2WD. I then walked the old road, then 
> returned to my car via the new road. Road looks good, but there is 
> bulldust present on some sections, particularly the ascent from the 
> Bathurst side. I saw a 4WD lose traction on this, and I had the same 
> problem when I tried (only did the first rise from the creek to where 
> the old road turned off) so I turned back. I didn’t see signs of any 
> further work on the other parts of the Bridle Track that I saw, but 
> online I did see references to grading work on the Hill End to Turon 
> River section.
>
> There is a sign (at Hodges Road) advising the road is 4WD only, so I’ve 
> marked the road past there as 4wd_only=yes. I’ve left the road 
> classifications as they were.
>
> 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

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

[cleary]

I am not familiar with the use of heatmaps for mapping but, if it involves 
adding non-officlal trails, then I consider it potentially dangerous and not 
suitable for OSM.

I have a strong view that mappers and publishers of maps have a public safety 
responsibility. There should be nothing misleading and nothing likely to lead 
naive users into danger.  In New South Wales and most other places, national 
parks have management which assesses and identifies safe trails.

I consider that, in national parks and similar places, marked tracks should be 
shown in OSM but not tracks that may endanger map users (or endanger vulnerable 
plants or animals in wilderness areas).






On Sun, 26 Feb 2023, at 6:19 PM, Tom Brennan wrote:
> Do people have a view on the armchair mapping of tracks from Strava 
> heatmaps?
>
> I can see a bunch of tracks in Kanangra-Boyd NP that have been mapped by 
> an overseas mapper off Strava heatmap.
>
> They almost certainly don't exist on the ground. They are known 
> bushwalking routes (off track), but would be very unlikely to have a 
> track even in good times, let along after the fires and 3 years of La Nina!
>
> Example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376
>
> 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] NSW Bridal Track

[cleary]

The name should not constrain the classification of the highway  (e.g. Dowling 
Track, Ooodnadatta Track). And, as I've commented previously in other threads, 
the DCS NSW Base Map can be quite outdated. 

However, a quick look at a YouTube video suggests that the Bridle Track should 
still be tagged as 4WD only (it was signposted as such and probably still is). 
Wikipedia reports that part of the route is new, apparently a diversion around 
the landslide that blocked the old track at Monaghans Bluff. I'd prefer not to 
change the OSM tags etc until someone surveys the route.




On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, at 9:17 PM, Warin wrote:
> Hi
>
> This track is now continuous having been closed due to a rock fall and 
> road collapse at Monaghans Bluff.
>
>
> Given the importance of the road and that it is not really a 'track' in 
> the OSM sense (Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses) ... and 
> that the DCS Base Map places it at least tertiary level I would think 
> that all of this 'track' be classified in OSM as 'unclassified'.
>
>
> 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] NSW Fire Station names

[cleary]

In principle, I agree with Warin. My problem is relying on the Base Map as an 
authoritative source for names when there is other information.

I just looked at Lane Cove Fire Station which has been recently re-tagged. It 
looks good to me.

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

Re: [talk-au] NSW Fire Station names

[cleary]

I have one further comment about obsolete information on the DCS NSW Base Map.  
Located at 744 Carnarvon Highway, just north of Moree is a building that is 
labelled on the Base Map as OTC Satellite Earth Station. As far as I could find 
out, it ceased to have that purpose about 35 years ago but it has never been 
changed on the Base Map . That is the most obsolete item that I have identified 
but it is a reminder that names on the Base Map are not necessarily current.



On Sun, 12 Feb 2023, at 8:54 AM, cleary wrote:
> The DCS NSW Base Map is a great resource but some aspects do not seem 
> to get updated e.g. roads that were once public but are now private may 
> still appear on the map to have former status (e.g. parts of 
> unincorporated area in western NSW), re-named roads may still show old 
> names, waterways show names contrary to those signposted at locations 
> (e.g. in Murray River LGA). As far as I can ascertain, there is no 
> regular process for updating the Base Map and it seems to depend on 
> each particular agency such as the local government body, Roads and 
> Maritime Services, Rural Fire Service or Health Service to instigate 
> changes of details for their assets. It does not always happen. 
>
> In the past I have contacted local councils about some conflicting 
> information and always have been given information that the Base Map 
> showed obsolete information. In regard to fire stations, I would think 
> the operators, Fire and Rescue NSW or the Rural Fire Service would be 
> the most authoritative sources regarding names for their facilities.
>
> The Base Map is a wonderful resource that I have used extensively but I 
> have learned that if there is contradictory information from another 
> source, especially survey or the operators of the facilities, then the 
> information from the other source should prevail.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2023, at 9:58 PM, Warin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I came across this while separating amenity=fire_station from their 
>> building=*. The object is to map the amenity with all the name, 
>> operator, etc tags on the amenity and leave the building alone.
>>
>> The names on the DCS Base Map do not match some of the names on the OSM map.
>>
>> For Fire and Rescue NSW the DCS base map has, for example ‘Lane Cove 
>> Fire Station’ while OSM has ‘Fire and Rescue NSW Station 167 Lane Cove 
>> (in the tagging guidelines). The number appears to be a ‘station number’ 
>> – see https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/station_list/ The names there on the 
>> station list comply with the DCS Base Map … and it is how I would ask 
>> for them at the pub/in the street. I think the number may be best 
>> entered under the tag ‘ref=*’ and the name as per the DCS Base Map. So 
>> I'd like to change the names to comply wit the DCS Base Map.
>>
>> Additional notes?
>>
>> The name tag is for 'the common name'.
>>
>> The long winded name looks to be some 'public service' name for pollies 
>> to use  ..
>>
>> And we have official_name ... "Useful where there is some elaborate 
>> official name, while a different one is a common name typically used"
>>
>>
>> The quoted text comes from the OSM wiki.. honest.
>>
>> --
>>
>> For the Rural Fire Service some names are ‘Nowhere Rural Fire Service’ 
>> where the DCS Base Map would have ‘Nowhere RFB’ (‘Nowhere’ is an example 
>> – don’t have one to hand). I take ‘RFB’ to be an abbreviation of ‘Rural 
>> Fire Brigade’, where as  Rural Fire Service is an abbreviation of the 
>> operator.
>>
>>   I think ‘Nowhere Rural Fire Brigade’ is the correct name.
>>
>> 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

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

Re: [talk-au] NSW Fire Station names

[cleary]

The DCS NSW Base Map is a great resource but some aspects do not seem to get 
updated e.g. roads that were once public but are now private may still appear 
on the map to have former status (e.g. parts of unincorporated area in western 
NSW), re-named roads may still show old names, waterways show names contrary to 
those signposted at locations (e.g. in Murray River LGA). As far as I can 
ascertain, there is no regular process for updating the Base Map and it seems 
to depend on each particular agency such as the local government body, Roads 
and Maritime Services, Rural Fire Service or Health Service to instigate 
changes of details for their assets. It does not always happen. 

In the past I have contacted local councils about some conflicting information 
and always have been given information that the Base Map showed obsolete 
information. In regard to fire stations, I would think the operators, Fire and 
Rescue NSW or the Rural Fire Service would be the most authoritative sources 
regarding names for their facilities.

The Base Map is a wonderful resource that I have used extensively but I have 
learned that if there is contradictory information from another source, 
especially survey or the operators of the facilities, then the information from 
the other source should prevail.



On Sat, 11 Feb 2023, at 9:58 PM, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I came across this while separating amenity=fire_station from their 
> building=*. The object is to map the amenity with all the name, 
> operator, etc tags on the amenity and leave the building alone.
>
> The names on the DCS Base Map do not match some of the names on the OSM map.
>
> For Fire and Rescue NSW the DCS base map has, for example ‘Lane Cove 
> Fire Station’ while OSM has ‘Fire and Rescue NSW Station 167 Lane Cove 
> (in the tagging guidelines). The number appears to be a ‘station number’ 
> – see https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/station_list/ The names there on the 
> station list comply with the DCS Base Map … and it is how I would ask 
> for them at the pub/in the street. I think the number may be best 
> entered under the tag ‘ref=*’ and the name as per the DCS Base Map. So 
> I'd like to change the names to comply wit the DCS Base Map.
>
> Additional notes?
>
> The name tag is for 'the common name'.
>
> The long winded name looks to be some 'public service' name for pollies 
> to use  ..
>
> And we have official_name ... "Useful where there is some elaborate 
> official name, while a different one is a common name typically used"
>
>
> The quoted text comes from the OSM wiki.. honest.
>
> --
>
> For the Rural Fire Service some names are ‘Nowhere Rural Fire Service’ 
> where the DCS Base Map would have ‘Nowhere RFB’ (‘Nowhere’ is an example 
> – don’t have one to hand). I take ‘RFB’ to be an abbreviation of ‘Rural 
> Fire Brigade’, where as  Rural Fire Service is an abbreviation of the 
> operator.
>
>   I think ‘Nowhere Rural Fire Brigade’ is the correct name.
>
> 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] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

[cleary]

I presume that a single closed way for an area would work  - I think I might 
have done it somewhere but I don't recall where.   The Hiawatha precinct was 
memorable because of its unusual name.



On Tue, 17 May 2022, at 2:44 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Thanks Cleary, that’s an interesting approach. Two questions: (1) would 
> you be open to the same approach being used if the local relation 
> contained just a single closed way, rather than a pair of polygons as 
> in your example? (2) in your example, the relation for the local area 
> contains just the boundary tag and the local name tag, and all the 
> other tags that describe the entire network are provided in the broader 
> relation. This seems to be a good way to avoid duplicating tags 
> unnecessarily?
>
> As far as I know, we don’t have permissions to use gov maps that show 
> the names of individual reserves. Like you I have used signs at reserve 
> entrances as the source of local names. Thanks again, Ian
>
>> On 17 May 2022, at 1:00 pm, cleary  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I had looked at this a few years ago. I edited one area , making it part of 
>> two relations :
>> South West Woodland Nature Reserve   (relation 5825677)
>> South West Woodland Nature Reserve - Hiawatha Precinct  (relation 7477098)
>> 
>> The first relation includes all twenty or more areas that comprise the 
>> reserve, while the second shows just the particluar local area with its 
>> particular name.
>> 
>> The reason I did not try to add names for more precincts or sub-areas is 
>> that I could not, at the time, find a permitted source for the names.  
>> Looking now, I see that I was remiss in not adding a source for the name of 
>> the Hiawatha Precinct - I had visited the area and I am guessing it was 
>> probably signposted or there was some other local source. Not sure if the 
>> names of all precincts are now available to OSM - if so, I think use of dual 
>> relations works well.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, 16 May 2022, at 8:31 PM, Little Maps wrote:
>>> Hi folks, some advice please…
>>> 
>>> In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves 
>>> (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to 
>>> be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South 
>>> West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, 
>>> the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has  >20 
>>> isolated segments, all called the same name:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485
>>> 
>>> On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of 
>>> these patches are known and signposted with different names for 
>>> different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the 
>>> “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. 
>>> “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after 
>>> Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray 
>>> Valley Regional Park”.)
>>> 
>>> I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names 
>>> that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) 
>>> whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do 
>>> so.
>>> 
>>> I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members 
>>> of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this 
>>> change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the 
>>> boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a 
>>> separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the 
>>> existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the 
>>> isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the 
>>> newly separated patch.
>>> 
>>> This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the 
>>> CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. 
>>> However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, 
>>> I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves 
>>> are signposted as and known in the regions.
>>> 
>>> Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

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

[cleary]

I had looked at this a few years ago. I edited one area , making it part of two 
relations :
South West Woodland Nature Reserve   (relation 5825677)
South West Woodland Nature Reserve - Hiawatha Precinct  (relation 7477098)

The first relation includes all twenty or more areas that comprise the reserve, 
while the second shows just the particluar local area with its particular name.

The reason I did not try to add names for more precincts or sub-areas is that I 
could not, at the time, find a permitted source for the names.  Looking now, I 
see that I was remiss in not adding a source for the name of the Hiawatha 
Precinct - I had visited the area and I am guessing it was probably signposted 
or there was some other local source. Not sure if the names of all precincts 
are now available to OSM - if so, I think use of dual relations works well.




On Mon, 16 May 2022, at 8:31 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi folks, some advice please…
>
> In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves 
> (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to 
> be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South 
> West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, 
> the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has  >20 
> isolated segments, all called the same name:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485
>
> On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of 
> these patches are known and signposted with different names for 
> different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the 
> “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. 
> “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after 
> Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray 
> Valley Regional Park”.)
>
> I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names 
> that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) 
> whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do 
> so.
>
> I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members 
> of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this 
> change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the 
> boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a 
> separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the 
> existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the 
> isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the 
> newly separated patch.
>
> This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the 
> CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. 
> However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, 
> I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves 
> are signposted as and known in the regions.
>
> Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] "Illegal", & "asked to be closed" tracks?

[cleary]

In regard to second link which refers to a private road on Crown land :  

Crown land is not the same as public land. There are many areas of 
government-owned land that are closed to the public.  The land may be reserved 
or dedicated for particular purposes that are best served by exclusion of the 
public. Or land may be leased so that the leaseholder has exclusive access for 
the duration of the lease.  Thus a private road on Crown land would not be open 
to the public.

In my view, the fact that the Council-maintained road appears to cease at the 
point where the "private road" commences supports the view that it is probably 
private.  

Many roads in western NSW are on Crown land that is leased by farmers. The farm 
roads are private and not open to the public.




On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, at 6:34 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> Graeme
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2788602#map=15/-33.7227/150.6317
> Contact the land manager, if the land manager can make a serious job  
> of closing the track to traffic then it might be OK to use a lifecycle  
> prefix, there are a few to choose from.
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2348884#map=15/-34.6020/150.6799
> I think this one can't work out if its  public or private land, often  
> the private party is bluffing and its public land.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

[cleary]

Hello again Dian

If you cannot move left and a car to left of you cannot move right, then I 
would suggest you are physically separated.  It does not have to be a concrete 
barrier one metre high to be "physical separation". Try telling a police 
officer or a magistrate that the unbroken painted line did not really 
constitute a physical separation of ways.

The maxim is "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation". Undoubtedly 
an unbroken painted line on a roadway frequently constitutes "physical 
separation".  

If the community wants to change "physical separation" to something else, such 
as a barrier constructed of specified materials to a specified minimum height,  
then I plead for accuracy and usefulness of the map as guiding principles when 
considering any change to the guideline.

In regard to the statement that  '' ... would demand each lane to be drawn as a 
separate highway", I would say that nothing is "demanded".  Every map involves 
decisions about what is included and what is excluded. If we mapped every 
insignificant object, the map would be so cluttered that it would be useless. 
We do not usually map every individual tree in a forest. However in some 
instances individual trees are mapped, where useful. The creators of maps are 
always exercising judgement in what is included or omitted. Not every physical 
item in the world, including every strip of paint, "demands" to be mapped.  





On Sat, 5 Mar 2022, at 8:46 AM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Hi Cleary,
>
> Two points:
>
> Paint isn’t a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it’s 
> legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. Being 
> unable to change lanes doesn’t make a single road into two roads. If I 
> can’t merge left then I’m not travelling on a different road than the 
> car next to me.
>
> Using legal separation to justify splitting the ways is also a poor 
> standard. At most traffic light intersections, you can’t change lanes 
> past a certain point.  The method you’re describing would demand each 
> lane to be drawn as a separate highway.
>
> Dian
>
>
>
> On 2022-03-05 07:44, cleary wrote:
>
>> 
>> Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or 
>> imaginary concept.  If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the law 
>> then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a 
>> physical barrier that cannot be traversed.
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote: This query was 
>> triggered by the following comment in another thread, 
>>> but I’ll start a new thread so as not to distract the original.
>>> 
>>> “  ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of the 
>>> core tenets of highway mapping in OSM.”
>>> 
>>> My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while 
>>> abiding by the above.  I will try to describe the situation as best I 
>>> can without being able to resort to a sketch:
>>> 
>>> - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin 
>>> Highways)
>>> - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the 
>>> 2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south)
>>> - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 through 
>>> lanes)
>>> - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the 
>>> traffic lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite close 
>>> – hundreds of metres)
>>> - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2 
>>> continuing lanes – right to the next intersection
>>> - this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right 
>>> at the next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross the 
>>> solid white line
>>> 
>>> This has currently been mapped “as normal”, ie 1 slip lane joining a 2 
>>> lane road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point.
>>> 
>>> Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the 
>>> next intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be mapped 
>>> so people coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next 
>>> intersection?
>>> 
>>> Ian
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

[cleary]

Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or imaginary 
concept.  If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the law then, in my 
understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a physical barrier that 
cannot be traversed.


On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote:
> This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, 
> but I’ll start a new thread so as not to distract the original.
> 
> “  ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of the 
> core tenets of highway mapping in OSM.”
> 
> My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while 
> abiding by the above.  I will try to describe the situation as best I 
> can without being able to resort to a sketch:
> 
> - there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin 
> Highways)
> - there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the 
> 2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south)
> - from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 through 
> lanes)
> - from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the 
> traffic lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite close 
> – hundreds of metres)
> - however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2 
> continuing lanes – right to the next intersection
> - this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right 
> at the next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross the 
> solid white line
> 
> This has currently been mapped “as normal”, ie 1 slip lane joining a 2 
> lane road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point.
> 
> Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the 
> next intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be mapped 
> so people coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next 
> intersection?
> 
> 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] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[cleary]

I am not familiar with particular intersections and my mapping of urban 
intersections is limited. However I just looked at satellite imagery for three 
of the identified intersections and the current mapping seems to be an accurate 
reflection of what is on the ground.  While guidelines can be very influential, 
they rarely accommodate all the variations of objects in the real world.  If 
the maps are accurate and do not mislead anyone, I would support them staying 
as they are.  However, if they are inaccurate or misleading then they should be 
made accurate. Conformity with the guidelines is, in my view, secondary to 
accuracy.  In the longer term, the guidelines might need modification or 
clarification that there might be exceptions.


On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 4:30 PM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I'd like some assistance resolving a disagreement I'm involved with 
> regarding the correct mapping of dual carriageways at intersections. I 
> have previously mentioned this topic on the mailing list here: 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html 
> .
>
> To summarise briefly, a very active contributor prefers to model dual 
> carriageway intersections in a manner that I don't believe is correct.
>
> Turn lanes are split from main carriageways at the start of the new 
> turn lane, then cross over each other in an "X" shape, rather than a 
> Box shape that I've seen documented. (Examples, because I am bad at 
> explaining: Burwood Hwy/Mountain Hwy 
> , Smith St/Dandenong Rd 
> , Burwood 
> Hwy/Dorset Rd , 
> Princes Hwy/William Rd 
> ) Additional 
> highways are introduced for left hand turns where there is no physical 
> separation (eg, Mt Dandenong Tourist Rd/Mountain Highway 
> , Greville St 
> N/Sturt St , 
> Glenleith St/Church St 
> ). This editor has 
> been an extremely active contributor for many, many years: I found 
> these examples by just zooming in on a given town or suburb, found 
> intersection that was modelled this way, and checked the history to 
> confirm the source.
>
> I initially engaged with the user in September (111051481 
> ), and after some 
> initial delay, we have engaged in a productive conversation 
> 
>  
> since. To the user's credit, they have been patient and understanding 
> in our interactions, and have made adjustments to their mapping style 
> based on my feedback. Unfortunately, we have reached a fundamental 
> point of disagreement 
> , and I don't 
> believe further changeset discussions are going to be productive.
>
> I'm now a little too close to this discussion to be objective, and I 
> would really appreciate some assistance with this disagreement. Due to 
> the extraordinary output of this user, simply avoiding editing in 
> similar areas isn't going to be practical. But am I incorrect in my 
> assessment of intersection modelling? Is this a question of style, or 
> of accuracy?
>
> Kind Regards,
> 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: [talk-au] Driver-Reviver?

