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

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

I feel comfortable using the unit number as in the examples above. But I feel 
it gets more in the weed's when it comes to letters, such as "32a example 
Street" where I would probably not use the unit tag. What are your thoughts?

Get Outlook for Android

From: Ben Kelley 
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 8:37:59 AM
To: Mateusz Konieczny 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Is addr:housenumber=2/20 likely to be valid?

In answer to your question though, yes "1/50 Example St" notation is quite 
common. It is probably well understood, although not universally used.

"Unit 1, 50 Example St" is also used, as is "U 1 50 Example St".

These would all be tagged as:
addr:unit=1
addr:housenumber=50

 - Ben.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 03:51, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
I want to confirm report from
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/4196

"In my area (and throughout built-up parts of Australian cities in general)
it is not uncommon to encounter blocks of townhouses which share a
primary address number but have distinct sub-address numbers.

The complete address numbers of such houses are written in the format
/, eg "1/50", "2/50", "3/50" for the first three houses
sharing the primary address site "50 Example St"."

Is it accurate? Is addr:housenumber=1/50 the standard and preferred
solution in such cases?



--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
https://mrebenezer.blogspot.com/
This message was sent on my Atari 400
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping easements

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

If there is no formed track (but vehicles do use it) then I would think
that highway=track or path, surface=grass, visibility=no, low, etc. and
access=private, otherwise landcover=grass would be fine in my opinion.
OSM is not a town planning serves it, it does not contain zoning codes or
laws so why should it contain easements?
Further to this, easements are a lack of ground structure (due to an
underground, overground, or planned utility/road), therefore not having
anything mapped on top of them would not cause a problem (and the eagle
eyed may think there is an easement there)

Ben

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 10:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> A note had been raised concerning mapping a Council access easement:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2883145#map=19/-27.50901/153.03017
>
> Suggestion was made that these should be leisure=nature_reserve as it is
> not to be developed on?
>
> I suggested that they're just highway=footway + surface=grass, possibly
> with access=private if so signposted e.g:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/538670878
>
> Alternative suggestion was landuse=easement?
>
> Have just done some searching &, strangely, there are basically no
> easements in OSM!
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=easement
>
> The 13 "easements" are all in Australia for gas pipelines:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gXr,
> while the 28 "easement_filed" are all in Florida for power lines:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gXs
>
> The only other mentions of easements are in the wiki for US Public Lands:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Public_lands, together
> with a brief mention in Massachusetts:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Massachusetts/Conservation
>
> So, how would we like to map these areas?
>
> 3 alternatives would seem to be nature_reserve / landuse or highway?
>
> Any other suggestions / thoughts?
>
> What do we all think?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

Regarding classing paint as a barrier, you wouldn't map a bicycle lane as a
cycle way if it is only a painted line (
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=285967329802439) but if there is a
barrier (Kreb, Armco, parked cars, etc.) it would be mapped as a separate
cycleway (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=594425938270748).

Also no one (to my understanding) has a problem with bus lanes being
tagged on the road's way and not as a separate bus only road.

Ben.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 15:03,  wrote:

