from:"Andrew"

I have to disagree with the first part of that. OSM is designed as
somewhere where you can map pretty much anything that exists, as long as it
can be verified. Part of the reason why we want them to map the way we map
is because it shows clearly that while there is a path there, it is
informal (so downstream users shouldn't treat it as a path) and usually
considered private property (again, so downstream users shouldn't use it as
a path). Tagging it that way also stops someone mapping from aerial
imagery, previous GPS tracks, and other sources, from going and adding it
back in. It's part of the reason why access tagging and lifecycle prefixes
exist, to allow those features to be in the OSM database, but still reflect
their status so downstream users can correctly represent those features.

I'd absolutely love for us to work with more government and non-government
organisations to not only make it easier for us to build a more complete
map, but to help them reflect information regarding their respective areas
as accurately as possible, but that involves both sides working together,
not just making changes and telling us how to use our database.
The reverts only happen because they're wrong edits by our standards. We
want them to edit and contribute in a way that allows them to correctly
represent the status of their parks, and ensures that as a collaborative
project, we don't go and continue to add in bad data unintentionally.

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

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 22:13, Adam Steer  wrote:

> Thanks Tony.
>
> The first crux as I see it is that the OSM community doesn't listen. It is
> unable to hear values other than some abstract academic notion of map
> purity.
>
> The second crux is that OSM mappers are not responsible or accountable for
> anything. So taking the view that "everyone should come to OSM and justify
> themselves" is pretty weird and backwards.
>
> What about taking the approach "ok land managers what can we do to help
> you?" And if the answer is "stop reverting parks service  edits", then
> respect that ...
>
> A better map isn't one with all the everything. It's one made respectfully
> and responsibly.
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

I think we have tried to reach out directly in the past but I could be
wrong. Communication is 100% the issue, and not for lack of trying.

If anyone does have contacts within NPWS or is willing to try and reach out
to get a discussion going, it definitely would be worth a shot.
Even if it's just to organise some way for one or two of us to sit down
with them or jump on a call with them to explain that we want their
contributions towards OSM, but there's a right and wrong way to do it, and
even just help them to understand how downstream sources use our data is
out of our control, that'll hopefully be enough to at least keep both us
and them happy.
If we're lucky it might even open some doors for us to work with them
further and improve OSM further.

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


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 21:41,  wrote:

> Thanks Adam, well put.
>
> There are two groups, both trying to be of service to the wider
> community. The mappers trying to build better maps and land managers
> trying to protect and manage public land well.
>
> If a land manager sees mappers not respecting their decisions about
> managing public land, they will see it as vandalism. If mappers see
> Parks deleting map data, they will see that as vandalism too.
>
> The problem is that there is very little communication between the two
> groups. Partly because Parks people are overworked and time poor, at
> least in Victoria which I know best. Also because consensus management
> and public forums are an unfamiliar form of management for Parks. They
> are looking for the person in charge and confidential discussions.
>
> The paths include high stakes stuff, some trivial, but also tracks
> that may lure people over cliffs and environmental damage that may
> last forever. We are doing better at communicating than the land
> managers are at the moment. That is good. I am glad to be part of this
> group which is so patient and so responsible. I want us to keep being
> responsible and keep listening.
>
> And I again invite the land managers to engage with us in discussion,
> here or another place of their choice. It is a serious issue that will
> only be resolved through discussion.
>
> Tony
>
> > Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land
> managers
> > vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land
> effectively?
> >
> > This is a publicly archived forum, which land managers may read.
> >
> > It's been raised a few times, and I have no problem raising this again:
> >
> > - OSM have zero control over who renders what downstream, regardless of
> > tags.
> >
> > - the existence of trails in a map infers useability at some point.
> >
> > - continually reinstating trails to a database may incur real world
> > monetary, ecological, landscape and cultural costs, aside from time of
> > people engaging in slow edit wars. Who is OSM is then liable for those
> > costs?
> >
> > - who in the land management community would now feel inclined to join
> this
> > discussion? It seems obvious the OSM community isn't prepared to listen,
> > only to talk...
> >
> > This thread has been a bit mind numbing. I've tried hard to avoid writing
> > this post, and couldn't any more.
> >
> > There are more important values than a database. Land managers have
> better
> > things to do that have edit wars.
> >
> > And to repeat, OSM has no control over who renders what downstream.
> Please
> > respect a land managers decision, or at least ask about it respectfully
> and
> > wait as long as is needed for a response. They're busy..managing land.
> >
> > With regards,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024, 21:09 Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
> > talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> >> As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there?s probably
> a
> >> point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just
> revert
> >> their deletions) until they actually work with us.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andrew Welch
> >> m...@andrewwelch.net
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13?pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick <
> graemefi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls
> >>> Lookout, after I basically repeated what you all had already said
> >>> to him :-(
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Graeme
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2

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

Frederik basically covers what I was trying to say, the edits go against
how we map in OSM, and repeated attempts to work with them just haven't
worked yet. OSM does not belong to NPWS, they can't just go deleting things
like it's their own GIS system.
If they have better things to do, then they should stop continuing the edit
wars and work with us. We've asked them to edit using our agreed-upon ways,
but that only happened for the first time this week after their deletions
were immediately reverted. This isn't something that's been going on for a
week or two, it's been several months.

If they want to help OSM reflect the true status of these tracks, they need
to respect how OSM works. We want to work with them, and have been trying
to. It's really up to them to come to the table at this point.

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

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 21:12, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 29/02/2024 11:20, Adam Steer wrote:
> > Wait ... does the OSM community seriously want to call public land
> > managers vandals for attempting to manage access to parts of public land
> > effectively?
>
> You're right that in the strict sense of the word you'd only use it for
> someone who damages OSM without gaining anything themselves.
>
> But deleting tracks that exist on the ground clearly *is* damaging OSM,
> so if you want to avoid the "v-word" then at the very least you should
> say: These people are willfully damaging OSM in pursuing their own goals.
>
> And if you repeatedly damage OSM, then we'll kick you out. No matter if
> you're Joe Random, or the Emperor of China.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

As much as we want to wait on them and work with them, there’s probably a
point at which we should treat their edits like vandalism (and just revert
their deletions) until they actually work with us.

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


On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 8:13 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> I've yet had no response back from Stephen Stenberg re Slate Falls
> Lookout, after I basically repeated what you all had already said to him :-(
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:51, Andrew Welch via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways
>> as access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get across to
>> NPWS.
>>
>> They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
>> replied to a changeset comment asking about those.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew Welch
>> m...@andrewwelch.net
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>>
>>> There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths. I’ve
>>> just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted by
>>> NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least most
>>> of it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the first
>>> part from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently
>>> closed, I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with
>>> some indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022
>>> floods have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on the
>>> changeset.
>>>
>>> Mark P.
>>>
>>> On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>>>
>>> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to
>>> the discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in
>>> Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474
>>> - the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2024-02-28 Thread Andrew Welch via Talk-au

The user who's edits were revered by Frederik has now tagged those ways as
access=no, hopefully that means the message is starting to get across to
NPWS.

They did set some questionable names on those trails though, and haven't
replied to a changeset comment asking about those.

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


On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 23:12, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths. I’ve
> just had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted by
> NPWS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least most of
> it was, a small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the first part
> from Rodriguez Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently closed,
> I’m not able to check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with some
> indistinct sections, so it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022 floods
> have finished it off. I’ve asked a clarifying question on the changeset.
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>
> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to the
> discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in
> Tweed Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474 -
> the deleter claims to have ties to NPS.
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2024-02-19 Thread Andrew Welch via Talk-au

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

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


On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 3:45 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:
>
> I had replied privately:
>
> Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the
> talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the
> understanding that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but
> that did not eventuate.
> For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the
> mailing list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my
> changeset regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back
> to the mailing list for further discussion.
>
> I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.
>
> He has replied to me:
>
> I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed
> about the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground
> from OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks
> and Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request,
> have been removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce
> them.
> It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land,
> and as part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these
> paths to be displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS
> wishes but also requires additional work hours from their end to rectify
> the situation.
> It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to
> remove these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary
> challenges. I urge you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding
> these paths back onto OpenStreetMap.
> Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will contribute
> to the effective management of the area.
> Thank you for your understanding.
>
> I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the
> changeset, or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private
> messages, as I don’t want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks
> to tonyf1 who has made the same suggestion on the changeset.)
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
> I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had
> deleted these last time):
>
> Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
> has officially closed the track.
> “Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by
> myself 30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”
> Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate
> its removal once again by NPWS.
>
> So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.
> I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been
> officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per
> our request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."
> It’s a shame that NPWS hadn’t bothered to join the discussion on here.
> I’ve added a comment to my reversion changeset, suggesting access=no
> (rather than deleting outright). Any relevant comments there are welcome!
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
> Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
>
> Mark P.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