[cleary]

Perhaps others have different perceptions but the driver reviver places I've 
seen in NSW operated only for limited hours on certain days such as until 
mid-afternoon on weekends and public holidays.  I was so disappointed that I 
have not stopped at one for a while.  I do not recall any food being available 
and the coffee was undrinkable (by me, at least) - I recall a hot-water urn and 
tin of coffee powder on one occasion. Unless you can add days and hours of 
operation and be clear about what is offered, I would be reluctant to map them. 
 The ones I have seen are not permanent and are often just vans that are parked 
at the locations for a few hours. Anyone expecting a "cafe" would be very 
disappointed. 



On Sat, 26 Feb 2022, at 12:34 PM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Perhaps a simple food=yes on highway=rest_area?
>
>
>
> On 2022-02-26 11:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>> Just spotted one of these on a Note.
>>  
>> Do we map them at all, & if so how?
>>  
>> Cafe perhaps, possibly together with rest-area?
>>  
>> 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] Lakes around Mungo National Park

[cleary]

I don't think "sand" is the right tag. When I visited Lake Mungo, there was 
vegetation on the lake bed and some parts would have been too soggy to drive on 
- the National Parks track crosses part of the lake but I think they had to 
survey it carefully to avoid the wetter sections. On the eastern side there was 
a sand beach - it really looked like a beach except there was no water. But the 
lake itself did not appear as sand.  Satellite imagery might be a good guide 
for the moment.

I do not have a photograph of Lake Mungo but I have just uploaded one of my 
pics of Lake Garnpang to Flickr if you wish to have a look. The lake bed was 
covered in vegetation and I think this is similar to my recollection of the 
other lakes in the Willandra area.  You can't zoom in very far when looking at 
Flickr but if you download the image in high resolution, you can zoom in and 
get a good idea of the appearance of the lake bed.  If it didn't occasionally 
get wet and boggy, I'd think of tags such as "scrub" or "grassland".  But our 
mapping need to recognise that it does sometimes get soggy. Remembering that 
wetlands are not necessarily wet all the time, perhaps natural=wetland + 
wetland=wet_meadow or wetland=marsh would be more accurate for these particular 
lakes.  

This link to pic of Lake Garnpang: 
https://flickr.com/photos/157067200@N03/51894707756/in/photolist-2n4KWCC-2inizwF-6hZHhz-6iGY24-6iGTAD-6iM7oY-6iMb1b-6i4PxQ-6i4Q4b-6i4S3y-6hZJx6-2ing4fe-2injKcg-2injK9W-2inizAP-2ing4dR-85TtMN-2m6cARv-TMAatS




On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, at 8:53 PM, Warin wrote:
> On 21/2/22 19:51, cleary wrote:
>> I too have struggled with correct tagging. I live in the city but I have 
>> enjoyed visiting western NSW and I have an interest in the waterways of the 
>> Murray-Darling river system. I have seen areas temporarily flooded on some 
>> occasions and the same areas dust-dry at other times. I think I am probably 
>> the person who mapped Lake Leaghur, among  others but not Mungo.  I have 
>> also mapped areas including up to Ivanhoe, so I may have been the person 
>> mapping other areas that Warin has mentioned.
>> 
>> One of the issues is the frequency of water in the rivers and lakes. Quite 
>> some time ago I proposed the key 'ephemeral' as being less frequent then 
>> 'intermittent' .. but then other suggestions came up and I put it on 'the 
>> backburner'.. 
> I recently add a time limit on the water presence to the proposal. I 
> think that puts it out of 'usefulness' for European mappers and may 
> lead to its rejection, if they cannot use it they don't like it.  
> I am inclined to add the tag 'ephemeral=yes' to much of Australia 
> inland water things. I recall the indigenous rangers at Lake Mungo 
> saying that the Lake has not been covered with water for about 15,000 
> years (when the Lachlan River forged a new course and a much reduced 
> volume now flows down what we know as Willandra Creek).  I am not 
> certain but I think none of the lakes of the Willandra Lake region has 
> been seriously submerged for many many years. Water flowing into the 
> lakes can make them soggy but not enough that one might contemplate 
> using a boat. I know NSW DCS Map shows the lakes as water but I recall 
> a national parks officer telling me that every year people arrive with 
> their boats based on what they see on maps but are disappointed as 
> there is never enough water even to swim, much less launch a boat. The 
> default OSM render does at least show 'intermittent'. I was not aware 
> of the 15,000 years, perhaps forgotten, makes water=lake be very wrong! 
> From the above I am incline to simply map them as sand areas with any 
> relevant names, and perhaps 'was:natural=water' with 'comment=water 
> 15,000 years ago'. 
> ?? Any objections? OSM is supposed to map the now not the history. 
> As I remember 'Lake Mungo' it had no suggestion of being a 'wetland' 
> there being nothing I could see that would suggest the plant growth I'd 
> associate with any wet area, 
> so I'd be reluctant to use the tag wetland. There is an area tagged 
> with some 'protected zone' to the west of Lake Mungo .. that on hte DCS 
> map (I don't recall which) has some small areas with 'dry' wetland  
> mapped. 
> Dry wetland out here to me means wetland with key intermittent=yes and 
> possibly ephemeral=yes too. For the above reasons,I would certainly 
> like to see Lake Mungo and other lakes in the Williandra Lakes region 
> NOT be tagged as natural=water (and, given the vegetation on the lakes, 
> I I think surface=salt would be incorrect). I know that "intermittent" 
> is open to interpretation but I think the absence of water cover for 
> 15,000 years is stretching the interpretation.  
>> 
>

Re: [talk-au] Lakes around Mungo National Park

[cleary]

I too have struggled with correct tagging. I live in the city but I have 
enjoyed visiting western NSW and I have an interest in the waterways of the 
Murray-Darling river system. I have seen areas temporarily flooded on some 
occasions and the same areas dust-dry at other times. I think I am probably the 
person who mapped Lake Leaghur, among  others but not Mungo.  I have also 
mapped areas including up to Ivanhoe, so I may have been the person mapping 
other areas that Warin has mentioned.

One of the issues is the frequency of water in the rivers and lakes. 

I recall the indigenous rangers at Lake Mungo saying that the Lake has not been 
covered with water for about 15,000 years (when the Lachlan River forged a new 
course and a much reduced volume now flows down what we know as Willandra 
Creek).  I am not certain but I think none of the lakes of the Willandra Lake 
region has been seriously submerged for many many years. Water flowing into the 
lakes can make them soggy but not enough that one might contemplate using a 
boat. I know NSW DCS Map shows the lakes as water but I recall a national parks 
officer telling me that every year people arrive with their boats based on what 
they see on maps but are disappointed as there is never enough water even to 
swim, much less launch a boat. 

For the above reasons,I would certainly like to see Lake Mungo and other lakes 
in the Williandra Lakes region NOT be tagged as natural=water (and, given the 
vegetation on the lakes, I I think surface=salt would be incorrect). I know 
that "intermittent" is open to interpretation but I think the absence of water 
cover for 15,000 years is stretching the interpretation.  

As the areas do get soggy, support plant and animal life but would never be 
suitable for building etc. I think natural=wetland is the best tag for these 
areas.  Wetlands is a broad term but it generally applies to areas that are 
occasionally inundated and remain wet for extended periods but may also be dry 
at some times.  I have also visited areas such as the Gwydir Wetlands and 
Macquarie Marshes which are also along tributaries of the Darling and I see 
more similarities than differences. 

Many of the areas are on private land and not easily accessed from public 
roads, although there is a road through the middle of Lake Leaghur and Lake 
Garnpang. I have used my occasional visits, brief conversations with locals 
where possible, satellite imagery and DCS NSW Maps to try to tag these areas as 
accurately as I could but people with more knowledge of the area may be able to 
do better. 

Some lakes are farmed, although not in protected areas such as Willandra Lakes. 
The frequency and amount of water varies in different locations. In parts of 
the Darling system, periodic inundation provides rich silt deposits and farmers 
tolerate the occasional flood. In some areas, farmers use drainage or 
irrigation to manage the moisure on the farmed areas so that, while once 
wetlands,  these areas are now rarely inundated and I mapped them as 
landuse=farmland. In some areas, the farmland does get inundated more 
frequently so that I have mapped them as both farmland and either water or 
wetland, based on the best interpretation I could make of available 
information. Lake Tandou, near Menindee, was one of the more challenging.







On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, at 6:25 PM, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are inconsistencies in tagging of 'lakes' around Mungo national 
> Park...
>
> The DCS base map show them as lakes ...
>
> I am not certain what the DCS Topo map is showing .. but they all the 
> same. I think it is 'intermittent lake' over 'sand'?
>
>
> A water lake one -
>
> name     Lake Mungo
>
> natural     water
>
> surface     salt
>
> water     lake
>
> intermittent     yes
>
>
> vs the others e.g.
>
> name     Lake Leaghur
>
> natural     wetland
>
>
> Similar inconsistencies extend out to at least Ivanhoe.
>
>
> To my way of thinking they are lakes, dry most of the time, not wetlands.
>
>
> Thoughts? In particular the rendering of the DCS Topo map ... what is 
> their meaning?
>
>
> DCS Topo Legend 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mholling/nswtopo-legends/master/nsw.png
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Shared Zones (Or, Living Streets in car parks?)

[cleary]

It occurs to me that access is a differentiating feature. "Living streets" seem 
to be open to the public whereas the parking aisle in front of Bunnings or 
shared driveway of a block of units would (I think) be access=customers or 
access=private.

I agree with your view.  And perhaps applicable access=* tags would also be 
useful.  





On Wed, 16 Feb 2022, at 11:41 PM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am increasingly encountering shared zone signs in carparks, driveways 
> and other minor service ways. The tagging guidelines suggest that 
> shared zones are the equivalent of a highway=living_street, but I’m not 
> sure that is the case.
>
> When Shared Zones are applied to shopping strips, residential courts, 
> etc, the Living Street tag seems appropriate. But, the parking aisle in 
> front of the Bunnings entrance, or the shared driveway of a block of 
> three units, doesn’t seem to fit. Even though it is a “shared zone”, it 
> definitely isn’t a living street like what Wikipedia describes.
>
> In my opinion, a service street that is a shared zone should not be 
> tagged as a living street, but should keep its service tag. 
> (Potentially with a pedestrian_priority=yes or shared_zone=yes tag)
>
> What does this group think of this? Would a change to the tagging 
> guidelines be appropriate?
>
>
>
> 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: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[cleary]

I think it is still usual practice to have a label node as part of the relation 
for the boundaries of each suburb. Ideally this label node is placed at the 
business or residential centre of the area even if it is not the geographical 
centre.  For example see Hillgrove NSW (near Armidale)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6063586

In this instance the activity "centre" of the hamlet is near one edge of the 
administrative boundaries. I see the placement of the node as improving the 
quality of the information in the map.






On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, at 1:58 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:16, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>
> With regard to this, if we're mapping & spot a suburb node still 
> showing eg 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-27.46821/153.09090 (only 
> visible in edit?), is it OK / should we delete it?
>
> 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] Information source question - sorry kind of lengthy.

[cleary]

I have used highway=construction where road was completely closed for a year or 
so. I also added a note about the the reason and anticipated duration.

In such situations, sometimes sections of road near the closed section might 
remain open for restricted access by residents. If you are aware of this, it 
might be appropriate to use highway=service for such sections, also with a note 
about reason/duration.

When the work is completed, tags can be changed back to highway=secondary or 
whatever is appropriate. 




On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, at 11:05 AM, Bob Cameron wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback everyone.
>
> - There are indeed numerous sources that say the road is closed, for 
> more than one year.
> - To avoid routing yes I could pick a likely spot and make in Access:No
> - Livetraffic also have a text view that is end points specific, so any 
> Google Maps issue are probably moot.
> - The problem is if I want to do the job properly I would like to place 
> the road barrier locations. When I went through the road was open only 
> at specific times and I have the barrier locations on Mapillary. I doubt 
> they would move the barriers as they had done extensive work on turning 
> (around) circles and the like.
> - I would use the Mapillary image points initially then check any 
> wording on the signage in the next week.
>
> I have never mapped closed roads before, but since it is supposedly 
> temporary I think Access:No with a date action fix_me that described 
> why, what and when to review. I would suspect perhaps half a dozen ways 
> are affected so a cross ref in the fix_me might be prudent. To make it 
> obvious to downstream users I am thinking "- section closed for repair" 
> suffix the highway name. I would appreciate a consensus on this from the 
> list. (3 field changes per way)
>
> Yes work crew access may need "private" but as it stands I believe the 
> slip gap is quite wide and usual vehicle access not possible. "No exit" 
> is similarly cloudy.
>
> I am happy to leave it in a "providing as much info as possible" state, 
> if need be.
>
> On 2/2/22 20:50, Warin wrote:
>>
>> The 'facts cannot be copyright' may be a USA thing that does not work 
>> elsewhere. Don't know but I would not rely on it alone.
>>
>>
>> Other sources of 'information'? Newspapers, radio and TV ... a quick 
>> google search gets a few of these.. and local council notices too. I 
>> would think these sources want the information used, so would not 
>> claim copyright on the information itself.
>>
>>
>> The next question is .. how will you map it? Put 'disused:' in front 
>> of it and add a 'comment=land slip - under repair. expected opening in 
>> 2024'?
>>
>
> ___
> 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 Sydney bus stops

[cleary]

I suggest leaving the bus stop ID number in the format that Andrew initially 
stated, ref=20 (rather than ref:stand=A)

As a regular used of buses (pre-covid), I think "Stand A" etc needs to be part 
of the name.  At some locations, the stands are a block or more apart (such as 
the multiple Martin Place and Town Hall bus stops in Sydney and the many 
different stops at major suburban transport interchanges).   Each "stand" needs 
to clearly identified as a separate stop.

Each stand has its own ID number.  While the signposts at stops generally give 
greater prominence to "Stand A", "Stand B" or sometimes "Stand B1", Stand B2" 
etc, the six or seven digit reference numbers seem to be more prominent in the 
public transport apps and have a necessary place in the OSM database.




On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, at 2:24 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1128912626 is an okay example, with 
> ref being the Stop ID, and name being the stop name with the stand 
> number appended to the end.
>
> So in your case,
>
> ref=20
> name=Kings Cross Station Darlinghurst Rd, Stand A
>
> I don't think this is perfect but probably the best compromise 
> currently. We could consider something like ref:stand=A.
>
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 11:49, Mat Attlee  wrote:
>> What is the convention for tagging Sydney bus stops? I stumbled upon one but 
>> not sure how to tag the stop number and the stand letter so put those 
>> details in the note field
>> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9465614221
>> ___
>> 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] Fwd: Use of Council data in OpenStreetMap

[cleary]

Statement on Council website is : "This website and all content is copyright © 
Toowoomba Regional Council 2015. Material may be used for private purposes, but 
not reproduced without the permission of the Toowoomba Regional Council. 
Changes are periodically made to the information contained here."

Unfortunately the response to you was " ...  we can’t  issue an approval for 
you to use the data"  but they offered the hope that Council might eventually 
have a policy that might permit use. I'd suggest responding that you would 
request to be advised when the Council formulates and issues its policy.   But 
I interpret the response to mean that, at this time, OSM is not granted 
permission to use the data in the way that OSM requires.   

That is my view of the situation but I defer to any more knowledgeable 
responses.



On Thu, 9 Dec 2021, at 12:47 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> After being up that way on holidays a few weeks ago, I found out that 
> Toowoomba Region Council have online maps for addresses etc:
> https://www.tr.qld.gov.au/payments-self-service-laws/web-apps/mapping/12731-online-mapping-2.
>
> Contacted Council to see if we could get permission to use them & this 
> is the result.
>
> So, does
> "Council doesn’t have an Open Data Policy at this time so we can’t 
> issue an approval for you to use the data" 
> +
> "You are welcome to use the data as a reference if you are manually 
> drawing in information" 
> mean that we can use it, or we can't?
>
> Or is it a 50/50 - we can't import the data, but we can use it manually?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: *Adam Purves* 
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 09:38
> Subject: RE: Use of Council data in OpenStreetMap
> To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> Cc: Chris Fogarty , Sandra Sherriff 
> 
>
>
> Hi Graeme,
> __ __
> Unfortunately, Council doesn’t have an Open Data Policy at this time so 
> we can’t issue an approval for you to use the data (This is the 
> mechanism by which Council would provide the requested approval).
> __ __
> You are welcome to use the data as a reference if you are manually 
> drawing in information.
> __ __
> Kind regards,
> Adam.
> *__ __*
> *Adam Purves*
> *Coordinator Geospatial Information Management (GIS)*
> Information Communication and Technology
> 
> Toowoomba Regional Council
> PO Box 3021 Toowoomba QLD
> *P *07 4688 6681   *E *6681  *IM 
> *sip:adam.pur...@tr.qld.gov.au
> adam.pur...@tr.qld.gov.au
> www.tr.qld.gov.au
> __ __
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick  
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 8 December 2021 12:28 PM
> *To:* Adam Purves 
> *Cc:* Chris Fogarty ; Sandra Sherriff 
> 
> *Subject:* Re: Use of Council data in OpenStreetMap
> __ __
> [External Email] This email was sent from outside the organisation - be 
> cautious, particularly with links and attachments. 
>
> __ __
> Hi Adam
> __ __
> Thanks for your very quick response.
> __ __
> The CC licence, or lack of it, isn't a critical thing as long as we 
> have your explicit permission to make use of your data.
> __ __
> As to how it would be used, personally, I would only be using it to 
> make manual updates of such things as parks, addresses etc, but other 
> people, who are more data savvy than I am!, may well look into 
> importing data sets.
> __ __
> To see what sort of data has previously been made available to us from 
> other sources, please have a look at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue.
> __ __
> If you would like to know more, I can pass your questions on to someone 
> whom I know is more heavily involved in data imports.
> __ __
> Thanks 
> __ __
> Graeme
> __ __
> __ __
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 10:13, Adam Purves  
> wrote:
>> Hi Graeme,
>>  
>> Thank you for your email.
>>  
>> At this time Toowoomba Regional Council doesn’t have a Creative Commons 
>> licence available for our GIS data.
>>  
>> Can I please clarify how you intend to use Council data in OSM? Are you 
>> intending to load the Council data directly into OSM, or are you using 
>> Council data as a reference and are manually drawing/updating OSM?
>>  
>> Kind regards,
>> Adam.
>> * *
>> *Adam Purves*
>> *Coordinator Geospatial Information Management (GIS)*
>> Information Communication and Technology
>>  
>> Toowoomba Regional Council
>> PO Box 3021 Toowoomba QLD
>> *P *07 4688 6681   *E *6681  *IM 
>> *sip:adam.pur...@tr.qld.gov.au
>> adam.pur...@tr.qld.gov.au
>> www.tr.qld.gov.au
>>  
>> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick  
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 December 2021 3:33 PM
>> *To:* Toowoomba Regional Council 
>> *Subject:* Use of Council data in OpenStreetMap
>>  
>> [External Email] This email was sent from outside the organisation - be 
>> cautious, particularly with links and attachments. 
>> 
>>  
>> To whom it may concern
>> 
>> I am a volunteer with OpenStreetMap 

Re: [talk-au] Use of macrons in name:en

[cleary]

I do not support adding variants to the standard alphabet. 

