Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Josh Marshall]

Hi Ian,

You can copy+paste the URL when you’re looking at the section in question
on openstreetmap.org.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=menang%20drive#map=18/-34.96511/117.82114=D

I’ve turned the data layer on so you can just click on the nodes and ways
to see their details, and then you can copy that URL to reference it:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/853070680

So on to the question, I suspect it’s a router issue, but quite possibly
something to do with Menang Drive having tagging with bicycle=yes
cycleway:left=yes etc, but the Albany Highway ways not having anything of
the sort, not even lane quantity.

Probably not relevant, but that greater intersection looks like it’s been
mapped with a variety of aerial sources but without imagery offsets being
taken into account. The Maxar layer looks like the most recent, and once I
aligned that best I could (5.24, -9.89), there are still a number of roads
that are well off the imagery.

And the little bike diversions for merging across aren’t mapped… but good
riddance, they’re definitely designed by someone who thinks that it’s fine
for cyclists on major highways who could be doing 35 km/h to slam on the
brakes to take a 90º  turn to cross a lane… ugh.

On 7 Jun 2023, at 12:00 pm, Ian Steer  wrote:

My Garmin GPSMAP 66i gives misleading routing instructions at a new
intersection on Albany Highway near Albany when using OSM data.  I have
looked at the OSM data through JOSM and it all looks good.  I wondered if
anyone else can see what might be causing the strange routing instructions.

The explanation really needs pictures, so I’ve put them in Dropbox:

Screenshot 1 shows the first OSM way of the section in question
(highlighted in red) plus some annotations about the points where the GPS
has instructions for the two misleading manoeuvres:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mk7pmpucvp9y5q6/screenshot%201.jpg?dl=0

Screenshot 2 just shows the other OSM way that covers the section in
question:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wpfaip74htzbnyw/screenshot%202.JPG?dl=0

Screenshot 3 shows the routing instructions on the GPS:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4hy8r91c5syvq4d/screenshot%203.JPG?dl=0

I don’t know how to give OSM way references, but the intersection is at
S34.9647 and E117.8205 (Menang Drive and Albany Highway)

Has anyone got any clues why the GPS would be doing what it is doing ?

Thanks

Ian
___
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] Putting streams into OSM

[Josh Marshall]

Absolutely no offense was taken, hence the winky ;)... it was solely the
moment of realisation of my current ignorance on the matter... which I
don't take as a bad thing. It's a new opportunity to learn more, so much
thanks for taking the time to respond comprehensively and not just 'RTFM'
me. Will process the rest of your lengthy message shortly.

It's quite related, but for anyone into waterways, topology, and
aethestics, I discovered 'Relative Elevation Maps' the other day, and they
are *stunning*... would love to do the Hunter in this style.

Intro: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/19b6bfe0c3aa454c853bd6d9b7228adf
Dan making amazing art:
https://twitter.com/geo_coe/status/1549953305110929408 and
https://dancoecarto.com
Tech howto: https://michaelpaulschramm.com/posts/2022-09-20-lidar-rem/


On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 11:56, stevea  wrote:

> Josh (and talk-au list):  My remarks certainly were not meant to be or
> seem like an attack, against you or anybody in particular.  I apologize to
> you for my remarks:  I did not mean to attack you and I am sorry it came
> across that way.  It was a reply to Joseph Crowell's remarks (his "side
> note," really) that relations are "a nightmare to work with within iD and
> one of the main reasons people switch to another editor."  I was concurring
> with Joseph and wanted to strengthen that with my added "positive" by
> suggesting another editor (JOSM), which I consider superior for editing
> relations (especially compared to iD).
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Josh Marshall]

OMG... I am drooling looking at what you've done here. Just switched the
0212 in your overpass query for 0210 (Hunter River) and zoomed into the
Newcastle region... and voilá: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vuY

Was this the changeset that did your GA import for my area:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102326974 ? I think all my changes
since then have been building on that. My context here: I like random
exploration, and a someday goal is paddleboarding the local catchment.
(I've already run or ridden a fair bit of it, watercraft required now...)

Back to my overpass link: The blue now tells me which ways are missing a
relation... I don't think I need to do one for every stream, but there's a
few major ones I've missed. And this raises some questions for me...

Where do things sit with putting tags on the relation vs on the individual
ways? Intermittent= and waterway= obviously change from way to way and so
go on them, but name, destination, wikidata, etc? Feels like that should be
all on the relation, but renderers may not use that? (Asking pragmatically,
I'm well-aware of not mapping for rendering. But it does annoy me when you
search for some feature that is obviously part of a greater whole, and
there's no indication from a returned way that such is the case.)

Thanks.


On Sat, 27 May 2023 at 11:53, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 27/5/23 08:39, nwastra nwastra wrote:
> > I should add that I have only used the Surface Hydrology Lines from
> GeoScience Aust dataset for Qld catchments and as the data is drawn for
> many different sources across the country the perenniality may be not
> always be included.
>
> I admit I've been too lazy to publish the stuff I'd already done with
> the GA dataset. Rather than making people do it all again I've finally
> got round to putting it on GitHub https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams
>
> I have already imported in the named streams in NSW except for the area
> around Sydney. Mostly, again, due to laziness. As already pointed out
> the data all needs to be sanity checked against what's on the ground and
> that's really hard when it's under a city.
>
> The data is organised by AWRC catchment, so for Sydney you are looking at:
>
> https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams/blob/main/Basin_II/II12.osm.gz
>
> which is the Hawkesbury River and
>
> https://github.com/FrakGart/ga_streams/blob/main/Basin_II/II13.osm.gz
>
> which is Sydney Coast-Georges River
>
> You can use overpass turbo to see what is already mapped:
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vpu (Hawkesbury River)
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vpv (Sydney Coast-Georges River)
>
>
> ___
> 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] Putting streams into OSM

[Josh Marshall]

Hey stevea, was this warning on relations due to any particular remark in
this thread? ... I feel attacked! ;)  given I've used iD to edit relations
quite a bit: I don't usually edit them, but more just adding new ones.
Except for re-adding ways when they got deleted from a route, when
others changed them. I also wouldn't dream of touching the coastline. :)
I've always tried to be very careful to not break anything, but now I'm
concerned I've inadvertently done that. (Username is `neomanic` if you want
to critique my work.)