2024-02-11 Thread Andrew Harvey

No objections from me. They haven't responded yet, and from everything we
can tell they imported the data without any other cross checks and didn't
follow the import guidelines.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 at 22:00, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> I’ve got some spare time (having caught up with the surveys from my last
> holidays), so I can go through these and revert them. Any objections?
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 9 Feb 2024, at 9:57 am, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>
> We do have permissions to use this data it's listed in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_South_Wales,
> however from looking at their changeset history, it looks like
>
> 1. They are conducting an import by en-mass blindly adding and replacing
> existing data with the imported data
> 2. They may be engaging in directed mapping (being employed to make these
> changes), since their changesets are all the same, importing speed limits,
> except for one Local Knowledge changeset
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131210459 in India.
>
> If they want to conduct an import like this, they need to go through the
> proper process, so based on and the issues you've rased it should be fine
> to revert all their affected changes and then ask going forward to go
> through the import guidelines
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import_guidelines.
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 21:32, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> Does the NSW Government Speed Zone data have a licence suitable for
>> importing into OSM? Also, is it generally accurate?
>> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones
>>
>> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/road-segment-data-from-datansw
>>
>> The reason I ask is that I recently came across a few roads with speed
>> zones updated based on this data. The biggest problem is that the changes
>> made in these three changesets were incorrect (i.e. the previously surveyed
>> maxspeeds were updated from this data, but on survey in December 2023 the
>> original surveyed maxspeed was the correct one).
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129760120
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759614
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759603
>>
>> Other changesets have been made based on this data, but I haven’t checked
>> the accuracy of them.
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> 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 about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

2024-02-08 Thread Andrew Harvey

We do have permissions to use this data it's listed in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_South_Wales,
however from looking at their changeset history, it looks like

1. They are conducting an import by en-mass blindly adding and replacing
existing data with the imported data
2. They may be engaging in directed mapping (being employed to make these
changes), since their changesets are all the same, importing speed limits,
except for one Local Knowledge changeset
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131210459 in India.

If they want to conduct an import like this, they need to go through the
proper process, so based on and the issues you've rased it should be fine
to revert all their affected changes and then ask going forward to go
through the import guidelines
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import_guidelines.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 21:32, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> Does the NSW Government Speed Zone data have a licence suitable for
> importing into OSM? Also, is it generally accurate?
> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones
>
> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/road-segment-data-from-datansw
>
> The reason I ask is that I recently came across a few roads with speed
> zones updated based on this data. The biggest problem is that the changes
> made in these three changesets were incorrect (i.e. the previously surveyed
> maxspeeds were updated from this data, but on survey in December 2023 the
> original surveyed maxspeed was the correct one).
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129760120
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759614
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759603
>
> Other changesets have been made based on this data, but I haven’t checked
> the accuracy of them.
>
> 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] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

2024-02-08 Thread Andrew Welch via Talk-au

Bottom of the Speed Zones page has a link to CC-BY 4.0, so it’s okay only
if we have a waiver for not being able to directly attribute them. There’s
one for DataSA on the wiki as an example.

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


On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 9:01 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> Does the NSW Government Speed Zone data have a licence suitable for
> importing into OSM? Also, is it generally accurate?
> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones
>
> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/road-segment-data-from-datansw
>
> The reason I ask is that I recently came across a few roads with speed
> zones updated based on this data. The biggest problem is that the changes
> made in these three changesets were incorrect (i.e. the previously surveyed
> maxspeeds were updated from this data, but on survey in December 2023 the
> original surveyed maxspeed was the correct one).
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129760120
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759614
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759603
>
> Other changesets have been made based on this data, but I haven’t checked
> the accuracy of them.
>
> Mark P.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Proposed automated edit - note removal in South Australia

2024-01-29 Thread Andrew Welch via Talk-au

Hi all,

I'd like to propose an automated edit to remove a misleading note
previously mass added to all ways tagged highway=trunk in South Australia.

There is a forum post for any discussion/feedback at
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/automated-edit-to-remove-note-on-highway-trunk-in-sa/108612,
and the Wiki page for the automated edit is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/Fortera/Note_on_South_Australian_highway%3Dtrunk

Thanks,
Andrew Welch
m...@andrewwelch.net
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2024-01-06 Thread Andrew Davidson

I would leave off boundary=protected_area until they have IUCN
Categories assigned. It doesn't add any more information than
leisure=nature_reserve.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:52 AM Little Maps  wrote:
>
> Hi all, landuse=forest is widely used to denote State Forests in OSM, due to 
> legislated landuse of timber harvesting. However, from 1 Jan this year, 
> timber harvesting is now banned in all native forests in Victoria, so the 
> problematic landuse=forest tag is no longer appropriate.
>
> I’m seeking feedback on the most appropriate tag to use now. Down the track, 
> individual decisions will be made on conservation / recreation / Indigenous 
> management priorities in each reserve. In the interim, are there any 
> objections to replacing landuse=forest with the following tags…
>
> boundary=protected_area
> leisure=nature_reserve
>
> plus name tags etc, and mapping separate natural=wood etc boundaries as 
> needed. Among other advantages, getting rid of landuse=forest will make 
> vegetation mapping a lot simpler in State Forests in Vic.  Cheers Ian
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

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

2023-12-15 Thread Andrew Harvey

If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined
with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't
continue further and therefore access=no.

Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just
means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be foot=yes
and informal=yes, without any access=no.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 22:55, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> On my last holiday I took a detour to re-check the Apsley Gorge track.
>
> The asphalt path ends at a lookout
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/324186826
>
> The ‘controversial’ path is still present south of here - I followed it
> some of the way (about 350m), but didn’t follow it all the way to the end.
>
> There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows
> the sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!)
> https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6
>
> On the left side of the sign, there’s a warning icon (exclamation mark),
> then “No safety rail”, another warning icon (man falling off edge of
> crumbling cliff), then “Unstable edges”
>
> On the right side of the sign is the text “End of track, no safety rail
> beyond this point”
>
> The sign is there to discourage walkers venturing further south, but it’s
> not technically a “do not enter” sign.
>
> Does that help with what to do with this particular example?
>
> Mark P.
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
>> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>>
>> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
>> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
>> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>>
>> For this particular example, the results would be:
>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
>> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>> 3. No reversion
>>
>
> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle
> prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
> or rehabilitated:highway=*.
>
> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
> capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
> that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
> via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
>
>
> ___
> 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] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison

2023-11-01 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 16:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Tried a test message from an outside e-mail but doesn't seem to have come
> through.
>
> Do you have to be subscribed to the list to be able to post to it?
>

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

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

2023-11-01 Thread Andrew Harvey

Due to the structure of OSM, we don't have a single "Liaison Officer", so
it's best if they join the list here and join the community discussion. I'm
happy to engage directly with them if they prefer a single point of
contact, but I'd need to stress that no single person is an authority
within OSM and all I could really do is help support them with how OSM
works from a community side.

On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> DWG have received a
> "*Request for a Liaison Officer*:
> To enhance the accuracy of OpenStreetMap data pertaining to the NSW
> National Parks and Wildlife Service"
>
> This has come up in regard to tracks that they say they have previously
> requested be deleted (I'm contacting them to confirm just which?)
>
> What would be the easiest way for them to contact us with questions like
> this - here / Forum / Discord?
>
> Question posed in all three places
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-10-23 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, 11:12 pm Andrew Harvey, 
wrote:

>
>
>> Do they say that the data is supposed to be
>> updated weekly?
>>
>
> That order was set as a weekly recurring order.
>

I just got the reccuring email for my orders, so this appears fixed now and
they will be fresh.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-10-23 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 at 00:25, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> This is the URL
>
> https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/cl-isd-prd-datashare-s3-delivery/Order_FDBZT5.zip
>
> Is it from the DELWP?


Yes


> Do they say that the data is supposed to be
> updated weekly?
>

That order was set as a weekly recurring order.