The English language has, for many generations, incorporated words from other 
languages but used the standard alphabet to represent the sounds of those 
words.  The word "cafe" had a mark over the final letter in the original French 
"café" but we use the word daily without that mark, whatever it is called, over 
the final letter and I don't feel that we are dis-respecting the origins of the 
word. 

Where locations are named in multiple languages, it is appropriate that the 
spelling and alphabet be consistent with each particular language, whether it 
is Pitjantjatjara or French or English or Bulgarian.  

I noted that the Australian Government website   
https://www.awe.gov.au/parks-heritage/national-parks/uluru-kata-tjuta-national-park/culture-and-history/history-park#the-1930s--tourism-begins
  refers respectfully to Kata Tjuta, spelling its name using only the standard 
alphabet.  In a quick perusal, I noted this government website used 
Pitjantjatjara spelling for one word but printed the whole word in italics to 
indicate that it was non-standard text.

To recapitlate, I support using the standard alphabet for the particular 
language.  The standard English language does not use macrons althgugh standard 
Pitjantjatjara does. 

In determining the language to be used as the primary name for any location or 
landmark, I think OSM should be consistent with the primary usage of the 
official government naming authority in the particular jurisdiction. I am not 
aware of the official naming authority in the Northern Territory but, If it 
uses Pitjantjatjara language and alphabet, then OSM should follow.



On Wed, 24 Nov 2021, at 12:14 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> There is a good discussion going on at talk-nz about use of macrons and 
> names 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nz/2021/thread.html#318
>
> There was talk about if macrons should appear in the English name 
> (name:en), which got me checking Uluṟu and Kata Tjuṯa.
>
> So should that be tagged as
>
> name=Kata Tjuṯa
> name:en=Kata Tjuta
> name:pjt Kata Tjuṯa
>
> or
>
> name=Kata Tjuṯa
> name:en=Kata Tjuṯa
> name:pjt Kata Tjuṯa
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7474225
> ___
> 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] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

[cleary]

Sorry.   I should have written   ...add the place node to the relation and 
its role would be "label".


On Fri, 5 Nov 2021, at 5:53 PM, cleary wrote:
> Ideally suburbs would have a relation for the boundary PLUS a node for 
> the "label node" as part of the relation.   I'm not so familiar with 
> Victorian locations, but this example for South Albury in NSW is an 
> example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5901488
>
> Where there is a boundary and a separate place node, I would add the 
> place node to the relation and its role would be "label node".
>
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021, at 2:15 PM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I would appreciate the thoughts of the community with regards to suburb 
>> representations.
>>
>> In a recent change set 
>> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113355648) a node was 
>> introduced for Gruyere. Gruyere is on the urban boundary, but is 
>> technically in Metropolitan Melbourne. As such, it straddles the border 
>> between what could be considered a bona fide suburb, and an independent 
>> town.
>>
>> Mick has correctly pointed out that many of the other localities in the 
>> area are represented by both an area and a node.
>>
>> Is this the way all suburbs should be represented? Or is it an 
>> urban/rural distinction?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

[cleary]

Ideally suburbs would have a relation for the boundary PLUS a node for the 
"label node" as part of the relation.   I'm not so familiar with Victorian 
locations, but this example for South Albury in NSW is an example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5901488

Where there is a boundary and a separate place node, I would add the place node 
to the relation and its role would be "label node".



On Fri, 5 Nov 2021, at 2:15 PM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I would appreciate the thoughts of the community with regards to suburb 
> representations.
>
> In a recent change set 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113355648) a node was 
> introduced for Gruyere. Gruyere is on the urban boundary, but is 
> technically in Metropolitan Melbourne. As such, it straddles the border 
> between what could be considered a bona fide suburb, and an independent 
> town.
>
> Mick has correctly pointed out that many of the other localities in the 
> area are represented by both an area and a node.
>
> Is this the way all suburbs should be represented? Or is it an 
> urban/rural distinction?
>
>
>
> 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: [talk-au] Basic question

[cleary]

Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state parks, 
conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such as water, 
waterways, woods etc.  While they sometimes approximate, they rarely coincide 
exactly.  

Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because there 
will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded.  Best to map the 
park with its official boundary and then map the natural features separately 
using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite imagery.




On Fri, 8 Oct 2021, at 7:59 AM, Andrew & Ingrid Parker wrote:
> Hi everyone
> I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I 
> find while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious 
> every now and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep 
> other editors happy with what I do.
>
> My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone 
> in this group that you can't.
>
> For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a 
> forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that 
> you can't do that. 
> This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>
> I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
> Kind regards
> Andrew Parker
> ___
> 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] Suburb, or Town?

[cleary]

I say suburb.  If it is within a city or city metropolis, I'd say it's a 
suburb.   

Further, I'd say the mapper who changed the tag for Keilor Downs with the 
explanation "Changing place=suburb to place=town so that streets can be found 
in map in next map release" is seriously wrong. 

A town is a large settlement with homes and businesses but smaller than a city 
and not part of a city. 





On Mon, 27 Sep 2021, at 5:57 PM, Diacritic wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Hopefully this is a quick question!
>
> Should metropolitan suburbs be recorded as suburbs, or as towns?
>
> I’ve seen some contrasting approaches in the same city; compare Keillor 
> Park, Melbourne with Keillor Downs, Melbourne. Which is correct, or are 
> both acceptable?
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?

[cleary]

Hello again Nemanja

I response to your question, based on my experience, I still have the view that 
unnamed roads in South Australia are not intended for public access. Therefore, 
if mapped, they should be tagged as access=private. I don't think there would 
be any exceptions but, if there are, individual mappers who survey such areas 
could later amend the access tags and/or add names as appropriate.  

If the roads actually exist then I have no problem with mapping them. My 
particular concern is that failing to tag them as private could endanger lives 
and livelihoods. 

Thanks for your diligence in following up this issue

Michael Cleary





On Mon, 12 Jul 2021, at 11:07 PM, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au wrote:
>  
> Hi,
>  
> I know it might be a vacation period for most people, but if you are 
> still online, we would like to know which method is more acceptable for 
> the whole community before we proceed.
>  
> I really appreciate any help you can provide.
> Nemanja
>  
> *From:* Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) 
> *Sent:* Monday, July 5, 2021 8:59 AM
> *To:* Graeme Fitzpatrick ; Ewen Hill 
> 
> *Cc:* OSM Australian Talk List 
> *Subject:* RE: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification 
> contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
>  
> Thanks again for the constructive suggestions.
>  
> My team will treat this very carefully and as a high priority.
>  
> Two main questions are here:
>  * Do you want us to correct the classification for every of these 
> ~2500 segments?
>* If the answer is Yes, please tell us what to do with the access 
> tag. We will strictly follow your guideline. We would like to fix it in 
> one pass.
>  * Do you want us to remove all these roads entirely from the map?
>  
> Both options are completely fine with us since we have a list of these 
> segments already. In any of these two cases, we will process them one 
> by one. No bulk edits will be made.
>  
> Thanks,
> Nemanja
>  
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick  
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 4, 2021 2:26 AM
> *To:* Ewen Hill 
> *Cc:* OSM Australian Talk List 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification 
> contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
>  
> 
>  
>  
>  
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 at 17:28, Ewen Hill  wrote:
> >  
> > The examples below could cause significant resentment to OSM and I would 
> > suggest that all are private driveways that I can see. Perhaps we need to 
> > stop updating, reset and look at how to improve the existing edits. An 
> > initial suggestion could be to set all new roads to private, add a fixme 
> > and perhaps organise a map-roulette of these? Of the ten edits I sampled, 
> > all ten appeared to be private driveways on private property. 
> >  
> > I am sure a few of us would be happy to discuss some of these changesets 
> > with the MS team so we can both learn a little more and see how we can 
> > assist before large changesets.
> >  
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id=955658598#map=16/-33.8579/137.7863
> >  
> > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fedit%3Feditor%3Did%26way%3D955658598%23map%3D16%2F-33.8579%2F137.7863=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C540c3da9302440051c8308d93e82d0c8%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637609554073989630%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=%2B%2BQlVcXIJgEUgsOIRftp7n0MmS1vEI%2FDylKZsTC7tQw%3D=0>
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id=956458626#map=17/-34.50327/138.97656
> >  
> > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fedit%3Feditor%3Did%26way%3D956458626%23map%3D17%2F-34.50327%2F138.97656=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C540c3da9302440051c8308d93e82d0c8%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637609554073999629%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=7OmOT2bGJDvl0AkZpsRPTFpAjy8eg%2BeokGR%2Fw%2FaBhrc%3D=0>
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id=956583567#map=16/-32.6304/138.1584
> >  
> > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fedit%3Feditor%3Did%26way%3D956583567%23map%3D16%2F-32.6304%2F138.1584=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C540c3da9302440051c8308d93e82d0c8%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637609554074009621%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=UOV7p34zrYspkirXpMvy%2BnMEvRQLt2iEheYNCNP1IDU%3D=0>
>  
> Yes, I'd go along with Ewen here.
>  
> The first of these examp

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

[cleary]

Thanks Andrew. A considered and thoughtful response. I support your proposed 
actions. Your work for OSM is always very good and much appreciated.



On Tue, 8 Jun 2021, at 2:59 PM, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au wrote:
> To sum up the contentious issue of suburb, postcode, state tags,
> 
> - Phil, Daniel and Seb would prefer the suburb and postcode on each 
> address object.
> - Andrew Davidson and cleary would prefer we not include suburb and 
> postcode on each address object and instead require data consumers to 
> derive this data from the existing boundaries, and actively discourage 
> mappers manually adding this data via removing the preset in ID.
> 
> Thinking further I'd support including the full address details on each 
> address object, to provide a complete address, even if duplicated by 
> the boundary. QA tools could be built to validate these match the admin 
> boundaries and it becomes a maintenance task to maintain these tags, 
> but I think that's okay.
> 
> However, to avoid stalling this import on this issue (it doesn't sound 
> like anyone will change their mind soon), I'll plan the minimum viable 
> option of excluding addr:suburb, addr:postcode and addr:state from the 
> import.
> 
> There's nothing stopping a further discussion of a planned automated 
> edit to update address objects with suburb, postcode and state if the 
> community changes their mind later on.
> 
> I'll make these changes to the import code, then once I've completed 
> all the documentation and remaining issues hopefully post some import 
> candidate files if anyone would like to review.
> 
> ___
> 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] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

[cleary]

I think I recall discussion some months ago about incorrect suburbs being 
assigned addresses in Nominatim when relying on suburb boundaries. I think I 
recall that most errors occurred near the boundaries rather than the centre of 
areas, and more often when the suburb has an irregular shape (not many suburb 
areas are even close to rectangular in shape). Therefore I would support 
inclusion of the suburb/town/hamlet in  addresses to ensure accuracy.  

In regard to addr:suburb and addr:city,  I have always tried to match the 
address with the designation in OSM. So if an address is in a bounded area 
identified as "place=town" then I added addr:town=*  or for a hamlet it would 
be addr:hamlet=*  etc.   Localities are by definition, unpopulated places so it 
would be unusual to have addr:locality=  as almost all "localities" would be 
small places located within bounded areas such as hamlets, towns, etc.   
Bounded areas that have no shops, schools, amenities (or almost none) would 
usually be place=hamlet  as they are identified bounded areas usually with a 
population. For the purposes of the import, it might be too diffiicult to 
separate OSM's various place classifications city/suburb/town/village/hamlet 
etc so I would support  addr:suburb=* as better than nothing.

I would also support adding postcodes.  I am more familiar with NSW than other 
states but there are three bounded areas in NSW named Kingswood differentiated 
only by their postcodes and local government areas. Similarly I know of two 
bounded areas in NSW named Long Plain. I think there are others but they don't 
come readily to mind. However I think it emphasises the usefulness of postcodes 
in addresses.




On Wed, 19 May 2021, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au wrote:
> Some specific topics for discussion/feedback I have so far are:
> 
> 1. How should we handle existing address interpolation ways? Should 
> these be left as they are or replaced with individually mapped address 
> points? I'm proposing we replace.
> 
> 2. Should we also import `addr:suburb`, `addr:state` and 
> `addr:postcode` tags? I'm proposing we do.
> 
> Given postcode regions aren't mapped, then adding these to the address 
> should be very helpful.
> 
> `addr:state` is less important given these addresses fall within the 
> Victoria state admin boundary already. The wiki touches on this saying 
> "A few mappers consider higher-level tags, or even addr:city=* as 
> redundant, since they could be calculated from the respective boundary 
> relations they are contained in (if present and valid). However, such 
> practice has severe disadvantages and can lead to wrong results."
> 
> Either way, I don't think it matters too much, but since it's not 
> harmful to include, and might provide some benefit, then we may as well 
> include `addr:state`?
> 
> `addr:suburb` is similar to `addr:state`, suburb/locality boundaries 
> are already well mapped in Victoria. Since we have this detail from the 
> source data I think we probably should still include it.
> 
> 3. `addr:suburb` vs `addr:city`.
> 
> Both tags are in use within Australia. According to taginfo 
> (https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania/australia/search?q=addr%3A) 
> within Australia addr:suburb occurs 521 ,671 times and addr:city 562,542 
> times.
> 
> The iD address preset fields uses addr:suburb.
> 
> Victoria only has a handful of place=city objects 
> (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/17vc), Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat, 
> Bendigo, Shepparton, Warrnambool, Traralgon, Bairnsdale, Wangaratta, 
> Wodonga, Horsham, Mildura.
> 
> Because for addressing, it's the suburb/locality that appears on the 
> address not the city (eg. Melbourne place/city covers the whole greater 
> melbourne urban area, but not all the addresses here include 
> "Melbourne", only those within the CBD area where the Melbourne 
> place=suburb exists.
> 
> While in rural areas it's a locality not a suburb, the two usually go 
> hand in hand, and I'd say it's okay to still tag these as addr:suburb 
> even though it's technically a locality and not a suburb.
> 
> In this way I'd argue that addr:city has no place in Australia 
> (convince me otherwise).
> 
> Maybe for this import, where we find an address existing in OSM and it 
> has addr:city which matches the addr:suburb from our Vicmap address, 
> then we automatically swap it to addr:suburb?
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping non-existent streets?

[cleary]

I'd say that we map what we can confirm "on the ground". The inclusion of 
non-existent features in OSM is of no help to anyone.  In rural areas, there 
are whole villages in which plans were approved and gazetted but never 
constructed or, having once existed, have disappeared as the population 
disappeared - google maps occasionally includes some of these streets but we 
shouldn't.





On Sat, 1 May 2021, at 9:09 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>  
> Partially carrying on from my question the other day about houses going 
> between two streets, how do we map streets that physically aren't there 
> any more, but officially are?
> 
> On the Gold Coast, parts of a couple of streets facing the beach were 
> washed away by cyclone-caused erosion many years ago (1960s), & were 
> never re-built.
> 
> However, Council still has them listed as gazetted road reserves, even 
> though the only thing now existing is a footpath (if that!), & there 
> are houses that are numbered as being on those streets.
> 
> Now that I've confused you all nicely :-), here are some pictures that 
> will hopefully help!
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't able to include the actual image as it's too big, but 
> please open this file & have a look!
>  image.png 
> 
> 
> You can see that the street name on the grass says "Esplanade", & the 
> address of the place that is outlined in blue is 478 The Esplanade, 
> Palm Beach. Its (& the 4 other houses adjoining) only vehicle access is 
> via a driveway in from the Gold Coast Hwy to the west. One of the 
> remaining physical portions of The Esplanade is also visible just to 
> the south, where it stops, & becomes a grass footpath heading north, 
> past the front of these blocks.
> 
> Some street view images of this spot:
> 
> https://goo.gl/maps/trRhaj4XXQssddMK8
> 
> & looking back from the other way (clearly showing that there is no 
> vehicle access from The Esplanade):
> 
> https://goo.gl/maps/kYHNLCsDFgEuYg3R6
> 
> How it currently appears in OSM:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-28.10353/153.46432
> 
> So, what do we do with the non-existent street?
> 
> There's mention on the Oz Guidelines, which suggests leaving it tagged 
> as a highway=residential, but with no vehicle access?
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#How_do_I_map_a_road_that_ISN.27T_there
> 
> Alternatively I could mark the existing path (actually tagged as a 
> bridleway) with either razed or removed highway=residential, but would 
> I then add the street name as well?
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:razed:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:removed:
> 
> They could work when there is something there to tag, but in a 
> different location the same thing occurs with a missing road but there 
> isn't even a footpath in that area, just grass between the houses & the 
> beach, but it's still a named, gazetted road, with houses numbered off 
> that road?
> 
> Suggestions?
> 
> 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] Fwd: OSM Search results return strange stuff for Victoria.

[cleary]

I was told that the correct tag for places such as towns or suburbs is 
postal_code=* whereas the addr:postcode tag is for individual locations.

However, even with that tag on the suburb boundary, Nominatim is getting it 
wrong, particularly for streets close to suburb boundaries.  I found multiple 
examples in Sydney suburbs without much effort. In each case the suburb 
boundary included the correct postal_code=* tag.  In one instance the postcode 
shown by Nominatim is the special postcode for PO Boxes in an adjacent suburb, 
not even the usual postcode for street addresses. I can only presume a business 
in the area is tagged in OSM with its postal address, a PO Box in the adjacent 
suburb, and that has been taken by Nominatim as the postcode for this area. 

Perhaps we need to tag individual streets with postcodes, especially streets 
near suburb boundaries. 

One final thought ... perhaps Nominatim reads only addr:postcode=* tags and 
does not understand postal_code=*   If so, that might explain the anomalies.






On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, at 9:15 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Re-sent to list as well! 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> 
> 
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick* 
> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 08:14
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OSM Search results return strange stuff for Victoria.
> To: Jonathon Rossi 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 21:41, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
> > I've not mapped them before but curious now why we don't seem to have 
> > imported addr:postcode tags for suburbs, Nominatim uses them before 
> > centroids.
> > 
> > Surely addr:postcode doesn't have to be unique because it sounds like some 
> > countries have postcodes based on postal routes or other less 
> > administrative boundaries.
> 
> From recent posts re addresses on the tagging list, the UK even has 
> unique postcodes for individual buildings, & even for different 
> businesses / organisations inside the one building!
> 
> 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] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[cleary]

Thanks for that info.


On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, at 11:15 AM, Mark Pulley wrote:
> There is flood_prone=yes that can be used for these roads - but only 
> where signposted.
> 
> Mark P.
> 
> > On 27 Nov 2020, at 8:19 pm, cleary  wrote:
> > 
> > In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that is 
> > a separate issue.  Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as floodways 
> > and I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for that. If so, 
> > it should be only where signposted and we should not assume that every 
> > place where a road crosses a stream is necessarily subject to flooding. 
> 
> ___
> 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 Culverts on Roads

[cleary]

I agree with tagging any section of road with speed limits or weight limits 
where applicable. I have been driving on Australian roads for many years and, 
while I have seen bridges or sections of roads signposted as being subject to 
speed or weight limits, I do not recall ever seeing a few metres of road over a 
culvert with such limits.

