[talk-au] The Australian Productivity Commission public inquiry on Data Availability and Use.

[Nev Wedding]

for info…
The public inquiry will investigate ways to improve the availability and use of 
public and private sector data. 
The Australian Productivity Commission has released an issues paper and is 
asking for feedback.
Initial submissions are due by Friday 29 July 2016.

http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/data-access 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Familiar with these places in WA?

[Nev Wedding]

Anyone familiar with these places in WA to fix some of this mappers tags.

shop=dry_cleaning appears to be a booming business to me.
Also adding odd characters at end of names and parts of names in lower case

http://mmwatch.osmz.ru/?country=Australia=%E7%8E%8B%E7%90%B3%E9%9B%85


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

Re: [talk-au] Checking on bug-fixes before committing changes.ta

[Nev Wedding]

> On 7 Jul 2016, at 7:37 PM, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7 Jul 2016 7:21 PM, "Simon Slater"  > wrote:
> >
> > G'day all,
> > While waiting in the Balranald Bakery yesterday I thought I'd 
> > install
> > OSMBugs and OSMTracker and see what needed doing in the area.  Since this is
> > the first time I've done this, I've a couple of questions.
> >
> > 1/  POI without name: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1950504127 
> >  has a
> > brand=Caltex tag.  To fix this one, which is better: change brand of Caltex 
> > to
> > operator or add operator=Caltex, leaving the brand tag?  Or is the operator
> > the proprietor and use the tag name= instead?  Locals just call it 'the
> > servo'.  The other Caltex is 'the roadhouse'
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/206203789 
> > 
> I wouldn't remove the brand=Caltex because that is the branding of the 
> service station right? If it's operated by Caltex you can add that tag too. 
> It's common to see three tags brand, operator, and name all equal to Caltex.
> 
For the name, I would consider naming one ‘Caltex Service Station’ and the 
other ‘Caltex Roadhouse’ or as you prefer.
> Though for name you might also see things like "Caltex [Suburb]"
> 
> >
> > 2/  Fixme tagged item https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118043858 
> >  is in the
> > right place by GPS and the other tags are correct.  Do I just delete the 
> > fixme
> > tag?  This would also apply for a couple of others.
> 
> Yes,if you've validated the thing the fixme tag was added for you can just 
> delete the tag.
> 
> > 3/  With the correction needed for:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118043885 
> >  to extend the divided road, 
> > is it
> > better to delete the single section, then add the divided section as 2 ways
> > down to Bank St, or move the single section to one side and add a parallel
> > way?
> 
> I prefer to move the single section and add another way parallel, because it 
> retains the history of the way, but both approaches are valid. 
> ___
> 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] Question from OSM Forum: Australia Locations Questions

[Nev Wedding]

Hi
as the Australian section of the OSM forum is a bit quiet, I thought the 
question Justin asked may be of interest here too.
Please reply to Justin on the OSM forum
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54135
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Admin level boundaries

[Nev Wedding]

Thanks cleary
I now see that it is easier to maintain boundary layer segments that are not 
superimposed over each other. I too am finding that the overlain boundaries are 
problematic.

> On 26 Mar 2016, at 11:20 AM, cleary <o...@97k.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Nev
> 
> I have added some of those boundaries. Where the administrative boundary
> and the national park boundary share exactly the same way, I have used
> that single way and included it in two separate relations, one for the
> administrative area and the other for the national park.  If the admin
> boundary is not the exact park boundary, then separate ways need to be
> used. 
> 
> I find that having two separate ways but with one superimposed one on
> the other makes it more difficult to work out where any problems are and
> more difficult to edit later, if required. It has been my understanding
> that it is best practice to use the one way for multiple relations, if
> applicable. This is usually easiest to edit and renders exactly
> correctly.
> 
> In NSW, administrative boundaries frequently align exactly with sections
> of national park boundaries, apparently deliberately. If we had separate
> ways for each, I think there would be a lot of messy duplication on the
> map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Nev Wedding wrote:
>> There have been many new admin_level=10 administrative boundaries added
>> in NSW recently. 
>> Are we expected to split and use these as shared sections for the sides
>> of national park multipolygons, etc.
>> Or is it preferable to leave the admin_level=10 (and other admin levels) 
>> alone and separate. 
>> 
>> I assume they are best left separate so that they can be more easily
>> updated later. 
>> 
>> Tag:boundary=administrative
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative
>> ___
>> 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] Admin level boundaries

[Nev Wedding]

There have been many new admin_level=10 administrative boundaries added in NSW 
recently. 
Are we expected to split and use these as shared sections for the sides of 
national park multipolygons, etc.
Or is it preferable to leave the admin_level=10 (and other admin levels)  alone 
and separate. 

I assume they are best left separate so that they can be more easily updated 
later. 

Tag:boundary=administrative
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Overgrown (and illegal) bike track

[Nev Wedding]

It was mapped in 2009 and there appears nothing discernible on the satellite 
imagery and only one lone Strava track and no gps tracks near it, so if 
reverted to bush, I agree it’s time to delete it. 

