Re: [talk-au] posters/banners
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > Well, what information do you want it > to get across? Don't want look like a dork waiting for everyone to turn up :) > Do we want "OSM Australia" to > become some form of semi-official name for OSM > activities/groups in Australia? Dunno, I didn't think of putting mapping party on it, but I didn't want to be place specific which is why I ended up putting Australia on it. > I certainly think that re-using other OSM logos etc is an > excellent idea though as it maintains brand consistency in > the online->real world transition. Plus it saves time and effort coming up with something else. > It's probably worth thinking about how this will be > seen, too. For instance say you're driving through a > town you've never been to while looking for the mapping > party meeting place. If you see that poster the text in > "penstreetmap" gets lost very easily in front of > the quasi-cammo pattern background. I'm planning a one off vinyl banner about 50cm wide in full colour, everyone should have a fair idea where to be already, this isn't for a general flier run that gets posted out in letter boxes in b&w. > Lastly, whatever gets written on it please try to maintain > font consistency :). Serif fonts are great when you're > reading bulk text but they aren't used nearly as often > on banners as sans serif fonts. Some people are colour blind, I'm font blind, I really don't see a lot of the subtleties that some people do in fonts, I was trying to find a font that looked similar to the "penstreetmap" text. Obviously it wasn't close enough :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] posters/banners
Well, what information do you want it to get across? Do we want "OSM Australia" to become some form of semi-official name for OSM activities/groups in Australia? Or do we just want a sign which says "There's an OpenStreetMap mapping party meeting here, this is what you look for to find us" in which case the "Australia" is redundant as we're in Australia already. I certainly think that re-using other OSM logos etc is an excellent idea though as it maintains brand consistency in the online->real world transition. It's probably worth thinking about how this will be seen, too. For instance say you're driving through a town you've never been to while looking for the mapping party meeting place. If you see that poster the text in "penstreetmap" gets lost very easily in front of the quasi-cammo pattern background. It may work better if the same concept is used with this symbol for the "O": http://svn.openstreetmap.org/misc/images/osm_withtext.svg and then "penStreetMap" next to it, as that way the text is much clearer to read and the form of the magnifying glass is easier to spot while trying to drive. Lastly, whatever gets written on it please try to maintain font consistency :). Serif fonts are great when you're reading bulk text but they aren't used nearly as often on banners as sans serif fonts. I'll have a go at sketching something up tomorrow night, after my current assignment is handed in. - Original Message - From: John Smith Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009 3:20 pm Subject: Re: posters/banners To: b.schulz...@scu.edu.au, Ash Kyd > > I was digging about and I found this SVG image... > > http://svn.openstreetmap.org/misc/images/osm_button.svg > > I whacked the word "Australia" under it and made a very big png: > > http://maps.bigtincan.com/data/osm_australia_banner.png > > > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > Well, how about blue highlighting > around the way? I don't know if that would contrast enough to be noticable. The other option is if we assume any ways that are tagged highway=ford are mostly highway=unclassified, then we can just render the way similar to highway=unclassified but have the middle section filled with light blue, instead of white. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
Well, how about blue highlighting around the way? I've got a major assignment due tomorrow which is taking the bulk of my time but once it's done I might have a play with Inkscape and try to come up with a ford symbol. - Original Message - From: John Smith Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009 11:57 am Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > > > > --- On Wed, 5/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > wrote: > > > From a rendering perspective I'd suggest thick black > > lines either side of the way. Like a bridge rendering but > > without the little extensions which stick out at either end. > > So, basically just a black edge highlighting. > > That might look a little too much like a bridge for people to > easily distinguish between bridges and potential water crossings. > > > Not sure how you'd render a node other than by a > > "ford crossing" icon. But if were to make one then > > it's probably best if we were consistent throughout > > Australia by making all fords either nodes or ways. I > > didn't bother following the previous discussion on fords > > so can't really judge on the best approach. > > The only discussion I started/was party to was on what to use, > not how to use it, so I have no idea either, but when I noticed > some of my ways not rendering I changed them so they did. > > > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > From a rendering perspective I'd suggest thick black > lines either side of the way. Like a bridge rendering but > without the little extensions which stick out at either end. > So, basically just a black edge highlighting. That might look a little too much like a bridge for people to easily distinguish between bridges and potential water crossings. > Not sure how you'd render a node other than by a > "ford crossing" icon. But if were to make one then > it's probably best if we were consistent throughout > Australia by making all fords either nodes or ways. I > didn't bother following the previous discussion on fords > so can't really judge on the best approach. The only discussion I started/was party to was on what to use, not how to use it, so I have no idea either, but when I noticed some of my ways not rendering I changed them so they did. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