> Also, could you share the order details, including name, ID, Projection,
> Buffer, File Format and Area? It would help make the whole process more
> reproducible, starting from the source (the DELWP Vicmap Address page).
> Otherwise we wouldn't know how to get an url from DELWP serving the same
> kind of files.
>

Yes good point, I've added this detail to the README
https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm/-/blob/master/README.md?ref_type=heads#vicmap-source-data
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-10-19 Thread Andrew Harvey

 I found the process was only using Vicmap data from last year, so I've
updated that. The URL it's using should be serving new data every week but
I'm not sure it was not happening previously. So we'll need to monitor this
if the import is delayed further.

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:48, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On a second thought, why don't we just generate the osc file with
>
> make dist/unitFromnumber.osc
>
> and apply the osc file manually? Of course that's assuming the file is
> correct. For example, to understand the discrepancy in the number of
> nodes I mentioned above. I also noticed some minor issues with the
> script, like when the number of changes exceeds 10k, it attempts to
> split them multiple files, but they are identical rather than sequential
> parts.
>

 I took another look into this, the code wasn't completed. The osc file
generated may include ways but doesn't include all the nodes for those ways
so it can't be uploaded from JOSM (I tried and it failed). One solution
would be to have the osc file generated to include them.

Correct it attempts to split the changes to meet the changeset element
limit, but this implementation was not completed, so while two files are
generated they don't have the limit applied. It looks like JOSM may be able
to do the splitting for us though, if we use JOSM to upload rather than my
code directly.



On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 22:30, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> And there's always tried and true email based code review which we can
> do say in this mailing list, which both of we are already using. The
> person (say me) who wants to send a pull/merge request can create
> patches using git format-patch[1]. I can then send the patch to this
> mailing list, and then the person who reviews (say you) can comment
> inline, and I can respond to the comments inline, just like normal
> emails. After some back and forth once you are happy with the patches
> you can apply them to your repo with git am[2].
>
> [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch
> [2] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-am
>
> I got a few commits so far in my fork[3], and if you are open to doing
> it in this mailing list, I'll prepare some patches and send them here.
>

I'm not a fan, and besides this mailing list is for mappers so it's not the
place for detailed code review.

I'd rather if you can submit a Merge Request on GitLab (or Pull Request on
GitHub).

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 20:53, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Mon 2023-10-16 15:35:13 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 15:16, Yuchen Pei  wrote:
>
> >> On Mon 2023-10-16 14:51:00 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> >> > On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:40, Yuchen Pei  wrote:
>
> >> > [... 38 lines elided]
>
> >> > mr2osc.mjs is used in Stage 2 (replacing street_number=x/y with
> >> > unit_number=x && street_number=y). For example, the Makefile rule
> >> > dist/unitFromNumber.osc is generated using this script. I have
> >> > generated
> >> > the osc file[1]. However, this file contains 38k nodes, whereas
> >> > the
> >> > input MR file[2] only has 12k features. So my question is - does
> >> > anyonw
> >> > know what is the easiest way to see all the changes in this file
> >> > staged
> >> > on a map, as a sanity check? OTOH I'd assume the file format is
> >> > some
> >> > standard osm change format.
>
> >> > Yes, this is mentioned in the README
>
> >> >> You can visualise the tag changes with bin/mrCoopDiff.js and
> >> > www/mrPreview.html at URL
>
> >> What is URL?
>
>
> > Ah yeah I put URL as a placeholder I was going to replace. At the moment
> > you can only view that locally within the repository as I haven't hosted
> > it.
>
> Got it, thanks. Somehow when I open www/mrPreview.html I only see a map,
> but not the addresses in the changes in Stage 2. I took a look at the
> content of the www/mrPreview.html, and I don't see references to any of
> the geojson or osc files.
>
> > [... 8 lines elided]
>
> >> > I can do the test upload of a small area (say ~100 addresses) and
> >> > report
> >> > back.
>
> >> > Please if you insist, can you just do < 10, no need to do 100.
>
> >> Why?
>
>
> > For testing, I feel it should be a number that we can manually work with.
> > After your testing either we need to then wait for the planet export to
> > catch up with your changes, or potentially have a conflict to deal with
> in
> > JOSM (or maybe JOSM would handle it, I'm not sure).
>
>

Re: [talk-au] Overpass question

2023-10-17 Thread Andrew Davidson

On 17/10/23 04:58, Bob Cameron wrote:> Ways only? Because the output 
data/list format is different. Nodes

are arranged by objects per co-ordinate, whereas ways are by an ID
that includes a nodes list, with a separate co-ordinate lookup table
for those nodes. My entire workflow is co-ordinate based, Bing etc
overhead, geoencoded ground level photos, plus an audio/voice
annotation, so I need a list of objects by that key. On top of that I
use simple tools to filter the list for specific tags, most often
informal=* being missing.


Don't recurse down from your search results "(._;>;);", rather use out 
center; eg: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1C3T This will return a lat and 
lon that is the centre of the bounding box (which will mostly be OK 
except for the usual doughnut and snake cases).


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

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

2023-10-16 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 12:13, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

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

https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm#inclusion-of-addrsuburb-addrpostcode-and-addrstate

It was noted that there is not a consensus within the community, therefore
I opted to omit them as part of the import to remain neutral.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

2023-10-16 Thread Andrew Davidson

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dhighway_strip

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023, 20:18 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> How do we tag emergency highway airstrips, as used by the RFDS? I
> thought this was documented on the Australian tagging guidelines but I
> cannot see it..
>
> I have used this as an example
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146070
>
> for a rough area cleared for the wings and a turning area.
>
> aeroway aerodrome
> military airfield
> name Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
> wikipedia en:Highway strip#Australia
>
>
> together with
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146071
>
> for the centre line of the runway itself. Note the highway exists as a
> separate way.
>
> aeroway runway
> ref 13/31
> source survey
> surface asphalt
>
>
> -
>
> Anyone have thought on this? I'm not certain of
>
> military airfield .. may not always be military though this area is
> surrounded by it.
>
> name Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
> .. more of a description possibly operator???
>
>
> Once this is discussed .. then I'll put it in the Aust. Tagging
> Guidelines thingy.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-10-16 Thread Andrew Harvey

That's okay. I created https://github.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm as a mirror
of the GitLab code, happy to collaborate via Issues and Pull Requests there.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 15:49, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Mon 2023-10-16 15:35:13 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > [... 86 lines elided]
>
> > Are you on the OSM World Discord?
>
> I do not use Discord, because it is proprietary. I am on IRC, xmpp,
> mastodon and Signal - do you use any of these? If not can you suggest
> another free software option?
>
> Best,
> Yuchen
>
> --
> Timezone: UTC+11
> PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
>   <https://ypei.org/assets/ypei-pubkey.txt>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-10-15 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 15:16, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Mon 2023-10-16 14:51:00 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:40, Yuchen Pei  wrote:
>
> > [... 38 lines elided]
>
> > mr2osc.mjs is used in Stage 2 (replacing street_number=x/y with
> > unit_number=x && street_number=y). For example, the Makefile rule
> > dist/unitFromNumber.osc is generated using this script. I have
> > generated
> > the osc file[1]. However, this file contains 38k nodes, whereas
> > the
> > input MR file[2] only has 12k features. So my question is - does
> > anyonw
> > know what is the easiest way to see all the changes in this file
> > staged
> > on a map, as a sanity check? OTOH I'd assume the file format is
> > some
> > standard osm change format.
>
> > Yes, this is mentioned in the README
>
> >> You can visualise the tag changes with bin/mrCoopDiff.js and
> > www/mrPreview.html at URL
>
> What is URL?
>

Ah yeah I put URL as a placeholder I was going to replace. At the moment
you can only view that locally within the repository as I haven't hosted
it. I was working on getting it out on GitLab pages or something like that
from the CI/CD pipeline.

>
> > I did this and validated that the changes look as intended.
>
> > [... 39 lines elided]
>
> > I can do the test upload of a small area (say ~100 addresses) and
> > report
> > back.
>
> > Please if you insist, can you just do < 10, no need to do 100.
>
> Why?
>

For testing, I feel it should be a number that we can manually work with.
After your testing either we need to then wait for the planet export to
catch up with your changes, or potentially have a conflict to deal with in
JOSM (or maybe JOSM would handle it, I'm not sure).

> > Once I've reviewed the above and am happy with it I'll do the upload
> > with the import account as planned.
>
> Even though you asked whether I would like to help and I said yes, the
> communications so far have give me the impression that you want to work
> on it solo

Not the case, I think it's great that you've taken interest in the import,
if we can work together to get it done that would be ideal.

> which is less of a problem if there's a clear timeframe to
> complete it. After all it was started in 2021 and stalled, and this is a
> community project to improve the VIC address coverage for everyone. To
> get it done I will continue working on it as I have been in the past few
> weeks. If Stage 2 is done I will push for progress in Stage 3, and so
> on.
>

It's a balance, I don't want to hold things up, at the same time we don't
want to mess up such a large import by rushing.