> On 22 Mar 2016, at 7:39 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> Just advising my intention to delete Way: 46916574 if there are no 
> objections. There are traces that a path existed at one time but its reverted 
> to bush. See the August 2015 archive for discussions on access=no
> 
> Tony
> 
> jpg photo, track bottom left to centre
> https://app.box.com/s/oove2z3kson43qabhud5yeixrkh88vtw
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Attempt at mapping the NSW alpine area.

[Nev Wedding]

The lancover proposal will be helpful for tagging this when/if it gets the nod.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rudolf/draft_landcover
landcover=shrubland + natural=tundra 
I am unfamiliar with the area and can’t help your cause.
Nev



> On 17 Feb 2016, at 4:18 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Zoom out. Using bing.
> It may be snow cover (very high probability). 
> 
> Mapbox shows a different area ... less coverage. That might be a better 
> approximation. Again this is zoomed out.
> 
> I assume that the snow covered photos are not used when zoomed in as the snow 
> would cover some features. 
> 
> 
> 
> On 17/02/2016 4:57 PM, cleary wrote:
>> Warin
>> This is the part of NSW with which I am least familiar but I can't work out 
>> what it is that is being mapped. I couldn't see any relation between Bing 
>> imagery and the tracings in your polygon. If it is actually the area above 
>> the tree-line, then I don't have a problem with it although perhaps it 
>> should be natural=tundra rather than landcover. If it is a reasonably close 
>> approximation then OK but if it is a very loose approximation, it might be 
>> better to await better information. It would be good to hear from others who 
>> are familiar with that landscape.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016, at 03:14 PM, Warin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I have made a first attempt at mapping the NSW alpine area.
>>> 
>>> It comes from Bing imagery - probably snow cover. It is a bit course - so 
>>> the resolution is not good. 
>>> 
>>> The question is;
>>> Is this good enough for use? 
>>> 
>>> As there is no information in OSM for it ... maybe it is better than 
>>> nothing?
>>> Or should it be left to await better information? 
>>> 
>>> The area is in the data base as relation 5985104 tagged landcover=tundra 
>>> (this will not render). 
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5985104#map=10/-36.2121/148.5887
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is not a complete area, there are a few bits left off .. in particular 
>>> to the south. 
>>> But it might be a start. I don't want to put much more work in on it untill 
>>> I have some comments on it.
>>> 
>>> So.. what are your thoughts? Especially negative ones!  
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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] Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area

[Nev Wedding]

Ok, that makes more sense now. 
I will do as you suggest.
Nev

> On 5 Feb 2016, at 6:57 PM, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote:
> 
> My understanding is that they are mutually exclusive.
> 
> Whilst some areas may have mutual boundaries there are Gondwana Rainforest 
> area's that are totally surrounded by national park, state forest, state 
> conservation area, etc.  There are also Gondwana Rainforest not included in 
> other protected areas.
> 
> I'd suggest where the boundary is the same then add the Gondwana Rainforest 
> boundary to the LPI boundary multipolygon but leave the rest alone.
> 
> For example:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-28.4882/152.4099
> 
> The Gondwana area does not completely encompass Tooloom National Park but 
> appears to share some boundaries.
> 
> Cheers
> Ross
> 
> 
> On 05/02/16 16:39, Nev Wedding wrote:
>> I am finding that the new LPI NSW Administrative Boundaries NPWS Reserve 
>> boundaries are often in conflict with the previously imported Gondwana 
>> Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area.
>> 
>> The Gondwana data also does not name the individual protected area.
>> 
>> Is it best to use the most similar polygon (or several similar if any) from 
>> the LPI NPWS Reserve boundary data and ‘replace geometry’ of the Gondwana 
>> data to keep a history.
>> 
>> Then add all the new LPI polygons to make a new multi polygon and add the 
>> latest tags to it as normal.
>> 
>> Then remove those out of date polygons from the Gondwana Rainforests of 
>> Australia World Heritage Area multipolygon.
>> 
>> If you leave the Gondwana mp with an updated geometry and have a separate 
>> new LPI mp, the Gondwana name overlies the LPI name so I can’t see a way to 
>> have both.
>> 
>> So, does the old Gondwana mp gradually get scavenged by the new LPI data as 
>> we add more parks. If so, should we also be adding tags to the newly created 
>> LPI Multipolygons to indicate that they are also part of the Gondwana 
>> Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area. how?
>> 
>> I expect that I have already mucked up some parts of the Gondwana mp 
>> unfortunately.
>> 
>> http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/protectedareas/GondwanaWorldHeritageArea.htm
>> 
>> 
>> Nev
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area

[Nev Wedding]

I am finding that the new LPI NSW Administrative Boundaries NPWS Reserve 
boundaries are often in conflict with the previously imported Gondwana 
Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area.

The Gondwana data also does not name the individual protected area.

Is it best to use the most similar polygon (or several similar if any) from the 
LPI NPWS Reserve boundary data and ‘replace geometry’ of the Gondwana data to 
keep a history.

Then add all the new LPI polygons to make a new multi polygon and add the 
latest tags to it as normal. 

Then remove those out of date polygons from the Gondwana Rainforests of 
Australia World Heritage Area multipolygon.

If you leave the Gondwana mp with an updated geometry and have a separate new 
LPI mp, the Gondwana name overlies the LPI name so I can’t see a way to have 
both.