If there are signposted limits, I support tagging the appropriate section of 
road. However, I would not support non-verifiable limits being added to OSM.  

If a section of road is subject to signposted limits, I think it would apply to 
a length of road longer than the short distance over a culvert so that the road 
limits would be mapped separately from the tunnel=culvert which is part of the 
waterway.  

While it is a matter for judgement in each case, waterways in culverts would 
usually be layer=-1 so that the road does not need to have a layer tag. Where 
the level of a road is elevated to cross a waterway, then it may be appropriate 
to add layer=1 but this would depend on survey or street-level imagery and 
unlikely to be determined from satellite imagery. 

In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that is a 
separate issue.  Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as floodways and I 
am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for that. If so, it should 
be only where signposted and we should not assume that every place where a road 
crosses a stream is necessarily subject to flooding. 







On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, at 11:15 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Apologies for the boring subject, but I'd like to talk about mapping 
> out Culverts on (way/highway) roads.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert
> 
> The reason we would like to map these is that they influence road usage 
> and in particular usage for heavy vehicles. They are very much like a 
> bridge in that they have weight & width limits and often have 
> conditions of use (such as maximum speed) or considerations during 
> natural disaster scenarios (i.e. flooding). *Note - tagging should be 
> on the way, not on a node.*
> 
> 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.
> 
> Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?
>  * Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 :
>* _*Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?*_ 
> 
>  * Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480
>* Way needs to be split
>* Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with 
> tunnel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
>* _*Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?*_
> We plan to be tagging a lot of culverts in the future, so it's 
> important for use to get some clarity around this for obvious reasons.
> 
> Thanks for reading & look forward to hearing your responses.
> 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] Naming Ramps in Australia

[cleary]

I agree with Andrew Harvey's comments.  Thanks to Aleksandar for raising this 
issue which has also vexed me.



On Tue, 17 Nov 2020, at 7:52 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 00:04, Aleksandar Matejevic (E-Search) via 
> Talk-au  wrote:
> > Hi all, 
> > I have noticed that the majority of ramps in Australia tend to have 
> > descriptive names and that naming format/system is not unique. Also, it is 
> > 50-50 between named and unnamed ramps.  
> > 
> > I have researched ramps across all Australia, looked at Mapillary, OSC, 
> > government data, OSM history. On street level imagery I could not find any 
> > named ramp. In some cases there was an exit number, and it was tagged as 
> > junction:ref because it is not a name of the exit, but all I could find 
> > were just destination signs.  However, on OSM, ramps had names which in 
> > some cases contained information for destinations (John Willcock Link 
> > (Eastbound) to Brand Highway) or their function (Pacific Highway 
> > On/Offramp). Government data was descriptive in some cases, there was no 
> > name in others so no consistency there also. 
> > 
> > I think that ramps do not have names and therefore should not contain a 
> > name key in OSM (only if there is a specific name for it, then it should 
> > have a name key). Exit numbers should be added as junction:ref and 
> > signposts data should be added either as destination relation or 
> > destination key on the way so routing algorithms could pick that info and 
> > give instructions like: "Take the exit toward X,Y,Z". If there is a name, 
> > instructions will be like: "Take left to X,Y,Z onramp/offramp”. 
> > 
> > I am raising this question in hope to get some kind of consensus how to 
> > treat these cases across Australia, so all the ramps have the same format 
> > (conclusion could be added to Australian Tagging Guidelines on wiki page 
> > for all editors to have as instruction). 
> > 
> > What is your opinion on this?
> 
> 
> Great question, I agree with you that most offramps don't have names 
> and shouldn't have a name tag in OSM. Something like "Princes Highway 
> Offramp" unless signposted as that shouldn't be used in my opinion. 
> Instead we should map the destination sign relation (so routers can 
> give correct instructions like "Take exit N towards X" which match the 
> signage) and omit the name tag.
> 
> Not every road way needs a name.
> 
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 07:28, Ian Bennett  wrote:
> > As a user, I would prefer to hear what I'm looking at. In other words, the 
> > sat nav is saying what 
> > the signage is showing.
> 
> In this case it's best we omit the name tag in OSM where we've mapped a 
> descriptive non-signed name so that routers don't waste time telling 
> you the descriptive name like "Princes Highway Offramp" and instead can 
> focus on what is usually signed, the destination and optionally exit 
> number. 
>  
> ___
> 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] Abbreviations in bus stop names (Was Re: Mapping Transport for NSW transit stop numbers)

[cleary]

When I have added bus stop names in the past, using signposts or local 
knowledge, I have avoided abbreviations as I have understood that to be usual 
OSM practice. I am familiar with abbreviations so I am comfortable with them, 
especially "St" instead of "Street" and "Dr" instead of "Drive".   Both methods 
convey the necessary information to users so I have no strong view.   My 
particular request is to avoid capitalising words other than street or place 
names so that "Opp" would be "opposite" or "opp" and "After" would be "after" 
without capital letter. I don't think these intermediary words are usually 
capitalised and it was this unfamiliar capitalisation that jarred with me as I 
read the names of the bus stops.  Whichever way it is done, this data will be a 
welcome addition to OSM. Thanks.




On Fri, 13 Nov 2020, at 4:17 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 10/11/2020 9:08 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > There was some work going on at 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfNSW_Data_Imports which I don't 
> > think made it to the list. So this is the perfect opportunity to raise 
> > it on the list and if there are any concerns or discussions for that 
> > import, let's work that out here.
> 
> What are people's views on abbreviations in bus stop names?
> 
> When I was working on bus stops in Canberra I converted names such as:
> 
> River St Opp Morpeth St
> Yamba Dr 2nd After Wisdom St
> 
> to
> 
> River Street Opposite Morpeth Street
> Yamba Drive Second After Wisdom Street
> 
> Is it worthwhile doing this for the TfNSW data or are people happy if 
> the abbreviated versions get imported?
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping Transport for NSW transit stop numbers

[cleary]

Yes, I and others have used ref=* and it seems OK.  Example: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6763249794  However I have also seen 
others use local_ref=* as at  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2877506734

I'm not sure that there is any purpose to "local_ref" unless it is somehow 
different from an official "ref".

I have used only stop numbers noted from surveying signs at bus stops. Earlier 
this year there was brief discussion about accessing NSW Transport Open Data - 
for example  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2020-February/013568.html   
but no one has yet acted on that, as far as I know.






On Mon, 9 Nov 2020, at 11:33 PM, Mat Attlee wrote:
> Is there a process in place for mapping Transport for NSW stop 
> identifiers? For example
> 
> https://transportnsw.info/stop?q=10113854#/
> https://transportnsw.info/stop?q=10101120#/
> 
> In their domain they are referred to as TSN (Transit Stop Number) 
> however what key should they be mapped to in OSM? Would ref be an 
> appropriate key?
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

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

[cleary]

I usually tag such roads in rural areas as highway=unclassified. 

I would use highway=residential for towns, suburbs or outer-suburban areas with 
residential housing or large housing blocks up to about 2 hectares - where the 
landuse is primarily residential or other urban use such as commercial. 

In rural areas, the land is usually used for agricultural or other purposes, 
with a few buildings on each farm. I would not regard this as residential and I 
would use the "unclassified" tag.





On Fri, 2 Oct 2020, at 2:43 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi everyone, I was reviewing highway tags in south-central NSW 
> (initially to add in missing paved and unpaved tags) and noted that 
> road classification differ greatly between adjacent local gov areas. In 
> central Federation Shire Council, north of Mulwala and Corowa, the bulk 
> of rural roads are tagged as residential whereas in all surrounding 
> LGAs they are tagged as unclassified, as shown in this Overpass query: 
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YCa
> 
> 
> (the query shows 4 adjacent LGAs, with the Federation Shire in the 
> lower centre). 
> 
> 
> This is a rural cropping /grazing region, not a densely settled 
> irrigation area. Is it appropriate to re-tag the rural "residential" 
> roads as "unclassified'' for consistency, after inspecting each on 
> satellite images, leaving residential roads in and around small towns 
> only? Thanks for your help, Ian
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

[talk-au] PSMA Boundaries

[cleary]

This morning I was looking on the map for an unfamiliar location in Queensland. 
 Not only did I find the place I was looking for but I was pleasantly surprised 
to find administrative boundaries showing for suburbs/localities and Local 
Government Areas in Queensland.

I know it has been a lot of work in achieving this and I wish to thank those 
who have done this work. Well done.

I can see the work is ongoing in other states with more added to the map today. 
 Thank you.









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

Re: [talk-au] Admin_level discussion for Australia

[cleary]

In regard to ABS data ... I understand that it was added into OSM when it was 
the only data for which we could get permission.  ABS statistical areas 
approximate suburb boundaries (perhaps 90% similarity).  In the Sydney suburb 
where I live, the ABS boundary is almost exactly the suburb boundary that 
existed more than 20 years ago (last century!) but the official boundary has 
now changed. Now that we have accurate data on suburbs/localities, I think we 
should remove references to ABS data.

In regard to mapping localities ...  I don't have knowledge of the Gold Coast 
but, in NSW, I see localities as non-specific areas without precise boundaries 
and which are are smaller places within the bounded places usually referred to 
as suburbs.  If there are official boundaries for Gold Coast localities, then I 
withdraw my comments. However generally I think the suburbs are best mapped as 
areas with precise boundaries while localities are mapped as nodes. In rural 
areas, these places are often unpopulated and mapped as "place=locality" or one 
or two houses mapped as "place=isolated_dwelling" (both of which I have used).  
In metropolitan areas, they can be mapped with a node "place=neighbourhood" 
(which I have used) or "place=quarter" (which I have not used).

I have mapped boundaries in NSW and SA and I think LGA at level 6 and suburb at 
level 10 has worked well in both places so I see no reason to change. However I 
am open to something else if others think different levels would be better.





On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, at 3:58 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 13:29, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> >> 
> > That part I'm not sure what the original intent was or what it means. Which 
> > ABS boundary, why are statistical boundaries even relevant here.
> 
> Could be wiped off the list & left as another "Not in Use" then?
> 
> > If there's a case for splitting suburb/localities across 9 and 10 I'm happy 
> > to hear it out.
> 
> I suppose you could say 9 for "official" suburbs & 10 for named places 
> that are only localities eg the Gold Coast has 81 "suburbs", of which 
> 52 are gazetted  as suburbs 
>  and 
> 29 as localities 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gold_Coast_suburbs
> 
> Be a hell of a job going through & checking / changing them all though!
> 
> 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] PSMA Administrative Boundaries

[cleary]

Thanks to both Andrew Davidson and Andrew Harvey for their work as I see 
addition of PSMA administrative boundaries as an important improvement for our 
map.

In regard to adding source tags to objects, I find them very helpful when 
editing something. If I think I have contrary information, I refer to the 
source of the existing data. If it is an authoritative source, I am prompted to 
go back and check my own information. Where information is unsourced or refers 
to a less authoritative source, then I am more likely to proceed with the edit 
or attempt to contact the mapper who entered the previous information.  Also I 
hope that by adding authoritative sources for my edits, other mappers will be 
less likely to make changes without contacting me or at least double-checking 
the accuracy of their later information.  If information comes from multiple 
sources, then it may be appropriate to have multiple source tags e.g. 
source:geometry, source:name, source:alt_name etc.

In regard to relations, it is possible to have different sources for the 
relation and for component ways, e.g a relation for a waterway may show the 
source of information including the name sourced from a permitted government 
dataset but component segments of the waterway may be sourced from two 
different satellite imagery sources.  Again, I find sources helpful. Even state 
boundaries need verifying. At one time (not sure if it still the case) some SA 
Govt data showed some SA localities and protected areas as extending into NSW 
along parts of the shared border. After looking closely, I moved the OSM 
boundary slightly in some areas (generally preferring the NSW LPI data) but I 
was always careful to show the source of my data so that other mappers could 
verity or challenge me if appropriate.  Some administrative boundaries in OSM 
were sourced from ABS data which were always just approximations. ABS data was 
useful in OSM when we had nothing else, but not now that we have accurate data 
from official sources.  I have found it helpful to know the sources of the data 
I am looking at. 




On Tue, 15 Sep 2020, at 12:53 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Resurecting this old thread as Andrew Davidson has been working on this 
> import plan a bit more -> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Import%2FCatalogue%2FPSMA_Admin_Boundaries=revision=2034132=1918537
> 
> Surfacing a few points from my review:
> 
> 1. psma:loc_pid. Where this is a stable ID that is used as a reference, 
> the existing ref tag is better for this. If we want to be more specific 
> then ref:psma or something like that would work. No need to invent new 
> tags here when one already exists, is well documented and in widespread 
> use.
> 
> 2. Regarding source tags on objects, this might be something I added 
> originally, I can't remember, but I'm on the fence about it. While on 
> one hand I can see it being helpful for mappers to understand where 
> these were sourced from, over time as people make changes in OSM the 
> source tag becomes inaccurate. I've seen this with existing source 
> tags, where people generally don't remove them if updating based on a 
> different source. Since you can always inspect the history to find the 
> source, is there really any benefit to having these on each object? 
> Given a whole bunch of other tags like contract details, website etc. 
> for LGAs can be added to, a top level source tag is not perfect. I'm 
> good with source:geometery on the ways, but not sure about source on 
> the relations.
> 
> 3. More of a question for Andrew Davidson, is the plan for the actual 
> upload to go through the state borders and other ways already existing 
> in OSM, and delete the one with FIXME from your candidates, and use the 
> existing state border as part of the new relation? The "import" upload 
> should immediately be correct and not a broken state until post-import 
> changes clean things up, it should be uploaded clean in the first 
> instance. So this means manually working on it in JOSM before uploading.
> ___
> 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] Aussie First Nation addresses

[cleary]

I reside in a NSW suburb/locality which was initially given a British name by 
the early British settlers but very soon they adopted the name used by the 
local indigenous occupants. My home address continues to have the name used by 
the original inhabitants.

Some other places and and landmarks are being renamed in recognition of 
indigenous heritage or people notably Uluru in NT and Barangaroo in NSW. Some 
newer suburban developments are being officially given indigenous names. 
Nevertheless some people feel the transition to indigenous names is not 
happening quickly enough.

I support indigenous names being adopted for official usage but it would be 
premature to adopt names which are not officially used.  I think OSM's 
administrative boundaries must reflect current official status and we should 
not anticipate future developments until they are officially implemented.  

As previously discussed, state/territory, LGAs and suburb/localities are the 
main administrative boundaries used in Australia and we should not anticipate 
adding other levels until/unless they are officially adopted by government.  If 
indigenous boundaries were to be mapped at the moment, I don't believe they 
would be  "administrative". 




On Wed, 9 Sep 2020, at 11:01 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> We spoke about the concept of listing Aboriginal Nation addresses a while 
> back.
> 
> Just reading this article:
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-10/push-for-indigenous-place-names-in-addresses/12645756
> 
> ATM, States are admin_level 4 while cities are 6 (have we fixed that 
> yet?). Would these be listed as admin 5, or would that not be an admin 
> level?
> 
> 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] Are Health Centres, hospitals

[cleary]

Graeme, In regard to your question about copyright.  

Reading what is stated by Queensland Health on its website, as you have quoted 
it, I think that taking the information and incorporating into OSM is one of 
the areas that requires the permission of Queensland Health. 



On Mon, 7 Sep 2020, at 12:17 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Continuing on with this, I've started looking at hospitals shown on the 
> Overpass search & updating their details based purely on a search for 
> "Whichever Hospital" (& have so far already found another normal 
> medical centre tagged as a hospital!). 
> 
> All of the search results that I've looked at so far have referred back 
> to this Qld Health page:https://www.health.qld.gov.au/services, so I'm  
> wondering whether we're allowed to use it, to access details of all Qld 
> hospitals?
> 
> Health copyright 
> (https://www.health.qld.gov.au/global/copyright-statement) is shown as 
> being under a Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 3.0 Australia 
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/au/deed.en> licence, & 
> states
> "In essence, you are free to copy and communicate the work in its 
> current form, as long as you attribute Queensland Health as the source 
> of the copyright material and abide by the licence terms".
> 
> The link for further permission to use their copyright material says:
> "Queensland Health permission is required to: 
> 
>  * adapt material from the Queensland Health website or other source 
> where it is not expressly permitted by a copyright notice or Creative 
> Commons licence.
> 
>  * use material from the Queensland Health website or other source in a 
> manner that is expressly prohibited by the copyright notice or Creative 
> Commons licence.
> 
> Queensland Health permission is *not required to: *
> 
> * * * * provide a hyperlink to any Queensland Health internet page from 
> another website*
> 
>  * do any act that is expressly permitted by a copyright notice or 
> creative commons licence on the material. 
> 
>  * print, download or *communicate whole or parts of documents sourced 
> from any Queensland Health internet page*, provided that it is not 
> expressly prohibited by a copyright notice or Creative Commons licence, 
> the source is attributed (see below) and the material remains 
> unaltered."
> 
> So, would we need to go through the full permission & waiver process to 
> use data off that Health page?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> 
> 
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 09:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 20:25, Ewen Hill  wrote:
> >> We also have the grey area of Bush Nursing Centres that are clearly not 
> >> hospitals but are the best place to head to in an emergency and may be the 
> >> difference when you are looking at two equal sized communities. The ten 
> >> staff sounds arbitrary. 
> >> 
> >> Shouldn't the difference be based on the capability of the premises to 
> >> resuscitate, handle compound fractures and prolong life until the patient 
> >> can be moved to a more appropriate facility rather than a "must have ten 
> >> medical staff"?
> > 
> > Good points, Ewen. 
> > 
> > Thanks, everyone - you've convinced me that I was looking at it the wrong 
> > way & that these type of facilities should stay as hospitals.
> > 
> >>   Further more, should it be defined as "an official hospital or the first 
> >> place of medical support in a rural setting"?
> > 
> > You're probably correct but I think we'd have issues changing the main 
> > definition of hospital, as it wouldn't suit the Western European / US point 
> > of view :-( 
> > 
> > As Cleary mentioned earlier: "Perhaps the Australian Guidelines should 
> > permit the "hospital" tag where that is consistent with usage of the term 
> > by the local community, would be a lot easier to do, so I'll make that 
> > amendment if there's no major objection? 
> > 
> > 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] Are Health Centres, hospitals

[cleary]

The term "hospital" is subject to a lot of interpretation and is an emotionally 
laden issue in many rural communities.

Many of the "hospitals" mapped in NSW rural areas (and presumably in other 
states) do not satisfy the OSM definition of "hospital" and some would not 
satisfy the definition of "clinic" depending on whether the 10 staff (as 
specified in the OSM wiki) should be there at any one time or could be rostered 
one, two or three at a time over the many hours of each working week. These 
health facilities are important to their communities and to visitors. If this 
is all the community has and they regard it as their "hospital" then I feel 
reluctant to take it away.

In the event of an accident or urgent illness, where would local residents or 
visitors go?  They will usually tell you to go to the "hospital" (irrespective 
of its official title).  If one referred to a local map in an emergency, one 
would hope the nearest emergency treatment centre would be clearly identifiable 
on the map.

I reckon the locals would regard the Burketown facility as their hospital even 
if it is not so named and even if it does not satisfy OSM criteria. Further, 
the Queensland Health webpage states that the Burketown clinic provides limited 
"hospital services".  