Hmm, yeah the Wiki entry shows that highway=ford can be a node or a way. Since fords tend to be in isolated places it's rare that somebody would require a zoom level which would differentiate between a node or way ford. >From a rendering perspective I'd suggest thick black lines either side of the >way. Like a bridge rendering but without the little extensions which stick out >at either end. So, basically just a black edge highlighting. Not sure how you'd render a node other than by a "ford crossing" icon. But if were to make one then it's probably best if we were consistent throughout Australia by making all fords either nodes or ways. I didn't bother following the previous discussion on fords so can't really judge on the best approach. - Original Message - From: John Smith Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009 10:44 am Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > > > > --- On Wed, 5/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > wrote: > > > highway=ford doesn't render > > I've come across this before, I just made the ford the node that > crosses, not the way. > > > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > highway=ford doesn't render I've come across this before, I just made the ford the node that crosses, not the way. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > highway=ford doesn't render How should it render? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering
I can't find the email with the Wiki link so I'll just post this here: highway=ford doesn't render eg: http://maps.bigtincan.com/?zoom=18&lat=-28.66798&lon=153.41719&layers=B0 - Original Message - From: John Smith Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australian Rendering To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > > > --- On Tue, 4/8/09, Liz wrote: > > > i agree > > i think that is a bad bit > > it comes from using one tag to do the work of two tags > > In any case I've hacked together something, the shields seem a > little on the large side of things so will probably make them > smaller, but this is a first attempt kind of thing that actually > works with the existing data. > > http://maps.bigtincan.com/?zoom=11&lat=- > 33.86391&lon=151.09854&layers=B0 > > > > ___ > 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] gpsdrive and linux
apt-get autoremove gpsdrive libmapnik0.5 openstreetmap-map-icons Will remove it completely. Initial disk space is now 28Mb for all of the above and I'm looking at reducing that further with improved initial raster maps. Disk space then used will depend on your map requirements and if you want to use the osm data directly. Any way when you get a chance would be appreciated. Cheers Ross On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 00:09:20 + (GMT) John Smith wrote: > > > > --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Ross Scanlon wrote: > > > Should not require a rebuild as it only needs the three > > deb's listed in the previous email and will install > > libmapnik and two others associated with that. > > No I meant to clean up my hdd if I wanted to get rid of it, but I'm trying > not to do too much to the eeePC for the next week or so. Will try it after > that. ___ 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
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jason Stirk wrote: > Just had a quick look, and it looks > correct to me? > > Do you have a link to the area marked as under > construction? > > I was up and along there a lot last month, but didn't > bother to survey as I thought it was all done. I took another look at what I thought I saw and I was thinking of the Ballina bypass by mistake. http://maps.bigtincan.com/?zoom=13&lat=-28.82902&lon=153.53994&layers=B0 ___ 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
Just had a quick look, and it looks correct to me? Do you have a link to the area marked as under construction? I was up and along there a lot last month, but didn't bother to survey as I thought it was all done. Cheers, Jason 2009/8/5 John Smith > > I forgot to mention, the Tugan bypass actually needs surveying, it's still > listed as being constructed. > > > > > ___ > 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] gpsdrive and linux
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:32:45 + (GMT) John Smith wrote: > I don't really want to re-install my eeePC before the Nambour thing, so I'll > try it in about 2 weeks time. > > However my comments about using mapnik still stands, it seems like over kill > to run a full relational database to handle map rendering. Should not require a rebuild as it only needs the three deb's listed in the previous email and will install libmapnik and two others associated with that. I've removed the 299 or whatever it was dependencies that previously existed and wanted users other than the dev's to try it out. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
After I read this twice, I realise that this guy is saying write your own page and leave the others to their own definitions -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 From: Renaud Martinet To: Liz After reading the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines page, it strikes me that you are already redefining most of the values for the highway key. So why would you continue to refer to the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features page. I guess that is because it is available in English. As Pieren already mentioned, in France we also use some values for slightly different things that the ones defined in the MapFeatures. We had to because after translation we don't always come up with something that we can relate to. Different cultures result in different features in cities or even in the countryside (think cattle grids in Scotland for example). So we had to really consider highway tag values to reflect how important a road is. For the motorway value, well we have the same type of roads but for most of the others, we had to slightly change the definition to fit our road network. There has been a lot of discussion on the talk-fr list but once we came to a consensus, it was easy to put in place because we have our own