So, does the old Gondwana mp gradually get scavenged by the new LPI data as we 
add more parks. If so, should we also be adding tags to the newly created LPI 
Multipolygons to indicate that they are also part of the Gondwana Rainforests 
of Australia World Heritage Area. how?

I expect that I have already mucked up some parts of the Gondwana mp 
unfortunately.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/protectedareas/GondwanaWorldHeritageArea.htm


Nev


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

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

[Nev Wedding]

Your work flow using the geometries has worked very well for me with the LPI 
data and the last bit regarding the merging each item separately into the 
existing OSM data seems prudent and makes for easier management of the data.
Much appreciated
Nev 

> On 24 Jan 2016, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
> The work flow that JOSM wants you to use is to have your new data in one 
> layer and the existing OSM data in another and to "merge selection" on 
> individual items.  I'm assuming this is to slow down people just 
> dump-and-running. I found it useful to use the merge approach as you can 
> delete the ways from the kml layer as you do each one and it lets you check 
> that you've processed each way. 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From:
> "Nev Wedding" <nwas...@gmail.com>
> 
> To:
> "OSM Australian Talk List" <Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> Cc:
> 
> Sent:
> Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:42:53 +1000
> Subject:
> Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers
> 
> 
> (corrected message….opening the .kml file
> I have the .kml file and the downloaded osm data as seperate layers and want 
> to upload the .kml layers which contains all the updated info)
> 
> I have followed this process for Kooyong State Conservation Area which has 
> gone well after opening the .kml file and have simplified and added all the 
> tags, 
> …but on trying to upload the final boundary I get this ominous message
> “
> You are about to upload data from the layer 'Kooyong.kml'.
> Sending data from this layer is strongly discouraged. If you continue,
> it may require you subsequently have to revert your changes, or force other 
> contributors to.
> Are you sure you want to continue? 
> “
> 
> I assume the warning is to dissuade mappers from careless import of large 
> uncorrected datasets.?
> 
> Sooo…, am I ok to continue or is there another reason?  ..I am on-hold here 
> until I see a reply
> 
> Nev 
> 
> 
> On 22 Jan 2016, at 11:36 PM, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net 
> <mailto:u...@internode.on.net>> wrote:
> 
> You can extract the geometries from the database directly, you don't have to 
> scan them. I tried this on three park areas to see how much work was 
> involved. The recipe I followed was:
> 
> 1. Use the query tool to find out how many objects have the name that you are 
> looking for. You do this with:
> 
> http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query
>  
> <http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query>
> 
> with the return format set to html. Names must be in upper case and you need 
> to see what object ids are returned. For example if you search for 
> Yanununbeyan with:
> 
> http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml
>  
> <http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml>
> 
> You get three different ids (198,208,1131) because there is a Yanununbeyan 
> State Conservation Area, Yanununbeyan Nature Reserve, and Yanununbeyan 
> National Park. All of which need to be tagged differently. Follow the object 
> links to find out what type of area they are.
> 
> 2. Having found the object id you need you get the geometry by using the 
> query tool and setting the object id, setting the output spatial reference to 
> 4326 (WGS84), and changing the output format to JSON.
> 
> 3. Save the resulting page, say output.json
> 
> 4. Use ogr2ogr from GDAL to convert the output into something JOSM can read:
> 
> ogr2ogr -f “KML" output.json output.kml

other way around works for me …  ogr2ogr -f “KML” output.ml output.son on OS X 
> 
> 5. If you have the opendata plugin installed you can open output.kml in JOSM.
> 
> 6. Use the simplify way option in JOSM as there are far too many points in 
> the resulting kml. I personally thought that the default 3m looks OK.
> 
> 7. Tag the ways with an appropriate source:geometry and add a note to the 
> effect that the way has been simplified using a max error criterion set to 
> whatever you used.
> 
> 8. Now comes the difficult and time consuming bit. You have to cut up and 
> conflate the new boundaries with the existing data as you merge each new way 
> from the layer you opened the kml in to the layer the osm data is in. This is 
> the step where you co

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

[Nev Wedding]

Done…Here it is   http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5892156 
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5892156>