Are you on the OSM World Discord?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-10-15 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:40, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Tue 2023-10-03 19:51:13 +1100, Warin wrote:
>
> > [... 14 lines elided]
>
> > OK, what is needed to be done for "Stage 2 - Set unit from
> > housenumber"?
>
> > Further testing of the upload script. The changes themselves are
> > pretty safe. It's using a custom uploader and if something isn't
> > right it could make a mess. Sure the changeset could be reverted
> > in the worst case scenario but you end up with more history so
> > best to avoid this. I'll see if I can find some time to progress
> > this further.
>
> > Umm 'custom uploader' .. a file compatible with JOSM should be easy
> > enough to create. Then selecting a small area to upload and test would
> > be a simple manual operation, as would uploading the entire change
> > set.
>
> I notice two scripts in the repo with the ability to upload:
>
> ./bin/mr2osc.mjs - converts a MapRoulette geojson to ocs files, and
> upload unless --dryrun is specified
>
> ./bin/upload.sh - upload osmChange files using a python script. I have
> not looked much into this one yet, as it showcases Stage 3.
>
> mr2osc.mjs is used in Stage 2 (replacing street_number=x/y with
> unit_number=x && street_number=y). For example, the Makefile rule
> dist/unitFromNumber.osc is generated using this script. I have generated
> the osc file[1]. However, this file contains 38k nodes, whereas the
> input MR file[2] only has 12k features. So my question is - does anyonw
> know what is the easiest way to see all the changes in this file staged
> on a map, as a sanity check? OTOH I'd assume the file format is some
> standard osm change format.
>

Yes, this is mentioned in the README

> You can visualise the tag changes with bin/mrCoopDiff.js and
www/mrPreview.html at URL

I did this and validated that the changes look as intended.


>
> To Andrew: what specifically are you worried about with the upload
> script, and how can we help with the testing and uploading?
>

I was worried that if the object had changed since the OSC was generated
those changes might have been lost, as well as general error handling in my
custom uploader in case there were rejections. Though reviewing again,
letting JOSM upload the OSC would work.

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:48, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On a second thought, why don't we just generate the osc file with
>
> make dist/unitFromnumber.osc
>
> and apply the osc file manually? Of course that's assuming the file is
> correct. For example, to understand the discrepancy in the number of
> nodes I mentioned above. I also noticed some minor issues with the
> script, like when the number of changes exceeds 10k, it attempts to
> split them multiple files, but they are identical rather than sequential
> parts.


I'll take a look at that.



On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 13:23, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

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

Correct.


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

Please if you insist, can you just do < 10, no need to do 100.

Once I've reviewed the above and am happy with it I'll do the upload with
the import account as planned.



On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 14:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

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

This is mentioned at
https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm#inclusion-of-addrsuburb-addrpostcode-and-addrstate
with the conclusion that "After lengthy engagement with the local
community, we opt to omit addr:suburb, addr:postcode, addr:state tags in
the current import." However existing tags won't and shouldn't be touched
as part of this import.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-10-10 Thread Andrew Davidson


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

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

2023-10-08 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 11:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
> removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.
>

And they or anyone else can't do that if we just delete the way completely
as some are advocating here.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-10-08 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter  wrote:

> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
> should exist in OSM.
>
> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
> it should be represented with:
>
>- highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
>- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
>- access=no because the relevant authority says so
>
> I believe it's more nuanced than that.

If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and restore
it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done like
placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if vegetation is
regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the "stages of decay"
lifecycle prefixes.

If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>
> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>
> For this particular example, the results would be:
> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
> 3. No reversion
>

I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle
prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
or rehabilitated:highway=*.

If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill  wrote:

> Hi all,
>   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting
> the environment over ground truth mapping.
>
>  On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
> an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
> potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
> food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
> Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
> Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
> In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
> protection.
>
> I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
> might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect
> fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.
>

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter  wrote:

> I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
> ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.
>

Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure,
we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are
asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the
Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway.

>
> In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with
> the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.
>
> Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map
> which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would
> likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.
>

Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM
buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map
providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava,
I'm not saying we need to map all the negative space too but for paths
which may still get activity it may help to map these in OSM so that a
conflation won't pick up on it being missing in OSM.

>
> With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure,
> the existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a new
> one.
>
> Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is
> being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a
> solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the
> long term for the reasons above.
>
___
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))

2023-10-05 Thread Andrew Davidson


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))

2023-10-04 Thread Andrew Davidson

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

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

2023-10-03 Thread Andrew Davidson


On 3/10/23 20:40, Warin wrote:

The 'government/community services' might be ordered by there total 
numbers?


PO (including local PO agents)

Police

Doctors (theses seam scarcer than Police?_

Hospitals


OK, so there was a maths error in my example. I was suggesting that the 
population threshold for a village would be a function of the number of 
classes of services available. So:


Number of classes present   Population threshold

0  400
1  300
2  200
3  100
40

Underlying this is the assumption that there are enough dwellings to 
make it to an OSM settlement (3).


You can add or remove classes and change the upper bound. It's all just 
a rule-of-thumb. The important thing being that it's documented 
somewhere and mapper can check it.



Outliers?

The Ilkurlka Roadhouse is on the Anne Beadell Highway. Next fuel .. east 
771 km Coober Pedy or west 550 km Laverton.


Population? 1? ... ~200 at Tjuntjuntjara. the nearest aboriginal community?


So there are two classes of services available, the threshold is 200 
people. If the population is 1 then it's not a village. According to the 
wiki article there is also a small outstation there, so there may be 
three dwellings, which would be a hamlet. Otherwise isolated dwellings.





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

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

2023-10-03 Thread Andrew Davidson


On 2/10/23 21:53, Little Maps wrote:

As I understand your message, we have and/or can get population data
for a small proportion of places in Aus (probably with comprehensive
data for most larger places and less data for the many smaller ones).


There are two classes of problems:

1. Urban centres that have gown so much that they have coalesced with 
neighbouring urban centres. Some of these are easy to assign the 
population to a single place node (Gold Coast, Nowra - Bomaderry, 
Shepparton - Mooroopna). Others are not clear where you would put the 
population (Central Coast, Blue Mountains, Ocean Grove - Barwon Heads). 
There are about 90 of these out of 1800.


2. Settlements that are so small that the ABS doesn't consider them 
worthy of their own mesh block (the smallest geographic unit they report 
on). If a settlement doesn't rate a single residential mesh block I'd 
say it's not really a candidate for anything above hamlet.



This means that, if we develop a guideline based primarily on
population data we then have to develop a simple way to extrapolate
the guidelines to places without pop data. Yes?


If you can't get population data that kinda suggests it's either tiny 
or, grown so big that you have to start worrying about how to subdivide 
the urban area into suburbs etc.



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


The ABS uses a threshold of 1000 people in an urban area to identify an 
urban centre. In OSM speak this would be a town or city.


At the small end the old Natmap standard was not to show any settlements 
smaller than 200. Maybe that's the threshold for hamlet/village. 
Although I get the impression people would like to adjust that for the 
level of services available. Perhaps we could apply the Fitzpatrick 
adjustment:


add on or take off 50 people for each one of the following is or isn't 
available:


pub
shop
servo
a government service (PO/Hospital/Police)

So a settlement with pub, shop, servo, and school with a population of 4 
would be a village. A rural residential development with no services and 
a population of 750 would be a hamlet.


The cutoffs are going to be arbitrary. The important thing is to just 
choose some and make sure that there's some reasoning behind them.



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

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

2023-10-02 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 23:48, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Mon 2023-10-02 21:42:01 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > [... 15 lines elided]
>
> > It's been a while since I worked on this, but I believe it was the
> > matching of existing OSM addresses to Vicmap, and that matching
> > affects most of the import stages.
>
> OK, what is needed to be done for "Stage 2 - Set unit from housenumber"?
>

Further testing of the upload script. The changes themselves are pretty
safe. It's using a custom uploader and if something isn't right it could
make a mess. Sure the changeset could be reverted in the worst case
scenario but you end up with more history so best to avoid this. I'll see
if I can find some time to progress this further.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-10-02 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 00:10, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Mon 2023-10-02 21:35:10 +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> > While OSM doesn't have layers, https://openaddresses.io/ more or less
> > acts as the address layer. The datasets there aren't all ODBL, but
> > they are generally open. It includes GNAF.
>
> Thanks, I didn't know of openaddresses, but I'm a bit confused - what
> does open mean here? I can't find the license of the GNAF data, but
> looking at its webpage[1] it does not look free. Does "open" here simply
> mean "gratis access"?
>

I recently updated a few of the Australian sources in OpenAddresses which
had stalled.