MapFeatures page. Probably you should have one also... On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > IMHO the highway-class is not about lines on the street, not even > about width, these are all relative and dependant on local habits. > It's about structuring your road-grid into different levels. From the > top-level to the smallest footpath. I think Martin really has a point here. If you tag the most important type of road in your country with highway=motorway and that I do the same in mine, at the end of the day even if physically the roads aren't the same they are still the most important in both countries. And I beleive that's what the highway tag is about. The are other tags to describe the physical attributes of a road or the administrative classification. Anyway the MapFeatures are probably still too UK centric, even though some effort as been made to make it more general. And I can how it's confusing people in countries where English is spoken but the road network is radically different from the UK. Renaud. --- -- Today is National Existential Ennui Awareness Day. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Luke Woolley wrote: > Currently, for local roads, I use residential for all local streets > which have houses along them. I use unclassified for all other local > roads, such as ones that run through industrial estates, rural areas > past paddocks, virtually everything except for residential areas. I > assume this is sort of in line with what other mappers are tagging. not if you live in Germany where unclassified is noted as more important than residential, and therefore suited to industrial areas. -- BOFH excuse #405: Sysadmins unavailable because they are in a meeting talking about why they are unavailable so much. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
Noted. As far as I'm aware, all railtrails are designed predominantly for bicycle use. This is a reflection of both the distances usually involved and the users they attract. I do see the occasional walker on a railtrail, and these, horse riders and wheelchair users are also encouraged to use them. Another advantage of highway=cycleway is that this causes the cycleway to be immediately obvious to those likely to use the facility (cyclists). Not only do they appear distinctively blue on the main osm.org map, but they show on the specific Garmin cycle maps available at http://www.osmaustralia.org/garmincycle.php John --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Evan Sebire wrote: I would have thought that the tag highway=path would be more appropriate. After that follow what is in the wiki guidelines. I don't think we should necessarily appeal to the majority/minority on a particular path, but describe its properties. I was labelling many hiking paths as footway but have now seen it is better to use path and add properties such as horse, bicycle and sac_scale. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] gpsdrive and linux
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Ross Scanlon wrote: > A request for John and Liz or any one > else who may be interested. > > I have totally rebuilt the deb packages for gpsdrive now > and would be interested in your thoughts. I don't really want to re-install my eeePC before the Nambour thing, so I'll try it in about 2 weeks time. However my comments about using mapnik still stands, it seems like over kill to run a full relational database to handle map rendering. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
When I made that edit, I probably worded it wrongly, as I meant that the residential tag was to be used in rural areas, but by that I meant local streets in the towns. But I made that edit when I didn't really know there was a mailing list or other real means of communication with other mappers. Currently, for local roads, I use residential for all local streets which have houses along them. I use unclassified for all other local roads, such as ones that run through industrial estates, rural areas past paddocks, virtually everything except for residential areas. I assume this is sort of in line with what other mappers are tagging. On 05/08/2009, at 7:46 PM, Liz wrote: lakeyboy or others, can you recall the evidence for this change? From: Jonathan Bennett Date: 5 August 2009 7:37:53 PM To: James Livingston Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag James Livingston wrote: In addition the "Australian Tagging Guidelines" (which Liz mentioned were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree with the residential page. I've done some investigation on this specific point, and found the following: The edit which added the current definition of residential roads to that page was made on 2nd January 2008 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines&diff=67689&oldid=66241 ) by Lakeyboy in an edit with no summary. I can find no discussion of this change on the wiki talk page or Talk-AU beforehand. I can only assume, based on the available evidence, that this wasn't a change that the Australian OSM community arrived at through consensus. Rather it was one mapper's idea that he didn't discuss with anyone before putting into the wiki. The change was also made after the convention for the residential tag had been established elsewhere. It's up to the AU community what to do about this, but be aware that in the European Axis there's a very strong feeling that for a road to be tagged residential, there needs to be houses (or other dwellings) on it, and for it not to be designed for through traffic. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > Otherwise 4wd_only=yes could mean "any road which is > signposted as 4wd_only", regardless of legality. If it's signed on a public road sign it most likely is legally enforced since you would be disobeying a legal directive. However I haven't heard of anyone being ticketed, not that it hasn't happened but it didn't make the news. I'm not sure what the legality of a NPWS signs are, since that isn't the same thing as a regular public road. In any case, it's on a sign and it's verifiable which is the basic premise of mapping with OSM. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Trivia - Husband and Wife team.