> On 23 Jan 2016, at 12:43 PM, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com 
> <mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 23/01/16 12:26, Nev Wedding wrote:
>> I have followed this process for Kooyong State Conservation Area which has 
>> gone well after opening the kms file and have simplified and added all the 
>> tags, 
>> …but on trying to upload the final boundary I get this ominous message
>> “
>> You are about to upload data from the layer 'Kooyong.kml'.
>> 
>> Sending data from this layer is strongly discouraged. If you continue,
>> it may require you subsequently have to revert your changes, or force other 
>> contributors to.
>> 
>> Are you sure you want to continue? 
>> “
>> 
>> I assume the warning is to dissuade mappers from careless import of large 
>> uncorrected datasets.?
>> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> Sooo…, am I ok to continue or is there another reason?  ..I am on-hold here 
>> until I see a reply
>> 
>> Nev 
>> 
>> 
> However you may want to upload one, provide a link to it and then see what 
> others think.
> 
> Cheers
> Ross
> 
> 
>>> On 22 Jan 2016, at 11:36 PM, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net 
>>> <mailto:u...@internode.on.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> You can extract the geometries from the database directly, you don't have 
>>> to scan them. I tried this on three park areas to see how much work was 
>>> involved. The recipe I followed was:
>>> 
>>> 1. Use the query tool to find out how many objects have the name that you 
>>> are looking for. You do this with:
>>> 
>>> http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query
>>>  
>>> <http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query>
>>> 
>>> with the return format set to html. Names must be in upper case and you 
>>> need to see what object ids are returned. For example if you search for 
>>> Yanununbeyan with:
>>> 
>>> http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml
>>>  
>>> <http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml>
>>> 
>>> You get three different ids (198,208,1131) because there is a Yanununbeyan 
>>> State Conservation Area, Yanununbeyan Nature Reserve, and Yanununbeyan 
>>> National Park. All of which need to be tagged differently. Follow the 
>>> object links to find out what type of area they are.
>>> 
>>> 2. Having found the object id you need you get the geometry by using the 
>>> query tool and setting the object id, setting the output spatial reference 
>>> to 4326 (WGS84), and changing the output format to JSON.
>>> 
>>> 3. Save the resulting page, say output.json
>>> 
>>> 4. Use ogr2ogr from GDAL to convert the output into something JOSM can read:
>>> 
>>> ogr2ogr -f "KML" output.json output.kml
>>> 
>>> 5. If you have the opendata plugin installed you can open output.kml in 
>>> JOSM.
>>> 
>>> 6. Use the simplify way option in JOSM as there are far too many points in 
>>> the resulting kml. I personally thought that the default 3m looks OK.
>>> 
>>> 7. Tag the ways with an appropriate source:geometry and add a note to the 
>>> effect that the way has been simplified using a max error criterion set to 
>>> whatever you used.
>>> 
>>> 8. Now comes the difficult and time consuming bit. You have to cut up and 
>>> conflate the new boundaries with the existing data as you merge each new 
>>> way from the layer you opened the kml in to the layer the osm data is in. 
>>> This is the step where you could really make a mess. 
>>> 
>>> I found while doing the few test cases that I had to:
>>> 
>>> - Make sure that common boundaries use only one way (which means that the 
>>> more parks, state forests, admin areas, etc that share ways the more time 
>>> consuming it gets)
>>> 
>>> - Make judgement calls about if you should use the new boundary or keep the 
>>> e

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

[Nev Wedding]

thanks
it appears that the boundaries here sometimes follow a topo contour and that 
abuts the next defined boundary which seems reasonable.
> On 23 Jan 2016, at 1:22 PM, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote:
> 
> Looks good to me.
> 
> 
> 
> On 23/01/16 13:19, Nev Wedding wrote:
>> Done…Here it is   http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5892156 
>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5892156>
>> 
>>> On 23 Jan 2016, at 12:43 PM, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com 
>>> <mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 23/01/16 12:26, Nev Wedding wrote:
>>>> I have followed this process for Kooyong State Conservation Area which has 
>>>> gone well after opening the kms file and have simplified and added all the 
>>>> tags, 
>>>> …but on trying to upload the final boundary I get this ominous message
>>>> “
>>>> You are about to upload data from the layer 'Kooyong.kml'.
>>>> 
>>>> Sending data from this layer is strongly discouraged. If you continue,
>>>> it may require you subsequently have to revert your changes, or force 
>>>> other contributors to.
>>>> 
>>>> Are you sure you want to continue? 
>>>> “
>>>> 
>>>> I assume the warning is to dissuade mappers from careless import of large 
>>>> uncorrected datasets.?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes.
>>> 
>>>> Sooo…, am I ok to continue or is there another reason?  ..I am on-hold 
>>>> here until I see a reply
>>>> 
>>>> Nev 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> However you may want to upload one, provide a link to it and then see what 
>>> others think.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Ross
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> On 22 Jan 2016, at 11:36 PM, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net 
>>>>> <mailto:u...@internode.on.net>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> You can extract the geometries from the database directly, you don't have 
>>>>> to scan them. I tried this on three park areas to see how much work was 
>>>>> involved. The recipe I followed was:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Use the query tool to find out how many objects have the name that you 
>>>>> are looking for. You do this with:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query
>>>>>  
>>>>> <http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query>
>>>>> 
>>>>> with the return format set to html. Names must be in upper case and you 
>>>>> need to see what object ids are returned. For example if you search for 
>>>>> Yanununbeyan with:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml
>>>>>  
>>>>> <http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml>
>>>>> 
>>>>> You get three different ids (198,208,1131) because there is a 
>>>>> Yanununbeyan State Conservation Area, Yanununbeyan Nature Reserve, and 
>>>>> Yanununbeyan National Park. All of which need to be tagged differently. 
>>>>> Follow the object links to find out what type of area they are.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Having found the object id you need you get the geometry by using the 
>>>>> query tool and setting the object id, setting the output spatial 
>>>>> reference to 4326 (WGS84), and changing the output format to JSON.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3. Save the resulting page, say output.json
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4. Use ogr2ogr from GDAL to convert the output into something JOSM can 
>>>>> read:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ogr2ogr -f "KML" output.json output.kml
>>>>> 
>>>>> 5. If you have the opendata plugin installed you can open output.kml in 
>>>>> JOSM.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 6. Use the simplify way option in JOSM as there are far too many points 
>>>>> in the resulting kml. I personally thought that the default 3m lo

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

[Nev Wedding]

I have followed this process for Kooyong State Conservation Area which has gone 
well after opening the kms file and have simplified and added all the tags, 
…but on trying to upload the final boundary I get this ominous message
“
You are about to upload data from the layer 'Kooyong.kml'.

