Re: [talk-au] Import Telstra Payphones

[Warin]

On 28/10/22 09:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Hi Marc

Have just commented on the changeset that looking on their website 
shows: https://www.telstra.com.au/terms-of-use#copyright, which would 
certainly seem to say that we can't use this info?


In that case, it may be safer to revert all of this until we have 
further info?



+1


From their website

You are authorised to view the Telstra websites and its contents using 
your web browser or, where expressly invited to do so, to share certain 
content on social media. You must not otherwise reproduce, transmit 
(including broadcast), communicate, adapt, distribute, sell, modify or 
publish or otherwise use any of the material on the Telstra websites, 
including audio and video excerpts, except as permitted by statute or 
with our prior written consent.


The text, photos, graphics, audio and video works are only for personal 
use anticipated by this service and the arrangements with the Copyright 
Owners (“*the Permitted Use*”) and must not, directly, or indirectly, be 
published, rewritten for broadcast, communication or publication or 
redistributed in any medium.






Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 at 22:12, Marc Zoutendijk via Talk-au 
 wrote:


Hi All,

Marc Zoutendijk from the DWG here.
Today we received a report from a user about what might seem to be
an import from a non-allowed source.
All the details can best be seen in this changeset discussion:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128084911
Both involved users are cooperating well and there seems to be no
need to take immediate action.
What I would like to know from you is if the reported source is
indeed allowed, as it is freely available.
If that is true, the case can be closed without further ado.
On the other hand, if the import is not allowed from that source
then a revert needs to be performed.

Possibly Andrew Harvey (who is also in the DWG) can take over here.

Thank you for your input,
Marc Zoutendijk.


___
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] Import Telstra Payphones

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Hi Marc

Have just commented on the changeset that looking on their website shows:
https://www.telstra.com.au/terms-of-use#copyright, which would certainly
seem to say that we can't use this info?

In that case, it may be safer to revert all of this until we have further
info?

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 at 22:12, Marc Zoutendijk via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Marc Zoutendijk from the DWG here.
> Today we received a report from a user about what might seem to be an
> import from a non-allowed source.
> All the details can best be seen in this changeset discussion:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128084911
> Both involved users are cooperating well and there seems to be no need to
> take immediate action.
> What I would like to know from you is if the reported source is indeed
> allowed, as it is freely available.
> If that is true, the case can be closed without further ado.
> On the other hand, if the import is not allowed from that source then a
> revert needs to be performed.
>
> Possibly Andrew Harvey (who is also in the DWG) can take over here.
>
> Thank you for your input,
> Marc Zoutendijk.
>
>
> ___
> 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-gb-westmidlands] New turn restrictions into and out of City Hospital, Birmingham

[Andy Mabbett]

I'm not sure how to map this.

It is no longer possible to turn right into or out of City Hospital,
Birmingham's main entrance. A central reservation has been created,
along the centre line of Dudley Road, each side of that entrance.
There is a "No U-turn" restriction at each end of that reservation.


Access arrangements at the Aberdeen Street entrance:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1605839577

have also changed, and it is now available to the public, and no
longer one-way. I think I have mapped that correctly.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [talk-au] Import Telstra Payphones

[Little Maps]

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

[talk-au] Import Telstra Payphones

[Marc Zoutendijk via Talk-au]

Hi All,

Marc Zoutendijk from the DWG here.  
Today we received a report from a user about what might seem to be an import 
from a non-allowed source.
All the details can best be seen in this changeset discussion:  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128084911
Both involved users are cooperating well and there seems to be no need to take 
immediate action.
What I would like to know from you is if the reported source is indeed allowed, 
as it is freely available.
If that is true, the case can be closed without further ado.
On the other hand, if the import is not allowed from that source then a revert 
needs to be performed.

Possibly Andrew Harvey (who is also in the DWG) can take over here.

Thank you for your input,
Marc Zoutendijk.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 16:41 2022-10-26, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 1:11 PM Greg Troxel > wrote:



I think people should keep in mind that a culture of deltionism is
demoralizing to contributors and harms OSM more than a few  marginal
items in the database.


This is a fair point, but given how often this comes up, it doesn't seem 
like it's just a few marginal items.  Also it's just as demoralizing for 
a well intentioned mapper who maps an area and removes some former 
railway in the process to then get berated for it.


