Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Philip Mallis]

Hi, For shared paths, agree with Andrew that the tags should be bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=no. There’s a legacy tag issue in Victoria where many shared paths are still tagged as highway=cycleway only, which is slowly being fixed. Philip From: Andrew HarveySent: Monday, 4 October 2021 8:49 PMTo: Sebastian Azagra FloresCc: Philip Mallis; OSM Australian Talk ListSubject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 18:18, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:The question is when is a foothpath with bicycles=yes considered a shared path?Should a shared paths be used over footpath=yes ? From my NSW perspective, shared paths are always tagged as bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=no. Most are highway=cycleway but this is more just by convention, and a bit of bias from cyclists, highway=footway or highway=path are equally okay in my opinion. Never heard of footpath=yes before, it's undocumented and has practically no use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:footpath. What do you use footpath=yes to mean? 

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Philip Mallis]

Hi all, (not sure why my previous message didn’t come through). I’m a mapper and a transport planner who deals a lot with this issue in my work. To clarify, VicPol are not the authority on what is or isn’t permitted on a path. What is signed ‘on the ground’ and in the legislation (Victorian Road Rules and Road Management Act) is what counts. Moreover, there are small legal complexities as to what is or isn’t legally considered a ‘bicycle lane’ or ‘shared user path’ that goes into detail beyond OSM mapping (e.g. the placement and types of signs, linemarking types, etc.). A blanket ‘bicycle=no’ tag on footpaths by default would not work for many of the reasons already stated in this discussion. For one, there are several exceptions to this rule as already outlined by others. Moreover, it is often not immediately obvious that a ‘footpath’ is a designated shared user or bicycle only path – especially from aerial or streetside imagery. Signs designating shared paths are sometimes damaged and forgotten to be replaced, linemarkings fade or any number of other reasons, while that path may still be legally designated as use permitted by people on bikes. In almost all cases, it is the local council who determine what is or isn’t a shared user or other off-road path. Under the Road Management Act, councils are responsible for all pathways in road reserves, regardless of whether the carriageway itself is a state arterial or local road. Most parks and reserves are also under the jurisdiction of local councils. As a result, I’d be inclined to leave the status quo of leaving ‘bicycle=*’ as blank unless there is a specific (legal) sign or linemarking stating otherwise (one way or the other). One further complication is that sometimes shared paths are built in new estates, outlined in masterplans and legally designated by local councils when they take over care & management of the street network, but signage and linemarking is sometimes just forgotten. In these cases, I’d be checking with local councils and/or VicMap to confirm their status, regardless of what is or isn’t signed or linemarked. Hope this helps. Kind regards, Philip From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.orgSent: Monday, 4 October 2021 12:07 PMTo: talk-au@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 8 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to    talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit    https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to    talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at    talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."  Today's Topics:    1. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Graeme Fitzpatrick)   2. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Philip Mallis)   3. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Andy Townsend)  -- Message: 1Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 07:52:02 +1000From: Graeme Fitzpatrick To: Andy Townsend Cc: OSM-Au Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian pathsMessage-ID:    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks for that, Andy. In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "AllowedAccess" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowedaccording to signs or specific local laws". Thanks Graeme Thanks Graeme  On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 at 19:40, Andy Townsend  wrote:> > On 03/10/2021 04:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:> > > > I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that signage & local laws would then apply?> > (on the very narrow question of what "bicycle=designated" means in OSM)> > "=designated" is a somewhat confusingly named tag - it sounds like it ought to mean what you say above, but in practice the definition at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated is actually:> > "indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport"> > It's a way of saying "you might have a right to get from A to B via X, Y or Z, but the route via X has been specifically constructed for your mode of transport so you should go that way".> > An example I've added myself is at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894921545#map=17/53.36085/-1.25653 near Sheffield in the UK - there's a legal right of foot access directly across the road between the two kissing gates shown in OSM on the left of that view, but there's a sign directing foot traffic east to the roundabout where it's safer to cross the road, before walking back along the other carriageway of the road.> > In OSM &q

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Philip Mallis]