I realise this is a bit of a n00b question, but could you possibly provide
some pointers to the better _current_ documentation and resources on
understanding relations well and editing in JOSM? Now that OSM has been
around for a while, I find it overwhelming to sort through and figure out
what is current best practice, and so I've put off approaching learning
more with a structured approach.

Thanks.

On Mon, 29 May 2023 at 12:40, stevea  wrote:

> I've said all this before:  while editing relations in iD is technically
> possible, it is tedious and difficult in the opinion of many.  A great many
> existing relations have also been broken by people using iD (I can't count
> how many I have personally experienced).  I find editing relations with iD
> to also be a "nightmare," but I don't want to so viciously disparage iD,
> even as I do want to discourage others from using it as a reliable,
> suitable, comfortable, intuitive relation editor.  (It is not).
>
> That said, if you are going to edit relations (from this thread:  streams,
> waterways, coastlines, islands...but also many other more-sophisticated and
> complex-structured data) within OSM, please do so using an editor that
> strongly supports good relation editing.  I use JOSM and recommend it,
> though I realize that JOSM is not everybody's cup of tea, either.
>
> Think:  if you know nodes, ways and tags, but not relations, yet you want
> to edit data properly entered into OSM using relations (and which should
> ONLY be entered into OSM using relations), you must be able to edit
> relations.  And do so well, without more than the occasional minor error.
> OSM is not your sandbox for practice learning how to edit relations
> (poorly), though you are likely to do exactly that (in my opinion) using
> the iD editor to edit relations.  The map does not benefit by sloppy
> relations being entered by iD (or any editor).
>
> Learn the basics of OSM.  Next, learn "about" relations (their structure,
> conventions, the differing flavors of them...).  THEN learn HOW to edit
> relations using an editor that supports editing relations well, such as
> JOSM.  Though JOSM has a learning curve, it is worth it.  I do not consider
> iD to be a strong editor for relations, these are my opinions.  Thank you
> for reading.
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Josh Marshall]

On 26/05/2023 1:54 pm, Josh Marshall wrote:> But I’ve also made relations for all of our local streams and creeks;> go to the Newcastle area and search for Ironbark or Cottage Creek for>  instance… it used to just return a single hit on one small section> for almost every creek. My interest here is because much of the area> was uninhabitable swamp until there was a huge effort to put in some> monster drains in the 1890s. And yet it will still occasionally flood> and people complain about council not doing anyway…Just asking out of interest - what's the reason for using relations? Or is it specifically for the search that you mentioned?It’s recommended. From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway“If a waterway is named from its source to its destination, it's strongly suggested that all of its ways be placed in a waterway relation. Doing this allows Nominatim to group the ways together and return exactly one named result per named waterway that exists in OpenStreetMap.”___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Josh Marshall]

I map streams on the regular. Given most of what I map is bike + running single-track, streams are helpful as a clue to the local topography. But I’ve also made relations for all of our local streams and creeks; go to the Newcastle area and search for Ironbark or Cottage Creek for instance… it used to just return a single hit on one small section for almost every creek. My interest here is because much of the area was uninhabitable swamp until there was a huge effort to put in some monster drains in the 1890s. And yet it will still occasionally flood and people complain about council not doing anyway…Do note, the DCS map can be quite wrong in places… I’m pretty sure a lot of it was done once and then never updated.Arguably most streams in Australia are intermittent, I don’t think the definition is totally locked down, but when they are isolated sections of standing water in between rain, that is intermittent in my mind.  On 26 May 2023, at 8:00 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 22:26, Tom Brennan  wrote:I'm looking at adding missing stream data in national parks around Sydney.

However, how much value is there in bringing in all of the stream data 
in say the DCS Base Map vs just the named streams?

I can see for example, the value in bringing in named streams. But there 
are huge numbers of smaller (unnamed) streams.It's not a bad idea, as it would let anybody needing water in the bush, know that there's a creek over there, & also let you know that if you go this way, you may get wet feet! :-)But, do DCS Base & Topo differentiate between permanent & intermittent creeks?ThanksGraeme
___Talk-au mailing listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tracks from Strava heatmap

[Josh Marshall]

I'm another big user of Strava for tracing... so thought I'd chime in with
my approach.

These days, not so simple to get access to the good heatmap direct in
editors, since they restricted the higher zoom levels to when you're logged
in. So since that change, when I'm in a rambling mood (which is most of the
time) I'll use the mobile app with both my own heatmap and the global one
on-screen to explore where I haven't been, and prioritise areas with
obvious heat but no OSM way in order to map them afterwards.

Actually got caught out in bushfire season once because I trusted OSM too
much, and had to bail out through an extended route that was closed.
Learned my lesson. I'm very slow to do it, but I have removed some tracks
in the past where there are no signs left on the ground... that was
definitely one time I didn't hesitate to do so.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 09:08, Adam Horan  wrote:

> According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strava and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions/Strava there is
> permission to trace from the Strava heatmap.
>
> (Which is fair enough given the extensive use they make of OSM maps for
> display and routing)
>
> Adam
>
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 08:42, Michael Collinson  wrote:
>
>> I use Strava heatmaps only as a "referential" source, i.e. seeing
>> potentially missing or badly misaligned paths and then taking a walk that
>> way. In addition to other comments about using them directly, I'd also
>> wonder whether Strava copyright allows it but have not explicitly analysed.
>>
>> In Sweden, I have found them a great referential source, but then we have
>> "all man's right" and off-path walking is not generally an issue so there
>> are many useful informal paths.
>>
>> Mike
>> On 2023-02-26 22:10, Adam Horan wrote:
>>
>> My view is also that Strava heatmaps are insufficient on their own to
>> prove a track. They do show that a reasonable number of people have passed
>> along a particular route in recent times. They don't prove a path or track,
>> and they give no indication of permissions.
>>
>> However I did look for details of way 963735356 in the Strava heatmap,
>> and there's very little in Strava in that area. It's possible the user did
>> have the heatmap open in iD but didn't trace all the routes from there.
>> Some might be 'local knowledge'.
>>
>> I do make use of the strava heatmaps frequently to refine the route of
>> known tracks, especially if there's lots of tree cover and you can't see
>> the tracks too well in imagery.
>> 10s or 100s of averaged GPS tracks is better than a single GPS track
>> which you might record yourself.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 18:24, Tom Brennan  wrote:
>>
>>> Do people have a view on the armchair mapping of tracks from Strava
>>> heatmaps?
>>>
>>> I can see a bunch of tracks in Kanangra-Boyd NP that have been mapped by
>>> an overseas mapper off Strava heatmap.
>>>
>>> They almost certainly don't exist on the ground. They are known
>>> bushwalking routes (off track), but would be very unlikely to have a
>>> track even in good times, let along after the fires and 3 years of La
>>> Nina!
>>>
>>> Example:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Tom
>>> 
>>> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
>>> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing 
>> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] NSW Bridal Track