I also agree with stevea@ -- old railways are usually visible in the
landscape, and the data about where they were in between visible places
seems more useful than harmful.


There is no question that the data about the location of former railways 
is useful.  However, data being useful is not the standard for inclusion 
in OSM.  We map the world as it exists today and this excludes plenty of 
useful data.  Former features that no longer exist are simply out of 
scope for OSM .


Also note that people who do not like railroads often do not see the
evidence as well as people who are used to looking for it.


I support mapping old rail beds as railway=razed where they are visible 
in forests, fields, and other open land.  These traces are often not 
visible to those with an untrained eye and that's certainly an issue.  
However, I draw the line at sections going through buildings, highways, 
excavated areas, or under water where there really are no visible traces 
by any reasonable standard.  In these situations, a person with a 
trained eye may see clues and patterns leading them to the deduction 
that a railway used to be there, but this is not the same as visible 
remnants.  This is mapping something that is really no longer there in 
any meaningful way.


I've deduced underground pipelines by similar methods, for example a 
natural gas pipeline that obviously follows a road as it crosses 
multiple streams above the ground. But I've done so with confidence that 
the visible portions must be connected somehow. There's much less reason 
to assume that the traces of a former railway continue to be connected 
below newer development. The pipeline would also be marked at regular 
intervals, so there's a strong possibility that a field mapper could 
improve upon the geometry that I've mapped from an armchair.


One could describe footway=crossing crossing=unmarked ways as another 
kind of deduced feature, connecting sidewalks on either side of an 
intersection. But there's a practical justification for their inclusion 
(routability), as well as a legal justification in some regions.


Some historic railway mappers would quibble at the notion that they're 
merely connecting the dots. Over the years, I've heard some rather 
tortured arguments, forcefully delivered, about these ways being the 
result of intense surveying. I tip my hat to anyone willing to devote 
their time to finding mappable railroad spikes via metal detector. 
However, we should expect them to document their findings meticulously, 
beyond just tagging source=survey on a railway=* and expecting to be 
consulted when it comes up for deletion many years later.


Personally, I never got into abandoned/razed railway mapping until I 
started contributing to OpenHistoricalMap. Former railroads are 
impossible to ignore when detailing the histories of so many towns 
across the U.S. Indeed, their remnants are all over the place; it's fun 
to realize that a tree line or embankment that you always took for 
granted fits into a hidden puzzle of former railroads. As a layperson, 
I'm only able to make these connections because of historic maps, 
photos, and timetables, the kinds of sources that are irrelevant to OSM 
but central to OHM.


I think historic railroad mappers who limit themselves to OSM's 
railway=abandoned/razed tags are missing out. Why not map the whole rail 
network as it was, unapologetically? In the areas where I map, OHM 
already has more former railroads than OSM will ever have, even despite 
the real ergonomic issues mentioned earlier in this thread.


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us



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

Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27 Oct 2022, at 01:44, Zeke Farwell  wrote:
> 
> I support mapping old rail beds as railway=razed where they are visible in 
> forests, fields, and other open land.  These traces are often not visible to 
> those with an untrained eye and that's certainly an issue.  However, I draw 
> the line at sections going through buildings, highways, excavated areas, or 
> under water where there really are no visible traces by any reasonable 
> standard.



New buildings standing on top are often brought up as the point where predating 
features at the same spot should be considered disappeared, but this is not an 
universal criterion, indeed I very often see traces of former features in the 
gardens, entrance areas and basements of buildings. The more massive a 
structure was, the more likely you’ll probably find some remains.
Here’s an example of some former city walls visible in a shop window: 
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OnUPS1SpI3g/WPYNxl4EFXI/Jjg/nNTpu2-J4u4MYR1dDGPMhHP4zdd_n6IQQCLcB/s1600/17990776_1335536786482546_2806219406469521007_n.jpg
 (this is from the “first” city wall (severian) of which not so much is still 
visible today)

An example for more recent remains: some time ago you could still see in Berlin 
(before they actually reconstructed the current fake version) a few street 
lamps attached  to buildings that were formerly 
 used for illuminating the Wall, although the wall itself had been “completely” 
demolished. Not recognizable for everyone, but clearly visible traces if you 
knew to read them.

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