See
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/19432f89-dc3a-4ef3-b943-5326ef1dbecc/resource/09f74802-08b1-4214-a6ea-3591b2753d30/

"The EULA terms are based on the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license (CC BY 4.0). However, an important restriction
relating to the use of the open G-NAF for the sending of mail has been
added. The open G-NAF data must not be used form the generation of an
address or a compilation or address for the sending of mail unless the user
has verified that each address to be used for the sending of mail is
capable of receiving mail by reference to a secondary source of
information. Further information on this use restriction is available here."

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 06:30, Simon Poole  wrote:

> Except if something has massively changed, the GNAF data isn"t actually
> open.
>

Depends on your definition of open. Not open enough for OSM, but open
enough for most use cases.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-10-02 Thread Andrew Davidson


On 2/10/23 21:53, Little Maps wrote:


differences in what people consider to be towns vs cities. For
example, lots of regional centres in Vic have been tagged as cities
(and are indeed called ‘cities’ in Victoria), whereas many places of
similar size in other states have been tagged as towns. That points


That's only happened in the last month. Four weeks ago there were 12 
cities in Victoria:


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

There are now 25 "cities" in Victoria. One mapper just decided to go 
through and change everything that has the word "city" in the LGA title 
to a city. I changed them back to town and they went and switched them 
all back again.


This is why I thought Graeme's question was well timed. I'd prefer that 
we had some guidelines that actually gave guidance rather than the 
alternative of edit wars based on the vibe.


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

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

2023-10-02 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 23:16, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> > The preparation and planning is well progressed in my view. There is
> > always going to be a long tail of corner cases and I was attempting to
> > handle more of these in the code and that never got finished. We
> > probably would be better to make a call to accept those corner cases
> > and go ahead with the import.
>
> Thanks for the context. Which of the 7 Stages mentioned in the README
> correspond to the corner cases?
>

It's been a while since I worked on this, but I believe it was the matching
of existing OSM addresses to Vicmap, and that matching affects most of the
import stages.

> > Are you interested in working on it?
>
> Absolutely! Thankfully git is decentralised so I don't really need a
> gitlab account.

It would be much easier if you can create one though as otherwise
collaboration will be difficult. From what I can see you just need either a
phone number OR credit card, so you should be able to create an account
without a credit card.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 11:45, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> Maybe we can go stage by stage. Stage 1 - postal_code is the first stage
> that has not been completed.
>
> I built the dist/postalCodeURLs.txt file (see attached) yesterday and it
> contains 2425 JOSM RemoteControl urls. Shall we go ahead and import
> them (or a newly generated version)?
>

I spent some time today reviewing the import again, and this one was ready,
so I've done it at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142031616

For context, we decided not to include addr:postcode on each address object
imported, therefore to ensure we can still capture address postcodes, they
are added to the admin_level=9 boundary relations. There were a bunch
already mapped but this changeset completed those missing the tag. My prior
analysis comparing these boundaries in OSM and the Vicmap address points
with postcode found this is a reliable way to ensure we have postcode
coverage, except for some edge cases mentioned in the import documentation.

> BTW, I'd assume the whole pipeline for each stage should be generated at
> approximately the same time, using the data downloaded at approximately
> the same time. If that is the case, it would make sense to have a
> Makefile rule for each stage, that remove all files in the pipeline for
> that stage and redownload and recompute them. What do you think?
>

It was built to run the whole process and generate all the outputs from all
the import stages together, at this stage I wouldn't be refactoring it.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-10-02 Thread Andrew Davidson


On 2/10/23 12:52, Little Maps wrote:
Hi again, fyi. I was curious to see how variable city/town tags were in 
relation to population. About 1500 places spread around Aus have a 
population tag according to an Overpass Turbo search. 


You were a little too quick for me, I didn't have time to put them all 
in. I've done all of the village/town/cities that I could line up with 
the appropriate ABS UCL (or for some the appropriate mesh blocks). I 
have not included places that are inside another place or places that 
the ABS give a hyphenated name where it's not obvious which place node 
to put the population on.


You can view them on a map:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Bhl cities
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Bhm towns
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Bhp villages

Looks like Victoria is the home of city-flation.


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


Whatever people come up with it's got to be:

1. Simple to apply
2. Verifiable ie: other mappers need to be able to come to the same 
conclusion

3. Consistent with the principle of least surprise


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

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

2023-10-01 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 12:34, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I read in a 6-year old post[1] that the Netherlands had an address
> coverage of over 99%. This made me curious what would be the Australian
> number. G-NAF boasts 15M addresses[2], whereas according to
> metrics.improveosm.org there are less than 1.2M address points mapped in
> AU[3], so that makes it less than 8%, way lower than the Netherlands.
> But please correct me if my stats are flawed.
>
> [1]
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/adding-housenumbers-with-streetcomplete/81323
> [2]
> https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/geocoded-national-address-file-g-naf
> [3]
>
> https://metrics.improveosm.org/address-points/total-metrics-per-interval?duration=weekly=country=13=km=2022-01-01=2023-09-24
>
> Is there a way to efficiently improve the address coverage in Australia?
> What are the main roadblocks?
>

I don't have the numbers, but StreetComplete would already be helping
already to improve the coverage,

In terms of imports the roadblocks are data availability (only ACT, NSW,
TAS, VIC are currently available. QLD, NT, SA, WA are not) and then people
contributing to an important effort. For the most part the community would
like to see more address imports so that's unlikely a roadblock.

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

That was my work. I ran out of time to finish the pre-work and actually do
the import, and without any other activity it's been on-hold.

It also mentions

> Mon 30th May 2022 - Import executed per plan (date may be moved back

> if there is unresolved feedback or discussion from the proposal sent

> to imports)

Did the execution really happen?

No it didn't. I think that was just the planned date.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 18:15, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On 1 October 2023 12:56:20 GMT+11:00, Phil Wyatt 
> wrote:
> > but I also see that the VIC
> > import is well progressed
>
> How is it well progressed, do you have a link showing the progress? From
> what I see it seems to be stalled.
>

The preparation and planning is well progressed in my view. There is always
going to be a long tail of corner cases and I was attempting to handle more
of these in the code and that never got finished. We probably would be
better to make a call to accept those corner cases and go ahead with the
import.

Are you interested in working on it?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] What is the license of vicmap2osm?

2023-10-01 Thread Andrew Harvey via Talk-au

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023, at 8:25 PM, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> The repo for the vicmap importing project, vicmap2osm[1] seems to be
> missing a license, could you add one please? Thank you.

package.json declares it as under the MIT license, but I've added a dedicated 
LICENSE file now for clarity.

> I would have created an issue on the gitlab repo if I had an account
> there, but apart from the horrible recaptcha, gitlab now also requires
> credit card information to register (!).

I'm surprised to hear that, I thought it was only required if you were going to 
use CI/CD minutes. Sounds like they had to implement these measures to combat 
platform abuse.

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

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


On 1/10/23 10:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Oh look - Windorah is there, so it must be important after all! :-)


Almost as important as Croydon. No, not that Croydon, Croydon 
Queensland. Just up the road from the metropolis of Forsayth.



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

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


On 29/9/23 20:22, Warin wrote:

I did meet some English 4WD world travellers that had a world map. In the 
north west corner of Australia was Carnegie on that map .. it is a 
cattle station, has fuel and might do some food if you ask. It is a fair 
way to the next places with fuel. It was on their map so they went. Such 
is the power of 'filling in the blank spaces'.


It is interesting to look at world maps and looking at what gets put in 
for Australia compared to elsewhere. Check out this 1957 Nat Geo maps 
and see how many of the AU place names you even recognise:


https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-548412715/view

Trida? Not even in OSM.




___
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


On 28/9/23 20:31, Michael Collinson wrote:

Perhaps this apocryphal Ireland solution should be used? :-)

A house - building

A house and a church - hamlet

A house, a church and a pub - village

A house, a church and two pubs - town


I think your criteria may to strict :-)

I've been looking at SA because I was curious as to why there were so 
many "towns". Turns out that the threshold is very low:


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

In fact there were two "towns" in SA that had a population of *zero* at 
the last census.





