Re: [talk-au] amenity=shelter
I'd say that the best solution would be tourism=picnic_site;shelter/cover/rainproof=yes. The reason being that it's not just a shelter, it's a picnic site which happens to be under cover. -Brent - Original Message - From: Ashley Kyd Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009 10:54 am Subject: [talk-au] amenity=shelter To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Hi all, > > I was having a conversation the other day when the purpose of > amenity=shelter was brought into question. > > http://barstool.ash.ms/photos/07082009-shelter.jpg > > Above is a photo I took while out the other day. It's a shelter > with a > picnic area, bbq, and some benches under it. Can I clarify > whether this > is actually supposed to be > *amenity=shelter;tourism=picnic_site*, or > perhaps something different? > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dshelter > > Cheers, > Ash. > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] posters/banners
Awesome job on this one: http://barstool.ash.ms/osm/posters/2009-08-09/openstreetmap-osm-australia-austsralia.png :doublethumsup: - Original Message - From: Ashley Kyd Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009 1:19 pm Subject: Re: [talk-au] posters/banners To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Actually, a follow-up to that, the logo is indeed trade marked, > so it'll > have to remain as is, and possibly be okayed for use first. I > don't know > how trade mark law works, so someone else might have to work > that out. > > Cheers, > Ash. > > On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 08:39 +1000, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > > What I'll probably do is just upload all versions of the banner > > somewhere and let whoever is paying for the print choose and > tweak to > > their liking. That way all we need to agree upon is the > OpenStreetMap> name and the magnifying glass icon. > > > > In the end it's literally a 5min job to make different > versions. For > > example, I personally believe that the Japanese banner was > made for an > > international audience, why else would it have "Japan" not only > > written on it but in Roman characters. > > > > So, if we want a banner to be shown in a SoTM presentation > then having > > "Australia" on it would be appropriate. Otherwise it may be > best to > > have "Gathering" or "Mapping Party" or "Meeting" instead. > > > > With regard to horizontal centering: I aligned the text on the right > > hand edge but intentionally left the bottom line a bit to the > left on > > the LHS so as to balance the protrusion of the magnifying glass. > > > > I'll whip up a few more versions tonight. Going on an endurance > > training ride today :). > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Roy Wallace > > Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009 7:55 am > > Subject: Re: [talk-au] posters/banners > > To: b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > > Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, wrote: > > > > Yeah, the 2 logos kind of each represent an extreme: one > is a > > > bit plain and > > > > the other is too distracting. > > > > > > > > I might try putting a map rendered as the background, but > have > > > it more as a > > > > watermark than an attraction. It's probably time to read > some > > > Inkscape> tutorials... > > > > > > > > Any other ideas are most welcome. > > > > > > Version 2 gets my vote. Plain is infinitely better than crowded > > IMHO. > > > Just make sure the two lines of text are horizontally > centred with > > > respect to each other. I wouldn't bother with putting a map > in the > > > background. > > > > > ___ > > Talk-au mailing list > > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- > Ashley Kyd > • Web & Software Development in Brisbane, Australia. > • Phone (07) 3129 2332, or visit http://kyd.com.au/ > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] amenity=shelter
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM, wrote: > I'd say that the best solution would be > tourism=picnic_site;shelter/cover/rainproof=yes. The reason being that it's > not just a shelter, it's a picnic site which happens to be under cover. In that case you would also often find yourself using bbq=yes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] amenity=shelter
Yeah, it just seems more logical as "picnic_site" is a term which describes a large area (if anything it would probably be better suited to an area than a node in most cases) whereas bbq, bench and shelter are all discreet objects. But saying that I can't really see any major drawbacks to what's happening now. *shrug* This isn't an issue I feel strongly about. -Brent - Original Message - From: Roy Wallace Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009 5:54 pm Subject: Re: [talk-au] amenity=shelter To: b.schulz...@scu.edu.au Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM, wrote: > > I'd say that the best solution would be > > tourism=picnic_site;shelter/cover/rainproof=yes. The reason > being that it's > > not just a shelter, it's a picnic site which happens to be > under cover. > > In that case you would also often find yourself using bbq=yes. > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
I've been looking for some kind of simple search that can be added to the map page, so far I haven't found anything open source or something I can easily hack into a website so I've cooked up a proof of concept search that just does streets/towns and at this stage opens up on the OSM site and displays the way/relation. I've integrated this with the new map layout and some JS to make it all just work. http://maps.bigtincan.com/index-new.php I've tried to code for simple combinations so far, and if you manage to stump it I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what you were searching for. Oh and the code converts St to Street etc, but I may not have remembered all combinations of abbreviations, I just used the list we built for the validator plugin. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] amenity=shelter
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > I'd > say that the best solution would be > tourism=picnic_site;shelter/cover/rainproof=yes. The reason > being that it's not just a shelter, it's a picnic > site which happens to be under cover. I suggested: tourism=picnic_site cover=yes the other day to him, but it was off list. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] amenity=shelter
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote: > In that case you would also often find yourself using > bbq=yes. If you lump bbq in with the covered area you then have people tagging it as fuel=wood and does that mean we can rip hunks off the sheltered area to put in the bbq? :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Anyone near Blacktown in Sydney?