[Josh Marshall]

Ah, I think I've let the mapping of tracks local to me influence my stance
too much. And for context of my interest here, my plan was to bikepack
the Track but that got put off due to covid and family.

The Australian guidelines don't say much about =tertiary, but bouncing over
to the main =tertiary page at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary:
"Outside urban areas, tertiary roads are those with low to moderate traffic
which link smaller settlements such as villages or hamlets. For quieter
linking roads, consider using highway=unclassified instead."

Given this along with your points, leaving it set as unclassified is likely
the right call.

And this discussion so far has modified my overall view to be:
- tertiary: roads that are used as genuine links between two towns
- unclassified: if driving it is more a recreational activity than a need
for a thoroughfare, even if it links two localities
- track: more limited access for whatever reason: drivability, lesser
usage, gated, spurs from unclassified, fire trails, etc

I'd agree with 4WD recommended, if coming from the south most camp sites
> can be accessed with little trouble in a reasonable vehicle.
>

The signage says 4WD-only in all the photos I've seen. But I've also driven
on the initial portion of 4WD-only track in a 2WD. Is the solution to note
the signage somehow, but tag the actual ways as to their genuine
accessibility ie south section = recommended, north section = required?
(Back in the early days of GPS navigation I was routed out of Wombeyan
Caves on the eastern side, which was an... experience.)


On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 19:32, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 21/2/23 14:42, Josh Marshall wrote:
>
> Australian road tagging guidelines at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads 
> arguably
> override the general OSM guidelines, and they read:
>
> highway=track: "Service and access roads that aren't part of the general
> road network. Generally not paved, often not public access for
> vehicles."... in rural "Fire trails, forest drives, 4WD tracks, and similar
> roads.
>
> highway=unclassified is: "Minor roads that are neither tertiary or
> residential roads. Not generally through routes."
>
> Given that, I'd argue =track is the right option.
>
>
> The Bridal Track is open to the public, part of the general road network
> and a through route. It would never have been reopened if it was not for
> public money. at lest not reopened to the public.
>
> So from that you could say tertiary. I'd not go that far.
>
>
> A tangent, but I'm rather happy that iD _*finally_* fixed their English
> description for =track (it included "unmaintained" for a long time; many
> were quite annoyed at the original change to include that)... and I can't
> find any discussion about why they finally gave in and reverted it! Vested
> interest, since it along with =path are likely my two most used, given I
> map a lot of bush with fire trails and run/ride singletrack.
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 09:23, cleary  wrote:
>
>>
>> The name should not constrain the classification of the highway  (e.g.
>> Dowling Track, Ooodnadatta Track). And, as I've commented previously in
>> other threads, the DCS NSW Base Map can be quite outdated.
>>
>> However, a quick look at a YouTube video suggests that the Bridle Track
>> should still be tagged as 4WD only (it was signposted as such and probably
>> still is). Wikipedia reports that part of the route is new, apparently a
>> diversion around the landslide that blocked the old track at Monaghans
>> Bluff. I'd prefer not to change the OSM tags etc until someone surveys the
>> route.
>>
>
> The Bridal Track has been brought up to a very high standard ... so the
> pollies would have no trouble opening ! It will not stay that way - I have
> been told no water truck was used in the constructions ..
>
> I'd agree with 4WD recommended, if coming from the south most camp sites
> can be accessed with little trouble in a reasonable vehicle. The problem is
> the hill going upto Hill End .. t6hat can get lost of erosion .. and it is
> narrow with blind corners.
>
> I do know the Track fairly well from a number of trips. The diversion
> looks to be less of an obstruction compared to the more difficult bits, at
> leas until it is weathered..
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, at 9:17 PM, Warin wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > This track is now continuous having been closed due to a rock fall and
>> > road collapse at Monaghans Bluff.
>> >
>> >
>> > Given the importance of the road and that it is not really a 'track' in
>> > th

Re: [talk-au] NSW Bridal Track

[Josh Marshall]

Australian road tagging guidelines at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads
arguably
override the general OSM guidelines, and they read:

highway=track: "Service and access roads that aren't part of the general
road network. Generally not paved, often not public access for
vehicles."... in rural "Fire trails, forest drives, 4WD tracks, and similar
roads.

highway=unclassified is: "Minor roads that are neither tertiary or
residential roads. Not generally through routes."

Given that, I'd argue =track is the right option.

A tangent, but I'm rather happy that iD _*finally_* fixed their English
description for =track (it included "unmaintained" for a long time; many
were quite annoyed at the original change to include that)... and I can't
find any discussion about why they finally gave in and reverted it! Vested
interest, since it along with =path are likely my two most used, given I
map a lot of bush with fire trails and run/ride singletrack.


On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 09:23, cleary  wrote:

>
> The name should not constrain the classification of the highway  (e.g.
> Dowling Track, Ooodnadatta Track). And, as I've commented previously in
> other threads, the DCS NSW Base Map can be quite outdated.
>
> However, a quick look at a YouTube video suggests that the Bridle Track
> should still be tagged as 4WD only (it was signposted as such and probably
> still is). Wikipedia reports that part of the route is new, apparently a
> diversion around the landslide that blocked the old track at Monaghans
> Bluff. I'd prefer not to change the OSM tags etc until someone surveys the
> route.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, at 9:17 PM, Warin wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > This track is now continuous having been closed due to a rock fall and
> > road collapse at Monaghans Bluff.
> >
> >
> > Given the importance of the road and that it is not really a 'track' in
> > the OSM sense (Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses) ... and
> > that the DCS Base Map places it at least tertiary level I would think
> > that all of this 'track' be classified in OSM as 'unclassified'.
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping surf breaks

[Josh Marshall]

Hi Graeme and all,

I tasked the kid with drawing the ideal surf map, and he’s really stuck
into it… and it’s given me more to think about how the features should be
drawn.