> I really hadn't expected people here to have such delusions about some of
> the cornerstones of highway mapping in OSM which have been firmly
> established for over a decade.
>
> To quote the wiki (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways
> ):
>
> A divided highway (also separated highway) is any highway where traffic
> flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel),
> which prevents movements between said flows.
>
> The concept of what constitutes "physical separation" has been very firmly
> established. And simply paint on the road surface isn't it. There are
> plenty of tags available to record information about legal restrictions
> imposed by paint. Splitting the way is not one of them.
>
> Also, you somehow seem to be under the misconception that OSM (name
> notwithstanding) is a *map*. It's not. It's a database with geospatial
> information.
>
> When you are editing OSM, you are not drawing a map. You are recording
> geospatial information, abstracted by established tagging patterns. Some of
> the data consumers of that information, after picking, choosing, and
> interpreting while render a map derived from that information.
>
> Cheers,
> Thorsten
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cleary 
> Sent: Saturday, 5 March 2022 09:38
> To: OpenStreetMap 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical
> separation"
>
> Hello again Dian
>
> If you cannot move left and a car to left of you cannot move right, then I
> would suggest you are physically separated.  It does not have to be a
> concrete barrier one metre high to be "physical separation". Try telling a
> police officer or a magistrate that the unbroken painted line did not
> really constitute a physical separation of ways.
>
> The maxim is "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation".
> Undoubtedly an unbroken painted line on a roadway frequently constitutes
> "physical separation".
>
> If the community wants to change "physical separation" to something else,
> such as a barrier constructed of specified materials to a specified minimum
> height,  then I plead for accuracy and usefulness of the map as guiding
> principles when considering any change to the guideline.
>
> In regard to the statement that  '' ... would demand each lane to be drawn
> as a separate highway", I would say that nothing is "demanded".  Every map
> involves decisions about what is included and what is excluded. If we
> mapped every insignificant object, the map would be so cluttered that it
> would be useless. We do not usually map every individual tree in a forest.
> However in some instances individual trees are mapped, where useful. The
> creators of maps are always exercising judgement in what is included or
> omitted. Not every physical item in the world, including every strip of
> paint, "demands" to be mapped.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022, at 8:46 AM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> > Hi Cleary,
> >
> > Two points:
> >
> > Paint isn’t a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it’s
> > legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. Being
> > unable to change lanes doesn’t make a single road into two roads. If I
> > can’t merge left then I’m not travelling on a different road than the
> > car next to me.
> >
> > Using legal separation to justify splitting the ways is also a poor
> > standard. At most traffic light intersections, you can’t change lanes
> > past a certain point.  The method you’re describing would demand each
> > lane to be drawn as a separate highway.
> >
> > Dian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2022-03-05 07:44, cleary wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or
> imaginary concept.  If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by the
> law then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road is a
> physical barrier that cannot be traversed.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote: This
> >> query was triggered by the following comment in another thread,
> >>> but I’ll start a new thread so as not to distract the original.
> >>>
> >>> “  ’Don't split ways if there is no physical separation’ is one of
> >>> the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM.”
> >>>
> >>> My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth
> >>> while abiding by the above.  I will try to describe the situation as
> >>> best I can without being able to resort to a sketch:

Re: [talk-au] Is it a fence?

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

barrier=guardrail + material=concrete

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 14:09, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Continuing with fences, how do you map it when you have a fence mounted on
> top of a concrete wall, similar to this:
> https://goo.gl/maps/SoSSvNZrL6CiLmf38
>
> I've done the wall as
> barrier=wall + wall=jersey_barrier + height=1 + material=concrete, but
> what do you do about the fence on top of it?
>
> Add fence details to the same line, mark the wall as 2m tall, just ignore
> it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 10:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks fellas!
>>
>> I must admit that it was a more than somewhat tongue-in-cheek question,
>> as I knew it was a fence.
>>
>> I thought you might just get a smile though! :-)
>>
>> Going to be interesting to see how that one comes out in 3d!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 09:27, Adam Horan  wrote:
>>
>>> The golf fence is 14-15 times higher than the white fence along the
>>> bottom (counting pixels). If the bottom white fence is 2m high, then the
>>> golf fence is ~30m high.
>>>
>>> I'd agree that it's a fence. However it's also a net in the sky... so
>>> perhaps skynet?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 20:50, Andrew Davidson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On 15/11/21 20:28, Warin wrote:
 > What else would you call it? A tall fence?
 >
 > I'd tag it barrier=fence height=40

 I'd also say fence. But that's a 6 story apartment block, which would
 be
 about 20m tall, so somewhat less than 40.

 ___
 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] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 17:37, Benjamin Ceravolo 
wrote:

> In a subdivision (like in the example given) once completed the road will
> be 'given' over to the local council to *manage* thereby becoming
> government roads. At least in Victoria.
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 17:31, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I was wondering how I could tag ways that would indicate that they are
>> belonging to "non-government" - aka these are private assets and do not
>> belong to the public sector.
>>
>> Some examples would be ways within:
>>
>>- housing estates
>>- gated communities
>>- within an 'industrial'/'commercial' facility
>>
>> Note: this is not related to access=private that is different.
>>
>> One example:
>>
>>- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/853338244
>>-
>>
>> https://inpg.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/82-96_HAMPSTEAD_RD_S020_EXT_STREETSCAPE_FINAL_R-web-1920x1279.jpg
>>- https://inpg.com.au/project/hampstead-park/
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Andrew
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

