Re: [talk-au] Gatton, QLD
Ross Scanlon i...@... writes: On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:03:08 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@... wrote: [[snip]] I came to the conclusion that putting streets in, even without names is very valuable because other people with local knowledge can fill in the blanks without needing a GPS, at least that's how it'd work in theory :) Yeah, I still don't have a GPS :(, but that hasn't stopped me making a large contribution (most time consuming work is in visiting streets for names POI) Also don't forget to mark them as source=survey if from a gps trace. That way others will know they are generally accurate. I think the preferred attribution scheme is to use source=gps as that is what the actual source is survey is ambiguous with proper survey equipment. As for roundabouts, they're a bit of hassle and I'd love for JOSM to do it better but any way as things are I either draw a square and then add mid points between the 4 corners to turn it into a roundabout, or I draw a triangle and hit shift+o, neither is perfect but perfection isn't generally achievable anyway. I do the same. Generally if you do the roads and put a node at about 10m from the crossing point on each road then join the nodes in a clockwise direction it will give a reasonable roundabout when rendered. BTW, Potlatch Mercator handle roundabouts now (Mercator for year(s) now) BlueMM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Gatton, QLD
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@... writes: 2009/9/23 BlueMM bluemm1975-...@...: I think the preferred attribution scheme is to use source=gps as that is what the actual source is survey is ambiguous with proper survey equipment. No, source=survey isn't ambiguous at all it's spelt out clearly on the map features page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Annotation just because it's on the wiki... Seriously, I think most on this list know the wiki isn't some authority on OSM, it's editable by anyone (even I added the source:name/ref tags to Map Features). When I used to read the Talk lists (now contains too many posts) some of the serious OSM contributors distrusted or even shunned the wiki, because anyone can come along and document anything, including voting on tagging policy using only a tiny fraction of users to vote (there is a lot of distrust in voting). Of course, opinions may of changed in the last 6 months or so. Anyway, back to the point, the source=survey issue was brought up a while ago on Talk and a few contributors that I respect for their opinions said that source=gps would be better when collecting the data from GPS (presumably consumer grade GPS). I'd argue that source=survey is ambiguous because you have to look up the definition to discover what it means. Imagine going up to a non-OSM user and asking them to guess what was used for collecting mapping data when it is marked as source=survey. I envisage the day when more edits come from new users than experienced contributors, especially as barriers are being reduced over time, therefore I think reducing ambiguities is important. That's my opinion, but I don't see the harm in being more accurate, especially when people are allowed to tag anyway they want. I have will continue to recommend source=gps for those sourcing their gps data. BTW, most ways POI's aren't sourced anyway, so will have to be retraced or rechecked anyway :-( BlueMM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Boundary names...
John Smith delta_foxt...@... writes: I think I finally figured out where boundary names are coming from, can others confirm that boundary names are no longer being rendered please. [SNIP] As you probably expected, I see the same as you... BlueMM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
John Smith-129 wrote: [[snip]] Does anyone think this is a good idea? Use network=D for D classified roads, if they exist. Use network=detour for NSW classified detour routes Use network=alt_NR for Alternate NR routes Sounds like a good idea to me -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I%27ve-been-trying-to-fix-the-highway-shields-and-came-across-this-tp24970890p25039498.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
John Smith-129 wrote: --- On Mon, 17/8/09, BlueMM bluemm1975-...@yahoo.com wrote: But my point was if they *are* consistent (same shield design), why specify state? Consistent to what? Some states have gone to a alphanumeric system, some use the old NH shields and those with the alphanumeric system have different shields between states. http://www.routemarkers.com/Oceania/ That website appears inaccurate. It says the state route marker is no longer used in Vic, but there is a route with that marker a block away from me right now. Also, the M1/7 example appears wrong, AFAIK, the one used in VIC is more like the NSW one, without the outer green border. It has slightly rounded inner green square an outer white border (also rounded). I don't think the outer green border is worth showing a different shield, just make them all the same. Maybe it's worth creating a Australian rendering page on the wiki where we can collect