___
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

On 29/9/23 08:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I was looking at
https://profile.id.com.au/scenic-rim/population?WebID=160
, but

I can't figure out what ABS geographic unit that lines up with. Maybe
it's their own?

https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/SAL32394
says 320 ? I guess that's "town" vs area?

That quite common in rural areas. I've encountered cases where the
bounded locality had a population in the vicinity of 500 but the
settlement population was less than 100.

Just reading the wiki on it, & it mentioned showgrounds & Post Office.
What do the presence of them do to the "relative importance" scale?

I'm not sure. I was wondering if people were imagining some sort of
scoring system. One point for each person that lives there, then plus or
minus some value for each type of urban infrastructure that it has or
doesn't have.

I've been doing a bit of searching to see if I can find something that's
already been designed, but haven't been successful yet. So far I've found:

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs-edition-3/jul2021-jun2026/significant-urban-areas-urban-centres-and-localities-section-state/urban-centres-and-localities

This is what the ABS does.

https://www.health.gov.au/topics/rural-health-workforce/classifications/mmm#about-the-modified-monash-model

This is what Monash Uni has developed. It gets used to work out how
rural somewhere is for the purposes of health based employment.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119020300838#bib0005

Now we're in deep dive territory. This is about what the UN has
developed for their use.

https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ucdb2018visual.php#

Less useful, but interesting to look at. It's a dataset of urban areas
made by remote sensing.

___
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


On 28/9/23 17:04, Michael Collinson wrote:
So, I think some sort agreed national level hierarchy of populated place 
is important in order to jive with cultural, legal, cultural and broad 
population density criteria. But to vary it locally or regionally is 
dangerous and I agree with cleary (if I am reading the quote levels right).


I'm in agreement. The current tagging guidelines are already too vague. 
I don't want to add on the idea that you can vary it across Australia, 
this will just encourage more place inflation.


I'd rather tighten up the definitions, so they are more verifiable.



___
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


On 28/9/23 09:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Against what you said, Rathdowney in SEQ, with ~1800 people, 


Err downtown Rathdowney has a population of 161.I might be OK with 
village, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it a town.


But Maroon, 20k the other way, with only a primary school & a RFS 
station, would only be a village.


Looking at the aerial imagery I'm not sure this would even count a a 
settlement. There is no clustering of dwellings, it's just farms strung 
out along a road with a school.



___
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


On 28/9/23 08:21, cleary wrote:

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. 


That is the general problem, most people want to inflate the importance 
of a place so that it renders. Windorah has a population of 76 and 
Ivanhoe 202. If it's lucky Ivanhoe might rate a village but Windorah is 
most firmly in the hamlet class.



___
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


On 27/9/23 16:29, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Aren't most places classified by the government authority as 
cities/villages/towns/localities/suburbs?


Not in a way that is useful for using in OSM.They tend to be classified 
under the state's local government act, which is an administrative 
arrangement not an indication of where they would fall in the OSM 
tagging system.





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

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

2023-09-23 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 16:37, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be
> removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
> everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers
> also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area
> is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help.
>
>
>
> Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many
> years and there will likely be remains of the
> closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on some
> imagery, for an extended period of time.
>
>
>
> I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the
> desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see
> those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to
> previous levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency.
>
>
>
> In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going
> there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being
> undertaken then a better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=*type* along
> with access=no. Many such tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the
> ‘take off points’ only and the rest of the track will be left to very
> slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some occasional bars to impede water flow
> and allow buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years for full
> rehabilitation to take place.
>

I'm fine with a new lifecycle prefix like rehabilitated where there are
visible efforts to actually rehabilitate (e.g. new plantings, levelling,
filling the track with dead trees, etc.), if there is just a track closed
sign that's not quite the same as physically it may still be perfectly
usable just legally you can't use it.

I wish park managers would see mapping it in OSM as a rehabilitated track
or closed track would help keep people off the track. Data consumers could
then build maps or provide hints or notices to their map users to indicate
such so people don't use the track naively assuming it's open for use. If
it's not mapped in OSM, unless people see the track closed signage, they
might just stumble upon it and think its overgrown and actually start
clearing and rebuilding it!
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

2023-09-22 Thread Andrew Davidson


On 22/9/23 16:37, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Folks,

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


I don't agree. OSM has a map what is on the ground principle. If the 
track exists, then it exists. We have tagging to represent the legal 
situation.


If you are going to allow one group to censor the map, then you are 
going to have to let everyone.


By the way, I have no interest in being a good corporate anything.


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

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

2023-09-21 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has
> deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National
> Park).
>
> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were
> reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
> These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
> different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)
>
> I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as
> informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case
> access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a
> policy to the wiki for similar situations?
>

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

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

Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) - These
should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for users
looking for closed paths.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] When two bots go to war

2023-09-15 Thread Andrew Hain

Is there a bot that does this or is someone prepared to write one?

--
Andrew

From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
Sent: 14 September 2023 10:39
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] When two bots go to war

Maybe there should be a general good-practice recommendation / policy
that bots running in this fashion to keep things in sync should only
automatically add/update/remove a tag that they've previously set if
the current state/value in OSM is unchanged from the last state/value
that the bot set. This way, bots could be used to keep things up to
date automatically, but would not automatically override any manually
applied changes by other mappers between runs. (A sensible bot owner
would have the bot send them a report of any tags that couldn't be
updated for manual review.)

Robert.

On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 08:41, Cj Malone
 wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 15:06 +0200, Snusmumriken via talk wrote:
> > My speculation is that Distriktstandvården (a chain of dental
> > clinics)
> > has taken "ownership" of "their" nodes and once a day check that the
> > values in osm database correspond to that of their internal database.
>
> I've added a more specific website tag to test this. If they restore it
> (Probably 03:00) to the generic home page I agree with you. They need
> to be informed that 1) there data needs improving (eg covid opening
> hours, POI specific not brand specific contact details) 2) they don't
> own these nodes, other people can edit them.
>
> CJ
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141243391

--
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing State of the Map 2024: Join us in Nairobi and online on 6-8 September 2024!

2023-08-16 Thread Andrew Hain

I would like to congratulate the organising team in Nairobi and the SotM 
Working Group for doing this. Giving the worldwide community a broader 
understanding of the challenges of mapping Africa and using maps there is 
positive step for OSM’s inclusiveness as a truly worldwide map.

--
Andrew


From: Federica Gaspari 
Sent: 14 August 2023 18:56
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [OSM-talk] Announcing State of the Map 2024: Join us in Nairobi and 
online on 6-8 September 2024!


Dear all,



Get ready to meet and connect with old and new mappy friends from the global 
OpenStreetMap community again!



The State of the Map Organising Committee is thrilled to officially announce 
that the global conference of the OpenStreetMap community, State of the Map 
(SotM), will be making its way to Nairobi, Kenya from September 6th-8th 2024! 
This landmark event will bring together passionate mappers, data enthusiasts, 
technologists, and community members from all corners of the globe to celebrate 
the spirit of collaboration and open mapping.



Following the good feedback for State of the Map 2022 Firenze, the upcoming 
State of the Map 2024 will once again be held in a hybrid format. Building on 
the valuable lessons and experiences from the previous events, the SotM 
Organising Committee is committed to making this edition even more accessible 
to everyone who wishes to partake in this grand celebration of open mapping, 
sharing passionate voices with the entire community.



Learn more about the SotM 2024 announcement on the OpenStreetMap blog: 
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2023/08/14/announcing-state-of-the-map-2024-september-6-to-8-2024-join-us-in-nairobi-and-online/



More details about the organization will be soon communicated.



Federica Gaspari on behalf of the SotM Organising Committee


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

2023-07-02 Thread Andrew Harvey

Hi Robert,

To preface, I'm not a lawyer and your should seek your own independent
legal advice, but as I understand:

1. the department has made a decision to adopt OSM as your data source,
accepting the terms this data is licensed under
2. you will adapt, modify, enhance, correct or extend OSM data with your
gazetted place and road names, which likely creates a Derivative Database
under the ODbL, we'll call this DTP Validated OSM
3. where you make this DTP Validated OSM data available to others, like
your distribution partners or the public via your open data portal, it must
continue to be licensed under the ODbL.
4. The implication for your distribution partners would likely be if they
want to further adapt, enhance, correct or extend your DTP Validated OSM
data, and they then use that adapted data publicly, they must continue to
license their adaptations under the ODbL, ie. the license is viral.
5. There is nothing here preventing these distribution partners using your
DTP Validated OSM data, or making further changes or adaptations to it. If
they don't accept the terms then they don't need to use your data.

