[talk-au] Coral Sea Islands
Having seen that many are annoyed with this location showing up (I agree) and having read the wikipedia article on it. I've changed the place=country to place=state as it is a territory governed by Australia this more accurately describes the status. This should also mean it will not show up as much. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Trivia - Husband and Wife Team
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 23:37 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: > Apart from Victoria and Albert does anyone know of an example > where > > A Husband and Wife have both had roads named after them and that these > roads intersect. At the risk of seeming obvious, a more modern example: Elizabeth Way & Phillip Highway http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.72162&lon=138.66919&zoom=17 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Coral Sea Islands
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Ross Scanlon wrote: > Having seen that many are annoyed > with this location showing up (I agree) and having read the > wikipedia article on it. > > I've changed the place=country to place=state as it is a > territory governed by Australia this more accurately > describes the status. > > This should also mean it will not show up as much. Actually it was showing up more when I was tweaking font/fontsize settings for states. I'm not sure that changing it from a country to a state will have much difference to be honest, but this is a rendering tweak issue, not a data issue. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
I've shrunk the shields to about half size, but now the text is becoming unreadable. Anyone able to make suggestions on shield/text size etc? http://maps.bigtincan.com/?zoom=11&lat=-33.86947&lon=151.05768&layers=B0 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > --- On Tue, 4/8/09, Liz wrote: > > http://www.ozroads.com.au/NSW/Freeways/M5/01.jpg > > 404 01.JPG just navigate to the directory and you get a listing i picked the first one -- BOFH excuse #257: That would be because the software doesn't work. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Beating mapnik into submission
I came up with this with a little bit of nudging from Liz in the right direction: http://maps.bigtincan.com/?zoom=11&lat=-33.86931&lon=151.04979&layers=B0 Also I didn't know Goulburn had a metro road system... http://maps.bigtincan.com/?zoom=12&lat=-34.72133&lon=149.7431&layers=B0 I'm still trying to figure out how to make the text line up better, centring horizontally and vertically is limiting. I made the road shields start to appear when you are zoomed out more compared to the regular OSM style sheet, not sure if this is good or bad. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Pacific and New England Highway interchange area
Someone has marked in a lot of roads, I assume from sat imagery, however they marked them all as highway=service. Also someone only half did the New England highway, I'm fixing it up still, again probably from low res sat imagery, even though they list the source as survey it doesn't look it. Also most of the Pacific highway was marked as ref=NR1 or ref="National 1" instead of NH1, although that's now fixed, but the seeing the different highway shields brings up ref=* errors. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I have been to different countries too, e.g. to Africa, and > I don't > think the road systems are all the same. I know that there > is big > differences. But this doesn't explain why routing shouldn't > work as > long as you keep the hierarchy. In the end, you will have > to drive on > the roads that are there. There is no possibility if you go > by car. I > didn't say that I expect e.g. travel time estimations to > work > everywhere with the same rules, but simple routing - given > the > relative importance - should IMHO make routing possible > worldwide. Liz, he has a point and it's very clear the Germans aren't going to let this go, the only solution regardless of who is right, wrong or indiff or who got there first is to replace highway=unclassified to something else. Then make this explicit in the main wiki pages what it exactly means. Anyone have any objection to highway=rural? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
highway=rural seems a logical choice. Perhaps just work out a semi-rigid definition, such as: Any road which is: a) Primarily boarded by land used for primary production and b) Exists primarily to provide transport to service the properties adjacent to it. Ie: the majority of drivers on the road are traveling to or from a property rather than between rural centers. Thoughts? - Original Message - From: John Smith Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 11:54 am Subject: Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > > > --- On Tue, 4/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > I have been to different countries too, e.g. to Africa, and > > I don't > > think the road systems are all the same. I know that there > > is big > > differences. But this doesn't explain why routing shouldn't > > work as > > long as you keep the hierarchy. In the end, you will have > > to drive on > > the roads that are there. There is no possibility if you go > > by car. I > > didn't say that I expect e.g. travel time estimations to > > work > > everywhere with the same rules, but simple routing - given > > the > > relative importance - should IMHO make routing possible > > worldwide. > > Liz, he has a point and it's very clear the Germans aren't going > to let this go, the only solution regardless of who is right, > wrong or indiff or who got there first is to replace > highway=unclassified to something else. > > Then make this explicit in the main wiki pages what it exactly means. > > Anyone have any objection to highway=rural? > > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM, John Smith wrote: > Anyone have any objection to highway=rural? Depends how you define it. If it's verifiable and exists only to describe the way, there's no objection from me. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > highway=rural seems a logical choice. > Perhaps just work out a semi-rigid definition, such as: > > Any road which is: > > a) Primarily boarded by land used for primary production > and > b) Exists primarily to provide transport to service the > properties adjacent to it. Ie: the majority of drivers on > the road are traveling to or from a property rather than > between rural centers. > > Thoughts? You haven't traveled much in western areas have you? :) Parts of National Highway 1 are a 4wd dirt track. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia) However there are numerous, mostly all weather gravel roads in western NSW alone, although too much rain makes them unusable, but the primary purpose in some cases is to go between towns but the funding was never forth coming to seal them. Another good example is the Fitzroy Development Road in Northern QLD http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=-32.7508,151.5851&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=56.828725,114.169922&ie=UTF8&ll=-23.52307,149.431229&spn=0.465892,1.153564&z=11 It is rough as guts from what I've been told :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote: > Depends how you define it. If it's verifiable and exists > only to > describe the way, there's no objection from me. It would essentially replace the meanings on this page for unclassified and unclassified would then be used as the Germans and others in Europe have been using it as a wide-ish industrial road in a urban area. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Regional_Roads ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
> > --- On Tue, 4/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > > > highway=rural seems a logical choice. > > Perhaps just work out a semi-rigid definition, such as: > > > > Any road which is: > > > > a) Primarily boarded by land used for primary production > > and > > b) Exists primarily to provide transport to service the > > properties adjacent to it. Ie: the majority of drivers on > > the road are traveling to or from a property rather than > > between rural centers. > > > > Thoughts? This gets close but you could apply that to parts of most major highways west of the great dividing range as well. The primary production is probably a problem too as I'd expect to use this on the roads arround here which might have primary production on one side and national park on the other. Or go from an area surrounded by primary production into an area that is either totally state forest or national park. An added or alternate para: "This road would be tagged residential or unclassified if it was in a metropolitan or urban centre" When rendered should be the same as unclassified and residential. > Another good example is the Fitzroy Development Road in Northern QLD > > http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=-32.7508,151.5851&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=56.828725,114.169922&ie=UTF8&ll=-23.52307,149.431229&spn=0.465892,1.153564&z=11 > > It is rough as guts from what I've been told :) Depends on which part some of it's good, others mm. Cheers Ross -- Ross Scanlon ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM, John Smith wrote: > It [ highway=rural ] would essentially replace the meanings on this page for > unclassified and unclassified would then be used as the Germans and others in > Europe have been using it as a wide-ish industrial road in a urban area. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Regional_Roads I don't like that. 1) are you really suggesting using highway=rural for "Other streets. Not generally through routes."? 2) and are you really suggesting that highway=unclassified be defined as "a wide-ish industrial road in an urban area"? Width should be specified with width=*. An "urban area" is too vague. "Industrial road" is also too vague. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Ross Scanlon wrote: > "This road would be tagged residential or unclassified if > it was in a metropolitan or urban centre" > > When rendered should be the same as unclassified and > residential. I wouldn't reference another highway class, but instead I'd more or less copy the current unclassified description: "No administrative classification. Rural roads typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network in non-Urban areas." > Depends on which part some of it's good, others > mm. Sorry, I should have put that the northern end is ok, but the southern end is rough as guts. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote: > I don't like that. > > 1) are you really suggesting using highway=rural for "Other > streets. > Not generally through routes."? No, perhaps that was a bad example as I wasn't explicit. I would do this: "No administrative classification. Rural roads typically form the lowest form of the non-Urban interconnecting grid network." Anything non-connecting would be almost a service road? > 2) and are you really suggesting that highway=unclassified > be defined > as "a wide-ish industrial road in an urban area"? Width > should be > specified with width=*. An "urban area" is too vague. > "Industrial > road" is also too vague. People are reading the meaning of unclassified as a rung higher than residential, and treating residential as access=destination. Which might be fine in Europe but residential roads are used as interconnecting roads in a lot of Australia. Councils and the like just don't plan major through fares very well they just tend to upgrade them if people use them a lot, or that's what it seems to me. So I'm suggesting to make highway=unclassified as: "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the form of the interconnecting grid network of residential and other Urban road ways." ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM, John Smith wrote: > [ highway=rural means ] "No administrative classification. Rural roads > typically form the lowest form of the non-Urban interconnecting grid network." > > Anything non-connecting would be almost a service road? Sounds ok. But you would need to define "urban". > People are reading the meaning of unclassified as a rung higher than > residential, and treating residential as access=destination. Which might be > fine in Europe but residential roads are used as interconnecting roads in a > lot of Australia. Councils and the like just don't plan major through fares > very well they just tend to upgrade them if people use them a lot, or that's > what it seems to me. > > So I'm suggesting to make highway=unclassified as: > > "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the form > of the interconnecting grid network of residential and other Urban road ways." That definition confuses me. "Unclassified roads form...the...network of residential...ways". That doesn't make sense. Is "the network of residential and other urban road ways" highway=residential or highway=unclassified? Do you mean the following?: 1) highway=residential is used for roads that are in any "urban" or "non-urban" areas accessing or around residential areas" AND are not "important" enough to be highway=unclassified 2) highway=unclassified is used for roads that are in any "urban" area (including residential) that are more "important" than highway=residential AND are not "important" enough to be highway=tertiary ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
Never been further West than Parkes, I'm afraid. I guess this comes down to tagging what exists vs tagging intended use. For instance there are parts of the Pacific Highway which are 2 lanes but are tagged as trunk because they're the Pacific Highway and are therefore the most major road in the area. The situation you're describing of a major thoroughfare which is just a gravel road should probably be tagged as unsealed primary while roads of similar "construction" which exist so that farmers can get home could come under "rural", even if both of them are nothing more than tracks in a coastal dweller's world view. (cripes that's a long sentence, sorry about that :p). - Original Message - From: John Smith Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 12:26 pm Subject: Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > --- On Tue, 4/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > wrote: > > > highway=rural seems a logical choice. > > Perhaps just work out a semi-rigid definition, such as: > > > > Any road which is: > > > > a) Primarily boarded by land used for primary production > > and > > b) Exists primarily to provide transport to service the > > properties adjacent to it. Ie: the majority of drivers on > > the road are traveling to or from a property rather than > > between rural centers. > > > > Thoughts? > > You haven't traveled much in western areas have you? :) > > Parts of National Highway 1 are a 4wd dirt track. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia) > > However there are numerous, mostly all weather gravel roads in > western NSW alone, although too much rain makes them unusable, > but the primary purpose in some cases is to go between towns but > the funding was never forth coming to seal them. > > Another good example is the Fitzroy Development Road in Northern QLD > > http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=- > 32.7508,151.5851&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=56.828725,114.169922&ie=UTF8&ll=-23.52307,149.431229&spn=0.465892,1.153564&z=11 > > It is rough as guts from what I've been told :) > > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:25 PM, wrote: > I guess this comes down to tagging what exists vs tagging intended use. For > instance there are parts of the Pacific Highway which are 2 lanes but are > tagged as trunk because they're the Pacific Highway and are therefore the > most major road in the area. > > The situation you're describing of a major thoroughfare which is just a > gravel road should probably be tagged as unsealed primary while roads of > similar "construction" which exist so that farmers can get home could come > under "rural" Well said. I think it should be our primary focus to tag what exists (with surface=, width=, lanes=, etc) and ALSO tag intended use. They can co-exist peacefully, as long as we are conscious of which tags are designed to serve which purpose (which apparently doesn't seem to be the case at the moment, for highway=*). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > The situation you're describing of a major thoroughfare > which is just a gravel road should probably be tagged as > unsealed primary while roads of similar > "construction" which exist so that farmers can get > home could come under "rural", even if both of > them are nothing more than tracks in a coastal dweller's > world view. (cripes that's a long sentence, sorry about > that :p). The track is the bit that connects the unsealed road to their farm. In most cases, these roads would be considered tertiary at best, however there may be a tertiary road that is unsealed with connecting rural roads. http://maps.bigtincan.com/?zoom=13&lat=-29.41871&lon=151.00979&layers=B0 The tertiary road is unsealed but is a fairly "busy" road compared to others that interconnect that are also unsealed, by going that way you can save 50km compared to taking the sealed route. There is still a lot of sealed roads in rural areas, the unsealed ones are short cuts even if there is a sealed route you can take. Most of these roads aren't the most pleasant route to take if you don't like bull dust and corrugates and other sorts of uneven surfaces, I wouldn't consider them to be tracks or residential either for that matter. I just realised in typing the last couple of emails that depending where you are from it depends how you interpret the current meaning of highway=unclassified. Hopefully by adding a couple of words in the right spot it will clarify things much better. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote: > Sounds ok. But you would need to define "urban". from dictionary.com: ur⋅ban [ur-buhn] Show IPA Use urban in a Sentence 1. of, pertaining to, or designating a city or town. 2. living in a city. 3. characteristic of or accustomed to cities; citified: He is an urban type. Although the intended use is the first, urban=town/city, I very much doubt that there would be enough roads in anything smaller than a town to need a higher capacity version of a residential road. > That definition confuses me. "Unclassified roads > form...the...network > of residential...ways". That doesn't make sense. Is "the > network of > residential and other urban road ways" highway=residential > or > highway=unclassified? Someone can probably clean up my intent a little, basically what I was trying to achieve was to say unclassified roads interconnect with residential and other roads and are likely to have slightly higher volumes of traffic than residential, most europeans seem to think residential implies access=destination so they used unclassified to indicate this. > Do you mean the following?: > > 1) highway=residential is used for roads that are in any > "urban" or > "non-urban" areas accessing or around residential areas" > AND are not > "important" enough to be highway=unclassified As far as I'm concerned highway=residential only applies to urban (town/city) areas, it doesn't apply to rural/non-urban areas. > 2) highway=unclassified is used for roads that are in any > "urban" area > (including residential) that are more "important" than > highway=residential AND are not "important" enough to be > highway=tertiary bingo primary -> secondary -> tertiary -> unclassified -> residential Which is how the Germans have been using it, and the software they write is coded to work that way. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Pacific and New England Highway interchange area
> Also most of the Pacific highway was marked as ref=NR1 or > ref="National 1" instead of NH1, although that's now fixed, > but the seeing the different highway shields brings up ref=* > errors. I thought the entire length of the pacific highway was NH1, but it seems the federal government doesn't cough up for funding so it's NR1 for large sections if not all of it (according to wikipedia). Does anyone know how accurate this is? Also there is conflicting information between wikipedia and ozroads site, wikipedia claims the M1 designation finishes in northern NSW, where as ozroads claims it changes at the border... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Highway_(Australia) http://ozroads.com.au/NSW/nsw_map.gif ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, John Smith wrote: > Although the intended use is the first, urban=town/city, I very much doubt > that there would be enough roads in anything smaller than a town to need a > higher capacity version of a residential road. Ok with me. > Someone can probably clean up my intent a little, basically what I was trying > to achieve was to say unclassified roads interconnect with residential and > other roads and are likely to have slightly higher volumes of traffic than > residential, most europeans seem to think residential implies > access=destination so they used unclassified to indicate this. Maybe just say that, then, when it comes time to update the wiki :) "Unclassified roads are likely to have slightly higher volumes of traffic than residential". > As far as I'm concerned highway=residential only applies to urban (town/city) > areas, it doesn't apply to rural/non-urban areas. Ok. Nice and clear. >> 2) highway=unclassified is used for roads that are in any >> "urban" area >> (including residential) that are more "important" than >> highway=residential AND are not "important" enough to be >> highway=tertiary > > bingo > > primary -> secondary -> tertiary -> unclassified -> residential Ok. Clear enough. In other words, unclassified = "quartary" and below. If this goes ahead I look forward to the wiki pages being cleaned up accordingly... :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote: > Ok. Clear enough. In other words, unclassified = "quartary" > and below. > If this goes ahead I look forward to the wiki pages being > cleaned up > accordingly... :) I'd update it now but that's bound to upset someone somewhere. I guess put a proposal in for highway=rural and have the proposal update the highway=unclassified deff. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
While I don't feel it would be wise to alter the current wiki pages I made a proposal to try and sort it out indirectly. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway:rural ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Another Brisbane OpenStreetMap Friday meetup in two weeks
Brisbane mappers (and other interested parties), I have arranged another OpenStreetMap meetup for Friday 21 August at Southbank after work. Come and meet OpenStreetMappers and maybe do a little micro-mapping of Southbank if you're up to it. The venue is currently TBA, but will probably be a restaurant around Southbank somewhere. Details here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brisbane/Mapping_Parties/2009-08 Please pass this message onto anyone you think might be interested. See you then, - David -- David Dean Post-Doctoral Fellow, RP-SAIVT, QUT (me) http://www.davidbdean.com (saivt) http://www.bee.qut.edu.au/projects/saivt/ (post) Room S1102, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Australia 4001 (p) +61 7 3138 1414 (m) 0407 151 912 (f) +61 7 3138 1516 (CRICOS) 00213J ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] 4wd_only
While it's not my proposal I updated it to match the current aussie guidelines. Please vote for it if you are in favour of this tag so we can get 4WD Only tacked on the end of road ways. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only Australian Tagging Guidelines, based on talk-au threads. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#4WD_only_track ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