all the different route signs. With the addr: specifier, there's no reason why we can't get the Australian/state specific shields into the main OSM map (mapnik). John Smith-129 wrote: I don't know if any are consistent right around Australia, but I suggest we mention drop the state for know national shields. From what I've seen there is no consistency, even when they change to the alphanumeric system they still differ in the shields they use :) Is the tiny differences worth it? I don't think so John Smith-129 wrote: I can think of a potentially hundreds of routes which are for eg. C123 and called TownA-TownB Road. It could be that is far more prevalent that needing the separate ref/name relations. Just trying to keep it simple, anyone else got ideas/opinions? I've only been talking about highways, not roads, I haven't considered what to do about roads, same thing as streets I suppose. That seems contrary to the new changes to the Australian Tagging Guidelines regarding M/A/B/C Alphanumeric routes (ie. this proposal). It seems to me to apply to all road routes. Most of the BC rural roads I know in Victoria are not highways. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I%27ve-been-trying-to-fix-the-highway-shields-and-came-across-this-tp24970890p25021174.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout
John Smith-129 wrote: --- On Tue, 11/8/09, BlueMM bluemm1975-...@yahoo.com wrote: I've found Google Maps directions in Australia to be very good in the past, it seems to pick the best route the majority of the time. At times I've been routed along no through roads, other times google encourages me to enter private property, it also routed me along a track through a national park. Those are just the more notable examples. Sorry John, I thought you meant Google's routing algorithm, not their data accuracy. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Webpage-layout-tp24884668p25002134.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Webpage layout
John Smith-129 wrote: --- On Tue, 11/8/09, BlueMM bluemm1975-...@yahoo.com wrote: I've found Google Maps directions in Australia to be very good in the past, it seems to pick the best route the majority of the time. At times I've been routed along no through roads, other times google encourages me to enter private property, it also routed me along a track through a national park. Those are just the more notable examples. Sorry John, I thought you meant Google's routing algorithm, not their data accuracy. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Webpage-layout-tp24884668p25002252.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
John Smith-129 wrote: --- On Mon, 17/8/09, BlueMM bluemm1975-...@yahoo.com wrote: A few questions: 1. I presume the addr:country=Australia is manditory for this to work, but :state optional? I could imagine only needing state for state specific sheilds (ie. nationally consistent ones wouldn't need state). The states vary on different shields, not just state routes. But my point was if they *are* consistent (same shield design), why specify state? I don't know if any are consistent right around Australia, but I suggest we mention drop the state for know national shields. John Smith-129 wrote: 2. If a Route has the same ref/name for it's length, there doesn't seem to be any problem with having just one relation, combining the tags. I think this would make simple cases simple to map (always a good thing). I haven't started work on state based highways, been working on highway 1 mostly, and it changes names a fair bit, but I still think 2 relations would be better than lumping it together and for consistency with other highways. I can think of a potentially hundreds of routes which are for eg. C123 and called TownA-TownB Road. It could be that is far more prevalent that needing the separate ref/name relations. Just trying to keep it simple, anyone else got ideas/opinions? John Smith-129 wrote: [[SNIP]] Exactly, and bridges, and not naming ways reduces the chance of error, and the ease to fix up errors, and reduces a lot of redundancy because the same name doesn't have to be added to 100s of ways. Sweet, that was my reasoning as well. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I%27ve-been-trying-to-fix-the-highway-shields-and-came-across-this-tp24970890p25002516.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
John Smith-129 wrote: This is the current relation tags I've come up with based on the talk-us threads. Ref Relation tags: addr:country=Australia addr:state=QLD network=A ref=1 route=road type=route Name Relation tags: name=Bruce Highway route=road type=route Nice work John, looks great. A few questions: 1. I presume the addr:country=Australia is manditory for this to work, but :state optional? I could imagine only needing state for state specific sheilds (ie. nationally consistent ones wouldn't need state). 2. If a Route has the same ref/name for it's length, there doesn't seem to be any problem with having just one relation, combining the tags. I think this would make simple cases simple to map (always a good thing). 3. I think you suggested if there is no underlying street name for a section of highway, copy/move the name from the relation to the way, is that right? I'd prefer the other way, where the name is stored in the relation so a lot of the ways would have no name (the validators/no-names maps would need to be updated to grab data from relations if they don't already do. I think this would be a nice clean solution, and matches the suggestion ages ago to put a street name in a relation when it is broken up by many residential roundabouts... BlueMM (checking how posting from Nabble.com works compared to Gmane.org, which has broken posting at the moment) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I%27ve-been-trying-to-fix-the-highway-shields-and-came-across-this-tp24970890p25000891.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