Just noticed there is 3 or 4 suburbs near the Blacktown area that are marked highway=road http://maps.bigtincan.com/map.php?zoom=14&lat=-33.74831&lon=150.92984&layers=B ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 08:42:56 + (GMT) John Smith wrote: > > I've been looking for some kind of simple search that can be added to the map > page, so far I haven't found anything open source or something I can easily > hack into a website so I've cooked up a proof of concept search that just > does streets/towns and at this stage opens up on the OSM site and displays > the way/relation. > > I've integrated this with the new map layout and some JS to make it all just > work. > > http://maps.bigtincan.com/index-new.php > > I've tried to code for simple combinations so far, and if you manage to stump > it I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what you were searching for. > > Oh and the code converts St to Street etc, but I may not have remembered all > combinations of abbreviations, I just used the list we built for the > validator plugin. > Here's one for you: don river road, bowen, qld I know that there is a road near bowen but I can never remember if it's don river road or lower don river road or upper don river road. If I enter the above in google or yahoo it comes up with the correct road, Upper Don River Road. I think you just need to wild card front and back on the road search query to cover it, sould not need to for the city and state. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] amenity=shelter
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:53:41 +1000 Ashley Kyd wrote: > Hi all, > > I was having a conversation the other day when the purpose of > amenity=shelter was brought into question. > > http://barstool.ash.ms/photos/07082009-shelter.jpg > > Above is a photo I took while out the other day. It's a shelter with a > picnic area, bbq, and some benches under it. Can I clarify whether > this is actually supposed to be > *amenity=shelter;tourism=picnic_site*, or perhaps something different? > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dshelter > I just did a lot of tagging of this sort of thing and have been studying the wiki and also making up my own mind (all you can do, ultimately). I would use amenity=shelter for something that's set up as a shelter and that's all it is. Otherwise, I'd treat shelter like a property and apply shelter=yes on top of other amenities or whatever. (Ditto for amenity=lamp and lit=yes|no.) In this case, you've got several amenities under one roof. I'd be inclined to map them as separate nodes, each with shelter=yes or, I dunno, wrap them in a membership relation of some kind and apply shelter=yes to that. Incidentally, I don't think benches are significant to note in close proximity to tables. I think I'm pretty much saying what Brent said in his reply [1] and I also agree about the area itself being the picnic area [2] (weird how these things come up just after you thought about them ~:~|), not so much a node. I also thought today that we shouldn't be assuming the purpose of tables. They are for picnics or sitting and stealing someone's unsecured wifi, or whatever you like :) Since today, I started to just use amenity=table. Balls to OSM telling you what a table is for. But, as usual, I digress. Cheers [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2009-August/002709.html [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2009-August/002712.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Ross Scanlon wrote: > I think you just need to wild card front and back on the > road search query to cover it, sould not need to for the > city and state. I fixed it by adding wildcards, I was umm'ing and arr'ing if I should do it when I was coding it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
I also started logging searches, that way common spelling mistakes can be dealt with as well. I'm also thinking if they don't supply the street type, it can go through half a dozen or a dozen common street postfixes and see if anything matches that way too. Also I could probably make state optional, the only time it's really useful is for duplicate town names, like Perth, WA and Perth, Tas. This case is an exception since there is a place=* node for Perth which is marked as a capital city, does anyone know 2 towns or villiages or ... with the same names in different states? or even same state I guess... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:39:38 + (GMT) John Smith wrote: > This case is an exception since there is a place=* node for Perth which is > marked as a capital city, does anyone know 2 towns or villiages or ... with > the same names in different states? or even same state I guess... Georgetown Qld, SA and NSW. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Ross Scanlon wrote: > Georgetown > > Qld, SA and NSW. The one in NSW is a suburb the other 2 are small towns, both look like they could do with some more mapping. Also Gladston, SA, Tas and NSW. Yet Gladstone in QLD doesn't show up, although I'm currently searching based on ABS boundaries, not place nodes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Proposed changes for the Australian tagging guidelines.