On 25 Aug 2022, at 9:20 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

Wondering whether you need to have conditional at all?

How about

sport=surfing
surfing:direction=NE
surfing:size=4ft
surfing:wind=W-SW

& make it clear in the wiki that these are the typical / usual conditions.



I take away the point from your comment that surf breaks are *always*
conditional, so it’s superfluous to name them so.

I agree.

I like the idea of separate tags too:
- some may be more necessary than others
- better than trying to cram them all into one
- can be added to over time, rather than a formalised :conditional=

surfing:size=4ft


One thing about size. Here at least (GC) surf reports always quote feet,
not metres. Does that change by location?


Always feet. When surfers talk about wave size, it’s much like fishing
aficionados talking about the size of their catch, if you know what I’m
getting at.

But “size” is variable, what would need to be tagged is “minimum swell
size” for a break to be rideable… which is a more scientific measure and
reported formally.

I found this article to be the most succinct and detached summary of
conditions required for particular breaks:
https://unravelsurftravel.com/understanding-waves/

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping surf breaks

[Josh Marshall]

Hi Frederik,

At first I was a little annoyed at what I thought to be obvious things to
consider in your message, as what I am trying to do with this discussion is
exactly to cover those issues... but I always run a little search first,
and that very much changed my tune to saying I am quite honoured to have
you reply to my little proposal. :)

I am also a non-surfer, but my son is approaching elite level (it's not
from my side of the family), and so this is somewhat a collaborative
effort, and he has become quite engaged by the thought of an open
repository of information on surfing.

He has already prepared a spreadsheet with all the attributes required to
describe a break, which are practically identical already to those
suggested by Phil Wyatt in the response following yours. The primary
"conditions" are swell direction and size, wind direction and tide. I have
yet to fully think them through, but my instinction is to do it in a
fashion similar to `:conditional` (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions), perhaps:

sport=surfing
surfing:conditional=swell-direction@NE-E;swell-size@3m+;wind@S-WSW (and so
on)

Now in another sense this is getting a bit ahead of the game... I am
thinking as a part of this there would need to be a dedicated map
server+site for highlighting the surfing options (hopefully I will have the
time for this)... and until there is I think it's okay to experiment with
the tagging. Because in general a surfer would also be able to determine
the conditions by looking at the map and a current weather forecast.

So I am collating all these thoughts, and will put them together into the
discussion on the sport=surfing tag to take it forward, while doing a
little experimentation in my local area.

Regards,
Josh

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 20:48, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> non-Australian and non-surfer here but please remember that stuff you
> map in OSM must be reasonably verifiable.
>
> If you map a great surf spot which only exists when some external
> conditions align, then it might be hard for others to verify (they'd
> have to wait for the conditions to align).
>
> As a non-surfer I would assume that "the wind and waves are just right"
> is something that could make a perfect surf spot nearly everywhere, and
> surfers would not be helped by a map showing lots of spots that might be
> great if "the wind and waves are just right" ;)
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping surf breaks

[Josh Marshall]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 20:02, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23/8/22 18:15, Josh Marshall wrote:
>
> tl;dr - I’m interested in getting more surfing-centric tagging into OSM,
> hopefully leading to an open surfing map. And want to check on what would
> be appropriate. In an analogous way to how cycling is treated, along with
> trail running, my own sports of choice.
>
> Hi, welcome.
>
Thanks! But I've been lurking and sporadically posting here for a long time
now. I see what goes on! But mainly stick to editing my local area and
anywhere I visit.

Mostly land based things. Can you give a few examples?
>
> I found this one,
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1009395310
>
> looks to be both surfing sand swimming...
>
Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing. And better yet, why aren't our
beaches, like the typical patrolled locations marked in such a way as that
swimming_area too? Scope creep, anyone? This gets me more engaged, because
I go to the beach plenty even if I don't surf myself. Starting to smell
like an Aussie wiki page on how to tag beaches and surf spots.

This is my local... I spend plenty of time here, even sometimes just parked
in my van and remote working. Perhaps I should do some mapping/tapping
based on what we discuss there, then bring it back for further chat?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-32.92433/151.79302

Are there any concerns on me taking the idea and running with it? It would
> be good at least to flesh out the wiki page on what tags can or should be
> applied. I already have a spreadsheet from the grommie on the various
> attributes of a surf break (left and right waves, tide/swell/wind
> required). Does this require a formal proposal?
>
> There are those that say yes to a formal proposal, others nay.
>
> You may have noticed my Hills Hoist thing.. I raised it here to see what
> reaction I got and to seek ideas. I have now raised it on the tagging group
> for more of an international view and will raise it on the russian wiki
> page on the 'umbrella' tag.
>
> I would think you may get some feed back here to start with.. then raise
> it on the talk page
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:sport%3Dsurfing
>
Yep, your post on the Hills Hoist probably helped prompt me into this
idea... and I've added my own thoughts there. Hills Hoist mapathon, anyone?

I might try mapping just a handful of the local breaks to tease out some of
the nuance, then write up and post on the wiki talk page.

As the break would be a water feature I'd use a water tag
> waterway=surf_break ??? That could be a way where the break first occurs ..
> possibly sub tags such as break=left/right/* This would be the physical
> feature for use with sport=surfing...
>
> Just my idea.. you may have more/different?
>
That's exactly the sort of thing I was after. It is *visible* after all,
just a bit hard to explain, so a waterway=surf_break makes sense.

