Re: [talk-au] foot/bicycle = yes/designated (was Re: TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM)
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 17:38, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 18/02/2020 5:11 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I hold the view that access=yes just means either physical or legal > > access is allowed (or at least not forbidden), whereas access=designated > > implies that it's signposted or otherwise explicitly designed/used > > for/by that mode. > > I'm good with the concept of a sign (or a painted outline of a squashed > cyclist). > > I am now curious about what you've described as "otherwise explicitly > designed/used for/by that mode". What do you mean by explicitly > designed? Do you mean I need to go and find the original plans and see > if they state that the path is for use by pedestrians? Explicitly used? > So if I clearly see a cyclist using it it's designated? > You're right that most of the time, designated will be marked or signposted, but if there is a compelling case I'm open to that. For example a disabled toilet, it'll have more space, railings next to the toilet etc. usually it'll have a sign, but if the signage is missing, it's still wheelchair=designated in my view. For cycle paths, it'll probably be either green paint (if that's common for the region), bicycle logo painted on the ground, or a sign with a bicycle. > > This view is backed up by what > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says about designated > > which is then immediately contradicted by: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated > > which says it's based on what the law says (which is then contradicted > itself by the value description template to the right that says marked > for a particular use.) > It says "Typically it is used on ways legally dedicated...", typically, not always. An official sign is enough in my opinion to indicate legally dedicated. > > So in ACT the footpath would be bicycle=yes since bicycles are allowed > > on the footpath, but it's not a designated path for bicycles. > > Yes and no. Under the it's the sign rule then yes, under the designated > by law rule then designated. > > This is why I asked what the Australian use was. I want to know if we're > comfortable with the sign post rule or not. > What do you think makes most sense on an ACT footpath that's just a stock standard footpath with no bicycle markings or specific design for bicycles, bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated? I'm still open to hear out other view points, but so far the way I've been mapping is bicycle=yes indicates legal/physical access and bicycle=designated indicated signposted for bicycle use. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] foot/bicycle = yes/designated (was Re: TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM)
On 18/02/2020 5:11 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: I hold the view that access=yes just means either physical or legal access is allowed (or at least not forbidden), whereas access=designated implies that it's signposted or otherwise explicitly designed/used for/by that mode. I'm good with the concept of a sign (or a painted outline of a squashed cyclist). I am now curious about what you've described as "otherwise explicitly designed/used for/by that mode". What do you mean by explicitly designed? Do you mean I need to go and find the original plans and see if they state that the path is for use by pedestrians? Explicitly used? So if I clearly see a cyclist using it it's designated? This view is backed up by what https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says about designated which is then immediately contradicted by: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated which says it's based on what the law says (which is then contradicted itself by the value description template to the right that says marked for a particular use.) So in ACT the footpath would be bicycle=yes since bicycles are allowed on the footpath, but it's not a designated path for bicycles. Yes and no. Under the it's the sign rule then yes, under the designated by law rule then designated. This is why I asked what the Australian use was. I want to know if we're comfortable with the sign post rule or not. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] foot/bicycle = yes/designated (was Re: TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM)
My understanding is as follows: yes means that there is the legal right to use something e.g. you have the right to walk by foot on a sidewalk. designated means that there is a legal instrument (generally signage and/or possibly road marking depending on your state) that *specifically* gives you permission to use a given feature. For instance, a shared path is one which bicycles and pedestrians can legally use together, and this is designated by a shared path sign (AU:R8-2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AAustralia_R8-2.svg?wprov=sfla1). In this case it would be appropriate for a shared pathway to have both foot and bicycle be set to designated in my opinion. Theoretically you could add foot=yes to every sidewalk and/or footway however my understanding is this key is implied, and will also throw and error in osmose. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] foot/bicycle = yes/designated (was Re: TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM)
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 15:59, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 18/02/2020 3:44 pm, Ash Logan wrote: > > In line with this, I've drafted an osmosis TagTransform file that can > > turn the raw TfNSW dataset (after being run through JOSM's OpenData > > plugin, for example) and turn it into the usual OSM tagging schema. > > Check it out: > > Question: do we have a community view on what exactly the difference is > between access yes and access designated? > I hold the view that access=yes just means either physical or legal access is allowed (or at least not forbidden), whereas access=designated implies that it's signposted or otherwise explicitly designed/used for/by that mode. This view is backed up by what https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access says about designated So in ACT the footpath would be bicycle=yes since bicycles are allowed on the footpath, but it's not a designated path for bicycles. A cyclepath would be bicycle=designated since it's signposted/designed for that mode of transport. Same goes for wheelchair=yes/designated (okay for wheelchairs vs. signposted for wheelchairs), or lanes:bus=yes/designated, one says the bus can use the lane, the other says it's an explicit/signposted bus lane. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] LPI imagery date?