Liz ed...@... writes: Rather than change now, which doesn't represent what we have on the map I was intending to hold changes until something came out of the general discussion which is finally settling down to analysis of the arguments and the real reasons for dispute so could you revert that please John? I second that. My opinion I know it's a wiki, and we have all seen arbitrary changes made to it by users who think they are making changes for the better (it seems a lot of the early mappers from the Talk mailing list think the wiki is a waste of time for this very reason). We have had the previous definition up on the Au tagging page for a long time, I know all my mapping has been based on that. I find it weird that someone brings up on the mailing list saying that the German's are tagging like X (contary to the wiki def), no one seems to comment much on the list, then the tagging guidelines are changed while we have thousands/millions? of ways mapped the previous way!! I'd expect lots of discussion/time consensus from more that a few usuals for such a massive change. There are a lot of Au mappers that are very active that don't comment or even follow the Au mailing list (I know I didn't for the first year, the Au list didn't seem too active, unlike now where it is going off tap). Also I agree with Liz over the Non-existant streets issue, how can we possibly put anything on the map that mentions copyright sources, by definition it has to be copyright. I just had a look at the section What happens if another map says a road exists but isn't really there? John added to the Au guidelines page. It seems to say never copy copyrighted maps (good) and a list of things that would be done normally as part of map what's on the ground. I see these as redundant as they are mentioned elsewhere, therefore I think it should be reverted. I'm not a big fan of the implication to look at other copyrighted maps as reference, I think writing that down could lead us down a very grey path. /My opinion Of course, my opinions won't keep me warm at night :-) BlueMM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only
John Smith delta_foxt...@... writes: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, b.schulz...@... b.schulz...@... wrote: Otherwise 4wd_only=yes could mean any road which is signposted as 4wd_only, regardless of legality. If it's signed on a public road sign it most likely is legally enforced since you would be disobeying a legal directive. However I haven't heard of anyone being ticketed, not that it hasn't happened but it didn't make the news. I'm not sure what the legality of a NPWS signs are, since that isn't the same thing as a regular public road. In any case, it's on a sign and it's verifiable which is the basic premise of mapping with OSM. I believe in Victoria it's only a directive if it is on a white sign, yellow background signs are advisory only (not enforceable). Has anyone discussed the appropriateness of using the 4wd_only nomenclature? It seems a bit Australia(NZ?) specific. Maybe that is why there is so much opposition. Seems the Wiki proposal is losing the vote. What about something based on offroad, that seems to be fairly universal (in understanding). Maybe offroad_only; offroad_vehicles_only; offroad_vehicles; offroader; offroaders etc. Making it clear that this is mainly for signs as opposed to subjective opinion like the smoothness debacle seems to help as well. Of course, an en-au localisation of JOSM (Aust. translation) could show offroad tags as 4wd so Australian JOSM users will recognise it instantly. BlueMM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OSM representation in Australia