Sending data from this layer is strongly discouraged. If you continue,
it may require you subsequently have to revert your changes, or force other 
contributors to.

Are you sure you want to continue? 
“

I assume the warning is to dissuade mappers from careless import of large 
uncorrected datasets.?

Sooo…, am I ok to continue or is there another reason?  ..I am on-hold here 
until I see a reply

Nev 


> On 22 Jan 2016, at 11:36 PM, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
> You can extract the geometries from the database directly, you don't have to 
> scan them. I tried this on three park areas to see how much work was 
> involved. The recipe I followed was:
> 
> 1. Use the query tool to find out how many objects have the name that you are 
> looking for. You do this with:
> 
> http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query
> 
> with the return format set to html. Names must be in upper case and you need 
> to see what object ids are returned. For example if you search for 
> Yanununbeyan with:
> 
> http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml
> 
> You get three different ids (198,208,1131) because there is a Yanununbeyan 
> State Conservation Area, Yanununbeyan Nature Reserve, and Yanununbeyan 
> National Park. All of which need to be tagged differently. Follow the object 
> links to find out what type of area they are.
> 
> 2. Having found the object id you need you get the geometry by using the 
> query tool and setting the object id, setting the output spatial reference to 
> 4326 (WGS84), and changing the output format to JSON.
> 
> 3. Save the resulting page, say output.json
> 
> 4. Use ogr2ogr from GDAL to convert the output into something JOSM can read:
> 
> ogr2ogr -f "KML" output.json output.kml
> 
> 5. If you have the opendata plugin installed you can open output.kml in JOSM.
> 
> 6. Use the simplify way option in JOSM as there are far too many points in 
> the resulting kml. I personally thought that the default 3m looks OK.
> 
> 7. Tag the ways with an appropriate source:geometry and add a note to the 
> effect that the way has been simplified using a max error criterion set to 
> whatever you used.
> 
> 8. Now comes the difficult and time consuming bit. You have to cut up and 
> conflate the new boundaries with the existing data as you merge each new way 
> from the layer you opened the kml in to the layer the osm data is in. This is 
> the step where you could really make a mess. 
> 
> I found while doing the few test cases that I had to:
> 
> - Make sure that common boundaries use only one way (which means that the 
> more parks, state forests, admin areas, etc that share ways the more time 
> consuming it gets)
> 
> - Make judgement calls about if you should use the new boundary or keep the 
> existing way where the boundary is something physical on the ground like a 
> river bank or coastline. This is why I tagged the new ways with 
> source:geometry so other mappers can see where they came from.
> 
> - If there are already ways in place, using the replace geometry function of 
> the utils2 plugin to try and preserve history.
> 
> The cases I tried as a test were:
> 
> South East Forest National Park:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5853354
> 
> Murramarang National Park:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5858067
> 
> Clyde River National Park:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5857616
> 
> The South East Forest case was a multi-hour mapping marathon as the park has 
> a lot of separate sections and shares many boundaries with neighbouring state 
> forests and parks. The other two were much simpler but Murramarang need more 
> time than Clyde River as it has more sections and shares a lot of common ways 
> with the coast and various rivers.
> 
> As to the import question it seems to me that there is a tacit agreement that 
> tracing the boundaries one at a time is acceptable (not sure what the rest of 
> OSM would think about this). Given that the biggest problem with an import 
> would be conflating the data with the existing, provided that we're carefully 
> hand-crafting each park I think we're OK. Does anyone have a differing 
> opinion?
> 
> 
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:44:12 +1000
> 

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

[Nev Wedding]

 is acceptable (not sure what the rest of 
> OSM would think about this). Given that the biggest problem with an import 
> would be conflating the data with the existing, provided that we're carefully 
> hand-crafting each park I think we're OK. Does anyone have a differing 
> opinion?
> 
> 
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:44:12 +1000
> Nev Wedding <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Should the JOSM Scanaerial plugin be able to scan the LPI NSW
>> Administrative Boundaries NPWS Reserve WMS layer and others. I would
>> like to zoom in to a section and use the plugin as an initial pass
>> instead of manually mouse clicking around the long and winding
>> boundary and then refine the result before tagging and uploading.
>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Scanaerial  
>> I am using a mac OS X and there are no instructions for that install
>> so I may not have it set up correctly yet, so first up before
>> proceeding further, I would like to know if it will help anyway. 
>> 
>> I am unfamiliar with tracing shapes other than tediously wandering
>> around the boundaries one click at a time.
>> 
>> I played around with Gimp and Inkscape but found that to be quite a
>> task too and wasn’t sure if I could use the output in Josm in anyway.
>> 
>> How do you manage such tasks? Are their special mouse tools available?
>> 
>> Is what I am trying to do essentially considered to be part of an
>> import and/or the current LPI layers unsuitable for the tracing
>> process.
>> 
>> Some links to where to find more info on this topic would be
>> appreciated. ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net>

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

[talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

[Nev Wedding]

Should the JOSM Scanaerial plugin be able to scan the LPI NSW Administrative 
Boundaries NPWS Reserve WMS layer and others.
I would like to zoom in to a section and use the plugin as an initial pass 
instead of manually mouse clicking around the long and winding boundary and 
then refine the result before tagging and uploading.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Scanaerial 
I am using a mac OS X and there are no instructions for that install so I may 
not have it set up correctly yet, so first up before proceeding further, I 
would like to know if it will help anyway. 