The Burketown clinic is NOT a "medical centre". "Medical practitoners" (often 
referred to as "doctors") have a special status in legislation and it would 
usually expected that only registered medical practitioners practise in a 
"medical centre". Anyone other than a doctor would work strictly under the 
direction of medical practitioners in that location. That is not how hospitals 
or public health services operate. To my knowledge, "medical centres" in 
Australia are always operated by doctors in private practice. I am confident 
that would not be the case in Burketown.

"Amenity=clinic" would probably be the other tag I can suggest, even if the 
Burketown clinic might not satisfy wiki requirements for that tag either.  
Perhaps the Australian Guidelines should permit the "hospital" tag where that 
is consistent with usage of the term by the local community.   










On Fri, 4 Sep 2020, at 2:51 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Over the last few days, I've spotted a few places marked as hospitals 
> that aren't.
> 
> Locally, there were two Aged Care homes, then as I looked around 
> further, I spotted another Aged Care home, an Ambulance station in a 
> small country town & an SES station!
> 
> The Ambo station I could almost relate to, as that's where you go for 
> any medical emergency, but none of the others. Incidentally, there is 
> hopefully some progress on them being rendered? 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3968
> 
> I did an Overpass search for Qld & found ~2100 "hospitals", which seems 
> like a lot?  https://overpass-turbo.eu/# (Don't know if that works or 
> not?), & checking at random, found more Ambo's, Doctor's surgeries & so 
> on also marked.
> 
> I did notice, though, a few of these: 
> https://www.health.qld.gov.au/services/northwest/nwest_burket_hc
> 
> Personally, I would call that a Medical Centre, not a Hospital?, while 
> this https://www.health.qld.gov.au/cq/hospitals/blackwater/services 
> with A & inpatients *is* a Hospital.
> 
> What do you all think?
> 
> 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] Admin levels for LGAs / suburbs etc changed (Was "Suburbs & admin boundaries stopping streets being found?)

[cleary]

I agree with reverting the changes in the wiki in regard to Administrative 
Boundaries.

Mike King's comments supporting boundaries for (1) country, (2) state, (3) LGA 
and (4) suburb are consistent with general usage in the wider community and 
with previous usage in OSM.

There are other "administrative" boundaries established by governments but they 
are for specialised purposes such as counties and parishes used for property 
titles, land districts for regulating agriculture, health districts defining 
which body administers health services in designated areas, "regions, commands 
and districts" for administering police services, "school education areas" for 
administering schools and, no doubt, "administrative boundaries" for many other 
government services at both state and federal levels.  However these are really 
special purpose boundaries which don't belong on the main map, or could be 
mapped as something other than administrative if there were a reason to include 
them in OSM.

In regard to levels, I had a quick look at other countries but government 
systems seem too different for me to make broad comparisons. I am a little 
familiar with Ireland where counties roughly correlate in size and in some 
functionality with LGAs in Australia. In Ireland, counties are tagged as level 
6.  In the U.K, counties seem to be generally mapped as level 6 except in 
Metropolitan areas in England.   I had previously perceived level 6 as 
appropriate for LGAs in Australia and cannot see any reason or need to change 
it.  Further, I am reluctant to move LGAs to a lower level as they are 
significant in the Australian systems of government.  Some individual LGAs in 
NSW have larger populations than the whole of the Northern Territory. Brisbane 
City LGA has a population much greater than the whole of Tasmania and not much 
less than that of South Australia. In terms of area, I believe there is one LGA 
in Western Australia that has a larger area than the whole of Victoria. I would 
prefer to have LGAs in Australia at not lower than level 6.

I think most suburbs have been mapped as level 10 and that seems OK to me but I 
have no problem with changing to level 9 if that were agreed. Unless we are 
intending to map something else at level 10, it doesn't really matter.   As I 
wrote above - I support mapping country, states (& territories), LGAs and 
suburbs as administrative boundaries so I do not see anything at a lower level 
being included in Australian administrative boundaries. 

So I suggest we stick with 

State and Territory  at level 4
LGA at level 6
suburb at level 10

 





On Wed, 2 Sep 2020, at 4:06 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 2/09/2020 10:38 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > 
> > Did a bit of searching & it appears it was only changed on 15/7/20, but 
> > no, I certainly don't remember any discussion?
> > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Admin_level_10=prev=2012028
> > 
> > Makes reference to "Australian Tagging Review (2012 / 2016)", but that 
> > doesn't help me much either?
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> He is a serial offender:
> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013009.html
> 
> There was no discussion. I'd suggest that the changes to the wiki page 
> should be reverted.
> 
> ___
> 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] Suburbs & admin boundaries stopping streets being found?

[cleary]

I looked at the Wiki. It is quite a while since I looked at the section on 
administrative boundaries. My recollection is that it used to have LGA as 
admin_level=6 and suburb as level 9 or 10.  I do not recall any discussion of 
inclusion of regions, districts and townsites nor any previous discussion in 
regard to changing the level of LGA.   The wiki includes a link to a 
downloadable example which is headed "Australian Boundary Tagging _ OSM" but 
with copyright attributed to Government of Western Australia.  I am not sure 
how the current content of wiki was arrived at.  My memory is not perfect so 
perhaps someone can remind me how the wiki content on administrative boundaries 
and the WA Government copyright document was reached.

In NSW there are land districts defined in legislation with administrative 
boards etc so they could be included if we could get permission to use the 
source data (not included in current approval as far as I am aware) and there 
are probably equivalents in other jurisdictions. I think administrative 
boundaries must be sourced from government.   In NSW,  land districts are 
larger in area than local government areas (LGAs) but their influence and 
importance is (in my view) much less than LGAs - the Greater Sydney Local Land 
Services board has the majority of its membership appointed by the Minister for 
Agriculture and few Sydney residents would even know of its existence or role.  
I'd want to put them at level 11, certainly not a higher level than the LGAs.  
I do not think that a larger area automatically warrants a higher 
administrative level.

I am open to changing and developing our guidelines. However some boundaries 
are not necessarily administrative  e.g. Eyre Peninsula (natural region),  
Barossa Valley District (protected area), Illawarra Region, New England Region. 
 Some boundaries might be tourist labels or have local currency but would need 
to be mapped as something other than administrative.


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

Re: [talk-au] SA, parks tagging for the render

[cleary]

This issue was raised on this list some time ago, perhaps four or five years, 
maybe more.  I am one of the mappers who has added "leisure=nature reserve" to 
many protected areas since that time.  While tagging for the renderer is 
generally discouraged, a map without protected areas was perceived as a worse 
outcome. 

I have not gone back to search the precise discussion. However it is my 
recollection that, at the time of that list discussion, no "protected areas" 
were being rendered on the map and it was advised that this was unlikely to 
change for quite some time. National parks, conservation parks, nature refuges 
etc etc by various names are substantial and significant additions to the map. 
It was tragic that they were not being rendered unless tagged as 
"boundary=national park" or "leisure=nature reserve".

It is my recollection that, although not all protected areas are intended for 
leisure, it was considered preferable to include the "leisure=nature reserve" 
tag for protected areas classes one to six until such time as protected areas 
were rendered on the map.  

If the rendering situation for "protected areas" has changed, then I am open to 
removing the "leisure=nature reserve" tags.  However if removing the tags leads 
to complete removal of the areas from the map, then I think it remains one of 
the few areas where we tolerate tagging for the rendering outcome. 

I remain opposed to other tags intended to achieve particular shades of green 
or other colours on the map,  I also agree that natural features such as 
"natural=wood" etc be mapped separately as they are rarely bounded precisely by 
the boundaries of the protected area.  






On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, at 8:59 AM, Warin wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I have come across a new mapper that has changed the tagging to change 
> the shading.. i.e. tagging for the render.
> 
> See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89852186
> 
> 
> However .. on  looking around ...
> 
> It looks like many of the protected areas have, in the past been tagged 
> this way!!!
> 
> 
> See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/56255423
> 
> The tag nature reserve was applied in 2010.
> 
> The tag forest was applied in 2012.
> 
> 
> My thoughts...
> 
> 
> Both tags should be removed..
> 
> The "protected areas" are rendered in a certain way and that rendering 
> should not be artificially changed by adding other tags.
> 
> Certainly tagging the tree area ... fine but I find it hard to see why 
> the surrounding tree area is left unmapped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Contributions to Road Geometry in Perth, Australia

[cleary]

Thanks for the interest in mapping in Australia and thanks for posting your 
plans on this list.

I would add to the caution expressed by others.  I live in an urban location in 
Australia but I have travelled in other areas within Australia.  It has taken 
me quite some time to learn to interpret satellite imagery and I still have a 
lot to learn about this country.  After personally visiting areas and noting 
what I see, and sometimes taking photographs, I then return home and compare my 
notes with what I see in the imagery and I am still surprised.  I think it can 
be quite precarious to map features using just satellite imagery unless you 
have expert assistance in interpreting the imagery.  For example, a common 
error by others has been to map lines of cleared vegetation as roads when they 
are actually fences. Even where an unmapped road exists, it is probably still 
unmapped because it is a private road and not accessible by the public - many 
of the roads on rural properties in Australia are private and, if added to the 
map, need to marked as such. Farmers get annoyed about intruders on their farms 
especially as biosecurity is a significant concern in parts of Australia.  

So while I appreciate contributions to the map, I suggest that "armchair" 
mapping needs to be undertaken with a lot of caution.




On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, at 2:17 AM, OSM NextBillion. AI wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> 
> We’re a small team based out of Hyderabad, India. We would be doing 
> minimal edits in Perth and contribute to OSM in the next couple of 
> weeks, in-line with OSM and Australia specific tagging guidelines [Link 
> ].
> 
> 
> Please refer our Wiki 
>  and Github 
>  project pages for 
> more information.
> 
> Looking forward to suggestions, if any ☺
> 
> Thanking you in advance,
> Team NextBillion
> ___
> 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] Bus stops in Sydney

[cleary]

Hi Sebastian.

I don't think we have permission to use information from 
https://transportnsw.info  so we would need other sources in order to add this 
information in OSM.

However I am not sure that this information is necessary.  Over a few years, I 
have added some bus stops and bus routes and I think the route number is very 
important and stop numbers and names are also helpful but other information not 
so important.

Recently I caught a bus on a minor route. The route was formerly operated by 
Sydney Buses but now appears to be operated by Hillsbus.  It really didn't 
matter to me as a commuter - a bus with the right route number came to my stop 
and took me to where I wanted.   

The NSW Government owns all the routes and now owns all the vehicles. Private 
companies (including corporatised government owned organisations) bid for 
contracts to operate particular services for specified periods. Periodically 
the "operator" (which maintains the vehicles and employs the drivers) may 
change. But it is fairly seamless for passengers. In the past, different  
operators painted vehicles in their own colours but now the NSW Government 
wants all its vehicles the same blue and white colours, so that any differences 
will be minimal when a different operator takes over a route. Older buses still 
have old colours but I understand that the Government's standard colours will 
be used when the vehicles are re-painted. All timetables and information is 
issued by Transport for NSW not by individual companies.

Some buses have signs such as "Operated by Sydney Buses for Transport NSW" or 
"Operated by Busways for NSW Government".  Operators whose names I have seen on 
buses include : Sydney Buses, Transdev, Busways, Hillsbus, Westbus but I think 
there are others and I am not sure who operates all current services. As a 
passenger, it has not really mattered to me and it does not seem to affect 
stops, routes, timetables, or the map.  

Various names are a bit confusing to me even though I have been a regular user 
of public transport. Each new Governemnt sometimes seeks to re-badge something 
as if it is new. I think the name "State Transit Authority" refers to the 
overarching government office which operates the corporatised government-owned 
operators (which I think include Sydney Buses and maybe another operator) and 
will probably be sold off eventually to private owners.

As I said at the start, route numbers are really useful. The numbers and names 
of stops are also helpful. Otherwise I'm not sure what is correct and I'm not 
sure it is necessary for the map.






On Sat, 4 Jul 2020, at 9:33 AM, Sebastian Spiess wrote:
> Hello list,
> 
> it's been a while for me to be active, life got in the way :-) I hope
> everyone is sane and safe.
> 
> 
> Every now and then I add some bus stops around my area. I wanted to add
> operator and network tags as well but am not quite sure.
> 
> 
> What I found so far was:
> 
>     network=Sydney Buses
>     operator=State Transit Authority, Transit Systems West
>     operator=Transport NSW
>     network=Sydney Buses Network
>     network=TNSW - Sydney Buses
>     operator=State Transit Authority
>     operator=Sydney Busses
>     This is as a result of this query https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/VMz
> 
> Now my first point for a source is/was https://transportnsw.info where
> I've learned that NSW is structured in several Regions
> (https://transportnsw.info/regions#/) and Sydney is in the "Sydney and
> surrounds" region (https://transportnsw.info/regions/sydney-surrounds)
> 
> This region has a multitude of operators providing different types of
> services. One the operators page (https://transportnsw.info/operators) I
> can filter for Sydney + Bus. In the big list I can find "State Transit"
> (https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/state-transit) and by the images of
> the buses there I guess that most of the stops I'm adding are from that
> operator.
> 
> This leads me to believe operator="State Transit" correct. But reading
> on https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/state-transit/about-us I can learn
> that they are an organisation of 3,500 people with approximately 2,900
> bus operators. Which leaves me again puzzled and unsure.
> 
> So the tags I currently thing are correct are
> 
>     operator=Transport for NSW
> 
>     network=Sydney Buses
> 
> but I'm sure there are others that can shed a better light onto this and
> maybe provide some guidance.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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 tag plantations?

[cleary]

I agree with Warin.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, at 12:58 AM, Warin wrote:
> On 18/6/20 6:48 pm, Little Maps wrote:
> > Many thanks Warin, that seems much more variable in Vic, esp in Gippsland 
> > where natural=wood is a common tag for areas tagged as State Forests. 
> > Plantations in SW Vic are quite a mix. I wonder if it’s worth adding a 
> > section to the Aus tagging guidelines page to specify a preferred usage for 
> > landuse=forest and natural=wood, and perhaps other vegetation tags? I’d be 
> > happy to draft some text if more seasoned mappers were happy to comment and 
> > edit it. Thanks again Ian 
> 
> 
> Tread here carefully Little Maps! 
> 
> 
> I would like to see the following use: natural=wood for areas of trees. 
> Note the key 'natural' applies to both natural and man altered areas. 
> landuse=forest for areas that are maintained by humans to obtain tree 
> produce e.g. timber. Note these areas usually have trees, but after 
> harvest may have no trees. 
> Note there may be some who disagree with this, see 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest. I would be interested to 
> here of any Australians who disagree with the above, and why they 
> disagree. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] What do you prefer for Barmah-Millewa: swamp or wood?

[cleary]

You are right to point out that OSM offers a different choice of options 
compared with the NSW LPI BaseMap. Some time ago, when I couldn't find a legend 
on the BaseMap, I contacted NSW Spatial Services and I was directed to 
https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/apps/sites/#/home/pages/map-viewers 
where the NSW Map is shown with an explanatory legend.

In regard to swamps etc., the BaseMap shows only (1) land subject to 
inundation, (2) swamp-wet and (3) swamp-dry. I have studied the map and 
satellite imagery in other parts of NSW and I have visited some areas.  

As you have note, the BaseMap's "swamp-wet" does not differentiate the 
vegetation in the areas. After studying satellite imagery, I have mapped such 
areas in which trees are a significant features of the vegetation as 
natural=wetland + wetland=swamp. However where the vegetation has few or no 
trees and has more grass-type growth, i have used natural=wetland + 
wetland=marsh.   

The LPI BaseMap's "land subject to inundation" equates closely with 
natural=wetland in OSM and "swamp-dry" (seen in drier areas of the state rather 
than in the Murray River area) seems best mapped in OSM as natural=mud. 





On Tue, 12 May 2020, at 12:13 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Thanks Michael. Sorry, my last email overlapped with yours. I think a 
> major problem is that the way the LPI Basemap, and folks in Australia 
> generally, use the terms forest, swamp and wetland differs slightly 
> from the way they are described in the OSM wiki pages. For example, the 
> OSM guidelines restrict the term ‘swamp’ to areas with dense trees, 
> whereas the Basemap calls many treeless wetlands ‘swamps’. 
> 
> I initially mapped most of the forest as ‘swamp’ as this followed the 
> OSM wiki page guideline, but wasn’t really happy with this, as I always 
> thought of the place as a ‘flooded forest’ rather than a ‘forested 
> wetland’. Hence my query to the list server. I’ll follow your 
> suggestion below and will change the polygons back to wood in the next 
> day or two, with a ’Wetland’ overlay in most areas to show its 
> seasonally flooded. In practice there won’t be any great precision to 
> the wetland overlay as it’s such a mosaic.
> 
> Thanks again for everyone’s great feedback. Best wishes Ian
> 
> 
> > On 12 May 2020, at 9:55 pm, cleary  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > One further consideration is that NSW LPI BaseMap shows most of the NSW 
> > side of this area as wetland, subject to periodic inundation, while only 
> > small areas are shown as swamp.   At the moment, OSM shows most of it as 
> > swamp while the named swamps are shown as wetland - exactly the opposite of 
> > the LPI BaseMap.  
> > 
> > While the BaseMap is not perfect, it is a reasonably reliable guide in the 
> > absence of better information. 
> > 
> > While the BaseMap shows wetland and swamp, it does not show wooded areas. 
> > So perhaps the suggestion to show natural=wood and natural=wetland as 
> > separate polygons might be a useful approach although I suspect that the 
> > two together might then be rendered much the same as natural=swamp.  I too 
> > would appreciate other views on this topic. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> On Tue, 12 May 2020, at 8:37 AM, Little Maps wrote:
> >> Hello everyone, I don’t know if there is any right / wrong answer to 
> >> this question, hence I’m keen to know your preferences...
> >> 
> >> I’m mapping wetlands and vegetation along the Murray River upstream of 
> >> Yarrawonga, and am now mapping in Millewa forest. Millewa (in NSW) and 
> >> Barmah forest (in Vic) support large red gum forests which flood 
> >> regularly. Some areas flood annually, others less frequently. It 
> >> depends on how much water flows down the Murray and which stream 
> >> regulators in the forests are opened or closed.
> >> 
> >> My question is: would it be better to map this as a forest (i.e. 
> >> natural=wood) or as a ‘swamp’, which OSM defines as ‘an area of 
> >> waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation’, tagged as natural=wetland, 
> >> wetland=swamp, seasonal=yes. I’ve read the OSM wiki pages on both 
> >> options.
> >> 
> >> I’ve made a first stab at the area 
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-35.8026/145.1484
> >> and have mapped all but the extremes as swamp as this indicates that 
> >> the area floods regularly, which natural:wood does not show. However 
> >> most other areas on the river I’ve come across are mapped as 
> >> natural:wood with relatively small inliers for treeless wetlands and 
> >> some treed swamps.
> >> 
>

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

[cleary]

One further consideration is that NSW LPI BaseMap shows most of the NSW side of 
this area as wetland, subject to periodic inundation, while only small areas 
are shown as swamp.   At the moment, OSM shows most of it as swamp while the 
named swamps are shown as wetland - exactly the opposite of the LPI BaseMap.  

While the BaseMap is not perfect, it is a reasonably reliable guide in the 
absence of better information. 

While the BaseMap shows wetland and swamp, it does not show wooded areas. So 
perhaps the suggestion to show natural=wood and natural=wetland as separate 
polygons might be a useful approach although I suspect that the two together 
might then be rendered much the same as natural=swamp.  I too would appreciate 
other views on this topic. 




