Re: [talk-au] Norfolk Island
--- On Thu, 13/8/09, dar...@tpg.com.au wrote: > Hi John, I will put up my hand as the I was more curious than anything if the roads were really that sort of a classification :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
--- On Thu, 13/8/09, BlueMM wrote: > We have had the previous definition up on the Au tagging > page for a long time, I > know all my mapping has been based on that. I find it weird > that someone brings > up on the mailing list saying that the German's are tagging > like X (contary to > the wiki def), no one seems to comment much on the list, > then the tagging > guidelines are changed while we have thousands/millions? of > ways mapped the > previous way!! I don't think I changed the meaning at all, and I don't think anything already tagged has to change as a result of rewording. How many rural roads did you tag as residential for example? Also the Australian Tagging Guidelines shouldn't take precedent over the main mapping features, it should be a translation of the mapping features into Australian english. > Also I agree with Liz over the "Non-existant streets" > issue, how can we possibly > put anything on the map that mentions copyright sources, by > definition it has to > be copyright. I just had a look at the section "What I'm pretty sure Liz wasn't talking about that section. > seems to say never copy copyrighted maps (good) and a list > of things that would > be done normally as part of "map what's on the ground". I > see these as redundant If it's so redundant why was so many people commenting on this list about what to do and no one seemed to have a silver bullet in terms of an answer, while it might seem redundant when you read it what if you hadn't? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
--- On Thu, 13/8/09, Liz wrote: > Rather than change now, which doesn't > represent what we have on the map > I was intending to hold changes until something came out of > the general > discussion > which is finally settling down to analysis of the arguments > and the real > reasons for dispute Well this is what I was asking comments for the other day and it didn't really get discussed properly. Has what I changed it to put it much out of line with it's current usage, rural roads are tagged generally unclassified, I don't think they should be tagged as residential except in a few exceptions such as a housing develop that isn't near a town. > so could you revert that please John? Unlike the map data anyone can revert a change. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Norfolk Island
John wrote "Can anyone that has been to Norfolk island, or lives there, comment on why 99% of the roads are all listed as secondary?" Hi John, I will put up my hand as the perpatrator of this anomoly. It was my very early attempt at mapping. I was looking at it last weekend and have put on my to-do list in the very near future. There some other things that I have to update also. regards Darylr ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:27:38 + (UTC) BlueMM wrote: > Liz writes: > > Rather than change now, which doesn't represent what we have on the map > > I was intending to hold changes until something came out of the general > > discussion which is finally settling down to analysis of the arguments and > > the real reasons for dispute > > > > so could you revert that please John? > > I second that. Third for that. -- Ross Scanlon ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only 2009/8/14 Andrew Laughton > Where is the Wiki ? > > > 2009/8/14 Jason Stirk > > Voted >> >> 2009/8/14 Elizabeth Dodd >> >> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: >>> > --- On Thu, 13/8/09, Liz wrote: >>> > > there are some things that are best done by action rather >>> > > than talk >>> > > and 4wd_only os one of them. >>> > > we make a decision >>> > > we go ahead >>> > >>> > There needs to be another 3 votes to meet the current minimum standard >>> of >>> > 15 votes, so far there is 7 for and 5 against. >>> > >>> > If you haven't voted, please vote. >>> >>> >>> >>> OK I've voted >>> That's the first time I've voted on anything on the wiki >>> we've got 13 now >>> please 2 more people vote >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 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
Where is the Wiki ? 2009/8/14 Jason Stirk > Voted > > 2009/8/14 Elizabeth Dodd > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: >> > --- On Thu, 13/8/09, Liz wrote: >> > > there are some things that are best done by action rather >> > > than talk >> > > and 4wd_only os one of them. >> > > we make a decision >> > > we go ahead >> > >> > There needs to be another 3 votes to meet the current minimum standard >> of >> > 15 votes, so far there is 7 for and 5 against. >> > >> > If you haven't voted, please vote. >> >> >> >> OK I've voted >> That's the first time I've voted on anything on the wiki >> we've got 13 now >> please 2 more people vote >> >> ___ >> 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 mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only
Voted 2009/8/14 Elizabeth Dodd > On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > > --- On Thu, 13/8/09, Liz wrote: > > > there are some things that are best done by action rather > > > than talk > > > and 4wd_only os one of them. > > > we make a decision > > > we go ahead > > > > There needs to be another 3 votes to meet the current minimum standard of > > 15 votes, so far there is 7 for and 5 against. > > > > If you haven't voted, please vote. > > > > OK I've voted > That's the first time I've voted on anything on the wiki > we've got 13 now > please 2 more people vote > > ___ > 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] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