I am unfamiliar with tracing shapes other than tediously wandering around the 
boundaries one click at a time.

I played around with Gimp and Inkscape but found that to be quite a task too 
and wasn’t sure if I could use the output in Josm in anyway.

How do you manage such tasks? Are their special mouse tools available?

Is what I am trying to do essentially considered to be part of an import and/or 
the current LPI layers unsuitable for the tracing process.

Some links to where to find more info on this topic would be appreciated.  
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

[Nev Wedding]

That’s great news, thanks
Nev

> On 19 Jan 2016, at 2:23 PM, Ross <i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote:
> 
> scanaerial or tracer2 plugins both work with the Reserves WMS layer.
> 
> As to setting it up on OSX I'd suggest it's similar to the linux setup as the 
> operating systems are similar, just need to put the config file in the 
> appropriate place and have python installed.
> 
> Cheers
> Ross
> 
> 
> On 19/01/16 13:44, Nev Wedding wrote:
>> Should the JOSM Scanaerial plugin be able to scan the LPI NSW Administrative 
>> Boundaries NPWS Reserve WMS layer and others.
>> I would like to zoom in to a section and use the plugin as an initial pass 
>> instead of manually mouse clicking around the long and winding boundary and 
>> then refine the result before tagging and uploading.
>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Scanaerial  
>> I am using a mac OS X and there are no instructions for that install so I 
>> may not have it set up correctly yet, so first up before proceeding further, 
>> I would like to know if it will help anyway.
>> 
>> I am unfamiliar with tracing shapes other than tediously wandering around 
>> the boundaries one click at a time.
>> 
>> I played around with Gimp and Inkscape but found that to be quite a task too 
>> and wasn’t sure if I could use the output in Josm in anyway.
>> 
>> How do you manage such tasks? Are their special mouse tools available?
>> 
>> Is what I am trying to do essentially considered to be part of an import 
>> and/or the current LPI layers unsuitable for the tracing process.
>> 
>> Some links to where to find more info on this topic would be 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 mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] LPI Base Map - green areas ?

[Nev Wedding]

On 17 Jan 2016, at 11:28 AM, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
> On 16/01/16 11:47, Nev Wedding wrote:
>> Though I don’t know the area you refer to, I feel landuse=water_catchment is 
>> an excellent choice and is the correct tag for an area that has a capture of 
>> water as specific defined use as already stated on 
>> https://www.wyong.nsw.gov.au/getmedia/7ca695e8-748d-4bca-beba-3b7bff8296e4/Mangrove-Creek-Dam-Brochure.pdf.aspx
>> …says ‘Mangrove Creek Dam Catchment’
> The problem is that the area we are talking about is not the area in the map 
> you've linked to. What we are talking about is a sub-section of that area 
> that has been protected for the purposes of drinking water supply.
> 
I don’t see any problem with tagging a sub-section of the water catchment in a 
special way, with added tag restrictions if considered appropriate. 
The landuse=water_catchment does not imply that you have encompassed the entire 
catchment. 
If naming as ‘Mangrove Creek Dam Catchment’ would imply the entire area. 

I see that individually mapped rural private properties may have portions of 
each property reserved as protected water_catchment in the future as the 
country becomes more over populated.
 
>> 
>> 
>> Another I like is reservoir_watershed
>> 
>> 
> Three problems:
> 
> 1. OSM tags are traditionally based on UK English so that'd have to be
>   reservoir_catchment
> 2. This tag has already been used in a bulk import of data for
>   Massachusetts where I assume it means something in Massachusettsan law
> 3. Implies that this represents the entire catchment of a reservoir but
>   we're only talking about a sub-section here.
> 
Yes, I agree that reservoir_watershed and reservoir_catchment implies the 
entire catchment representation.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] LPI Base Map - green areas ?

[Nev Wedding]

> On 17 Jan 2016, at 1:50 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 17/01/2016 1:12 PM, Nev Wedding wrote:
>> On 17 Jan 2016, at 11:28 AM, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>> On 16/01/16 11:47, Nev Wedding wrote:
>>>> Though I don’t know the area you refer to, I feel landuse=water_catchment 
>>>> is an excellent choice and is the correct tag for an area that has a 
>>>> capture of water as specific defined use as already stated on 
>>>> https://www.wyong.nsw.gov.au/getmedia/7ca695e8-748d-4bca-beba-3b7bff8296e4/Mangrove-Creek-Dam-Brochure.pdf.aspx
>>>> …says ‘Mangrove Creek Dam Catchment’
>>> The problem is that the area we are talking about is not the area in the 
>>> map you've linked to.
> 
> It is at least a substantial proportion of it.
> Note that the map also has the 'Mangrove Creek Weir Catchment' area that has 
> a similar colour, abuts one boundary
> and some others areas (those are better differentiated colour wise) too.
> 
>>> What we are talking about is a sub-section of that area that has been 
>>> protected for the purposes of drinking water supply.
>>> 
>> I don’t see any problem with tagging a sub-section of the water catchment in 
>> a special way, with added tag restrictions if considered appropriate.
>> The landuse=water_catchment does not imply that you have encompassed the 
>> entire catchment.
>> If naming as ‘Mangrove Creek Dam Catchment’ would imply the entire area.
> 
> A roadway can be tagged in subsections. Even if a subsection is omitted .. 
> the remainder are valid entries and each sub section carries the name.
> I don’t agree with the asserted 'implication'.