On 18/02/2020 4:20 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Still mapping away for bushfire areas, this time in Blue Mountains, & just wondering how up-to-date the LPI Imagery is? Could it be post-fires? There is a overlay available in iD (and JOSM) that shows the LPI imagery dates. For your area it says 29 March 2009. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] LPI imagery date?
Still mapping away for bushfire areas, this time in Blue Mountains, & just wondering how up-to-date the LPI Imagery is? Could it be post-fires? Please have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id&#map=18/-34.41721/150.48765 in Maxar Premium, then in LPI. It certainly appears that those 3 buildings have been destroyed? I can't see any other traces of fire damage though, so they could have just been demolished? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?
would the same be used for a mulch dump/pile? On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 09:09, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/2/20 5:42 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote: > > I used landuse=industrial industrial=warehouse for something similar. > > Though I admit that I am now not sure whatever "warehouse" fits well for > pile of coal, > even one that has specialized equipment supporting it. > > > Warehouse implies a building, these have no building. Not a good fit. > > > > I see also material= product = warehouse= tags used to tag what is stored > there > ( http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QMP ) > > > > > Feb 17, 2020, 10:49 by j...@jonorossi.com: > > Do we have tags for big stockpiles of iron ore, coal, etc at mines or > ports? These tend to be pretty permanent and with heaps of loading > equipment around them. > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 7:30 PM Andrew Davidson > wrote: > > On 17/2/20 7:13 pm, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > > What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...? > > > > landuse=stockpile > resource=aggregate ? > > > I like landuse=stockpile. Says what it is. > > > material: Describes the main material of a physical feature. > > product: The output or product that a feature produces. > > resource: Indicates the resource or mineral commodity related to a > feature. > > > The resource key is the match. > > ___ > 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] foot/bicycle = yes/designated (was Re: TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM)
On 18/02/2020 3:44 pm, Ash Logan wrote: In line with this, I've drafted an osmosis TagTransform file that can turn the raw TfNSW dataset (after being run through JOSM's OpenData plugin, for example) and turn it into the usual OSM tagging schema. Check it out: Question: do we have a community view on what exactly the difference is between access yes and access designated? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM
Hey all! TfNSW's recent waiver-signing gave us access to their Cycleways dataset ( https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/cycleway-data ) which includes shapefiles and information about cycle paths, shared paths, cycle lanes, and shared lanes. The data is quite detailed ( see https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/resources/NSW%20Cycle%20Data%20Guide.pdf ) covering everything from lit= to operator=. There's been discussions about this dataset and its place in OSM on the OSM World Discord server ( https://discord.gg/q6HnfNZ #asia-pacific ) and we think we should present to you lot for discussion. Here's a summary of the consensus so far: - The metadata about the ways is useful in OSM, but the shapefiles aren't accurate enough for an import. The data is also too old to be considered for a direct import (some ways date to 2009!) - The metadata, however, is extremely useful to apply to existing ways. An editor could load up a separate layer, manually review the tags before selectively copying them over, or compare the data with OSM to highlight potentially unmapped ways. In line with this, I've drafted an osmosis TagTransform file that can turn the raw TfNSW dataset (after being run through JOSM's OpenData plugin, for example) and turn it into the usual OSM tagging schema. Check it out: https://gist.github.com/QuarkTheAwesome/bcaddee7a5d0dae5191a2124960e24ea There's some notes at the top of the file, please read them! After discussion on Discord, it's been changed to not output name, alt_name, or cycleway:difficulty:tfnsw (a new tag to describe TfNSW's low, medium, high ratings). ref:tfnsw - which is the OBJECTID inside the dataset - is also being considered for removal. This is also being written up in a wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfNSW_Cycleways_Data That page has the procedures we've been using to generate an .osm file to muck around with in JOSM. Big thanks to aharvey and ortho_is_hot for helping out with this! -- https://heyquark.com ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?
On 18/2/20 5:42 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote: I used landuse=industrial industrial=warehouse for something similar. Though I admit that I am now not sure whatever "warehouse" fits well for pile of coal, even one that has specialized equipment supporting it. Warehouse implies a building, these have no building. Not a good fit. I see also material= product = warehouse= tags used to tag what is stored there ( http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QMP ) Feb 17, 2020, 10:49 by j...@jonorossi.com: Do we have tags for big stockpiles of iron ore, coal, etc at mines or ports? These tend to be pretty permanent and with heaps of loading equipment around them. On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 7:30 PM Andrew Davidson mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 17/2/20 7:13 pm, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...? > landuse=stockpile resource=aggregate ? I like landuse=stockpile. Says what it is. material: Describes the main material of a physical feature. product: The output or product that a feature produces. resource: Indicates the resource or mineral commodity related to a feature. The resource key is the match. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?