On Tue, 12 May 2020, at 8:37 AM, Little Maps wrote:
> Hello everyone, I don’t know if there is any right / wrong answer to 
> this question, hence I’m keen to know your preferences...
> 
> I’m mapping wetlands and vegetation along the Murray River upstream of 
> Yarrawonga, and am now mapping in Millewa forest. Millewa (in NSW) and 
> Barmah forest (in Vic) support large red gum forests which flood 
> regularly. Some areas flood annually, others less frequently. It 
> depends on how much water flows down the Murray and which stream 
> regulators in the forests are opened or closed.
> 
> My question is: would it be better to map this as a forest (i.e. 
> natural=wood) or as a ‘swamp’, which OSM defines as ‘an area of 
> waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation’, tagged as natural=wetland, 
> wetland=swamp, seasonal=yes. I’ve read the OSM wiki pages on both 
> options.
> 
> I’ve made a first stab at the area 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-35.8026/145.1484
> and have mapped all but the extremes as swamp as this indicates that 
> the area floods regularly, which natural:wood does not show. However 
> most other areas on the river I’ve come across are mapped as 
> natural:wood with relatively small inliers for treeless wetlands and 
> some treed swamps.
> 
> It’s a quick job to change from wetland:swamp to natural:wood and vice 
> versa and I don’t hold any strong preferences myself. If the general 
> consensus is that the area would be better called a wood (i.e. forest) 
> rather than a seasonal wetland I’ll change it immediately.
> (I haven’t mapped Barmah forest in Vic, as that was already mapped as 
> natural:wood but much of Barmah actually floods even more frequently 
> than Millewa).
> 
> Thanks very much for your advice. Best wishes Ian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

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

[cleary]

I have visited Millewa in NSW and I've seen a little of Barmah but not much.  I 
have a 4WD vehicle but I would not have left the road in either place as I 
would have become seriously bogged. It was quite wet in both places when I 
visited (some years apart, not at the same time). I think they are both swamp.  
 In contrast I have visited forest/wood and could safely drive off the road 
without getting bogged - they were not swamp.  It is a matter of judgment but 
if I can't comfortably drive through it because of the water  (like Millewa and 
Barmah areas) then I think they are swamp.



On Tue, 12 May 2020, at 8:37 AM, Little Maps wrote:
> Hello everyone, I don’t know if there is any right / wrong answer to 
> this question, hence I’m keen to know your preferences...
> 
> I’m mapping wetlands and vegetation along the Murray River upstream of 
> Yarrawonga, and am now mapping in Millewa forest. Millewa (in NSW) and 
> Barmah forest (in Vic) support large red gum forests which flood 
> regularly. Some areas flood annually, others less frequently. It 
> depends on how much water flows down the Murray and which stream 
> regulators in the forests are opened or closed.
> 
> My question is: would it be better to map this as a forest (i.e. 
> natural=wood) or as a ‘swamp’, which OSM defines as ‘an area of 
> waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation’, tagged as natural=wetland, 
> wetland=swamp, seasonal=yes. I’ve read the OSM wiki pages on both 
> options.
> 
> I’ve made a first stab at the area 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-35.8026/145.1484
> and have mapped all but the extremes as swamp as this indicates that 
> the area floods regularly, which natural:wood does not show. However 
> most other areas on the river I’ve come across are mapped as 
> natural:wood with relatively small inliers for treeless wetlands and 
> some treed swamps.
> 
> It’s a quick job to change from wetland:swamp to natural:wood and vice 
> versa and I don’t hold any strong preferences myself. If the general 
> consensus is that the area would be better called a wood (i.e. forest) 
> rather than a seasonal wetland I’ll change it immediately.
> (I haven’t mapped Barmah forest in Vic, as that was already mapped as 
> natural:wood but much of Barmah actually floods even more frequently 
> than Millewa).
> 
> Thanks very much for your advice. Best wishes Ian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

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

[cleary]

And I should have added, that it is usually just a node unless you have 
specified boundaries..



On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, at 2:56 AM, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi again everyone, hope you’re all enjoying Easter. A simple newbie 
> question...
> 
> How do you label localities that have no precise boundaries? I’m 
> working on part of the Murray River and adding locality names from Vic 
> Gov data. Many can be placed on mapped features (e.g. campsites and 
> beaches) but lots cannot.
> 
> The most common examples are ‘bends’ and ‘points’, such as Horseshoe 
> Bend, Hideaway Bend, Cray Point, Killers Point, etc. These areas have 
> no mapped boundaries. Should these be added by placing a node / point 
> in the appropriate place and labelled it as follows, or is there a 
> better way?
> 
> Place:locality
> Name: Killers Point
> Source geometry:
> Source name: xxx
> 
> Thanks again, and thanks too to Warin for answering my earlier question.
> 
> Best wishes Ian
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

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

[cleary]

Generally "place=locality" is appropriate for named places that are unpopulated.
(See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place}




On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, at 2:56 AM, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi again everyone, hope you’re all enjoying Easter. A simple newbie 
> question...
> 
> How do you label localities that have no precise boundaries? I’m 
> working on part of the Murray River and adding locality names from Vic 
> Gov data. Many can be placed on mapped features (e.g. campsites and 
> beaches) but lots cannot.
> 
> The most common examples are ‘bends’ and ‘points’, such as Horseshoe 
> Bend, Hideaway Bend, Cray Point, Killers Point, etc. These areas have 
> no mapped boundaries. Should these be added by placing a node / point 
> in the appropriate place and labelled it as follows, or is there a 
> better way?
> 
> Place:locality
> Name: Killers Point
> Source geometry:
> Source name: xxx
> 
> Thanks again, and thanks too to Warin for answering my earlier question.
> 
> Best wishes Ian
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

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

[cleary]

Hi Ian

Welcome to mapping in OSM.

The Murray River area, with state border, local government boundaries, national 
park boundaries, etc as well as gradually changing river course and wetlands 
etc is probably one of the most complex areas of the OSM map. While your 
enthusiasm is appreciated, this is probably not the place the start 
contributing.

If you do wish to make changes, you need to be confident of the source of the 
data you are entering. Most of the Murray is in NSW and the NSW LPI BaseMap is 
probably the most accurate government-sourced map to which we have access and, 
in my opinion, you would need very good reasons to move the state border or 
local government/locality boundaries or national park/reserve boundaries in NSW 
from those shown in that map.  I am not familiar with the accuracy of OSM on 
the Victorian side of the state border.

Some natural features such as waterways, woods, etc might be improved using 
satellite imagery such as Bing or NSW LPI Imagery but they should not be 
confused with the official administrative boundaries as surveyed and published 
by government authorities.  It is messy when the state border, as surveyed, 
does not align with satellite imagery of the riverbank or when not all of a 
national park is covered with trees etc but we need to reflect the world as 
accurately as we can, even if it looks messy.

I like your enthusiasm and would encourage you to start mapping but not in this 
location because of its complexity.  Thanks also for asking before rushing in.  
Please start contributing but not on the Murray (or at least on the NSW side) 
until you get more experience. 

Best wishes and welcome to OSM.





On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, at 9:31 AM, Little Maps wrote:
> Hello everyone, I’m Ian, I’m new to this group and pretty new to OSM. 
> Being stuck inside for the foreseeable future, I’m keen to do something 
> useful. 
> 
> I live on the Murray River and have noticed that many sections of the 
> river along the NSW-Vic border could benefit from some extra work. In 
> lots of places, the boundaries of the river, local government areas, 
> reserves and tree cover are all mapped differently, creating a mess of 
> intertwining boundaries. I hope I’m not offending anyone who has done 
> great work on the river in the past.
> 
> I’ve got a lot of time on my hands and am happy to try to improve the 
> mapping, taking on small chunks at a time. (I imagine it’s an enormous 
> job to do it all.) However I realise that it would be easy to stuff up 
> a lot of adjoining relationships so am keen to solicit advice from this 
> sage group.
> 
> Is this a task you think worthy of working on? Is it something that can 
> be done by a relative newby? (I worked as a research scientist for 25 
> years before I retired, but not in spatial sciences, so I’m used to 
> working accurately and methodically on big projects). More to the 
> point, if the task is worthwhile, is it possible to invite a mentor or 
> two to provide advice and feedback on techniques and results before I 
> make any big changes, so the results reach your high standards?
> 
> Thanks very much for your interest, I look forward to your feedback. 
> Best wishes and stay healthy. Cheers Ian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Sydney City Tunnels name= vs tunnel:name=

[cleary]

Unless the road has a different name (and I think that would be rare) I agree 
that the road name is the tunnel name. 

In my experience, signs show the tunnel name without any other road name.  
Where there are differences of opinion, I think local knowledge is always to be 
preferred.





On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, at 1:03 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> There were changes done recently by MS Open Maps team which moved 
> name=* to tunnel:name=*.
> 
> https://osmcha.org/changesets/82675900
> https://osmcha.org/changesets/82676173
> https://osmcha.org/changesets/82676226
> 
> I don't think these have seperate tunnel vs road names unlike some 
> bridges which do, and in many cases the road name is considered to be 
> the tunnel name.
> 
> Does anyone have thoughts on if we should tag name=* and tunnel:name=* 
> as the same, omit name= and just add tunnel:name=*?
> ___
> 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] Duplicate of the same airport

[cleary]

I think the air force base and civilian airport share the same runway but they 
are two distinct entities with separate buildings etc. Same applies in some 
other cities including Canberra. I would defer to someone more knowledgeable 
but I think it remains appropriate to have two separate entities mapped in OSM.



On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, at 7:06 PM, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au wrote:
>  
> Hi,
> 
> 
> There are two relations in OSM that are referring to the same airport:
> 
>  * https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6263052 
> 
>  * https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4145466 
> 
> 
> The first one has a *aeroway:aerodrome* tag, the second one has a 
> *military:airfield* tag.
> 
> 
> I’m not sure should I merge these two relations since there are some 
> sporadic differences for the same tag in both relations. Please, I need 
> an extra hand on this.
> 
> 
> This is an isolated case in whole Australia.
> 
> 
> Thank you in advance,
> 
> Nemanja
> 
> ___
> 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] Burn area mapping

[cleary]

In regard to mapping reservoirs without water:

In rural areas, I have mapped some reservoirs with "intermittent=yes" where 
that is appropriate. While they are correctly mapped as reservoirs, it is 
probably helpful to show that there is not always water in them.  If some 
imagery shows water and some doesn't, then I am comfortable to conclude that 
the water is intermittent.




On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, at 6:20 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 16:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Past fires have not been mapped, I see no reason to start doing it.  
> > Thoughts? 
> 
> Agree with you entirely.
> 
> On a related note, I've been working through the Blue Mountains 
> challenge area mapping every POI I can spot - buildings, tracks, water 
> tanks & reservoirs, amongst others. With regard to reservoirs, a lot of 
> them are showing as dry, due to the drought, but I've still been 
> mapping them, as, after the last few weeks, they're probably full 
> again! :-)
> 
> Again, the right way to do it?
> 
> 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] Remote mapping of wetlands without local knowledge base on imagery

[cleary]

 I suspect this might be a mapping competence problem or possibly a problem 
with the editing tool rather than intent to add incorrect information.  It 
appears to me that the intent might have been to map the area as a wood but it 
has been mapped also as swamp (from the nearby relation).

I once created similar problem quite inadvertently. Depending on the editor 
being used (I prefer Potlatch) relations type=multipolygon can go awry.  When I 
converted relations to type =boundary +  boundary=natural, everything was much 
better behaved and I could see what I was mapping.  This might not be the 
problem in this instance but, in the first instance,  it appears to me that it 
might be a problem in mapping relations.




On Sun, 23 Feb 2020, at 10:41 PM, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> There has been some remote mapping of the Diamond Beach area based on 
> imagery and descriptive texts. Note the descriptive texts are copyright.
> 
> 
> My contention is that without going there or a correctly licensed source 
> these things cannot be mapped with any certainty, particularly without 
> local knowledge.
> 
> Imagery alone is not enough.
> 
> 
> I refer to;
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80818669
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80810033
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80747704
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80736708
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid this mapper falls into the same category as a past remove 
> mapper who mapped rocks as cliffs in the Snowys.
> 
> 
> My inclination is to remove these objects on the basis that they 
> questionable on the stated sources and the lack of local knowledge of 
> the mapper.
> 
> 
> 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] Remote mapping of a fence

[cleary]

I agree with your concern. Some imagery may permit an experienced eye to 
identify a fence line. However identification of a particular fence by name 
would need more than the satellite imagery. If the source of other info 
including name is copyrighted, then it's inclusion in OSM is not appropriate. 



On Thu, 13 Feb 2020, at 9:07 AM, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> A remote mapper is adding a fence line to OSM.
> 
> I believe the imagery detail is not sufficient to map this fence alone.
> 
> 
> See relation 10703889 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10703889).
> 
> 
> I think the remote mapper is using the website https://www.ddmrb.org.au/ 
> to establish where the fence is then using a very faint trace in imagery 
> to state there is a fence here.
> 
> Note https://www.ddmrb.org.au/copywrite/ - for private use only.
> 
> 
> 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] Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

[cleary]

Thanks for the feedback.   I now realise that the easily accessible data from 
Transport NSW is NOT licensed under Creative Commons and I would need 
assistance to access the licensed data. Andrew, thanks for the offer to assist 
in accessing the data.  However, on reflection, I don't think it should be a 
priority.  The Transport NSW website  https://transportnsw.info/routes/bus  
shows the most useful information , route by route, superimposed on the OSM 
map.  For the time being, this is probably adequate for most users  rather than 
refer to OSM's transport map layer.

So, at this stage,  I will leave it to others, with more knowledge and skills,  
to progress use of this data when time permits.

Thanks again for the feedback and offer of assistance.





On Wed, 5 Feb 2020, at 11:32 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 10:09, cleary  wrote:
> > 
> >  Some Sydney bus routes have changed and I have modified a few by survey 
> > (catching buses and recording routes and stops). Using TfNSW data would be 
> > much easier.
> > 
> >  1. Can I use the TfNSW data now to modify/add some local bus routes or do 
> > we need to await discussion and an agreed import plan?
> 
> If you plan to do everything manually I think that's okay for you to go 
> ahead. If you're planning on doing that on a mass scale (like trying to 
> do all of them) then a heads up would be appreciated, but otherwise I 
> have no problems.
> 
> If you're using TfNSW data and applying some transformation on it to 
> the OSM schema and plan on using that, then please post first so we can 
> do a review to make sure there are no issues. 
> 
> Technically we only have permission to use TfNSW's open data, so if you 
> need help with the GTFS feed to visualise routes I can try.
> 
> I would eventually like to see a semi-automated process to import bus 
> stops, I just don't have the time now, but I can review plans if 
> someone else wanted to.
> 
> >  2. Depending on the answer to the above, do we need to add TfNSW to the 
> > List of Conributors in the wiki? and does the waiver need to published in 
> > the wiki?
> 
> Yes, if the data is used in OpenStreetMap, per the waiver agreement we 
> need to add attribution at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#New_South_Wales_Government_data,
>  specifying which dataset we used and providing the attribution.
> 
> The waiver is already published to the wiki at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:TfNSW_OSM_CCBY_Signed_Waiver.pdf

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

Re: [talk-au] Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

[cleary]

Some Sydney bus routes have changed and I have modified a few by survey 
(catching buses and recording routes and stops).  Using TfNSW data would be 
much easier.

1. Can I use the TfNSW data now to modify/add some local bus routes or do we 
need to await discussion and an agreed import plan?
2. Depending on the answer to the above, do we need to add TfNSW to the List of 
Conributors in the wiki?  and does the waiver need to published in the wiki?







On Thu, 30 Jan 2020, at 5:59 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> We just received the CC BY waiver from TfNSW. That includes their GTFS 
> feed (transport routes and stops), cycle network data, boat rames 
> (those seem more directly useful to OSM).
> 
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 11:42, Runarsson, Sigurjon 
>  wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian,
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > Currently we are mostly focusing on A to B trip planning for public 
> > transport modes including walking. So our main focus atm is to enhance the 
> > data around interchanges i.e. stations layouts to support routing indoors 
> > as well as outdoors. Saying that, we are determined to contribute to all 
> > attributes within the osm database based on internal and external 
> > feedback.
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > Guidelines – I would say that we need more assistance/guidance from the osm 
> > users like yourself in most instances:) but yes we would contribute in 
> > discussion and wiki if needed. 
> 
> > Based on discussion that I have had internally for the last few days we 
> > feel that making the data available in osm by importing and regularly 
> > maintain the data like bus stops is the way to go rather than telling the 
> > users how to map ie naming a bus stop. So based on that we are now actively 
> > working on getting approval for a waiver signed for bus stops in particular 
> > so we can proceed. If successful, more datasets would follow. 
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > Maybe discussion for later date but I feel that other datasets like suburbs 
> > and address data could be updated (bulk import) into osm on regular basis 
> > as more and more consumers are directly taking the osm database into their 
> > products. Hopefully we can get waivers signed and go down that path.
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > I will keep you posted with any developments on the waiver(s). In the 
> > meantime please let us know if you have specific questions related to 
> > public transport.
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > Defiantly interested in regular local meetups. Unfortunately cannot make 
> > the 30 March.
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > Regards,
> 
> > Sigurjon
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > *From:* Seb Mapping [mailto:mapp...@consebt.de] 
> > *Sent:* Friday, 15 March 2019 4:14 PM
> > *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Runarsson, Sigurjon; 
> > talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Transport for NSW (TfNSW)
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > Hi Sigurjon,
> >  Welcome and thanks for reaching out.
> >  I like that you set up the wiki page to tell us how you use OSM. What I'm 
> > wondering is, are there rules, key topics etc TfNSW or better your group is 
> > focusing on in their contributions?
> > 
> >  Would you be interested to provide or document in the wiki mapping 
> > examples for e.g. bus stops?
> > 
> >  Regards Sebastian
> >  PS: you might be interested in local meet ups, see other thread.
> 
> > On 14 March 2019 8:53:16 am AEDT, "Runarsson, Sigurjon" 
> >  wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> 
> > 
> 
> > My name is Sigurjon and I work for the Transport for NSW (TfNSW) Data 
> > Services team which is a small but dedicated group which underpin the many 
> > digital products and projects that form part of TfNSW as a whole. The team 
> > are responsible for sourcing, managing and providing data with an emphasis 
> > on quality and efficiency.
> 
> > 
> 
> > The TfNSW Data Services team aim to contribute and help improve 
> > OpenStreetMap, which we started to use in our products like the TfNSW Trip 
> > Planner (https://transportnsw.info/trip#/) from the end of 2018, through 
> > review and updates that are identified as part of their wide reaching 
> > day-to-day activities, feedback from their extensive network of 
> > customer/public facing channels, and other TfNSW internal stakeholders.
> 
> > 
> 
> > You can find further information on our wiki page 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfNSW
> 
> > 
> 
> > Please don’t hesitate to contact me on 
> > sigurjon.runars...@transport.nsw.gov.au, 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Maradona11 or use our group mailbox and 
> > another member of the team will endeavour to help you: 
> > timeta...@transport.nsw.gov.au
> 
> > 
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > Thanks,
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > Sigurjon
> 
> > __ __
> 
> > This email is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential 
> > information. If you receive this email in error please delete it and any 
> > attachments and notify the 

Re: [talk-au] Over 55’s Lifestyle Village = retirement_home ?