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Evan Sebire wrote: >> Bush walking paths should also be tagged as path not footway, except for >> National parks were bicycles / horses are typically banned. > > I think these should still be tagged as path, with additional tags > added as necessary. Often there are signs at the entrance with > bike/horse, etc pictograms either crossed out in red or circled in > green - would seem to be very simple to translate these into > access=designated/yes/no. > >> In Europe cycleway tag is being discouraged as it should only be used for >> paths that are bicycle exclusive. The German forum is discussing the best >> way >> to address this issue now with over 170 000 routes tagged as cycleways and >> no- >> one ever surveying an exclusive cycleway! I think they are going to simply >> change all to paths. >> I know of some exclusive cycleways http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.9527103900909&lon=145.299789905548&zoom=14 These are the mountain bike trails at lysterfield, and they are all sign posted bike only. >> I think we should make it clear, use path for paths that can be traversed by >> more than one means. For exclusive paths use cycleway or footway. > > That is definitely a step in the right direction. But really, > cycleway/footway are made completely redundant by highway=path with > the relevant access tags. And I'm not a fan of redundant tags. And > given, as you say, Germany is getting rid of cycleways altogether, why > not follow their lead and suggest using paths exclusively... > I agree with using path and adding access modifiers, as you say it maps what is on the ground. The issue for me is the renderer needs to distinguish between paths which are easily navigable by a bike and those which are not even if the bike can go down them. That is the information that I'm interested in. Pete ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
With all footpaths being shared paths here in the ACT, what makes a good cycling path is sometimes difficult to pin down. More often than not it's the width. It's good to be able to pass a nervous cyclist coming the other way without them feeling the need to get off the path. It's also good to be able to pass pedestrians without either of you needing to head bush, or feeling "that was a bit close". But there are many other factors, and sometimes it's just a combination of such things. These other factors would include: How long a narrow section of path is. How broken up the sealed path has become. The size of the "road metal" used in the surface. If the surface is unpaved, how level/rocky/chopped up by horses hooves it is. How much pedestrian traffic uses the path. I'm sure I can think of a few other things too. John --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote: I'm pretty sure no one was suggesting this (i.e. removing information). It's the way the information in entered in tags that is being discussed. The fact is that we currently have highway=cycleway;foot=yes AND highway=footway;cycle=yes, and it is difficult to choose which is appropriate for a particular shared-use path. We also ALREADY have highway=path, which is for "non-specific or shared-use" paths. This makes the above two tagging combinations redundant. I would therefore suggest at least changing the highway=cycleway and highway=footway descriptions from "mainly/exclusively" to "exclusively" - and preferably getting rid of them altogether. > All paths marked are shared paths, but one side of the creek is much more > suitable for cycling than the other. And this is because of the > significantly different physical properties of the paths themselves. Please describe the "significantly different physical properties", and see if they can be described by adding tags to a highway=path. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
That ain't going to happen - far too much effort involved to do that properly everywhere on every shared path. John --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote: For width, use width=*. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
Think of the situation with roads, and the multitude of different tags available to show how important the road is. We only need two (or maybe three at most) to say whether a shared path is a good cycling path. And then a few guidelines so that non-cycling mappers can make an educated stab at getting it in the ball park. By definition, a shared path will be suitable for pedestrians. There may be no value is judging how suitable. The situation for cyclists is different, because bikes are vehicles. John --- John Smith wrote: Rendering different paths based on the width is the only way to tag something verifiable and be able to render various paths differently that I can think of. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
When new to an area, what would lead me to take one path over several alternatives. I don't really want to ride them all before I know which one cyclists usually use. John --- Roy Wallace wrote: highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=yes. Why isn't that a good idea? All it does is take the guesswork/ambiguity out of "cycleway", IMHO, as well as being more extensible (in terms of snowmobiles/hovercraft/etc., and in terms of "designated"/"official"/etc). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] amenity=shelter