John Smith delta_foxt...@... writes: Just to let everyone know what's happening, the guy I work for has become interested in both helping the community and to get into selling mapping services. He also has numerous business connections. There has already been some unofficial talks with a company that makes phone handsets with GPS/3G and they seem willing to donate quite a number of these for some kind of schools/education programme. The idea is the phones would be lent out on a per month basis, along with an education pack describing all the ways schools can get involved in various activities, hopefully it can be made fun and exciting. :) For this to happen there needs to be some kind of official presence for these companies to deal with, if they donate goods it has to be owned by some entity, as the company offering phones won't want to deal with schools directly. Most government departments don't like dealing with individuals so there needs to be an official group behind this. I don't know if starting a local chapter would be the best solution, but on the other hand things might be made more difficult, if things default to OSMF in the UK. However before any of this can occur I really need to know if people have a genuine concern with setting up a local chapter or not. I've been thinking about this for the last 6+ months, after the local chapter idea was first mentioned on the Talk mailing list. Mostly in relation to contacting potential sources of data who would be willing to submit their data compatible with the OSM license (federal/state departments, local councils, trucking companies etc.) Being backed by some form of official entity would make the discussions much easier, who wants to be thought of as a few nerds doing their own hobby for fun (which might be correct, but ignores all the advantages of having world-wide open mapping data). I've had some discussions with the GIS boss of my local council, but it seems copyright of most data ends up with state federal agencies, most of the remaining data is tainted by sharing boundries/nodes with existing copyright data :-( Therefore, I support the local chapter idea, even if I don't yet know what is involved. BlueMM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries - getting close
Franc Carter franc.car...@... writes: Ok, it seems my conversion script is now producing sane results so it's time to work out what the final output should look like. The first question that I think we need to answer is, how do we represent the data in OSM, there appears to be 3 options:- 1. Closed ways 2. Relations 3. Borders with a left/right tag Then we need to decide on what tags to apply to the data. The raw data has three fields * STATE_2006 A numerical identifier for the state the suburb is in * SSC_2006 An identifier provided by the ABS * NAME_2006 The name of the suburb, which may have the old name in '()' after it. So, my initial proposal for tags is:- * name=? (with any old name removed) * source=Based_on_Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics _data (ABS ask for this) * ABS:reviewed=no * ABS:STATE_2006=? * ABS:NAME_2006=? * ABS:SSC_2006=? The 'ABS' part is just a suggestion - It's a bit short for my liking We also need to decide where these tags go - nodes, ways, relations. And if we go for the left/right approach a decision on how to -- Franc +1 for Relations (I'm in the Darren camp on this one) I also like Jack's suggestion on name old_name, plus the is_in tag. Given Darren's suggestion for au:ABS, I wonder if there are any examples of country namespaced tags? Obviously ABS is not likely to be unique, maybe ABS_au or Jack's abs.gov.au? I think I like abs.gov.au the best (eg. abs.gov.au:SSC_2006). What is the purpose of ABS:reviewed=no tag? Is it to check for obvious data errors (like Darren pointed out for the industrial estate - assuming it's obvious)? Other than that, at this point we don't really have any other source for this data, so how could we possibly review boundaries? Assuming we go with the relations option, and ABS:SSC_2006 is tagged on the relation, what unique id to we tag the individual ways with? Wouldn't most ways be derived from 2 closed-area shapes, therefore ABS:SSC_2006 would have to be a combination of the parents id's (which might not be unique when converted anyway). I think once we get our import plan finalised (conversion of ways, tagging scheme etc.) we should update the wiki and post on the Talk mailing list with the plan, to hopefully get some comments from veteran importers (like Tiger the midway Canada importers). BlueMM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adelaide out of copyright street directory
Darrin Smith bel...@... writes: On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:29:08 -0800 (PST) bluemm1975-...@... wrote: Early on in my OSM career, I changed a freeway that was from a GPS but the track wasn't accurate compared to nearby tracks/traces. So I deleted it and traced from Yahoo, with lots of nodes along bends to make them smooth. I found it easier to delete the old way than moving a stack of nodes in Potlatch, especially since it was a dual carriageway. BTW, you can align Yahoo imagery in Potlatch, as long as you have a few good points to align with (like an accurate GPS track of a curvy road). Now I begin to understand the complaints of Ross last year in July with respect to people doing tracing of roads. Given when I put a GPS tracked way in one of the points for doing so is to remove the dependence on yahoo for that way, and your previous post and Ross's reply suggest the only clean way to do that is to completely remove the old way, anyone who adds any road from yahoo is just making more work for GPS mappers. If this is the accepted correct practice then I think I might be jumping to Ross's side of the fence and frowning upon yahoo tracings of roads. This quote from his original email sums it up how I'd feel about it: So my suggestion