Hi all, I’m a mapper and a transport planner who deals a lot with this issue in my work. To clarify, VicPol are not the authority on what is or isn’t permitted on a path. What is signed ‘on the ground’ and in the legislation (Victorian Road Rules and Road Management Act) is what counts. Moreover, there are small legal complexities as to what is or isn’t legally considered a ‘bicycle lane’ or ‘shared user path’ that goes into detail beyond OSM mapping (e.g. the placement and types of signs, linemarking types, etc.). A blanket ‘bicycle=no’ tag on footpaths by default would not work for many of the reasons already stated in this discussion. For one, there are several exceptions to this rule as already outlined by others. Moreover, it is often not immediately obvious that a ‘footpath’ is a designated shared user or bicycle only path – especially from aerial or streetside imagery. Signs designating shared paths are sometimes damaged and forgotten to be replaced, linemarkings fade or any number of other reasons, while that path may still be legally designated as use permitted by people on bikes. In almost all cases, it is the local council who determine what is or isn’t a shared user or other off-road path. Under the Road Management Act, councils are responsible for all pathways in road reserves, regardless of whether the carriageway itself is a state arterial or local road. Most parks and reserves are also under the jurisdiction of local councils. As a result, I’d be inclined to leave the status quo of leaving ‘bicycle=*’ as blank unless there is a specific (legal) sign or linemarking stating otherwise (one way or the other). One further complication is that sometimes shared paths are built in new estates, outlined in masterplans and legally designated by local councils when they take over care & management of the street network, but signage and linemarking is sometimes just forgotten. In these cases, I’d be checking with local councils and/or VicMap to confirm their status, regardless of what is or isn’t signed or linemarked. Hope this helps. Kind regards, Philip  From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.orgSent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 10:07 PMTo: talk-au@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 7 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to    talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit    https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to    talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at    talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."  Today's Topics:    1. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Sebastian Azagra Flores)   2. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Andy Townsend)  -- Message: 1Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 19:20:13 +1100From: Sebastian Azagra Flores To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.auCc: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian pathsMessage-ID: <4a2c53af-0458-42a4-8f61-88d204c9a...@me.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I don?t think we should blame routing software, if there is fundamental issue in the data set it uses to undertake the routing.In my experience, where paths are correctly tagged, the routing software will not venture onto paths where the permissions do not permit it. For the majority of instances, there aren?t any issues. In some instances, the footpaths are set to bicycle=yes which is in correct. I have ventured out on the bike to verify that there was a sign to allow bicycles but to no avail. > On 3 Oct 2021, at 6:07 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:> > This really is all already covered under:> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability> > and > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render> er> > (which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router").> > -Original Message-> From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  > Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 16:34> To: Kim Oldfield ; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths> > Hi all> > I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we will> never be sure what the law is.> > Given that uncertainty we have two principles to choose from, I'll call them> the "precautionary principle" and the "somebody else's problem" principle.> (Maybe better called the ground truth principle.)> > I hope this does not misrepresent anybody's position but I think Sebastian> Azagra would say that we have a moral responsibility to protect people from> the risk of getting a large fine.> > I and others have argued that we OSM should stop at recording what is on the> ground and leave the difficult legal interpretation to map renderers.> > Not sure how we arrive at a 

[talk-au] Mapping hook turns for bicycles

[Philip Mallis]

Hi all, An increasingly common feature at intersections in Melbourne is installing facilities specifically for people riding bikes to be able to do a hook turn (I.e. waiting to the left side of the road before waiting for a green signal on the perpendicular road). Here is an example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/philipmallis/50515824341/in/photostream/ What would be the best way to map this in OSM? Thanks, Philip

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

[talk-au] Access tagging for dogs

[Philip Mallis]

Hi all,

I am looking at a few areas in parks across Melbourne where dogs are prohibited 
(e.g. through this gate to Kew Billabong: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1072284074) 

I’ve tried looking in a few places for guidance, but there isn’t anything other 
than this abandoned tagging schema proposal from 2012: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Dog 

What would be the best way to tag features to indicate that dogs (or cats, for 
that matter) are prohibited?

Thanks,

Philip


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

[talk-au] DELWP Victorian property data

[Philip Mallis]

Hi all,

I noticed today on the new DELWP MapShareVic website that property
boundaries and addresses have been included: http://mapshare.maps.vic.gov.au

Data page here:
http://services.land.vic.gov.au/SpatialDatamart/dataSearchViewMetadata.html?anzlicId=ANZVI0803002578=1


It's a CC-BY 4.0 License, but has anyone tried asking DELWP in the past for
specific permission for this to be included in OSM?

Thanks,

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

[talk-au] Foss4G-SotM Oceania OSM Workshops

[Philip Mallis]

Hi all,

We are currently putting out a call for workshops and presentations for the 
upcoming FoSS4G-SotM Oceania Conference this November.

It would be great to have some OSM-themed workshops on the Community Day, which 
will be open and free to all who are interested.

You can find more information on the program and how to submit a proposal on 
our website: https://foss4g-oceania.org/present/call-presentations-and-workshops

The deadline to submit is 31 July, so get cracking!

Any questions, please feel free to ask.

Thanks,

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

Re: [talk-au] Road name abbreviation exception?