"Did you file a bug report with the council? :)" No - not yet, but since this is a new suburb and people will be building houses next to the road quite soon, I'd better do it sooner rather than later. Also, whilst checking all of the street signs in Canberra, I've noticed at least a dozen differences between them and the ACT government website. I'll tell them about those as well. On one street sign (McKivat Street) the two sides of the one sigh have different spellings (McKivat and McKivatt). Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only
Would it be useful to change 4wd_only=yes to read: 4wd_only=yes is for roads which are legally mandated to be 4WD only. I saw one in Victoria which was signposted as 4WD only and the guy I was staying with mentioned that it was illegal to take a 2WD car on roads signposted as 4WD only. Is somebody from Vic able to confirm/deny this? Otherwise 4wd_only=yes could mean "any road which is signposted as 4wd_only", regardless of legality. - Original Message - From: John Smith Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 4:06 pm Subject: [talk-au] 4wd_only To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > 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 > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] gpsdrive and linux
A request for John and Liz or any one else who may be interested. I have totally rebuilt the deb packages for gpsdrive now and would be interested in your thoughts. The new svn package can be downloaded from here: http://www.4x4falcon.com/gpsdrive/debian/ You will need to download: gpsdrive_2.10svn2452_i386.deb openstreetmap-map-icons_16414_all.deb openstreetmap-map-icons-square.small-minimal_16414_all.deb to try it out and then use dpkg -i as root to install these three ie dpkg -i openstreetmap-map-icons_16414_all.deb \ openstreetmap-map-icons-square.small-minimal_16414_all.deb \ gpsdrive_2.10svn2452_i386.deb You may see that you need to install some other libraries, libmapnik and libboost-* If you do apt-get install libmapnik0.5 this should install the other libboost-* dependencies. Don't use mapnik 0.6 it currently does not work with gpsdrive. I would set up a repo for it but I have not had time to sort that out yet. Anyway TIA -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
I would have thought that the tag highway=path would be more appropriate. After that follow what is in the wiki guidelines. I don't think we should necessarily appeal to the majority/minority on a particular path, but describe its properties. I was labelling many hiking paths as footway but have now seen it is better to use path and add properties such as horse, bicycle and sac_scale. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale Evan On Wednesday 05 Aug 2009 11:32:34 Liz wrote: > On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, John Henderson wrote: > > I expect to be mapping some of these sooner or later. I note that > > there's no > > > > highway= > > > > tag given at > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Rail_Tra > >il s > > > > Is this intentional? Or an oversight? > > > > I'd expect them to be "highway=cycleway", making the "bicycle=yes" tag > > redundant. > > > > John > > i'd say it needs updating to reflect newer tags. > > > > ___ > 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
[talk-au] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
lakeyboy or others, can you recall the evidence for this change? --- Begin Message --- James Livingston wrote: > In addition the "Australian Tagging Guidelines" (which Liz mentioned > were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree > with the residential page. I've done some investigation on this specific point, and found the following: The edit which added the current definition of residential roads to that page was made on 2nd January 2008 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines&diff=67689&oldid=66241) by Lakeyboy in an edit with no summary. I can find no discussion of this change on the wiki talk page or Talk-AU beforehand. I can only assume, based on the available evidence, that this wasn't a change that the Australian OSM community arrived at through consensus. Rather it was one mapper's idea that he didn't discuss with anyone before putting into the wiki. The change was also made after the convention for the residential tag had been established elsewhere. It's up to the AU community what to do about this, but be aware that in the European Axis there's a very strong feeling that for a road to be tagged residential, there needs to be houses (or other dwellings) on it, and for it not to be designed for through traffic. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk --- End Message --- ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, John Henderson wrote: > I expect to be mapping some of these sooner or later. I note that > there's no > > highway= > > tag given at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Rail_Trail >s > > Is this intentional? Or an oversight? > > I'd expect them to be "highway=cycleway", making the "bicycle=yes" tag > redundant. > > John > i'd say it needs updating to reflect newer tags. ___ 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 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Liz wrote: > > could we make an effort to ask Graham (?) VK1RE because he > > reclassifies roads > > as he drives them, and certainly would have the most > > experience with this > > matter. > > Is he on the list? i thought so, but even with his job he might not always have internet access -- You will soon meet a person who will play an important role in your life. ___ 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, Liz wrote: > could we make an effort to ask Graham (?) VK1RE because he > reclassifies roads > as he drives them, and certainly would have the most > experience with this > matter. Is he on the list? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Railtrails