My own pause relates to how even though surf breaks are physical locations
> (would be mapped as either areas or points), they are tied to underwater
> features and topography such as reefs, not necessarily visible from the
> surface. And so will rely heavily on local knowledge. But if not rendered
> by default, there’s no problem with that, right?
>
> The surf break may be visible on some of the satellite imagery. Mapbox off
> Tamarama Beach, Sydney looks large.
>

Yep, noted as well. I checked the ones near me... some visible on aerial,
some not. Guessing it depends on conditions!
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Mapping surf breaks

[Josh Marshall]

tl;dr - I’m interested in getting more surfing-centric tagging into OSM, 
hopefully leading to an open surfing map. And want to check on what would be 
appropriate. In an analogous way to how cycling is treated, along with trail 
running, my own sports of choice.


The long story:
My teenage son is quite the avid bodyboarder, and we just got back from at 
weekend at the Aussie national championships in Port Macquarie… Which leads 
into me realising as I try to wrap my head around the sport, that there’s very 
little surfing-centric content in OSM. Doubly strange in Australia. And we’re 
homeschooling, so… hello geography, cartography, environment, etc, lessons.

I printed out a map of our local (Newcastle) beaches using fieldpapers.org, and 
got him to draw them in, then uploaded it.  The FP page is here: 
https://fieldpapers.org/snapshots/ubcffu8v but that doesn’t seem to display the 
output properly, download the geotiff to view. Here’s the map tiles of it: 
http://tiles.fieldpapers.org/snapshots/ubcffu8v/{z}/{x}/{y}.png

I looked up what was already present in OSM, and it centres on the tag 
sport=surfing, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dsurfing 
According to the overpass query https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1lgi it is already 
applied to a few surf breaks (sometimes not very precisely), surf shops, 
venues, and learn-to-surf organisations. I will explore more thoroughly.

Are there any concerns on me taking the idea and running with it? It would be 
good at least to flesh out the wiki page on what tags can or should be applied. 
I already have a spreadsheet from the grommie on the various attributes of a 
surf break (left and right waves, tide/swell/wind required). Does this require 
a formal proposal? 

My own pause relates to how even though surf breaks are physical locations 
(would be mapped as either areas or points), they are tied to underwater 
features and topography such as reefs, not necessarily visible from the 
surface. And so will rely heavily on local knowledge. But if not rendered by 
default, there’s no problem with that, right?___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Josh Marshall]

My 2¢ here, as both an avid runner/hiker and bike rider (in NSW). Most of my 
editing is along those lines, along with tracks through the bush when I go 
exploring. I’m particularly conscious of routing issues and fixing them if 
there’s an issue†, given I use a number of route planners that use OSM††.

The following is how I have been tagging with new ways. I don’t change existing 
ones unless there’s a good reason.

I have understood highway=footway as paths that are an alternative to a road 
that runs parallel, and are only for use by pedestrians for their safety and 
comfort. 

My stance here was most likely due to my initial exposure via iD’s "Foot Path”* 
so I associated them with the common definition. And footway is by default 
bicycles=undesignated, which suits Australia well with our differing laws on 
bicycles allowed on footpaths.^

Whereas once they diverge from being the "pedestrian lane” of roads and become 
a separate access route in their own right, I have been tagging as 
highway=path. Particularly as these are default access to all traffic except 
vehicular, and specifically bicycle=yes.

(highway=cycleway is also a little tricky in its overlap with =path. At least 
around me, it seems the major shared paths that form commuting links are tagged 
cycleway and foot=yes, so I’ve been happy to roll with that approach.)

Cheers,
Josh


Footnotes:
† A big one recently was the M1 on/off-ramps for both exits at Karuah, north of 
Newcastle… they all had bicycles=no, and the routing to get around that was so 
bad I had to fix it as 

†† Strava, Komoot, and the fabulous indie mobile app Footpath (nothing better 
for planning and quickly checking a route, imho) all had the same error with 
the Karuah ramps, so I knew the problem was with the underlying OSM tagging.

* Not quite as controversial as the highway=track drama, as far as I can tell.

^ I’m in NSW where it’s not legal for age>16 riders to go on the footpath… but 
there are some footpaths that are very short sections that add better bicycle 
connectivity, and would only ever be used by casual and commuting cyclists. For 
these I have added bicycle=yes to the footpath. Example: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1026269344 Use case: my newly high-schooling 
son riding to school.


> On 2 Feb 2022, at 11:24 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
> 
> 
> I rarely map things that aren’t urban footpaths.
>  
> So generally footway or cycleway. As I’m generally mapping in Queensland, 
> where there isn’t much if any legal distinction between general footpath and 
> a signed “shared path”, I’m using footway or cycleway depending on how cycle 
> friendly (wide enough, no low hanging branches, smooth enough surface, …) I 
> find the way, simply to get them to render differently in Carto, though the 
> legal access restrictions for routing purposes are identical.
>  
> In the rare cases where I did map paths “in the woods”, I’ve usually used 
> path (or track, depending…).
>  
> Cheers,
> Thorsten
>  
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Josh Marshall]

> On 25 Jan 2022, at 2:46 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 00:11, Josh Marshall  <mailto:josh.p.marsh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> my searching led me to put these tags on a certain walking path: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403832368#map=16/-32.5573/152.2856 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403832368#map=16/-32.5573/152.2856> Please 
> advise if I'm going about that the right way with the conditional:foot and 
> :bicycles tag.
> 
> Looks good, I see someone added these foot:conditional examples now to 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks> which is very 
> helpful.

Yes, that was me, thought it better to just put them in there rather than just 
having a howto hidden in the email archive for the list, after it took me a 
little while to work it out.

I’m guessing you added this section Andrew, there’s a bit of ambiguity with the 
final row on the table of examples which says...

> Off-track when not part of an official walking route  Walking routes 
> off-track without any signage or official route. Should not be mapped in OSM 
> at all, or if they are controversially edited consider not:highway=* with a 
> note=* indicating why it should not be mapped.


Should this be limited to “within National Parks areas” or something to that 
effect? It contradicts the Informal Walking Track row higher up. I’m invested 
here… there are tons of trails in my area which I believe to be private land 
but have landowners that don’t mind the access, or may be crown land but public 
access, but either way have some well-maintained trails by volunteers. See the 
network of trails at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-32.98762/151.70793 
for instance.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Josh Marshall]

Thanks for putting that effort in, Andrew. I've played devil's advocate and
added the reasons "why not" to your page: really it all concerns bad or
rather, incomplete, rendering choices.