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, Hugh Barnes wrote: > Balls to OSM telling you what a table is for. lots of things have been decided by people with just_not_enough_imagination and results in Aussies s***stirring on the main talk list, just trying to broaden their horizons :-) :-) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:50 AM, wrote: > With all footpaths being shared paths here in the ACT, what makes a good > cycling path is sometimes difficult to pin down. If the meaning of a tag is "difficult to pin down", IMHO it is probably not verifiable and therefore probably not a good tag to be using. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > This case is an exception since there is a place=* node for Perth which is > marked as a capital city, does anyone know 2 towns or villiages or ... with > the same names in different states? or even same state I guess... There are 3 Maryboroughs More than one Northbridge These are things I annoy abc news online about, because the journalists don't mention a State, thinking in terms of a TV broadcast which is limited in audience ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:03 AM, wrote: > Think of the situation with roads, and the multitude of different tags > available to show how important the road is. > > We only need two (or maybe three at most) to say whether a shared path is a > good cycling path. And then a few guidelines so that non-cycling mappers > can make an educated stab at getting it in the ball park. Fair enough. I'd be interested to hear a draft of these tags and definitions. If they're verifiable, you will have convinced me. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:53 AM, wrote: > > For width, use width=*. > That ain't going to happen - far too much effort involved to do that > properly everywhere on every shared path. If you can propose something easier that's still verifiable, I'll be convinced. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:08 AM, wrote: > When new to an area, what would lead me to take one path over several > alternatives. > > I don't really want to ride them all before I know which one cyclists > usually use. Are you suggesting that a cycleway should be defined as "the path that cyclists usually use"? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
The original post was to try and align the Australian guidelines page more with the main wiki page in relation to a path http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=cycleway The example at the bottom suggests for a shared path, highway=path ...etc... I think this should be the recommendation for rail-trails We need to think a few years down the track when displaying the map for a particular use will be automatic for the intended user. Think phone knowing you are travelling by bicycle and automatically emphasising bicycle routes. With time, width and surface information should also be collected as this would greatly increase the appeal of the project to groups like the U3A, they have plenty of time on their hands and enjoy playing with new gadgets. These groups probably also care about accessibility on paths for wheel chairs and the like. Any disagreements on updating the bus_stop information? Basically changing the loc_ref stuff to route_ref. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=bus_stop Evan On Saturday 08 Aug 2009 22:08:59 j...@talk21.com wrote: > When new to an area, what would lead me to take one path over several > alternatives. > > I don't really want to ride them all before I know which one cyclists > usually use. > > John > > --- Roy Wallace wrote: > highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=yes. > > Why isn't that a good idea? All it does is take the > guesswork/ambiguity out of "cycleway", IMHO, as well as being more > extensible (in terms of snowmobiles/hovercraft/etc., and in terms of > "designated"/"official"/etc). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Liz wrote: > There are 3 Maryboroughs > More than one Northbridge For the purpose of a search, if the state was omitted which would be the best one to show? The example I gave before was Perth, WA and Perth, Tas, if someone typed in Perth they most likely meant the one in WA :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > > There are 3 Maryboroughs > > More than one Northbridge > > For the purpose of a search, if the state was omitted which would be the > best one to show? > > The example I gave before was Perth, WA and Perth, Tas, if someone typed in > Perth they most likely meant the one in WA :) > > > well for Griffith, it would have to be Griffith NSW, not that fake one in the ACT :-) -- BOFH excuse #195: We only support a 28000 bps connection. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
At the moment I'm not trying to define anything. But a shared path that's frequently used by cyclists means it's used as a cycleway. And that';s worth knowing. John --- Roy Wallace wrote: Are you suggesting that a cycleway should be defined as "the path that cyclists usually use"? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, j...@talk21.com wrote: > At the moment I'm not trying to define anything. But a shared path that's > frequently used by cyclists means it's used as a cycleway. > > And that';s worth knowing. > > John > > --- Roy Wallace wrote: > Are you suggesting that a cycleway should be defined as "the path that > cyclists usually use"? just to confuse things there is busway too i think we should mark highway=cycleway where it is a cycleway i accept that highway=path could be subdivided into everything but to me path is primarily foot use first ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > well for Griffith, it would have to be Griffith NSW, not > that fake one in the > ACT Someone should get an award for this, not only is there 3 places named Carrington in Australia, but 2 of them are in NSW. Postcodes 2294 and 2324 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] amenity=shelter