In a subdivision (like in the example given) once completed the road will
be 'given' over to the local council to meaning thereby becoming government
roads. At least in Victoria.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 17:31, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I was wondering how I could tag ways that would indicate that they are
> belonging to "non-government" - aka these are private assets and do not
> belong to the public sector.
>
> Some examples would be ways within:
>
>- housing estates
>- gated communities
>- within an 'industrial'/'commercial' facility
>
> Note: this is not related to access=private that is different.
>
> One example:
>
>- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/853338244
>-
>
> https://inpg.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/82-96_HAMPSTEAD_RD_S020_EXT_STREETSCAPE_FINAL_R-web-1920x1279.jpg
>- https://inpg.com.au/project/hampstead-park/
>
>
> Thank you,
> Andrew
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Albert Park Grand Prix Track

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

Other examples may be (though more street tracks) Adelaide, Newcastle, Gold 
Coast

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 8:25:14 AM
To: Benjamin Ceravolo 
Cc: Diacritic ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Re: [talk-au] Albert Park Grand Prix Track

> I can't find a similar equivalent in Australia to compare it to (not
>  a big petrol-head) but Monaco, for example, doesn't have a raceway
> drawn across its roads, just a relation.
Hi
maybe this example helps
Relation: Mount Panorama Circuit (6942508)
Tony


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

Re: [talk-au] Albert Park Grand Prix Track

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

Yes it should and in the past has not been a race track with only the dedicated 
turn 9/10 section that diverges from the road. Now the that has been removed as 
part of the work being done to the track there shouldn't need to be any 
racetrack ways.

Get Outlook for Android

From: Diacritic via Talk-au 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 7:39:30 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [talk-au] Albert Park Grand Prix Track


Hello,

The Albert Park Grand Prix track is currently drawn as a separate ‘raceway’, 
broken up into sectors, using some nodes of Lakeside Drive and Aughtie Drive.

It’s pretty cool t see the route, but I’m not sure it’s correct to have it 
drawn in that way. The race track only exists for one month a year (COVID and 
construction notwithstanding), and the wiki seems to support the notion that 
temporary features shouldn’t be included. Leaving the raceway there 24/7 might 
give non-locals the impression the track is in service all year.

I can’t find a similar equivalent in Australia to compare it to (not a big 
petrol-head) but Monaco, for example, doesn’t have a raceway drawn across its 
roads, just a relation. (Well, mostly. It looks like there are frequent 
changes, but the raceway only exists in the ways that aren’t normal roads.)

Thoughts?

D.

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

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

>From a quick look at aerial imagery I think it's pretty much accurate. I don't 
>see all that mich that could be improved, though perhaps removing parallel 
>ways in some spots.

Get Outlook for Android

From: Andrew Davidson 
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 7:23:53 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

I came across this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.79462/145.24176

which is no doubt causing routers all sorts of headaches.

I'm thinking of combining the roundabout part of the intersection into a
single roundabout and adding some lane tagging.

Does anyone have an objection to this proposal?


Thanks.

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

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Intersections with duplicate ways and turn lanes

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 13:59, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 09:57,  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Andrew,
>>
>> I’ve reached out to the user on a changeset, and will hopefully have a
>> good conversation about it.
>>
> There's a good chance they won't respond, but best to still give them the
> chance, if you don't hear back and there's no further objection to
> re-mapping these based on the split way only where physically separated,
> then you can go ahead and correct them on the map. If they continue to
> replace things based on their style, without responding to your attempts to
> raise concerns and there is consensus here that their mapping is harmful,
> then it can be raised through DWG as a last resort.
>

They have in the past replied to me quring one of their edies in
question. Changeset:
108100471 | OpenStreetMap




>
>>  In the meantime, I’ve found about 30-50 intersections with these
>> duplicate ways and lanes. Would it be useful to add notes, or fix me tags
>> to those intersections? I’m wary about flooding any feedback channels with
>> many instances of the same problem, but it could help keep track of where
>> work is needed?
>>
>
> You could do either. Personally I usually reserve notes for when I need
> something checked on the ground, but notes can be used as you've suggested
> here.
>
>> ___
> 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] highway=service

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 21:19, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> And this one definitely should be inverted:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.85421/151.06761
>
>
> Agreed. Surprise no one fixed this already, I've done so now.
>
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Are you allowed as a cyclist to leave sidewalk using them?
>>
>
> Well in NSW you can't cycle on the sidewalk...
>
>
>> Is it OK to use them for u-turn?
>>
>
> Yes.
>

But you don't need the routing engine to tell you that. So being private is
fine.