Yes, I think you are correct
> 
>> 
>> I see that individually mapped rural private properties may have portions of 
>> each property reserved as protected water_catchment in the future as the 
>> country becomes more over populated.
> 
> In the UK many farms are in 'water catchment' areas.
> This is a problem for tagging 'landuse' .. many areas are used for more than 
> one thing.
> A solution may come out of development of other tags by the tag tagging group 
> (ref RFC - Discourage amenity=public_building).
> 
> If you want to explore what is going on in the UK .. a starting point is 
> http://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/
> 
> A possibly shorter start would be 
> https://www.nwl.co.uk/your-home/environment/catchment-management.aspx
> Basically  they want any run off or sub soil water to be up to a certain 
> standard, not carrying too much pollution within the water catchment area.
> 
> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Another I like is reservoir_watershed
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> Three problems:
>>> 
>>> 1. OSM tags are traditionally based on UK English so that'd have to be
>>>  reservoir_catchment
> 
> Some don't have a reservoir but simply use the local river/s (e.g. see 
> https://www.nwl.co.uk/your-home/environment/catchment-management.aspx).
> 
> So reservoir_catchment does not 'work' for all.
> 
> "Water Catchment" is used in the UK 
> http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/prs_inf_catchment.pdf
> 
> watershed? One definition; and area or ridge of land that separates water 
> flowing into different rivers. So that definitely does not fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> 2. This tag has already been used in a bulk import of data for
>>>  Massachusetts where I assume it means something in Massachusettsan law
>>> 3. Implies that this represents the entire catchment of a reservoir but
>>>  we're only talking about a sub-section here.
>>> 
>> Yes, I agree that reservoir_watershed and reservoir_catchment implies the 
>> entire catchment representation.
> 
> highway=motorway ... implies the entire motorway?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Some are tagging individual farm fields ... that are not the entire farm.
> I don’t 'see' the implication that any tagged area or way has to be the 
> entire thing even if named.

Agreed :)

> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] LPI Base Map - green areas ?

[Nev Wedding]

Though I don’t know the area you refer to, I feel landuse=water_catchment is an 
excellent choice and is the correct tag for an area that has a capture of water 
as specific defined use as already stated on 
https://www.wyong.nsw.gov.au/getmedia/7ca695e8-748d-4bca-beba-3b7bff8296e4/Mangrove-Creek-Dam-Brochure.pdf.aspx
 
…says ‘Mangrove Creek Dam Catchment’
Though all land is a water catchment, the one above has that as it’s primary 
and reserved land use.
It may also have other important uses such as conservation value.

Another I like is reservoir_watershed

N


> On 16 Jan 2016, at 7:24 AM, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> 
> landuse=water_catchment doesn't work because you can tag every surface that 
> rain falls on with this.
> 
> After a bit of reading about what the tag means in the European case I think 
> protect_class=12 is fine for this area.
> 
> The various closed catchments around Sydney and Melbourne are also 
> protect_class=12 but the ways inside the special areas would have to be 
> tagged with the correct access to indicate if you can go there.
> 
> 
> On 16/01/16 07:50, Warin wrote:
>> On 15/01/2016 11:04 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>>> What about landuse=basin ? [1]
>>> Or natural=water, water=reservoir [2]
>>> or landuse = reservoir, reservoir_type=water_storage [3]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin
>> 
>> "An area of land artificially graded to hold water."
>> 
>> This area is not graded. The area does not hold water.
>> 
>>> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water
>> 
>> Not covered with water.
>> 
>>> [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir
>> 
>> Does not store water.
>> 
>> This particular area has trees, shrubs. The rainfall there flows into a 
>> reservoir.
>> 
>> In Hong Kong ... the area is paved ... and is fairly steep. The rainfall 
>> there flows into some form of water storage. It also does not store water 
>> itself.
>> 
>> Both areas can use the term 'water catchment'. Similar to a funnel- it 
>> 'catches' fluid and sends it on to a storage device.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_basin
>> (This area does not 'drain to a single point' .. drains to a single area (of 
>> water)... if there was no water there .. then yes it would drain to a single 
>> point.)
>> 
>> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/catchment
>> 
>>> 
>>> regards
>>> 
>>> m
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
 On 15/01/2016 2:19 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
 
 Looking at the old Parish map it would appear that it used to be part of 
 the
 State Forest until they built the Mangrove Creek Dam at which point it
 became reserved for water conservation purposes.
 
 That makes sense.
 