This is actually on my mind right now, as this Saturday passed I rode from
Forster to Newcastle via the paths and roads through Myall Lakes NP. I was
horrendously confused at one stage, when all the maps (yes, both GMaps and
OSM both) had Mungo Brush Rd in the wrong location. It was relocated in
2019 (!) as per
https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/park-management/community-engagement/relocating-mungo-brush-road-myall-lakes-national-park
. See my changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116520666 for
the update.

There were also some trails earlier in my ride that were closed, and in the
interest of not-self-incriminating I would certainly not admit to
attempting to traverse them or getting somewhat lost and trekking through
swamp in the progress, definitely not. But my subsequent OSM updates ran up
against how to tag them as closed temporarily, and my searching led me to
put these tags on a certain walking path:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403832368#map=16/-32.5573/152.2856 Please
advise if I'm going about that the right way with the conditional:foot and
:bicycles tag.

I'm also contemplating attempting this (ahem) leisurely walk [
http://www.john.chapman.name/nsw-tops.html], after seeing it tagged for a
short length of trail in OSM at [
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700619505]... I'm guessing adding it is a
no-go until I actually walk it myself, given the last documentation of it
dates to 2000 and I will have to go to the local library to get ahold of
the book mentioned.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 22:59, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 17:26, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> I agree that a good discussion is useful but at the same time the OSM
>> community needs to understand what a hassle it can be to have these tracks
>> in OSM and having no, or little, control on how any other app/web
>> interface
>> may show them.
>>
>> I actually favour deletion as well but understand that is not the 'OSM way
>> of doing things'. A full discussion may help the agency, and OSM
>> contributors understand the issues on both sides.
>>
>> I also think it would be useful for others to join in the US trails group
>> so
>> that a more international perspective can be applied to this issue. The
>> situation can be very different across countries (especially legally).
>>
>
> Inspired by the US trails group work, I thought maybe we can attempt
> something localised for Australia.
>
> I started sketching something out at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks. If anyone
> thinks this is a good idea, please feel free to contribute to that page.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] highway=track update

[Josh Marshall]

Eh, no time like the present. I may not leave these photos up forever but 
here’s just a quick sample of the variety of roads I go on. If we end up 
discussing these indepth I’ll put them somewhere permanent.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15u0CQQTI8GXhX8FeQcDvUoDUi9tByMWg?usp=sharing

I would be inclined to tag all of these as surface=unpaved and 
surface:unpaved=gravel, with the exception of 000 (surface:unpaved=rock?) and 
005 obviously (surface:unpaved=sand). And my views on the smoothness follow as 
well, and I’d suggest we update the wiki [0] to have more examples and relate 
it to more specific vehicles, bicycles, and foot access.

File_000 with the 4wd is an example of a fire trail with exposed rock, 
impassable except on foot, running. Too steep to ride a bike up unless you’re 
exceptionally skilled or electrified. The track at the top and bottom of the 
image is just bare ground, no added aggregate. (smoothness=horrible)

001: a typical trail on a power line easement. You can see the grading and 
aggregate, but also the bare rock starting to come through (smoothness=very_bad)

002: graded and aggregate (smoothness=bad)

003: fire trail left-to-right through a MTB park: graded and aggregate 
(smoothness=very_bad)

004: near the coast. aggregate added but grass has grown up 
(smoothness=very_bad)

005: sand fire trail (smoothness=horrible)


[0]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness


> On 4 Mar 2021, at 8:37 pm, Josh Marshall  wrote:
> 
> I do long runs through state forest and national park pretty much every 
> fortnight. I’ll start a collection and post them up in a few weeks. What’s 
> the best place to put them so they’re somewhat permanent?... and that raises 
> the question; do we start a proposal page according to [0] or take it to the 
> tagging mailing list first?
> 
> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process>
> 
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 7:57 pm, Sebastian S.  <mailto:mapp...@consebt.de>> wrote:
> Would you happen to have some photos of such unpaved roads?
> 
> In my opinion we should consider adding a new surface tag if we feel we need 
> one and can describe the surface sufficiently.
> 
> All this would start with some photos and a discussion in my opinion. Hence 
> the question.
> 
> Cheers,
> Seb
> 
> 
> 
> On 23 February 2021 5:22:43 pm AEDT, Josh Marshall  <mailto:josh.p.marsh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface> refers to railway ballast, 
> not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that usually occurs on unpaved 
> roads in Australia. However we call the fine unpaved surface "gravel" in 
> common parlance, and many unpaved roads that don't constitute gravel as 
> described in the OSM wiki have been tagged as gravel here, erroneously 
> depending on your point of view.
> 
> This is a matter of interest to me too. I spend a substantial amount of time 
> running+riding on fire trails in NSW (all highway=track), and the surface 
> type is useful and indeed used in a number of the route planners I use. I 
> have changed a few roads back to 'unpaved' from 'gravel' due to the rule of 
> following the description in the surface= guidelines rather than the name. 
> 
> My question then however, is exactly what to tag the tracks beyond "unpaved".
> 
> There are definitely sections that are somewhat regularly graded and appear 
> to have extra aggregate/fine gravel added. From the surface= wiki, these most 
> closely align with surface=compacted. But fine_gravel is potentially an 
> option too. Many of these are 2wd accessible when it is dry. (Typically 
> smoothness=bad.)
> 
> There are also others, usually less travelled, which are bare rock, clay, 
> dirt, sand, whatever was there. Is it best just to leave these as 
> surface=unpaved, and add a smoothness=very_bad or horrible tag? None of the 
> surface= tags really seem to apply.
> 
> 
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 16:45, Little Maps  <mailto:mapslit...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Brian and co, in Victoria and southern NSW where I've edited a lot of 
> roads, highway=track is nearly totally confined to dirt roads in forested 
> areas, as described in the Aus tagging guidelines, viz: " highway=track 
> Gravel fire trails, forest drives, 4WD trails and similar roads. Gravel roads 
> connecting towns etc. should be tagged as appropriate (secondary, tertiary or 
> unclassified), along with the surface=unpaved or more specific surface=* tag."
> 
> In your US-chat someone wrote, "...in the USA, "most" roads that "most" 
> people encounter (around here, in my experience, YMMV...) are surface=paved.