is instead of tracing roads, trace things that can not be easily surveyed. eg railway lines, rivers, powerlines. Of course that goes against the idea of getting a core amount of data in there to get people using things :/ I guess it just means those who want to make GPS tracks have to do even more work than they already do travelling around getting the tracks and collecting data. The price of quality I guess. Hi Darren, I don't see the point of remove the dependence on yahoo, either we are allowed to use it or we are not. Maybe it's a data purity thing, but then I must be only half a zealot :P Don't base any decisions or form principles on my understanding, it's just an interpretation. Maybe we should ask on the Legal mailing list, as to what happens if a Yahoo traced way is altered by using a GPS track. Another interesting issue is can we drop the source=yahoo is we delete the way, then create another way by using a GPS track, but join to all the existing nodes from cross streets etc. Those nodes came from Yahoo originally... Frowning on Yahoo tracing isn't going to do much, since mappers are going to continue either way. BTW, I don't understand your last sentence, why do they need to do more work? I imagine all Yahoo! traced data needs to be verified anyway, and to ideally all GPS stuff should be confirmed by another person (QA and all). Cheers, BlueMM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adelaide out of copyright street directory
Luke Woolley lswool...@... writes: It seems to me that the published edition copyright only protects the layout of the actual work, for example if someone scanned a published edition of some kind from say 1976 then re-published it commercially, that would be a no-no. But since this is only deriving the data from it and publishing the data in a different format, it seems fine. If we can all agree that it is indeed safe to do this, then it would a big step forward in terms of source data for OSM. Since anything which was published before January 1, 1984 can supposedly be used, I have a 1984 Melways, edition 15 which could be scanned and hosted for use by Melbourne mappers which was published in September 1983. It could also be taken one step further and be included as a background layer in Potlatch, like the old maps of the UK are at the moment. On 18/01/2009, at 10:16 PM, Cameron osm-mailing-lists at justcameron.com wrote: My suggestion would be to seek some advice from someone who knows a bit more about copyright in Australia before copying something. The staff at libraries are usually trained to have some knowledge of it. I don't really know what a published edition is.Google brought this up - http://www.unimelb.edu.au/copyright/information/fastfind/publisheded.html~Cameron 2009/1/18 Liz ed...@billiau.net On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Liz wrote: Do maps fall under published editions or artistic works? Cos that will make a 25 year difference... No, I'm not a lawyer (phew) we are certainly taking the view that a map is a collection of facts and certainly not an artistic work (although Steve did mention on legal-talk about one mapper's work of a Pommie town that should have been considered an artistic work) I've just scanned a 1979 Gregory's of Wollongong. Do I put it on my server? I once had a 1980 Adelaide directory but binned it years ago as it got me more lost than was helpful. There should be directories which are old enough in secondhand book shops. I've been using http://www.nla.gov.au/copiesdirect/help/copyrightmap.html as the basis for map copyright issues. It's from the National Library of Australia Basically says: * every map before 1955 is copyright free. * 1955 and later * If Government created, 50 years after end of year of publication - If dated 1960, it is free on 1 Jan 2011. * Non-Government, 70 years after end of year of publication - If dated 1960, it is free on 1 Jan 2031. Therefore, Melways 1st edition 1966, isn't free till 2037 BTW, some of the MMBW index maps have dates like 1977 hand written on them, which means they aren't free till 2028!! The highest zoom maps I have seen are very old, and are free of copyright (there might be 1955+ in there). Even worse, if it isn't dated, it probably unpublished and the NLA site mentions it might have perpetual copyright!!! Also, Liz mentioned names distances might not be copyright. I believe this to be incorrect, as Australia (like Europe) seems to have Database copyright. This was solidified in the Sensis vs Someone? about the copyright of the Yellowpages. IIRK, this judgement confirmed database copyright, and some companies had to change their business models!!! I understand this is one of the main reasons that the UK guys created OSM. It probably wouldn't of been born in the US, since they don't have any database copyright. PS. Yahoo! Mail is crap when emailing to this mailing list, lines don't get wrapped threading is broken (it starts a new thread for replies :-( ). Now using through the Gmane.org system (http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.au), much better so far (even forces bottom-posting)... Cheers, BlueMM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