[cleary]

Sorry I'm a little slow to respond to this question. I have been thinking about 
it. particularly in the context of a similar property that I mapped a few years 
ago.  I had previously tagged it as a social_facility but that is not correct.

Upon reflection, I have changed the tags for 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/313767655  
This is a fenced and gated community for residents aged 50+.  I think the area 
is zoned similar to a caravan park so that residents lease the land but provide 
their own demountable buildings and do not necessarily have secure tenure in 
the location.

I have now tagged it as : 

access=private
addr:street=Majestic Drive
addr:suburb=Stanhope Gardens
barrier=fence
landuse=residential
min_age=50
name=Gateway Lifestyle Stanhope Gardens
old_name=Parklea Garden Village
operator=Gateway Lifestyle
place=neighbourhood
residential=leasehold_only
source:name=survey
website=https://www.gatewaylifestyle.com.au/community/stanhope-gardens

Any feedback or comments welcome




On Mon, 6 Jan 2020, at 11:34 AM, Sebastian Spiess wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> is a Over 55’s Lifestyle Village (like this one
> https://www.middlerockhomevillage.com.au) a amenity=retirement_home?
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dretirement_home
> 
> I'm not clear if the Lifestyle Village is only a fancy marketing name or
> not. I've seen such villages and some are past caravan parks that have
> been re-purposed with the over 55's as clientel.
> 
> How would you tag this?
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

[talk-au] Jervis Bay Territory admin boundary

[cleary]

The Jervis Bay Territory/NSW boundary is shown such that Jervis Bay Territory 
overlaps into parts of Shoalhaven Council area and NSW suburbs.  Obviously not 
correct. There seems to be no source provided for the location of the boundary, 
although much of it appears to be attached to the coastline (also source not 
apparent).

There have been a lot of edits to this area and maybe someone more familiar 
with the location wants to repair the map in this area. If not, I propose to 
try to fix it, primarily using the NSW_LPI_BaseMap as the source for the 
boundary.

If no one else wants to do it, I'll work in on it in a few days.

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

Re: [talk-au] Fire Station Operators

[cleary]

Yes. This seems right.




On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, at 10:06 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> I've updated the Australian Tagging Guidelines with NSW fire station 
> operators 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Fire_Stations.
> 
> I'm proposing:
> 
> for NSW Rural Fire Service stations to use 
> operator=NSW Rural Fire Service
> operator:wikdata=Q7011777
> 
> for Fire and Rescue NSW stations to use
> operator=Fire and Rescue NSW
> operator:wikidata=Q5451532
> 
> Does that sound okay?
> 
> I'm also suggesting to use the "branch=" tag to use the short name of 
> the fire station branch, which is usually the suburb name and is 
> printed on the fire trucks, since the regular name= tag could contain a 
> longer signposted name.
> 
> For other states, if this tagging is okay, please help fill in the 
> operator and operator:wikidata tags on the wiki page for your states.
> 
> I've created a MapRoulette challenge for NSW to fill in these tags 
> either as implied from the name, local knowledge or from street lever 
> imagery https://maproulette.org/challenge/11820
> ___
> 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] Question re tagging unpaved vs paved roads

[cleary]

If you just delete the tag, someone might interpret it as an accidental 
deletion.  A changed tag is clearly a deliberate decision based on new 
information.




On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, at 8:52 AM, Bob Cameron wrote:
> Hi
> 
> The tagging guidelines don't quite seem to over this. I'd like to do it 
> correctly.
> 
> When a road is unpaved we use the surface=unpaved tag, the default (no 
> tag) being paved.
> 
> When an unpaved road is (roadwork) paved, should the tag be deleted or 
> changed to paved?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> ___
> 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 polygons of the aerodromes

[cleary]

I agree with Warin's comments.

Some years ago someone did a mass import from a public-domain website with 
"airport" information. Personally I think of an airport as a location which is 
accessible to the public and which offers regular commercial flights.  Most of 
the "airports" shown in Australia are private runways which are used only in 
medical emergencies or if local roads are unusable for an extended period.  
Some are almost compeletely disused and some cannot be found in the satellite 
imagery.  Many do not have boundaries - as Warin noted. I would be concerned at 
mapping non-existent features.  I expect most of the "airports" are like the 
example cited at Kulin WA.  OSM also shows another aeroway node a few 
kilometres away from that location, this second one being for the Kulin Bush 
Races, which are held on one weekend each year. The runway appears to be on a 
farm located near the racetrack and there appear to be no boundaries that could 
be mapped.

I support mapping boundaries that actually do exist, provided we have the 
relevant information. But I expect this will be a small proportion of all the  
airports or aerodromes on the map.




On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, at 11:26 AM, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au wrote:
>  
> Hi everyone,
> 
> 
> We would like to manually add polygons around airports in whole 
> Australia. We have added polygons for very few airports that were 
> marked just with a single node.
> 
> 
> By using THIS  OverPass-Turbo link, 
> you can see that there are nearly 1,200 airports that needs to be 
> inspected.
> 
> We could recognize that other map competitors have properly marked most 
> of these airports as polygons.
> 
> 
> Anyway, we have doubt should we add polygons in the following situation(s):
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73310214
> 
> 
> There are no control tower nor any other buildings. It has a proper 
> name Kulin Airport @-32.6721992, 118.1689987.
> 
> Should we add a polygon in such cases?
> 
> 
> Please note that *we won’t add any polygons* if the 
> airport/airstrip/runway is on the water.
> 
> 
> We believe that there is no need to preserve both way and a node of the 
> same feature. Especially because that node is somewhere at the center 
> of the airport and it doesn’t represent entry of the airport area or 
> entry of some building. Example should be Hamilton Airport @  
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/407705915. We would merge existing 
> node of the airport in to polygon of the same polygon and we would 
> remove tags from the merged node.
> 
> 
> If we are adding new polygon, we would preserve existing airport node 
> by keeping this node as a part of the new polygon.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for the answers!
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
> 
> Nemanja
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] "Missing" Roads in Queensland

[cleary]

I do not reside in Queensland but I visit parts of the state regularly and 
collect information which I can add to OSM.

In recent times a proliferation of unnamed roads has appeared on the map with 
edits usually titled "Missing Roads in Queensland" or similar. I have 
communicated with a couple of the people, providing specific instances of 
observed errors, but the problem appears to be continuing and spreading.

It appears to be people who have never visited Australia and who are part of an 
organised team. They are using satellite imagery and adding ways that are 
usually tagged as highway=unclassified. It is almost as if the team members 
have a quota of edits to be achieved and are not being careful in the quality 
of their edits.

Not all the additions are errors. I have noted about three added roads near 
Blackall Qld to which I have been able to add names. Some of ways are private 
roads which I have re-tagged as highway=service and access=private, if I am 
confident that is the case. The majority of the roads (perhaps as many as 70%) 
appear to me to be fences that have been mapped as roads. Most fences in rural 
areas have cleared spaces on either side of the fence and, to the unfamiliar 
eye looking at satellite imagery, they can appear to be dirt roads. Sometimes 
there may be a track alongside the fence but it usually barely navigable and 
strictly used only by the owner for fence maintenance - often even that would 
be difficult. In some instances, in the vicinity of areas I have surveyed, I 
have been confident in retagging the non-existent roads as fences but there 
seem to be many roads appearing in unpopulated areas of Queensland that I have 
not visited.

While the errors may have been made by armchair mappers acting in good faith, 
the accumulation of non-existent roads is a long term problem for the map. 
Further, some of these "roads" are being mapped in quite inhospitable terrain 
and could lead a naive driver to serious problems.   In my experience, if I 
don't have a name for it, it probably isn't a public road.  It is not until one 
visits an area and then looks again at satellite imagery that one can learn to 
interpret that imagery.

I am posting my concerns in this forum to raise awareness and in the hope that 
it may put pressure on these over-enthusiastic mappers to restrain from mapping 
non-existent roads.  




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

Re: [talk-au] Whereis copyright?

[cleary]

Where is uses OSM now but I think that is a fairly recent development. 

Previously their map was from another source, possibly Here Maps but I'm not 
sure. Use of that data in OSM would not have been appropriate. The fact that 
something was not yet in OSM is evidence that OSM was not the source map.






On Wed, 20 Nov 2019, at 3:11 PM, Warin wrote:
> I have found a contributor who is using 'whereis' as a source. I believe 
> that is a copyright breach?
> 
> Anyone know .. I don't want to go asking them and their web site is not 
> clear to me (must update this softwear!)?
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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 old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

[cleary]

I would like to confirm that the inclusion of qualifiers such as "closed" or 
"freight only" in the name is NOT appropriate.

e.g. 
railway=station
name = xx (closed)
 or 
railway=station
name=xxx (freight only)

I understand both are inappropriate uses of the name tag and should not be used.

I think the first should be tagged as disused or abandoned such as
disused:railway=station
name=

and the second with
railway=yard
name=xxx

Is that generally agreed? 

What about a former railway station that is now freight only. Can one combine 
disused:railway=station and railway=yard on the one node or should there be 
multiple nodes?









On Sat, 19 Oct 2019, at 6:53 AM, Ewen Hill wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway stations like 
> https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1
>  that has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades
> 
> 
> There appears to be a myriads of ways to tag this according to the Wiki. What 
> is the best standardised approach (which I will add to the ATG)
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[cleary]

Supported. Well done.




On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, at 11:55 AM, Warin wrote:
> Ok.. I think the following can be done on the Australian Tagging Guidelines;
> 
> 
> Remove the words "not map the interior private roads in detail" from 
> service roads
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Areas
> 
> 
> Add a new section "Private Roads" under 'Road Tagging' as the last entry.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Road_Tagging
> 
> With words something like?
> 
> "Private roads can be mapped, this provides information for;
> the person going past, that the road is private and their location on 
> the map
> emergency services who may find the road of benefit
> the private individual who can use the road
> 
> Such private roads should have the tag 'access=private', if you are not 
> certain then it is best to err on the cautious side and add the 
> 'access=private'."
> 
> 
> 
> Any objections, corrections, better words .. ???
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Kingston (Norfolk Island) capital tag

[cleary via Talk-au]

Sorry.  On reflection, I think I misunderstood your proposal.
I think your suggestion is consistent with the capital of a territory.
Apology for mis-reading proposal.




On Sun, 6 Oct 2019, at 2:53 PM, Joachim wrote:
> Hello Aussie mappers,
> 
> a quick heads-up that i plan to change the capital tag[1] in Kingston
> (Norfolk Island) from "yes" to "4".[2]
> Rationale: Norfolk Island is not self-governing any more[3] and the
> boundary is admin_level=4 [4].
> 
> Seems to me a no-brainer but I don't want to step on any local feet ;)
> 
> Best regards, Joachim (Jojo4u)
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capital
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2470797094
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Norfolk_Island
> [4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2574988
> 
> ___
> 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] Kingston (Norfolk Island) capital tag

[cleary]

I understand the intent but I disagree.

I have a special interest in administrative boundaries and their implications 
etc.  As far as I am aware, Norfolk Island is still a territory of Australia. 
It is now part of Australia but is not part of any state.   Three other 
territories in this category are Northern Territory, Australian Capital 
Territory and Jervis Bay Territory, each of which are different and for 
different reasons.   Norfolk Island still has its own Administrator, its own 
Court of Petty Sessions, Supreme Court, and the Administrative Review Tribunal 
of Norfolk Island.

I have never visited Norfolk Island but I understand that, although Burnt Pine 
is a larger settlement,  the Administrator and the courts are all based in 
Kingston.   Although its laws are now largely the laws of NSW or the 
Commonwealth, they are applied as if they are the laws of Norfolk and are  
interpreted and judged by Norfolk courts.

It is an unusual and special case but I think Kingston still qualifies as the 
capital of an Australian territory.   







On Sun, 6 Oct 2019, at 2:53 PM, Joachim wrote:
> Hello Aussie mappers,
> 
> a quick heads-up that i plan to change the capital tag[1] in Kingston
> (Norfolk Island) from "yes" to "4".[2]
> Rationale: Norfolk Island is not self-governing any more[3] and the
> boundary is admin_level=4 [4].
> 
> Seems to me a no-brainer but I don't want to step on any local feet ;)
> 
> Best regards, Joachim (Jojo4u)
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capital
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2470797094
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Norfolk_Island
> [4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2574988
> 
> ___
> 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] Proposed deletion of part of the Gwydir River

[cleary]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback and suggesstions.  I will try to 
incorporate some of the  suggestions in changes I make.





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

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

[cleary]

In the past, I added some parts of the Gwydir River to the map using the NSW 
LPI Base Map because I could not see a clear waterway on satellite imagery. 
Since then, I have visited the area twice and cannot actually find a river 
where it is shown on the map. Much of the "river" is in private property but 
public roads cross waterways at various locations.  

The western end of the Gwydir River seems not to exist except on the NSW LPI 
Base Map and maps which have used it as a source (including OSM).

As far as I can ascertain, the river used to dissipate into wetlands and, if 
there was enough water, the seepage from the wetlands re-formed into waterways. 
However intensive irrigation has resulted in such low water flow that the 
wetlands are largely dust and water seems never to flow beyond them (except 
perhaps in major flood events which are relatively rare).  Water from the 
eastern Gwydir may flow west to the Barwon River via Carole Creek into Gil Gil 
Creek, via the Gingham Watercourse and via the Mehi River.  But the so-called 
Gwydir River, west of the wetlands, does not appear to exist except on the LPI 
Map. And part that of the waterway that does exist is signposted by the Moree 
Plains Shire Council with a different name (Big Leather Watercourse) at the two 
places where it crosses public roads.  GNB uses this name for another branch of 
the river nearer to Moree but locals, including the local council, seem to have 
a different view.

When visiting the area, I found water to be difficult to discuss with locals as 
there are some strong points of view. Maintaining a river on the map may be a 
political imperative for government but is not consistent with OSM's philosophy 
of mapping what is actually on the ground at particular locations.

After reflection, I think the Gwydir River does not really exist west of the 
wetlands and I think it should be deleted from OSM, even though it is shown on 
the LPI Base Map. I propose to delete this section of the river and follow the 
local council signposted name for the more westerly waterway that does actually 
exist at Morialta and Watercourse Roads.

I would appreciate any views on this issue.

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

Re: [talk-au] Country / farm dams

[cleary]

I have mapped such areas intended for water storage as "landuse=reservoir". I 
don't think reservoirs need to be over a natural watercourse. Any water storage 
area is a reservoir.




On Wed, 1 May 2019, at 12:32 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Question that just came to mind after discussions on tagging list.
> 
> Just entered some details for a property in Western Qld, & started to include 
> a turkey nest dam 
> https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/water-management/excavated-tanks-farm-dams, but 
> then thought, what's it actually called?
> 
> Is it a waterway=dam? - not on waterway so wouldn't have thought so
> 
> natural=water + water=reservoir / landuse=reservoir? "A *reservoir* is an 
> artificial lake is used to store water. Usually formed by a dam over a 
> natural water course, water then backs up into a natural valley or 
> depression" so no, not really?
> 
> landuse=basin + basin=retention? "An area of land artificially graded to hold 
> water" "retention basin  
> catches storm water and retains it, forming an artificial pond" so I guess 
> that's the best solution, but it doesn't really describe what you're looking 
> at, because anybody looking for a turkey nest dam isn't going to be looking 
> for a retention basin & vice versa!
> 
> Oz guidelines don't mention them, just windmills & bores. 
> 
> 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] Importing Hobsons Bay City Council tree data into OSM

[cleary]

I have great respect for Andrew Harvey's mapping and I would generally defer to 
his views. However in this instance, I would say that I have found it generally 
useful if the source of information is included with individual items, whether 
trees, roads, waterways, buildings etc to assist any future edits. In the past, 
the lack of any source has sometimes caused me to think that the contributor 
has used a non-approved source for the information. Further, if I am 
re-visiting an area of the map and have contradictory information, knowing the 
source of the original information may help to explain why I have now perceived 
a discrepancy and assists in determining whether or not modification might be 
necessary. Sometimes it is possible to retrace and identify information from 
the original changeset but if multiple changes have been made, I find it 
difficult to trace back to the original .



On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, at 10:38 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 22:31, Sebastian Spiess  wrote:
>> Are there guidelines how to mark the import in the changeset? Not having 
>> read up on it but I would think the changeset should reference the wiki page 
>> for the import?

> I think just adding the link in the changeset comment should suffice. 
> ___
> 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] Platform names

[cleary]

On any map, more detail is generally preferred to less detail, provided that 
the information is useful.

I use Central reasonably often. There were 25 platforms (a couple now closed 
for new construction) and platform 1 is a fair way from platform 25. I think 
most users would benefit from having the locations of individual platforms 
identified on a map. I think the current rendering on the map is useful and 
correct. Removing platform numbers would be unhelpful.

Perhaps the Wiki needs to change. And information in a Wiki is guidance not 
gospel - there may occasionally be good reason to do something differently. 
Very few railway stations would be as large as Sydney's Central and what works 
on smaller stations, does not necessarily work for Central. 

I like it the way it is now because it is the most useful i can imagine.

In regard to reference numbers, each platform at Central has a transport 
reference number (similar to bus stop numbers). For example I think, but am not 
certain, that platform 6 is 2000326 and platform 7 is 2000327 - but this comes 
from data for which we do not have permission. If we can get access to such 
data, then these numbers would use the "ref" tag. These reference numbers are 
possibly used for routing but platforms are signposted and known to the public 
as "Platform 6" or "Platform 7" etc.








On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, at 11:28 AM, Thomas Manson wrote:
> Looking at Central Station, Sydney, the platform names are things like 
> 'Platform 4+5'. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6015392)
> 
> 
> From my reading of 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Apublic_transport%3Dplatform, this 
> should be 
> the name of the station , so in this case that would be either Central or 
> Central Station, with the platform numbers as the ref tag (which is already 
> populated).
> 
> 1) First of all, is my understanding correct? It should be the station name.
> 2) Secondly, should the name be Central or Central Station (assuming 1 is 
> correct)?
> 
> Regards,
> Thomas
> ___
> 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] Proposed mechanical edit - elimination of old-style Wikipedia links in Australia

[cleary]

Appears to be good process. I support it.


On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, at 6:54 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Old style wikipedia link is one where language is stored in key, not in
> value.
> 
> For example "wikipedia:en=Australia" is an old style link, while
> "wikipedia=en:Australia" is a form that is currently standard.
> 
> Many old-style Wikipedia links remain and updating them to new style
> manually is boring, tedious and some mistakes may appear during this.
> 
> Some OSM elements have old-style Wikipedia link without new tag what
> means that this data is harder to process for editors and data
> consumers.
> 
> Also, remaining old-style Wikipedia tags confuse mappers, especially
> less experienced.
> 
> Therefore I propose to run an automatic edit that will replace
> old-style Wikipedia links with current style of Wikipedia links.
> 
> Please comment no matter what you think about this idea! I will not
> make the edit without a clear support so please comment if you think
> that it is a good idea and if you think that it should not be done.
> 
> Number of affected objects should be relatively small - 
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/H5x reports just 200 elements.
> 
> Plan is as follows:
> 
> I will take full responsibility for all edits and if anything goes
> wrong I will fix it.
> 
> Editing is limited to objects with old-style Wikipedia tags is not
> conflicting with existing wikipedia=* or wikidata=* tag or other
> old-style wikipedia tags.
> 
> Links detected as invalid (leading to disambigs, articles about humans,
> animals, plants, events etc) are also skipped.
> 
> Each changeset contains a single element or group of close elements to
> avoid edits spanning across large areas (it is impossible in cases
> where edited object itself spans very large area).
> 
> After every changeset bot sleeps for one minute.
> 
> This is proposed as reoccurring edit and may be made as soon as new
> old-style wikipedia links appear.
> 
> documentation page on OSM Wiki is at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/elimination_of_old-style_Wikipedia_links_in_Australia
> 
> I have experience with automatic edits. exactly the same task was run
> in Poland to remove more than 6000 old-style Wikipedia links what was
> completed without any issues.
> 
> I recently processed also old-style Wikipedia tags across USA. 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Links with name

[cleary]

This makes good sense to me.