Re: [talk-au] highway=track update

[Josh Marshall]

This raises the question: how did the surface=gravel tag end up getting defined 
as large aggregate/railway ballast anyway, given it appears at odds with almost 
everyone’s usage of it, including other significant online references such as: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road (which matches the vernacular 
perfectly)?? Any OSM old-timers recall enough to comment? Is there actually 
anywhere in the world where roads are commonly done this way?

With regard to:
> Hi Josh and co, I ride a “gravel bike” on dirt roads that are signposted as 
> “gravel road”but definitely don’t fit the OSM definition of gravel = railway 
> ballast. 
and Michael’s
> I don't map much in the US but do in Australia and Sweden. In both countries, 
> I have rarely come across what I consider to be gravel roads, instead 
> consider most unpaved roads and tracks to be 'dirt' or 'compacted':

Same here. I might provide a single counter-example; the major through road in 
the Watagans near me was actually lined with this large ballast last time I 
rode through; an absolute nightmare to ride on, and I can’t imagine it’s too 
kind on vehicles either. Presumably an initial step before further surfacing? 
Has anyone else seen this surface?



> On 23 Feb 2021, at 8:44 pm, Little Maps  wrote:
> 
> Hi Josh and co, I ride a “gravel bike” on dirt roads that are signposted as 
> “gravel road”but definitely don’t fit the OSM definition of gravel = railway 
> ballast. Because of the common usage of gravel as a variably textured dirt 
> road in Australia, we face a massive uphill battle to get accurate, specific 
> unpaved road surfaces in OSM. Here’s some data from Overpass Turbo queries of 
> all unpaved highway surfaces in Victoria. This includes all highway tags (inc 
> roads and paths) not just tracks:
> 
> Surface  Number  Percent
> unpaved   48664   80
> gravel615910
> dirt  45598
> compacted 642 1.1
> sand  406 1
> fine_gravel   230 0.4
> earth 46  0
> Total 60706   100
> 
> In case that’s illegible, if you add all of these unpaved/dirt/gravel ways, 
> 80% are tagged with a generic unpaved tag (which is entirely accurate if not 
> especially precise). Gravel is the next most common category, accounting for 
> 10% of ways. Apart from dirt at 8%, the rest are used very rarely. 
> 
> My guess from tagging surfaces on a lot of unpaved roads is that perhaps 80% 
> of the roads tagged as gravel do not satisfy the OSM wiki definition and 
> should be tagged as something else. Interestingly, the two most relevant tags 
> for formed, unpaved surfaces - compacted and fine_gravel - are very rarely 
> used (around 1% each). There are probably more ways that have fence-sitting 
> tags like “dirt; sand; gravel” that end up being pretty meaningless. 
> 
> Adding precise surface tags may be simple on roads that are freshly 
> maintained but on roads that haven’t been maintained for a while they’re 
> often pretty difficult to assess anyway. 
> 
> Personally, I feel that there’s often too much emphasis in OSM on precision 
> (i.e. use detailed sub-tags) at the expense of accuracy. I believe most of 
> the generic unpaved tags are accurate. I wish I could, but unfortunately I 
> don’t believe many of the specific sub-tags are especially useful. (Sand is a 
> goody though!). Cheers Ian
> 
>> On 23 Feb 2021, at 5:22 pm, Josh Marshall  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel 
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface> refers to railway ballast, 
>> not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that usually occurs on unpaved 
>> roads in Australia. However we call the fine unpaved surface "gravel" in 
>> common parlance, and many unpaved roads that don't constitute gravel as 
>> described in the OSM wiki have been tagged as gravel here, erroneously 
>> depending on your point of view.
>> 
>> This is a matter of interest to me too. I spend a substantial amount of time 
>> running+riding on fire trails in NSW (all highway=track), and the surface 
>> type is useful and indeed used in a number of the route planners I use. I 
>> have changed a few roads back to 'unpaved' from 'gravel' due to the rule of 
>> following the description in the surface= guidelines rather than the name. 
>> 
>> My question then however, is exactly what to tag the tracks beyond "unpaved".
>> 
>> There are definitely sections that are somewhat regularly graded and appear 
>> to have extra aggregate/fine gravel added. From the surface= wiki, these 
>> most closely align with surface=compacted. But fine_gravel is potentially an 
>> option too. Many of these are 2wd accessible when it i

Re: [talk-au] highway=track update

[Josh Marshall]

>
> The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel
>  refers to railway
> ballast, not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that usually occurs
> on unpaved roads in Australia. However we call the fine unpaved surface
> "gravel" in common parlance, and many unpaved roads that don't constitute
> gravel as described in the OSM wiki have been tagged as gravel here,
> erroneously depending on your point of view.
>

This is a matter of interest to me too. I spend a substantial amount of
time running+riding on fire trails in NSW (all highway=track), and the
surface type is useful and indeed used in a number of the route planners I
use. I have changed a few roads back to 'unpaved' from 'gravel' due to the
rule of following the description in the surface= guidelines rather than
the name.

My question then however, is exactly what to tag the tracks beyond
"unpaved".

There are definitely sections that are somewhat regularly graded and appear
to have extra aggregate/fine gravel added. From the surface= wiki, these
most closely align with surface=compacted. But fine_gravel is potentially
an option too. Many of these are 2wd accessible when it is dry. (Typically
smoothness=bad.)

There are also others, usually less travelled, which are bare rock, clay,
dirt, sand, whatever was there. Is it best just to leave these as
surface=unpaved, and add a smoothness=very_bad or horrible tag? None of the
surface= tags really seem to apply.