On 08/08/2009, at 6:51 PM, John Smith wrote: > --- On Sat, 8/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au > wrote: >> I'd >> say that the best solution would be >> tourism=picnic_site;shelter/cover/rainproof=yes. The reason >> being that it's not just a shelter, it's a picnic >> site which happens to be under cover. > > I suggested: > > tourism=picnic_site > cover=yes I've got a couple of these sitting in my to-be-uploaded queue as well. I'd been thinking of using shelter=yes, because I've seen that used on various other things (e,g. bus stops) to indicate that and keeping it consistent would be good, but I'm happy to use whatever we come up with. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > > well for Griffith, it would have to be Griffith NSW, not > > that fake one in the > > ACT > > Someone should get an award for this, not only is there 3 places named > Carrington in Australia, but 2 of them are in NSW. > > Postcodes 2294 and 2324 http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/name_search gives 28 results -- BOFH excuse #34: (l)user error ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
On 08/08/2009, at 11:58 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote: > On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:39:38 + (GMT) > John Smith wrote: > >> This case is an exception since there is a place=* node for Perth >> which is marked as a capital city, does anyone know 2 towns or >> villiages or ... with the same names in different states? or even >> same state I guess... > > Georgetown > > Qld, SA and NSW. George Town (with a space) is in Tas. I'm sure there are *lots* of places with the same name, a couple more are: Lilydale, Tas and Vic Queenstown, Tas and SA (and NZ) Kingston, Tas and QLD ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] long distance bus route
this is going to need a bit of organisation and collaboration more than normal I was putting in stuff from Lameroo last night and I had photographed a bus stop on the Albury to Adelaide route I can't make a relation yet for this bus route as I have one bus stop on it so has anyone any suggestions how to start recording this?so far I have put it in as a bus stop only <>___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] long distance bus route
--- On Sun, 9/8/09, Liz wrote: > this is going to need a bit of > organisation and collaboration more than normal > I was putting in stuff from Lameroo last night and I had > photographed a bus > stop on the Albury to Adelaide route > I can't make a relation yet for this bus route as I have > one bus stop on it > so has anyone any suggestions how to start recording > this?so far I have put it > in as a bus stop only I asked about this in June: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2009-June/001700.html I'm not sure if I did it right or not, probably not as it was some of the earlier things I attempted to map. I mapped a relation for the Inverell to Tamworth Countrylink Bus Service. That reminds me, as I should get round to adding the other bus stops in. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/name_search > gives 28 results Only 2 are localities, the rest are boundaries etc. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] long distance bus route
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > --- On Sun, 9/8/09, Liz wrote: > > this is going to need a bit of > > organisation and collaboration more than normal > > I was putting in stuff from Lameroo last night and I had > > photographed a bus > > stop on the Albury to Adelaide route > > I can't make a relation yet for this bus route as I have > > one bus stop on it > > so has anyone any suggestions how to start recording > > this?so far I have put it > > in as a bus stop only > > I asked about this in June: > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2009-June/001700.html > > I'm not sure if I did it right or not, probably not as it was some of the > earlier things I attempted to map. I mapped a relation for the Inverell to > Tamworth Countrylink Bus Service. > > That reminds me, as I should get round to adding the other bus stops in. but we need a little more help - i'm not going to find all the stops on this run https://www.vline.com.au/pdf/newtimetables/adelaide-sydney.pdf so how do I mark the one and only stop so far? (i expect the adelaide terminus is mapped) -- BOFH excuse #395: Redundant ACLs. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, James Livingston wrote: > I'm sure there are *lots* of places with the same name, a > couple more I was hoping to make it easy for people so they don't need to enter the state, but there isn't enough info in the OSM database to distinguish between them, and I guess I'll search the duplicate place names and add the most significantly mapped area as first preference. Also I think I improved the street lookup section of the code, seems a little faster and it shows the distance from the place you supplied in the search. Until suitable postcode boundaries and place=* nodes are in place it will be interesting to distinguish between towns in the same state. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] long distance bus route
--- On Sun, 9/8/09, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > but we need a little more help - i'm not going to find all > the stops on this > run > https://www.vline.com.au/pdf/newtimetables/adelaide-sydney.pdf > so how do I mark the one and only stop so far? > (i expect the adelaide terminus is mapped) The bus route I did was some what smaller, but I initially marked out the route itself, and then added the bus stops in afterwards. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Webpage layout
I've been toying with some more javascript to do useful things. The map page is in a iframe of the main page, and now they both interact with each other. If you are at a suitable zoom level (z13-18) an edit tab will appear which will open the potlatch screen in the main section of the page. You can flick backwards and forwards from the map screen and the edit screen and you can even flick to the wiki and back again. Are there any other main links that should go on the page? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