[Philip Mallis]

It depends on the context. St Kilda in Melbourne is another example where that 
is used instead of 'Saint'.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Jun 2018, at 10:28, cleary  wrote:
> 
> In New South Wales, the Geographic Names Board register shows the Sydney 
> suburb Mount Druitt (no abbreviation) while the adjacent suburb is St Marys 
> (always St and never Saint). The same applies to places named St Peters and 
> St Leonards. Using the word "Saint" would not accord with the places' 
> official names. 
> 
> I understand there is a tendency to remove sectarian references so that "St" 
> can be pronounced as the speaker wishes and is not necessarily "Saint".
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, at 5:21 AM, Nathan Ginther (Insight Global Inc) wrote:
>> Hello all, our team has come into an interesting situation regarding road 
>> name abbreviations, we know that as a policy we spell out any and all 
>> abbreviations on the OSM map, however it looks like we may have run into an 
>> exception in the use of “Saint vs St” 
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Invalid_Abbreviation_Expansion).  It 
>> looks like the use of “St” instead of spelling out “Saint” is accepted 
>> within the mapping community, and might be the proper English spelling, but 
>> we want to get the response from the community as what is the 
>> accepted/preferred use when naming roads specifically, should we be spelling 
>> out Saint, or using St?
>> ___
>> 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] poor business listing edits

[Philip Mallis]

Agreed. Spent a lot of time removing spam business edits in and around 
Federation Square in Melbourne. They are fairly obvious spam accounts and I 
don't see benefit from trying to engage with them.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 May 2018, at 17:18, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
>> On 10 May 2018 at 10:29, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In reverting, OSM looses the information that these new people made. 
>> OSM also looses a potential new mapper, as I doubt they will return 
>> following their attempted addition being removed.
>> 
>> There are large additions in some parts of the world being made from 
>> commercial firms - eg petrol stations. These too are a form of 'spam'. 
>> I have no problem with a firm adding their details to the map... spam? Yes, 
>> it is a form of advertising... but they can only add facts .. no flummery. 
>> So I am for it. 
> 
> These edits are hallmark seo spam, likely all done by the same organisation, 
> following the same instructions. They all have the same traits (new username 
> for each edit they make, named after the company, abuse the changeset comment 
> with spam, never use a primary key to describe what it is they are adding, 
> never use the correct format for phone, never reply to changeset comments, 
> always have spammy description, and sometimes add business which don't have 
> any on the ground presence where they add the node. The organisation(s) 
> behind these systematic edits have had enough time to learn and work with the 
> community but they have shown no interest in doing that.
> 
> Honestly given they don't take changeset comments into account, I think it's 
> a waste of time to try to help them edit better, we've tried and it hasn't 
> changed the way they work with OSM.
> 
>> On 10 May 2018 at 11:34,  wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> I have attempted to define SEO spam at 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Spam#SEO_Spam
>> 
>> It would be good to have guidelines on what to do with SEO spam, I am often 
>> unsure when to revert. My thoughts are that it can be immediately reverted 
>> if it looks like SEO spam and it either:
>> a)breaks existing features
>> b)is impossibly located, post office, school, park etc.
>> or
>> c)is not matched by contact details on their website
>> 
> 
> I think that's fair, when it's hallmark of the same SEO spam we've been 
> seeing, they aren't new to OSM and aren't genuine in what they are doing.
> 
> If it doesn't match and there is a chance it's a real person, I think we 
> should be do what we'd normally do if it was a local mapper who's just new 
> and try to help them out. If it's just someone mapping their own business, 
> they're much more likely to reply to a note about their recent edit.
>  
>> Case (c) is the more controversial, most of these SEO spam entries are for 
>> home based businesses with no verifiable office or shop. In accepting these 
>> listings its reasonable to expect a physical location which is supported by 
>> the addr:housenumber and addr:street and the contact details on their 
>> website. (If they don't want to publicise the location of their business on 
>> their website there is very unlikely to be anything verifiable on the 
>> ground).
> 
> I agree, ideally it should be verifiable.
> ___
> 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] Tagging dog off-lead areas

[Philip Mallis]

Hi all,

I have been considering how to tag parks that allow dogs to be off-lead. I’ve 
had a look through the discussion on a proposed feature on OSM Wiki but there 
doesn’t appear to be a useful consensus 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Key:Dog.

Does anyone have ideas or a precedent on how to proceed for an Australian 
context?

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

[talk-au] Issues with a user putting back incorrect tags

[Philip Mallis]

Hi all,

I am seeking advice on how to proceed with an issue around Melbourne and 
Victoria regarding tagging of abandoned/disused railway stations and railways.

The Outer Circle Line is a railway that has been almost entirely ripped up and 
abandoned. The former track and its stations were previously incorrectly tagged 
with railway=station which meant that they showed up on the default OSM layer, 
in navigation apps and other places where they should not appear. I and others 
have been changing them to the correct railway:historic=station_site or 
railway:historic=station as per the consensus here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway_stations#Stations_and_sites_which_are_not_currently_in_operation.
 Unfortunately, every time these tags have been corrected, the user has changed 
them back.

One of the recent instances is here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4695022174/history 

I have tried messaging the user twice but no response was received and, as of 
eight days ago, the reverting has continued. I know of at least three other 
users who have also tried contacting this user over the past year or so to no 
avail.

Any advice on how to proceed?

Thanks,

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