One alternative, if you create your data independently of OSM may be to
publish it with only references to OSM, e.g. to OSM object IDs or with
location references eg. OpenLR. If created independently you may be able to
license as you wish.

You could in parallel still publish a full osm derived version of the data
under ODbL for convenience for those who accept the ODbL terms.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 10:13, Robert C Potter (DTP) via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi OSM,
>
> Representing the state transport authority (Department of Transport and
> Planning) we have made the strategic decision to use OSM as our
> foundational mapping data source.  We are confident that this is a decision
> will be of value to both ourselves improving the management of the networks
> (road, Train, Bus, tram) and adding significantly to the citizens of the
> state.
>
> Our intended use of OSM is built on an extract being done then validating
> that extract for the gazetted/official place and road names. The resultant
> validated dataset will be shared that via our Opendata portal.  Our state
> government has a strong commitment to sharing all data openly.  We are
> currently developing that process and should be in production by the end of
> the year.
>
> Alas, there has been concern from our distribution partners with the ODbl
> license requirement to "Share alike".  You know these companies; Google,
> Here, Tomtom and Apple.
>
> The information we would share, and all shared as ODbl;
>
>- Disruptions
>- Heavy vehicles
>- Bicycles routes
>- Public transport routes and timetables
>
> I am wondering how we, can continue engage with these partners and use and
> improve OSM.
>
>
>
> If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Robert Potter
>
> *Helping people use the power of location to make better decisions*
>
> Manager, Spatial Data Strategy
> Department of Transport and Planning
>
> 1 Spring Street
>
> MELBOURNE 3000
>
>
> *M *0402 484 739
>
> *F* 03 9935 4111
> *E *robert.pot...@roads.vic.gov.au
> *W dtp.vic.gov.au *
>
>
> I acknowledge the Traditional Aboriginal Owners of Country throughout
> Victoria and pay my respect to Elders past and present and emerging and to
> the ongoing living culture of Aboriginal people.
>
> DISCLAIMER
>
> The following conditions apply to this communication and any attachments:
> VicRoads reserves all of its copyright; the information is intended for the
> addressees only and may be confidential and/or privileged - it must not be
> passed on by any other recipients; any expressed opinions are those of the
> sender and not necessarily VicRoads; VicRoads accepts no liability for any
> consequences arising from the recipient's use of this means of
> communication and/or the information contained in and/or attached to this
> communication. If this communication has been received in error, please
> contact the person who sent this communication and delete all copies.
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

2023-06-05 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 08:11, Tom Brennan  wrote:

> There are an increasing number of places/features in NSW that are
> getting dual (aboriginal) naming.
>
> For example:
> - Booraghee / Bradleys Head
> - Cooyoyo / The Castle
> - Fort Denison / Muddawahnyuh
>
>  From the point of view of the Geographic Names Board, there doesn't
> appear to be any primacy given to one name or the other.
>
> Is there a view as to how to record these in OSM?
>

At a minimum they should have:

name:en=Bradleys Head (name in English)
name:aus=Booraghee (name in Australian Aboriginal Language (non-specific)

This allows data consumers to choose what they display to users and how.


> The specific aboriginal language is not necessarily known.
>

You can/should use the Australian Aboriginal Language (non-specific)
language code "aus", ie. name:aus=*
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name:aus


> There are obviously tags like 'alt_name' that can be used to store a
> second name, but not sure if that's most appropriate in cases like this.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] mapilio? (street-level imagery)

2023-05-30 Thread Andrew Hain

Is there an imagery host that offers an OSM-friendly way to support mapping and 
is suitable for contributions using a smartphone or tablet?

--
Andrew

From: Greg Troxel 
Sent: 24 May 2023 13:31
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [OSM-talk] mapilio? (street-level imagery)

I just got spam from mapilio, implying that I was a "Mapilio
contributor".  This was, to my memory, the first I had heard of them.

I have avoided most street-level imagery schemes as not being
structurally similar to OSM (open source tooling, community project and
licensing scheme).

Looking briefly, it seems like a corporate thing with proprietary
tooling.  They talk about an app in proprietary app stores but do not
mention F-Droid :-) The point seems to be to monetize crowdsourced
contributions, in a gamified/rewards-ish sort of way.

I don't find a JOSM plugin that makes the imagery available in the way
that their web page implies it is licensed for OSM.

Thus, my approach will be to not deal with them at all and just block
their mail.

I am curious if anyone
  - thinks my assessment of the fundamentals is off
  - thinks there is a reasonable way to use their imagery in JOSM
  - anything else similar

  - has also been spammed (private replies please and I'll post a
followup if I get a bunch of comments)

Greg

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

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

2023-05-26 Thread Andrew Davidson


On 27/5/23 08:39, nwastra nwastra wrote:

I should add that I have only used the Surface Hydrology Lines from GeoScience 
Aust dataset for Qld catchments and as the data is drawn for many different 
sources across the country the perenniality may be not always be included.


I admit I've been too lazy to publish the stuff I'd already done with 
the GA dataset. Rather than making people do it all again I've finally 
got round to putting it on GitHub https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams


I have already imported in the named streams in NSW except for the area 
around Sydney. Mostly, again, due to laziness. As already pointed out 
the data all needs to be sanity checked against what's on the ground and 
that's really hard when it's under a city.


The data is organised by AWRC catchment, so for Sydney you are looking at:

https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams/blob/main/Basin_II/II12.osm.gz

which is the Hawkesbury River and

https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams/blob/main/Basin_II/II13.osm.gz

which is Sydney Coast-Georges River

You can use overpass turbo to see what is already mapped:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vpu (Hawkesbury River)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vpv (Sydney Coast-Georges River)


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

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

2023-05-09 Thread Andrew Davidson

I had a read of the wiki page on waterway relations and it seems that
you can put in unnamed tributaries (if they have a name they go in a
different relation).

This version will filter out those https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1uJc

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 8:31 PM Little Maps  wrote:
>

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

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

2023-05-09 Thread Andrew Davidson


On 9/5/23 19:51, Andrew Davidson wrote:


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

Which should be this code:

[timeout:900][out:csv(way_id,riv_name,rel_id,rel_name;true;",")];
area["ISO3166-2"="AU-VIC"]->.a;


Apologies, I should have used make rather than convert. The corrected 
version is here https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1uIF



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

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

2023-05-09 Thread Andrew Davidson


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

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


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

Which should be this code:

[timeout:900][out:csv(way_id,riv_name,rel_id,rel_name;true;",")];
area["ISO3166-2"="AU-VIC"]->.a;
relation["type"="waterway"](area.a);
foreach -> .rel(

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

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

);
);


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

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

2023-03-28 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 14:05, OSM via Talk-au 
wrote:

> Since the coastline tag is also supposed to represent the high water mark
> then I would say that they should be snapped together (since they then
> represent the same feature - that is, the high water mark). This would mean
> that the boundary data already in OSM from the government basemaps would
> just be their own mapping of the high water mark, and probably be less up
> to date or refined as our own.
>
Exactly. So if anything we should be actively snapping them.


> This is my first time responding on talk-au, lmk if I've messed up any
> formatting to link to the original question.
>
It's come through but as a new thread, and for some reason from talk-au
instead of from you and via 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?

2023-03-28 Thread Andrew Harvey

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

Re: [talk-au] VIC Traffic Lights MapRoulette import

2023-03-22 Thread Andrew Harvey

There was positive support for the proposal on Discord #oceania and no
issues identified here so we've started working through the challenge and
invite anyone interested to join in.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 16:04, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I've prepared an import proposal at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/VIC_Traffic_Lights#Import_Data
> for missing traffic lights from DTP data.
>
> The import has been prepared as a MapRoulette challenge at
> https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/38490.
>
> Any feedback or issues appreciated.
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] VIC Traffic Lights MapRoulette import

2023-03-22 Thread Andrew Harvey

They are split already in the task properties, so the challenge should only
contain traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings and no uncontrolled
crossings.

The data sheet indicates it was only installed in 2018 and the Mapillary
imagery there is older, so might need to mark this as too hard. We could
leave a note instead for a survey check.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 at 21:57, Daniel O'Connor 
wrote:

> https://maproulette.org/challenge/38490/task/155741018 seems a bit weird!
>
> Is it possible to easily split the pedestrian crossings from traffic
> lights?
> Some appear to just be "crossings" for example -
> https://maproulette.org/challenge/38490/task/155740397 - no lights/etc.
> Worth mapping, but a fair bit different!
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 3:40 PM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> I've prepared an import proposal at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/VIC_Traffic_Lights#Import_Data
>> for missing traffic lights from DTP data.
>>
>> The import has been prepared as a MapRoulette challenge at
>> https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/38490.
>>
>> Any feedback or issues appreciated.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] VIC Traffic Lights MapRoulette import

2023-03-19 Thread Andrew Harvey

I've prepared an import proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/VIC_Traffic_Lights#Import_Data
for missing traffic lights from DTP data.