On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, at 11:54 PM, Joel H. wrote:
> Linking roads should (generally speaking) never have names, an update to the 
> ID editor now displays Destination instead of name for input. My suggestion 
> would be to change the Offramp prefixes to:


> destination= The places mentioned on the exit sign


> destination:street= The road name that is at the end


> destination:ref= The road ref that is at the end


> destination:network= Only if destination road has a network tag.


> This is what I've been doing, What does everyone think?


> 


> On 12/2/19 5:22 pm, Petra Rajka - (p) wrote:
>> Hi,


>>  


>> During our mapping in Australia we’ve discovered that several road links 
>> have name. Usually there are 3 cases:


>>1. links take name from the upcoming road with the extra 
>> Onramp/Offramp/Exit prefix
>> ex. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4972970


>>1. links take name from the upcoming road exactly as it is
>> ex. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/15958927


>>1. links (or other way categories) between dual carriageways take the 
>> name from one of the adjacent roads
>> ex. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172829556


>>  


>> In our mapping process we use this wiki page:  
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link where it’s specified that 
>> links shouldn’t have name, so we are wondering if there are any local 
>> rules/conventions regarding this in Australia? Should the links have name? 
>> It’s a particularity we didn’t found until now.


>>  


>> Best regards,


>> Petra


>>  


>> 
>> ___
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] Residential road tagging

[cleary]

I think the current tagging is an accurate portrayal of what is "on the 
ground". Looking at imagery and, if one visited the place in person, I think 
there is a wider section with a roundabout which seems appropriately tagged as 
residential. Although it is possible to drive along the narrower section, it is 
not intended for through traffic but services half a dozen homes. I'd suggest 
leaving it as it is.





On Fri, 1 Feb 2019, at 3:34 PM, David Wales wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> I came across an interesting tagging situation while working on this
> MapRoulette Challenge:
> https://maproulette.org/mr3/browse/challenges/3257
> 
> At this location,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=19/-34.06296/150.76212
> Linum road is tagged as both a residential road, and a service road.
> 
> From the LPI NSW Base Map, I'm pretty sure that both segments are meant
> to be Linum Road. However, from the LPI NSW Imagery, I'm not sure if
> both should be tagged as residential, or if the current tagging with
> part residential and part service road is correct.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> David Wales
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> *Attachments:*
>  * signature.asc
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] State Forest boundaries

[cleary]

I'm not sure that the changes to OSM Carto will solve this issue as I think 
only a few protect classes have been affected - but perhaps it is worth trying.

I would like to see boundaries for a different reason - where two state forests 
are adjacent, the boundary between the two is not visible. For example, Bondo 
State Forest in NSW adjoins three other state forests and the boundaries are 
not shown on the map. If the proposed tagging allows boundaries between state 
forests to be visible, then I would be pleased.




On Sat, 26 Jan 2019, at 6:45 PM, nwastra wrote:
> 
> Hi
> the gazetted State Forest boundaries are not rendered currently on the 
> default map on the OpenStreetMap (OpenStreetMap Carto).
> landuse=forest is considered as forestry use and natural=wood are natural 
> wooded areas not subject to forestry but both are rendered the same.
> 
> When the State Forest is mapped in isolation the boundary of the 
> landuse=forest defines the area but as soon as an area of trees is mapped 
> extending beyond the State Forest boundary, as is expected, then the State 
> Forest boundary is not depicted.
> 
> Tag:boundary=protected_area 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area 
> 
> 
> After looking at the options listed on wiki link above, along with the 
> Nature-protected-areas like national parks (and all the other CAPAD types 
>  ), I 
> feel that boundary=protected_area is reasonable tag for the gazetted *State 
> Forest boundaries* with further classification as *Resources-protected-areas*.
>  
> I feel the the State Forests are boundaries where tree resources are 
> protected or reserved for future forestry operations and need to be defined 
> by their boundaries on the osm.
> There are strict rules covering these areas and we should be readily able to 
> see them on the map. 
> State Reserve and Timber Reserve in CAPAD don’t capture the State Forests.
> 
> On the Resources-protected-areas 
> 
>  for particular countries I note that the United States has listed *State 
> Forest* under protect_class 15, this being described at the 
> Resources-protected-area section as …
> 15 *location condition*: floodwater retention area, protection forest, 
> grazing land, … 
> 
> I propose that we also add ’State Forest’ to protect_class 15 on the 
> Resources-protected-area table.
> 
> With the most recent changes toOpenStreetMap Carto this would enable 
> rendering of the State Forest boundaries in the same manner as all the other 
> protected area boundaries.
> 
> Another partial solution would be to render landuse=forest differently than 
> the landcover tags but that is unlikely from my reading of the tagging and 
> rendering groups and if two separately gazetted forestry boundaries shared a 
> border the boundary between the two would not be depicted on the map anyway. 
> 
> Nevw
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Naming Bus Stops for interchanges in Sydney

[cleary]

In Sydney, many stops display the stop number but I'm not sure if we have 
another source for this data - in NSW, the convention is that the first four 
numbers  are the postcode of the suburb. So all stops in Strathfield would have 
a 6 or 7 digit number with the first four digits being the postcode for the 
suburb.  For example stands A to D at Strathfield have their numbers included 
in OSM with the tag "local_ref="





On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, at 12:21 PM, Warin wrote:
> On 22/01/19 12:03, Sam Wilson wrote:
> > On 1/21/19 4:58 PM, Warin wrote:
> >> I have used (misused?) the ref to tag the routes that use that bus 
> >> stop, then some one has put the stop 'number' in as local_ref.
> >> Possibly the stop number is a 'operator_ref' ... whatever, no 
> >> practical use to the normal person.
> >
> > I actually find the ref super useful, because with the Transperth app 
> > in WA you can search by stop ID and it's quicker and a lot more 
> > accurate than searching by street name etc. They're displayed in 
> > OSMAnd, and that's usually where I get them from.
> 
> How do you know the number to start your search?
> 
> ___
> 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] Naming Bus Stops for interchanges in Sydney

[cleary]

As a regular user of public transport, I agree.


On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, at 4:39 PM, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> At present the names of bus stops goes something like
> 
> name=Strathfield Station, Albert Rd (Stand F).
> 
> 
> The web transport trip planers direct you to Stand F, yet this is not 
> very visiblein OSM renderings as that information is last.
> 
> 
> Would it not be best to have the name put the more detailed information 
> first and the generalproximity information last, much like an address?
> 
> Such as
> 
> name=Stand F, Albert Rd, Strathfield Station
> 
> 
> 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] Goyder's Lagoon

[cleary]

Agree completely


On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, at 10:02 AM, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
> I have made a rough entry for Goyder's Lagoon - South Aust. above Lake 
> Eyre - about thesame size.
> The boundary is rough because, as you would expect, the rain fall 
> determines where it is and that varies from fall to fall.
> Yes, it is tagged intermittent.
> 
> I make the comment here so those surprised by it's sudden appearance 
> have some idea of what it is. ~ 80% of the water headed to Lake Eyre 
> disappears on its way there .. and this is one of the major places where 
> that disappearance takes place. So I think it needs some representation 
> on the map.
> 
> 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] SA Aquatic Reserves Import

[cleary]

My comments relate to point 4 (Open Questions):

In other datasets, the IUCN category has been part of the data. After a quick 
search I found that Wikipedia reports West Island Encounter Bay Aquatic Reserve 
to be IUCN category VI and gives CAPAD 2014 (retrieved in 2016) as the source. 
I don't think we can use Wikipedia as data source and I did not see  this data 
in CAPAD 2016 but it may be available elsewhere. SA Government has been very 
helpful to OSM and I'd be surprised if the data were not available somewhere.  
Alternatively, if the areas do not have an IUCN category, the wiki identifies 
"protect_class=7" for nature-feature areas without IUCN level.

In regard to type=boundary or type=multipolygon, I have a strong preference for 
type=boundary.  I have used JOSM to add some data but Potlatch has been easier 
for reviewing/changing/modifying and checking against existing data.  I have 
found type=multipolygon renders relations difficult to edit in Potlatch whereas 
type=boundary is no problem. However others may have had different experiences 
and different editors may be the reason. 

Some time ago, I raised on the talk-au list  the question of protected areas 
not being rendered on the map and the outcome was that we would add 
"leisure=nature_reserve" to all protected areas (whether or not the areas are 
used for leisure) until such time as the rendering problem is sorted. 

Overall, I think this is a good data import. 




On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, at 6:50 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> I'm proposing to import 5 aquatic reserves in SA as sourced from
> https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/aquatic-reserves
> 
> 1. Licensing
> okay per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Catalogue
> will add a list to Contributors wiki page as part of the import
> 
> 2. Conflation with existing
> - confirmed manually none of these exist in OSM currently
> - the metadata for this data says that the coastal borders are mean
> high water mark, so these should be glued with the OSM coastline,
> however I'm proposing that be done post-import as a clean up task
> 
> 3. Tagging
> - name is the only tag brought across
> - wikidata/wikpedia tags added manually
> - protection_title=Aquatic Reserve
> - operator_type=government
> - operator=PIRSA Fisheries & Aquaculture
> - boundary=protected_area
> - note=coastline boundaries are Mean High Water Mark from DEWNR, they
> can be glued to the OSM mean high water mark coastline
> 
> 4. Open questions
> - What is the protect_class?
> - is boundary=protected_area enough for the relations, or should it
> have type=boundary or type=multipolygon?
> 
> 5. Import Process
> Open https://tianjara.net/data/osm/imports/sa-aquatic-reserves.osm in
> JOSM and upload
> - done using dedicated import account
> - changeset source tag pointing to
> https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/aquatic-reserves
> - changeset tag pointing to this thread
> 
> /cc Lee and cleary since you worked on the commonwealth level marine
> parks, any feedback on what I've proposed here would be great

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

Re: [talk-au] PSMA Administrative Boundaries

[cleary]

I'll look there. Thanks.



On Sun, Oct 7, 2018, at 12:31 PM, Warin wrote:
> On 07/10/18 11:22, cleary wrote:
> >
> > In regard to admin boundaries sharing the coastline, I think that would 
> > also be incorrect but I am less confident of my view on this.
> >
> > I did update some administrative boundaries in South Australia using the SA 
> > Government Data and those boundaries did not coincide with the coastline 
> > (see the coastline around Streaky Bay, Ceduna, Fowlers Bay and near the 
> > Nullarbor).  The coastline in OSM needs a lot of work - I have looked at 
> > parts of WA and SA but found it very difficult to use the satellite imagery 
> > correctly to refine the map of the coastline in areas where there are 
> > extensive mudflats or large tidal flows and even rocky areas just 
> > under/above the waterline. But I suggest it is safest, and more accurate, 
> > to map the administrative boundaries and the coastline separately.
> 
> Might be good to look at Broome for hi/low tide .. there is a fair 
> distance between the two there so it would be easy to pick in that 
> location.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] PSMA Administrative Boundaries

[cleary]

In regard to admin boundaries sharing the coastline, I think that would also be 
incorrect but I am less confident of my view on this.

I did update some administrative boundaries in South Australia using the SA 
Government Data and those boundaries did not coincide with the coastline (see 
the coastline around Streaky Bay, Ceduna, Fowlers Bay and near the Nullarbor).  
The coastline in OSM needs a lot of work - I have looked at parts of WA and SA 
but found it very difficult to use the satellite imagery correctly to refine 
the map of the coastline in areas where there are extensive mudflats or large 
tidal flows and even rocky areas just under/above the waterline. But I suggest 
it is safest, and more accurate, to map the administrative boundaries and the 
coastline separately.






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

Re: [talk-au] PSMA Administrative Boundaries

[cleary]

In regard to administrative boundaries being attached to other features such as 
waterways and roads, I think it is a trade-off between accuracy and 
convenience. 

I am most familiar with NSW. Boundaries are not "defined" by words but rather 
by surveyors' charts. The surveyors may often have been directed to use 
waterways, roads, mountain ridges and similar features for their surveys. 
However the waterways and roads have sometimes/often moved but the boundaries 
have not.  Words are sometimes used to describe boundaries such as "it follows 
the river and then goes south along the main road ... " Such a description is 
approximate and is near enough for many purposes, especially if one's area of 
interest is well within the boundaries. However it may not be sufficiently 
precise if one is concerned with particular locations close to the boundaries.

Examples in NSW that might be considered include the boundary on the Murray 
River west of Tocumwal, the Lachlan River east of Cobb Highway, Willandra Creek 
south of Roto, Bogan River at Girilambone. If the boundaries were attached to 
the respective waterways, either the boundaries or the waterways would be 
incorrect. Where boundaries are mapped on rivers or roads, mappers may re-align 
the river or road as changes occur and the administraitve boundary becomes 
distorted, sometimes only slightly but usually increasingly significant over 
time. Alternatively we could map the waterway or road using the administrative 
boundary data (as some mappers have done in the past) and ignore the satellite 
imagery and GPS data but this affects the accuracy of the location of the 
waterway or road.

While I will accept the community's group decision, personally I think accuracy 
is to be valued over convenience.  I strongly advocate for accuracy by mapping 
administrative boundaries separate from other features on the map, even if they 
are nearby.  

The decision in regard to the above issue will affect use of a source tag for 
the boundary. If the boundary is an approximation and attached to waterways or 
roads then it would be incorrect to use a boundary source tag, However if 
boundaries are mapped separately and accurately, then we should record the 
source of the boundary data. While I would suggest adding the source tag to the 
relation for the administrative boundary, it might also be added to the way if 
there is any need to specify the source for the way e.g. if using the 
administrative boundary for the geography of a river, then also give the source 
of the boundary data as the source for the waterway.





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

Re: [talk-au] Use of map data with no copyright?

[cleary]

It is my understanding that copyright exists whether or not there is a
copyright notice on a document/item.  Unless someone with more legal
knowledge has better information, I would say that copying is not
permitted unless we go through the usual permisison process.


On Fri, Oct 5, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On holidays last week & went into the local tourist info centre.
> 
> Picked up a map showing various food & accommodation attractions in
> the area, together with a fairly detailed map of the region.> 
> I've gone over the entire sheet of paper & there is not one mention of
> "copyright" anywhere on it!> 
> In that case, are we allowed to copy details?
> 
> 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] PSMA Administrative Boundaries

[cleary]

A month ago, we celebrated the news that OSM now has approval to use the
PSMA Administrative Boundaries and there was some discussion, including
the need for a proper import process.  I am willing to start adding some
boundaries in areas with which I am familiar/interested but I am waiting
for the proper import process to be determined. I am not aware if
anything has been done in regard to a plan to import this data. If so,
please guide me. If not, I propose the following:

Individual mappers download most recent data from
https://data.gov.au/dataset/psma-administrative-boundaries and add/check
data in their areas of interest and/or when they have time.  (Andrew
Harvey has provided a script to assist working with PSMA Administrative
Boundaries Data and there is a link on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Catalogue)
Administrative boundaries in NSW, SA, VIC and ACT be modified instance-by-
instance if there are discrepancies that require updating. Where there
are discrepancies, the most recent data is usually preferred . If there
are concerns about accuracy of the most recent data, further
consultation with other mappers or relevant government boundary
authorities would be appropriate.
In QLD, WA, TAS and NT :  LGA and Suburb/Locality boundaries be added
one at a time, integrating with existing data where appropriate.
Previous data from unauthorised sources be deleted or the authorised
source be added if the data is accurate.
LGA Boundaries continue to be tagged as admin_level=6
Suburb/Locality boundaries be tagged as admin_level=10

In both instances source=PSMA_Admin_Boundaries_August_2018  
(or whichever date is applicable to the most recent data being used)
This source information may seem unwieldy but provides accuracy and
completeness of information.
Administrative boundaries NOT be attached to other ways such as creeks,
rivers, roads, etcetera so that the other features can be modified as
needed without affecting the administrative boundaries which are
generally static.
Multiple administrative boundaries (including national_parks and
government approved protected_areas or state forests) be mapped on a
single way, where appropriate, and with multiple relations attached
to that single way i.e. a single way could form the boundaries for
localities, LGAs and a national park, if appropriate in the
particular location.
Electoral boundaries NOT be added at this time.

Other boundaries which have been discussed, such as regions and
indigenous areas, NOT be added as part of this particular project unless
they are LGAs or Suburbs/Localities (some indigenous areas may be
identified as protected areas or defined localities or LGAs, in which
case they are added and identified on that basis). Mapping of regions
could be further discussed separately if required. They are usually not
defined by legislation and therefore usually not "administrative" in the
way that LGAs and Suburbs/Localities are legislated.

Comments and feedback, please.




On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, at 4:23 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science which manages
> data.gov.au have just completed the OSMF CC BY waiver allowing the
> PSMA Administrative Boundaries[1] to be used within OpenStreetMap[2].> 
> Quoting their email, "The Australian Government received great
> encouragement from PSMA Australia Limited to make the AB
> [Administrative Boundaries] data more accessible. Many thanks to OSM
> for your ongoing global open data efforts."> 
> Others more active in working with admin boundaries in OSM might be
> able to comment further on my analysis, but I've taken a look at the
> current OSM data from a planet extract[3], using osmium tool to
> extract administrative boundaries[4]:> 
> osmium tags-filter australia-latest.osm.pbf
> nwr/boundary=administrative -o osm-admin-boundaries.osm.pbf> 
> Then converted to GeoPackage to open in QGIS to compare to PSMA
> boundaries:> 
> ogr2ogr -f GPKG osm-admin-boundaries.gpkg osm-admin-
> boundaries.osm.pbf> 
> The admin_level values for Australia are defined as[5]:
> 
> 3 n/a
> 4 State or Territory
> 5 n/a (but used in Victoria for regions[6])
> 6 Local Government Area (eg Shire/Council)
> 7 District or Region (e.g Perthshire, Fitzroy, Canning, Greater
> Sydney, Greater Melbourne, etc.)> 8 Postcode
> 9 Suburb and Locality
> 10 Suburb and Locality
> 
> (not sure why the split across 9 and 10...? but it looks like no
> data for 9 and all suburb/localities are marked as 10, a seperate
> discussion but perhaps they should be 9 and smaller neighbourhoods
> be in 10?)> 
> PSMA Admin Boundaries provide (for Australia wide Shapefiles see [7]
> built from [8])> 
> Commonwealth Electoral Boundaries (I don't think should be
> included in OSM)> State Electoral Boundaries (I don't think should be 
> included in OSM)
> State Boundaries
> Local Government Areas
> Suburbs / Localities
> Town Points
> Wards
> 
> admin_level 6 LGAs
> It looks like NSW, VIC