> ___
> 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] Sidewalks in Australia

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 14:24, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 13:00, Tom Brennan  wrote:
>
>> I've been using the current lockdown to walk and cycle all of the
>> streets of my LGA (Willoughby), and I've been checking back to OSM to
>> see if there's anything needing updating. For the most part it's just
>> minor edits here and there.
>>
>
> I've probably passed you without realising then.
>
> At the moment there are a lot of separately mapped sidewalks in the
>> Willoughby LGA, but it's patchy at best. There are streets with
>> sidewalks mapped next to other unmapped streets, there are lots of
>> connectivity issues, sidewalks end unexpectedly. I don't intend to put
>> too much effort into cleaning it up, but where I do make changes, I'd
>> prefer to make things better rather than worse!
>>
>
> Maybe some of those I added. I usually just add a bit at a time, there is
> a lot left to do.
>
>
>> I'm not much of a fan of separately mapped sidewalks, because there tend
>> to be an infinite number of places you can walk/cross etc, and any
>> mapping fails to capture this. But I'm not too concerned with opening a
>> debate if it's already been prosecuted! Just with what the Australian
>> "standard" is.
>>
>
> Our footpath (sidewalk) mapping is usually for where there is some kind of
> facility or infrastructure for pedestrians, so separately mapped doesn't
> mean that's the only place you can physically access.
>
> I try to map footpath facilities as both separate highway=footway +
> footway=sidewalk ways and on the roadway with sidewalk:left=separate +
> sidewalk:right=separate.
>

Why not  sidewalk:both=separate?


> Some data consumers (map renderers, routers) will prefer to use the
> sidewalk tags to check if there is a footpath on the road here or not,
> while other data consumers will prefer to have the exact path mapped
> separately.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 13:53, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
>> I normally do separate ways, because it's easier to more accurately map
>> the topology.
>>
>> I just pretend I'm pushing a wheelbarrow (or stroller or am using a
>> wheelchair) and wonder what sort of connectivity and data I'd want to be
>> able to navigate. For instance, it might be possible as you say for lots
>> of people to cross a road from pavement to pavement anywhere along the
>> road, but that's not true of everyone. Instead, I think we should map
>> the crossings (highway=footway and footway=crossing), even better with
>> tactile paving, curb ramp info, etc. — and that's harder when the
>> pavements are included in the road's way (as sidewalk tags).
>>
>
> Love the wheelbarrow analogy!
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

Forgive me if this has already been asked, and I believe Ewen may have been
alluding to this.

How is address going to be 'placed' onto the map, I assume a node?

My primary question is where is the node going to be placed?

Will it be placed in the centre of the property/parcel? If so, they will be
fine in denser areas but how effective will they be in rural areas, will
they need to be moved to near the driveway/gate manually? or is this a
non-issue?

In the case of a subdivision where there is common property, will the
common property receive its own address, as on VicPlan it shows a separate
address for both the common property and the units? (see example)

Thanks, Ben.

[image: image.png] (37.88839°S, 145.26755°E)