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, John Henderson wrote: > Is this intentional? Or an oversight? That's only a guide for specific things, the main map features should be checked first. > I'd expect them to be "highway=cycleway", making the > "bicycle=yes" tag > redundant. If you mean what I think you mean I'd use railway=abandoned, highway=cycleway ___ 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
I forgot to mention, the Tugan bypass actually needs surveying, it's still listed as being constructed. ___ 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
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Mark Pulley wrote: > Pacific Highway is NR1 (white shield) - my last trip was > from Hexham > up to Raleigh (near Coffs Harbour) - I think I saw a couple > of A1 > shields, but it's still mostly the old shields. The M1 from > Brisbane > AFAIK did finish at the border, but it may well have been > extended > further since then. According to > http://ozroads.com.au/NSW/Special/MAB/evidence.htm the > Tugun Bypass > has M1 shields including the NSW section. That bypass was only just finished, according to wikipedia the NSW+Fed govts only came to a resolution in 96/97 over the pacific highway funding being 50/50 on new sections, but older sections are NSW only funded, the whole thing seems to be a bit of a mess because of govts playing silly buggers. ___ 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 05/08/2009, at 2:40 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > 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". How does that fit in with the idea of using using residential in residential areas and not using residential in industrial ones? If they form part of the hierarchy and are not based on the area, should we potentially be putting unclassified in residential areas and residential in industrial areas? ___ 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
Quoting John Smith : > 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). Pacific Highway is NR1 (white shield) - my last trip was from Hexham up to Raleigh (near Coffs Harbour) - I think I saw a couple of A1 shields, but it's still mostly the old shields. The M1 from Brisbane AFAIK did finish at the border, but it may well have been extended further since then. According to http://ozroads.com.au/NSW/Special/MAB/evidence.htm the Tugun Bypass has M1 shields including the NSW section. Mark P. --- "They offered to transport me back to any point in history that I would care to go, and so I had them send me back to last Thursday night, so I could pay my phone bill on time." (Weird Al Yankovic, "Everything You Know Is Wrong") ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > 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_t >rack > > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au this morning on my bicycle i decided we needed a page which was restrictions : miscellaneous with a note that not all of these would be valid in all jurisdictions and we could put the seasonal roads, the dry weather roads, the 4wd only roads in this still need intermittent or rarely seen lakes and waterways like Lake Eyre or the Darling River, and a more general page title would mean we could shove those under the same heading ___ 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 Aug 2009, 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... :) we had "quaternary" requested before and squashed. not sure what that was for so we will have had minor quaternary unclassified all going in and out of use for different things. ___ 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 Aug 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: > "Unclassified roads are likely to have slightly higher volumes of > traffic than residential". not even sure this will work an unclassified road in my town isn't going to have the same volume of traffic as a residential road in a city. ___ 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 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > Which is how the Germans have been using it, and the software they write is > coded to work that way. except they forgot to tell the rest of the world. this project could do with a benevolent dictator some days (sigh) ___ 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 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > 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. could we make an effort to ask Graham (?) VK1RE because he reclassifies roads as he drives them, and certainly would have the most experience with this matter. ___ 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 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > It is rough as guts from what I've been told :) In 1982 I bd a sump on one of those Qld main roads, two ruts in the ground, travelling from Winton to the Curry. I guess its one of those type of roads ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Railtrails
I expect to be mapping some of these sooner or later. I note that there's no highway= tag given at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Rail_Trails Is this intentional? Or an oversight? I'd expect them to be "highway=cycleway", making the "bicycle=yes" tag redundant. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