On 18/2/20 5:44 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote: I would use landuse=industrial industrial=* as it is in form easier to actually use I can see the attraction of using a tag that will be rendered, however I don't think you can call a pile of rocks "industrial". Nothing happens to the rocks while they are stored there. industrial=warehouse? There's no warehouse. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?
Feb 17, 2020, 10:29 by thesw...@gmail.com: > On 17/2/20 7:13 pm, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > >> What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...? >> > > landuse=stockpile > resource=aggregate ? > I would use landuse=industrial industrial=* as it is in form easier to actually use industrial=warehouse? industrial=stockpile? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?
I used landuse=industrial industrial=warehouse for something similar. Though I admit that I am now not sure whatever "warehouse" fits well for pile of coal, even one that has specialized equipment supporting it. I see also material= product = warehouse= tags used to tag what is stored there ( http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QMP ) Feb 17, 2020, 10:49 by j...@jonorossi.com: > Do we have tags for big stockpiles of iron ore, coal, etc at mines or ports? > These tend to be pretty permanent and with heaps of loading equipment around > them. > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 7:30 PM Andrew Davidson <> thesw...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On 17/2/20 7:13 pm, Jonathon Rossi wrote: >> > What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...? >> > >> >> landuse=stockpile >> resource=aggregate ? >> >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > > > -- > Jono > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?
Aggregate, that's the word I was after. Do we have tags for big stockpiles of iron ore, coal, etc at mines or ports? These tend to be pretty permanent and with heaps of loading equipment around them. On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 7:30 PM Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 17/2/20 7:13 pm, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > > What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...? > > > > landuse=stockpile > resource=aggregate ? > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Jono ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?
On 17/2/20 7:13 pm, Jonathon Rossi wrote: What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...? landuse=stockpile resource=aggregate ? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?
What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...? I have seen piles like that before, however I've not heard them called a gravel pit, and my first thought was a quarry. There appears to be people mapping stockpiles, but without any tag: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=stockpile#values On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:54 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17/2/20 5:25 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Thanks everyone for your thoughts. > > Warin - you reckon not map them? > > > If they are permanent then they should be mapped. Can be usefull > navigational points on a map. > > > > Sebastian - as Michael said, both temp & permanent but *much* bigger than > a sandbox! > > Here's one that I spotted while mapping t'other day, that got me wondering > about them. > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?relation=6007743#map=19/-36.41030/148.59385 > > > I know that in remote areas, they're often used as impromptu camping > grounds, being somewhere that you can pull up, usually out of view of the > road, & stop for the night. > > > In remote areas anything can be used as a camp site ... those cuts off to > the side for water to goto, a creek line... I would not map them for > camping reasons. > > > > Kevin - I've never heard of them referred to as gravel stacks, only ever > pits? Maybe a State thing? > > > Or maybe just using the common term incorrectly - a pit is usually below > ground, but it is the term 'we' usually use. > > Gravel stack is certainly more descriptive of what can found. > > However in remote areas they can and do use what is available locally - so > these are pits - where stuff is dug out for local use. > > ??? > > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:52, Kevin Pye wrote: > >> The term you're looking for is "gravel stack". A gravel pit is indeed a >> quarry -- but that's something else. >> >> Kevin. >> >> On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 12:31, Michael James >> wrote: >> >>> As someone who drives a lot of country highways they are both temporary >>> and permanent. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Sebastian S. >>> *Sent:* Monday, 17 February 2020 11:11 AM >>> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Graeme Fitzpatrick < >>> graemefi...@gmail.com>; OSM-Au >>> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits? >>> >>> >>> >>> Is this a temporary thing? >>> >>> Or is this similar to sand boxes they (used to) have next to rail lines? >>> (For traction in winter) >>> >>> On 17 February 2020 10:14:47 am AEDT, Graeme Fitzpatrick < >>> graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> What do we map gravel pits as? (Areas off the side of a main road, used >>> by Dept of Transport Main Roads to dump gravel etc for road building / >>> repairs) >>> >>> >>> >>> Quarry seems a bit excessive! >>> >>> >>> >>> Depot doesn't really cut-it either as there's nothing there except for a >>> pile of dirt. >>> >>> >>> >>> & is this another Aussie-only? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> >>> Graeme >>> >>> ___ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> >> > ___ > Talk-au mailing > listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Jono ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