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 16:31, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Go for it Andrew,
>
>
>
> I am all for better data, so even small steps are better than missing data.
>
>
>
> Re Data consumers - I tend to work with volunteer groups that often have a
> low level of GIS knowledge so 'complete exports' of data will always be
> best for them. It gets them started on mapping projects (QGIS) and also
> gets them into OpenStreetMap!
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ewen Hill 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 8 June 2021 7:34 PM
> *To:* o...@97k.com
> *Cc:* OpenStreetMap 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal
>
>
>
> Andrew,
>
>   Thank you for both your initial work and the communication as well as
> the listening. Can I congratulate you on the lib/toOSM.js for the
> capitalisation and duplication processing. Very detailed
>
>
>
> A few numpty questions after being late to the party...
>
>- Is there a node id on the vicmap address and are we storing this in
>OSM so we can match and look for missing or deleted ones later?
>- Can we provide a couple of samples of
>the existingAddressesWithNewTagsOnly export once available
>- Could we perform some sampling of suburbs/levels. Perhaps
>
>
>- Mallacoota (large reserves, complex islands and altered crown/public
>   land ownership)
>   - Meringur or Learmouth (large farming community)
>   - Fitzroy (complex inner city)
>
>
>- I can't see what happens on collision with a totally incorrect
>address. Is the new node just added where you can't find a matching
>address.
>
>
>- Is there an exceptions file for the above that can be reviewed.
>   Could map roulette some of these?
>
>
>- How have you gone with best practices globally?
>
> I am amazed by the amount of code you have developed and documented to do
> this. The benefits of adding this import will far outweigh any minor local
> issues. Chapeau!
>
>
>
> Ewen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 16:19, cleary  wrote:
>
> Thanks Andrew. A considered and thoughtful response. I support your
> proposed actions. Your work for OSM is always very good and much
> appreciated.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2021, at 2:59 PM, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au wrote:
> > To sum up the contentious issue of suburb, postcode, state tags,
> >
> > - Phil, Daniel and Seb would prefer the suburb and postcode on each
> > address object.
> > - Andrew Davidson and cleary would prefer we not include suburb and
> > postcode on each address object and instead require data consumers to
> > derive this data from the existing boundaries, and actively discourage
> > mappers manually adding this data via removing the preset in ID.
> >
> > Thinking further I'd support including the full address details on each
> > address object, to provide a complete address, even if duplicated by
> > the boundary. QA tools could be built to validate these match the admin
> > boundaries and it becomes a maintenance task to maintain these tags,
> > but I think that's okay.
> >
> > However, to avoid stalling this import on this issue (it doesn't sound
> > like anyone will change their mind soon), I'll plan the minimum viable
> > option of excluding addr:suburb, addr:postcode and addr:state from the
> > import.
> >
> > There's nothing stopping a further discussion of a planned automated
> > edit to update address objects with suburb, postcode and state if the
> > community changes their mind later on.
> >
> > I'll make these changes to the import code, then once I've completed
> > all the documentation and remaining issues hopefully post some import
> > candidate files if anyone would like to review.
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Warm Regards
>
> Ewen Hill
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: vine row tagging

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

I understand the principal being explained above as to why Vire rows are
wanting to be mapped, but my question is is it even practical within the
use of the map considering that viren reos are approximately 1.5m apart and
all but the most high end GNSS (GPS) units are +1m accuracy. My point being
that I (from a map usage standpoint) don't see how the mapping of vine
rows would be useful to farmers, if anything they want to mark any data,
while out in the Vineyard would ether be potentially inaccurate or be have
to be mapped on paper which I think defeats the purpose of mapping it on
OSM.

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

Re: [talk-au] OSM down?

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

Hi Graeme,

I had the same message around 1500 hrs (AEST) when i tried 15 or so
mites later it was fine.

Ben.

On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 16:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Has something crashed?
>
> Was getting a weird error message when trying to save changes earlier, &
> when I now try to open OSM, I get:
> We're sorry, but something went wrong.
>
> The issue has been logged for investigation. Please try again later.
> Technical details for the administrator of this website
> 
> This website is powered by *Phusion Passenger*
> ®, the
> smart application server built by *Phusion*®.
>
> OSM problem or mine?
>
> 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] Aboriginal languages

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

Hi Graeme,

I have for a while been thinking about if we could add aboriginal
nations/country (I'm not sure which term is correct) to the map in the same
way that political boundaries are.

Now, this has probably been done in some isolated cases around the country,
but it would be great to be able to check what aboriginal nation/country
you live, work, etc. in.

These sites (if/ounce approves is granted) along with local council's
websites would probably help with this mapping as they often contain
information on local indigenous people.

Thanks,

Ben.

On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 14:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Some time ago, there was discussion about Aboriginal languages, & the
> possibility of mapping them.
>
> Just saw this article
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-31/learn-the-name-of-the-indigenous-language-of-the-land-you-live/12252006,
> which links to https://gambay.com.au/map &
> https://www.firstlanguages.org.au/
>
> Page says it's "© Copyright First Languages Australia", but with
> absolutely no mention of any details?
>
> Somebody may like to follow them up if interested?
>
> 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 do you describe a turnout like this

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

+1

On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 11:54, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> That one looks more like a
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpassing_place to me.
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 11:46, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>On narrow bush tracks there are turnout areas to allow vehicles to
>> pass. It really isn't a traffic circle but you can just get a fire truck to
>> do a 27 point turn - just. How would you represent this please?
>>
>> The image shows the bulk of the turnout on the right.
>>
>>
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=SsbMDoKVZFbZ2ngQV_gCiw=photo=-37.869525=145.317962=17
>> ___
>> 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] Postal addresses

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

I think addr:full=* sounds great as I can think of at least 5
examples where that can help off the top head straight away.