The import has been prepared as a MapRoulette challenge at
https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/38490.

Any feedback or issues appreciated.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] DTP Data Wavier Submitted

2023-03-16 Thread Andrew Harvey

This is great news!

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, 4:47 pm Robert Potter via Talk-au, <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi OSM-AU,
>
> It is with great pleasure and personal satisfaction that I can today
> announce that an appropriately appointed officer has signed the CC BY 4.0
> wavier for DTP https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Victoria,_Australia.
>
> This means any information made public via the Victorian Government
> OpenData platform by the Department of Transport and Planning is able to be
> used in OpenStreetMap, including and most requested has been the GTFS
> supply.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Robert Potter
>
> *Department of Transport and Planning (Victoria, Australia) -
> OpenStreetMap Wiki
> *
>
> *W dtp.vic.gov.au *
> DISCLAIMER
>
> The following conditions apply to this communication and any attachments:
> VicRoads reserves all of its copyright; the information is intended for the
> addressees only and may be confidential and/or privileged - it must not be
> passed on by any other recipients; any expressed opinions are those of the
> sender and not necessarily VicRoads; VicRoads accepts no liability for any
> consequences arising from the recipient's use of this means of
> communication and/or the information contained in and/or attached to this
> communication. If this communication has been received in error, please
> contact the person who sent this communication and delete all copies.
> ___
> 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] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

2023-03-06 Thread Andrew Harvey

I hope this passes your legal Rob. My takeaway is that your implementation
shouldn't rely on the OSMF's APIs or data downloads being available, so
your operations and use of OSM data would not be impacted if these services
weren't available or were returning unexpected responses.

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 09:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Hi Rob
>
> Response received from Legal:
>
> " The OSM Terms of Use do not impose any addition restrictions on the use
> of the OpenStreetMap geodatabase beyond the terms of ODbL.
> We do prohibit the emergencies services and anything similarly
> time-sensitive from using OSM Services directly because OSM does not
> guarantee uptime or responsiveness. However, while OSM Services include
> *data distribution*, they do not include the *data itself*. Thus, the
> Department is free to download the planet file and use the data purely
> under the terms of ODbL, but should not rely on the existence or freshness
> of the planet file download."
>
> So you should be fine to go with it, as long as everybody realises that
> OSM is still only updated by volunteers, so could potentially have issues.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 10:41, rob potter  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport
>> and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki
>> 
>>  and
>> we are looking to consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations.
>>
>> *Lawyers have raised a concern about these conditions, as the road data
>> use is supplied to our emergency services fire and ambulance.  We have not
>> started using the information but we are implementing a system of
>> validation and change detection, then produce an authoritative version for
>> other agency consumption.*
>> *Unlawful and other unauthorized uses include a clause "Operate dangerous
>> businesses such as emergency services or air traffic control, where the use
>> or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or
>> significant property damage;" and "Store data available through the
>> Services in order to evade these Terms (including aiding anyone else in
>> doing so); or"*
>>
>> Please any advice would be greatly appreciated, ultimately we will
>> enhance the overall content of OSM in the Victoria, but really do not want
>> to cause problems later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Rob
>> ___
>> 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] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

2023-03-01 Thread Andrew Hughes

Agree, but still would think both are better. Plus, it's difficult to tag
the way(s), as we don't necessarily know where the 7% ends. Whereas the
sign is a single point location and can be easily geographical tagged.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023, 8:03 pm Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 8/2/23 16:07, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> Thanks for the quick responses!
>
> Andrew Harvey: traffic_sign=AU:R6-22,G9-83 seems better than
> traffic_sign=AU:R6-22;AU:G9-83  but I can see why you say both would be
> valid.
> Q: Let's say there is also another sign "Zombies Ahead" that doesn't have
> a NTC code at the same location. Would that be separated with a semi-colon?
> and tagged as   traffic_sign=AU:R6-22,G9-83;Zombies Ahead
>
> Graeme, ideally the "7km" is recorded in the tagging... mostly because
> some juro's do this so they don't need to place "end of  signage". But
> on that subject
> Q: lots of signage such as G9-82 (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia ) also includes the
> % slope. This is perhaps similar to the  "7km" supplementary information on
> the sign and perhaps the same convention could apply to both. For example
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-35.0542594599=138.5349290306=19.9%5B%5D=all=OpenStreetMap=798881551059257=photo=0.49105747415321865=0.5517154385592334=0
>
>
> The '% slope' would be the key 'incline' that can simply be applied to the
> road way.
> ___
> 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

2023-02-21 Thread Andrew Harvey

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 14:46, Josh Marshall 
wrote:

> A tangent, but I'm rather happy that iD _*finally_* fixed their English
> description for =track (it included "unmaintained" for a long time; many
> were quite annoyed at the original change to include that)... and I can't
> find any discussion about why they finally gave in and reverted it! Vested
> interest, since it along with =path are likely my two most used, given I
> map a lot of bush with fire trails and run/ride singletrack.
>

https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/288

We can have Australian translations for these terms in iD. I just added
Fire Trail as a synonym for it.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

2023-02-20 Thread Andrew Hughes

Yes...

https://vicroadsopendata-vicroadsmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ef496e07eae049a3bb94351bc496dd6a_0/explore?location=-36.518496%2C145.313781%2C7.55

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

--Andrew


On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 09:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 12:31, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian
>> Dept of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)
>>
>>
> Sorry to be awkward, but do we have permission to use that data?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] NSW Fire Station names

2023-02-12 Thread Andrew Harvey

Echoing what cleary said about reliance on the DCS Base Map, it's not our
goal to recreate their label format.

In my opinion it's more important to have branch and ref tagged as it gives
more flexibility to data consumers on how they choose to label it, eg. they
could choose,

{branch} FS
{branch} Fire Station
{branch} Fire Station, {ref}
{operator} Station {ref}, {branch}

etc.

For the name I'd first go with any signage on the ground, but otherwise I
think "Lane Cove Fire Station" works well.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 at 22:01, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Note .. The Lane Cove Fire Station had 2 entries for the one feature,
> one on a single node the other on a way tagged for the building. I
> removed the duplicated tags from the building and place them on the
> node. No I am not doing this everywhere, I seek to separate the
> amenity=fire_station from the building=* and then expand the amenity to
> the boundaries usually beyond the building. Lane Cove did not lend
> itself to that. Still thinking on it, and a few other problem sites.
>

For fire stations that have grounds then yes you'd have
amenity=fire_station on the grounds with a seperate building=* way inside.
But for these city fire stations that don't have grounds and take up the
whole building, the amenity=fire_station -should go on the building way.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 5:21 PM Andrew Hughes  wrote:
> For the structure number, I like the look of...
>
> ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=SN12345
>

Does it really need to be that complicated? How many different systems
of culvert references are there in Victoria. I'd be happy with just
ref=* on the culvert.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:41 AM rob potter  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport and 
> Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki and we are looking to 
> consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations.

Sounds interesting. Another OSM policy that you'll need to know about
is https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

Looking down the list of things that you are planning on doing I note
that one of the items on the list is "Tram and Bus stops". It would be
really helpful if you could get PTV to sign the required waiver
(https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates)
to let us use the data in OSM. We've got an active group of mappers in
Vic that want to do public transport mapping but are being held back
by the fact that we've been trying to get permission since 2019 to use
the data.

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

Re: [talk-au] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:41 AM rob potter  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport and 
> Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki and we are looking to 
> consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations.

Sounds interesting. Another OSM policy that you'll need to know about
is https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

Looking down the list of things that you are planning on doing I note
that one of the items on the list is "Tram and Bus stops". It would be
really helpful if you could get PTV to sign the required waiver
(https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates)
to let us use the data in OSM. We've got an active group of mappers in
Vic that want to do public transport mapping but are being held back
by the fact that we've been trying to get permission since 2019 to use
the data.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 8:57 AM Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> The terms cover data distribution, ie downloading from 
> planet.openstreetmap.org so you need to go through those terms to obtain OSM 
> data regardless of the ODbL.

Which can be found here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

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

Re: [talk-au] [OSM-talk] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base