On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 16:45, Little Maps  wrote:

> Hi Brian and co, in Victoria and southern NSW where I've edited a lot of
> roads, highway=track is nearly totally confined to dirt roads in forested
> areas, as described in the Aus tagging guidelines, viz: " highway=track
> Gravel fire trails, forest drives, 4WD trails and similar roads. Gravel
> roads connecting towns etc. should be tagged as appropriate (secondary,
> tertiary or unclassified), along with the surface=unpaved or more specific
> surface=* tag."
>
> In your US-chat someone wrote, "...in the USA, "most" roads that "most"
> people encounter (around here, in my experience, YMMV...) are
> surface=paved. Gravel or dirt roads are certainly found, but they are less
> and less common." By contrast, in regional Australia, most small roads are
> unpaved/dirt/gravel.
>
> In SE Australia, public roads in agricultural areas that are
> unpaved/dirt/gravel/etc are usually tagged as highway=unclassified (or
> tertiary etc), not highway=track. There are some exceptions in some small
> regions (for example in the Rutherglen area in NE Victoria) where really
> poor, rough 'double track' tracks on public road easements have
> systematically been tagged with highway=track rather than
> highway=unclassified. See here for example: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-36.1424/146.3683
> . However, this is not the norm in SE Australia and across the border in
> southern NSW, this type of road is nearly always tagged as unclassified, as
> it is elsewhere in Victoria. In SE Australia, my experience is that tracks
> are tagged in the more traditional way, and not as has been done in the
> USA.
>
> If I could ask you a related question, what do you US mappers call
> "gravel"? The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel
>  refers to railway
> ballast, not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that usually occurs
> on unpaved roads in Australia. However we call the fine unpaved surface
> "gravel" in common parlance, and many unpaved roads that don't constitute
> gravel as described in the OSM wiki have been tagged as gravel here,
> erroneously depending on your point of view. How do you use the
> surface=gravel tag in the USA? Cheers Ian
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 2:49 PM Brian M. Sperlongano 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Recently, there was a discussion on the talk-us list regarding how we use
>> the tag highway=track.  That discussion begins here:
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-February/020878.html
>>
>> During that discussion, someone suggested that Australian mappers may
>> also be using the highway=track tag in a similar way to US mappers.  Hence
>> this message :)
>>
>> I've recently made edits to the wiki page for highway=track describing
>> how the tag is used in the USA:
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack#Usage_in_the_United_States
>>
>> If there is similarly a local variation in how this tag is used, I would
>> encourage the Australian community to document their usage as well.
>>
>> Brian Sperlongano
>> Rhode Island, USA
>> ___
>> 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 

[talk-au] Converting railway= abandoned to highway=track

[Josh Marshall]

Hi,

Long-time lurker, first time poster. I mainly add/edit features relevant to 
off-roard bike and hiking, but mainly small ones to date and there’s a big 
change I’d prefer to run by the group first.

West of Newcastle is the abandoned Richmond Vale Railway, only partially 
covered by this route: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173086136 . It looks 
like the only edits in the last few years have been by myself (neomanic) since 
it was updated from railway=disused to abandoned.

It is used quite a bit for trail running and mountain biking currently (I have 
done it a number of times), and is proposed for a rail trail: 
https://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/council/news/projects-and-works/shortland-richmond-vale-rail-trail

My proposal is to alter the ways associated with the track to highway=track 
(it’s all wide enough for vehicles), but retain railway=abandoned, and add all 
the missing ways to the above relation. 

My main reasoning behind this is to raise it’s visibility as a walk and ride 
option, and allow routing along it, as current routers (Strava, Komoot) ignore 
it altogether (much to my annoyance). It’s what’s been done for locally, the 
Fernleigh Track (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2269030), and elsewhere 
eg The Great Victorian Rail Trail 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1043265)

Now the other question is what should be done with the proposal as far as 
adding tags. This way is on the old rail line and part of the proposal, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243988974 has railway=abandoned, 
highway=proposed and proposed=cycleway. It’s all accessible now, so it should 
be highway=track (surface=unpaved), but then how to tag for the proposal?

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping opportunities along the Great North Walk

[Josh Marshall]

> OSM routes for bushwalking, MTBs, cycling, horse riding, skiing can all be 
> found on that site https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/ if they are tagged as 
> routes in OSM. 

That site is great, thanks! I’ve been held back from adding all the walking 
routes as relations around here (Newcastle) because of a lack of a way to share 
them with others. I see that the Bathers Way is there but incomplete so I’ll go 
fix that now.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping opportunities along the Great North Walk

[Josh Marshall]

There is a relation for the Great North Walk, and it covers at least the bits 
I’ve traveled myself if not the whole thing; Watagans north to Newcastle and 
the Patonga to Yarramalong sections. On my phone now, but I can look it up 
later. 

That said, I’ve not seen any good renderers that highlight it specifically, but 
it’s been a while since I’ve looked. 

> On 27 Dec 2018, at 4:42 pm, Ewen Hill  wrote:
> 
> Dion,
>Thanks for your hard work to date and good luck with your trek. I am happy 
> to help you off-line and this is open to conjecture however I would ...
> 1. Create a single master relation and attach all elements to this
> 2. Where the track may split into two (e.g into the town/skirting around it) 
> perhaps create alternative more localised relationships 
> 3. I would attach all benches, seats, potable water points etc. to the 
> master. This will allow users to easily download everything they need. This 
> is probably frowned on however in planning the Munda Biddi Trail attack, I 
> have found this invaluable ... and critical to the planning for water points. 
> Others will disagree.
> 4. I would suggest using mapillary to upload some sections of the track where 
> it is complex. You can then upload these images and rework the route 
> accordingly and have the appropriate sign posts.
> 5. Have fun and enjoy - don't get bogged down in mapping whilst enjoying the 
> trip.
> 
> Ewen
> 
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 15:47, Dion Moult  wrote:
>> G'day all!
>> 
>> I've started walking the Great North Walk and was miffed that I couldn't
>> immediately find a good online map showing the full route from Sydney to
>> Newcastle. Instead I found incredibly difficult to navigate websites, 
>> paywalled
>> online maps, and maps split up into many smaller pages.
>> 
>> I decided to walk it myself and create a map for it here:
>> 
>> https://thinkmoult.com/map-of-the-great-north-walk-sydney-to-newcastle.html
>> 
>> Out of curiosity, I was wondering what things I can help map while I'm on 
>> this
>> route? I am not currently aware of a single "route" / multi-line in the OSM
>> database that describes the Great North Walk.
>> 
>> I considered mapping the sign posts, but they are quite plenty and probably 
>> of
>> little benefit.
>> 
>> Any ideas?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dion Moult
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> -- 
> Warm Regards
> 
> Ewen Hill
> Internet Development Australia
> ___
> 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