And it probably works better with house names as name=* but that does
result in it showing up on the render at specific zoom levels. I don't know
if that happened with addr:housename=* as well though.

Benjamin.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 at 17:08, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
>  2 things on addresses.
>
>  Firstly house names.
>
> While these exist they are seldom required for postal addresses so the should 
> not be placed into addr:housename=* but rather into name=*.
>
> The wiki specifically implies if there is a addr:housenumber there should be 
> no addr:housename.
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr#Commonly_used_subkeys
>
>  Secondly remote addresses - Roadside Mail Box/Bag, Roadside Mail Service, 
> Private Bag etc.
>
> These are hard to find out how to map them on the wiki, I think they need to 
> go into the Australian Tagging guidelines.
>
> The answer is the same for PO boxes - use addr:full=*
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

would the same be used for a mulch dump/pile?

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 09:09, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18/2/20 5:42 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>
> I used landuse=industrial industrial=warehouse for something similar.
>
> Though I admit that I am now not sure whatever "warehouse" fits well for
> pile of coal,
> even one that has specialized equipment supporting it.
>
>
> Warehouse implies a building, these have no building. Not a good fit.
>
>
>
> I see also material= product = warehouse= tags used to tag what is stored
> there
> ( http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QMP )
>
>
>
>
> Feb 17, 2020, 10:49 by j...@jonorossi.com:
>
> Do we have tags for big stockpiles of iron ore, coal, etc at mines or
> ports? These tend to be pretty permanent and with heaps of loading
> equipment around them.
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 7:30 PM Andrew Davidson 
> wrote:
>
> On 17/2/20 7:13 pm, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> > What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...?
> >
>
> landuse=stockpile
> resource=aggregate ?
>
>
> I like landuse=stockpile. Says what it is.
>
>
> material: Describes the main material of a physical feature.
>
> product: The output or product that a feature produces.
>
> resource: Indicates the resource or mineral commodity related to a
> feature.
>
>
> The resource key is the match.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

I feel, as though discourage or discouraged is already an advisory term
(you can't advise a recommendation if advise is a synonym of recommend).

So I would think "motor_vehicle=discouraged" would be most appropriate.

Just my thoughts.

Ben

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:12, Luke Stewart 
wrote:

> Perhaps "motor_vehicle=discouraged"?
>
> From the wiki:
> A legal right of way exists (see yes
> ) but usage is
> officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). Only if
> marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise).
>
> Although that may be getting too far away from the meaning of the sign,
> but the original intention is to discourage through and non-local traffic
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:31, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access
>> values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground
>> may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike
>> paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been
>> proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not
>> described here.)"
>>
>> Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory"
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if
>> these aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could
>> use "motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor
>>> do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road
>>> itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would
>>> still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the
>>> street in favour of main roads.
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Residential Poolside Building

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

Thanks for that information I will defiantly work on implementing those.

Thanks, Ben.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:09, Michael Collinson  wrote:

> I usually mark all residential buildings, including the main house or
> strata building, as building=residential.  I feel it useful but safe. I
> usually map in Sweden where planning regulations encourage a plethora of
> out-buildings whose use is difficult to judge from imagery: garages, spare
> rooms, wood-sheds, saunas, children's play rooms, yada yada. When I am
> unsure if a building is actually part of a residential plot, then I go for
> building=yes and can check them out on visits.
>
> Mike
> On 2019-08-12 11:46, Benjamin Ceravolo wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been tracing in residential swimming pools and I have not as yet
> found an appropriate tagging for the small poolside buildings that (from my
> experience); may have an area to get changed and to store pool-toys,
> chemicals and other pool care items.
>
> My current guess is just to mark it as: building=yes
>
> If there are any other tags I have missed or if I'm just being blind and
> missing something obvious, I would like to hear your option/response.
>
> Thanks, Ben.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Residential Poolside Building

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

Hi all,

I've been tracing in residential swimming pools and I have not as yet found
an appropriate tagging for the small poolside buildings that (from my
experience); may have an area to get changed and to store pool-toys,
chemicals and other pool care items.

My current guess is just to mark it as: building=yes

If there are any other tags I have missed or if I'm just being blind and
missing something obvious, I would like to hear your option/response.

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