 I suppose you could tag it:
 
  boundary=protected_area
  protect_class=12
 
 Not sure what name you'd give it because the map just says "FOR WATER
 SUPPLY".
 
 
 landuse=water_catchment would probably be best (another new tag that I just
 made up). It cannot be logged. And in some places at least the water people
 don't even want walkers, let alone campers there. I think part of the Blue
 Mountains National Park has restrictions like this around a water catchment
 area. I think Hong Kong has areas for water catchment that are paved to
 increase the run off/harvest. So there is a vast verity in what water
 catchments physically are.
 
 As I don't know what name it has .. it could be anything ... 'McPherson
 Water Catchment' or 'Mangrove Creek Water Catchment' ... arrr
 https://www.wyong.nsw.gov.au/getmedia/7ca695e8-748d-4bca-beba-3b7bff8296e4/Mangrove-Creek-Dam-Brochure.pdf.aspx
  
 says 'Mangrove Creek Dam Catchment' .. so I'll go with that. No copyright 
 on
 the pdf... :-)
 It does say access is restricted.. but not what the restrictions are.
 
 -
 For those also using the LPI base Map to plot State Forests ... be 
 carefull.
 
 
 
 
 - Original Message -
 From:
 "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com>
 
 To:
 "talk-au" 
 Cc:
 
 Sent:
 Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:58:49 +1100
 Subject:
 [talk-au] LPI Base Map - green areas ?
 
 
 Hi,
 
 On the LPI base map green areas apear at first to be
 National Parks - a darker green area that is visible at all zooms.
 State Forests - lighter green, visible when zoomed in.
 
 I have mapped out the McPherson State Forest boundary using the LPI base
 map. Fine (apart from a typo in the name!). Relationship 5748137.
 
 However when I use the 'Administration Boundaries State Forests' the
 northern section I have plotted does not look to be a State Forest.
 
 So what is this green area on the LPI base map .. when it is not a 

Re: [talk-au] Explicit Permission to use NSW Land and Property Information data in JOSM

[Nev Wedding]

I have been using the LPI NSW Administrative Boundaries NPWS Reserve to enter 
the boundaries of each section of the Goobang National Park as I was recently 
there and recorded a few gps tracks as well.
It seems to me that I am probably wasting my efforts just following around the 
rest of the boundary and marking it out with mouse-clicks and the bottom 
section of the park, which I am still to do, is a big effort.
Is someone likely to import the database data for each park on which the layer 
is based…or should I continue with the mouse.
Once the boundary is done I will leave others to add other data from the other 
layers from LPI who are more familiar with the area.
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] National Park Boundaries from LPI NSW Admin Boundaries

[Nev Wedding]

I have added the remainder of the Goobang NP boundaries by hand and am well and 
truly moused out for now. 
In the longer term adding directly from the gov database is preferable and 
likely allows updates to boundaries occasionally more easily later.
I see from your links that getting this type of info into OSM is not trivial.

> On 24 Dec 2015, at 8:01 AM, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 23 December 2015 at 22:33, Nev Wedding <nwas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have been using the LPI NSW Administrative Boundaries NPWS Reserve to
>> enter the boundaries of each section of the Goobang National Park as I was
>> recently there and recorded a few gps tracks as well.
>> It seems to me that I am probably wasting my efforts just following around
>> the rest of the boundary and marking it out with mouse-clicks and the bottom
>> section of the park, which I am still to do, is a big effort.
>> Is someone likely to import the database data for each park on which the
>> layer is based…or should I continue with the mouse.
>> Once the boundary is done I will leave others to add other data from the
>> other layers from LPI who are more familiar with the area.
>> thanks
> 
> This is a tough one. On one hand there are immediate benefits of
> getting these park boundaries into OSM, which in theory you can do now
> in the way you describe. On the other hand actually importing the data
> would be easier and better, but not likely to happen just yet.
> 
> I've made some progress in getting a mapping for CAPAD data (which
> groups together protected bounderies from all states) to OSM at
> https://github.com/andrewharvey/capad2osm (sample data at
> http://tianjara.net/data/osm/imports/capad.osm.xz)
> 
> I haven't even started on the licensing issue.
> 
> Although not a solution, for other projects based on OSM, I've
> actually done post-processing to remove all OSM parks and replace them
> with the CAPAD government data.
> 
> The data specifically for NSW is potentially available but can't find
> any specific data download URLs for it:
> https://sdi.nsw.gov.au/sdi.nsw.gov.au/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B282174F3-6686-4841-8682-840D952DA5B0%7D
> https://sdi.nsw.gov.au/sdi.nsw.gov.au/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BF744AA2D-793B-4CF3-BEDE-41A96D9975FA%7D


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

[talk-au] Fwd: A way with no tags

[Nev Wedding]

(Resent to group...nev)
> I think you should add tags as you think appropriate using satellite imagery 
> and any gps traces in the area and then add a changeset comment to the person 
> who originally entered the data, explaining what you have done ask for a 
> check or further info. The person will get an email i think alerting to the 
> comments you have entered and then you or they may be able to resolve the 
> problem. I guess it is likely to have been a beginner who was unsure how to 
> enter the data or just forgot or was distracted from finishing the job.
> 
> Nev
> 
>> On 2 Sep 2015, at 6:39 am, John Henderson  wrote:
>> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/330876380
>> 
>> Unless I'm mistaken, this road seems to have no tags whatsoever.
>> 
>> I didn't think such a situation was possible.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> ___
>> 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