Liz writes: > Rather than change now, which doesn't represent what we have on the map > I was intending to hold changes until something came out of the general > discussion which is finally settling down to analysis of the arguments and > the real reasons for dispute > > so could you revert that please John? I second that. I know it's a wiki, and we have all seen arbitrary changes made to it by users who think they are making changes for the better (it seems a lot of the early mappers from the Talk mailing list think the wiki is a waste of time for this very reason). We have had the previous definition up on the Au tagging page for a long time, I know all my mapping has been based on that. I find it weird that someone brings up on the mailing list saying that the German's are tagging like X (contary to the wiki def), no one seems to comment much on the list, then the tagging guidelines are changed while we have thousands/millions? of ways mapped the previous way!! I'd expect lots of discussion/time & consensus from more that a few usuals for such a massive change. There are a lot of Au mappers that are very active that don't comment or even follow the Au mailing list (I know I didn't for the first year, the Au list didn't seem too active, unlike now where it is going off tap). Also I agree with Liz over the "Non-existant streets" issue, how can we possibly put anything on the map that mentions copyright sources, by definition it has to be copyright. I just had a look at the section "What happens if another map says a road exists but isn't really there?" John added to the Au guidelines page. It seems to say never copy copyrighted maps (good) and a list of things that would be done normally as part of "map what's on the ground". I see these as redundant as they are mentioned elsewhere, therefore I think it should be reverted. I'm not a big fan of the implication to look at other copyrighted maps as reference, I think writing that down could lead us down a very grey path. Of course, my opinions won't keep me warm at night :-) BlueMM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
Rather than change now, which doesn't represent what we have on the map I was intending to hold changes until something came out of the general discussion which is finally settling down to analysis of the arguments and the real reasons for dispute so could you revert that please John? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > --- On Thu, 13/8/09, Liz wrote: > > there are some things that are best done by action rather > > than talk > > and 4wd_only os one of them. > > we make a decision > > we go ahead > > There needs to be another 3 votes to meet the current minimum standard of > 15 votes, so far there is 7 for and 5 against. > > If you haven't voted, please vote. OK I've voted That's the first time I've voted on anything on the wiki we've got 13 now please 2 more people vote ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Garmin routable (was Re: Cycleway/footway/path)
Hi. 2009/8/12 Matt White > I think I added the street name as POI option to the Garmin map > generation, but perhaps not for the cycle maps... I'll check tomorrow. > > The RP file has a section for a street index. Creating this section enables the street/intersection search function in Garmin GPS units. Creating POIs wouldn't enable this. - Ben. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only
--- On Thu, 13/8/09, Liz wrote: > there are some things that are best done by action rather > than talk > and 4wd_only os one of them. > we make a decision > we go ahead There needs to be another 3 votes to meet the current minimum standard of 15 votes, so far there is 7 for and 5 against. If you haven't voted, please vote. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] List of potential datasources
--- On Thu, 13/8/09, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote: > encourage innovation. I already suggested the Postcode > boundaries > being released with a more open licence, although it's hard > to tell if > that's due to technical reasons or a risk adverse culture. The ABS has released a mostly accurate copy of the postcode boundaries. http://maps.bigtincan.com/data/postcodes/ Although I doubt anyone would say no to better data if it is released. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] List of potential datasources
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:08 PM, James Livingston wrote: > Yesterday I was thinking about somewhere we could potentially get some > data from, and I thought I'd have a look around to see if anyone had > contacted them before. As far as I know there doesn't seem to be a > single place listing those we've contacted, only those that have been > imported[0]. If anybody knows any federal government datasources that would be useful, the Government 2.0 taskforce is looking for data sources that the community would find useful but currently aren't available for technical reasons [1]. This will form part of a series of contests to encourage innovation. I already suggested the Postcode boundaries being released with a more open licence, although it's hard to tell if that's due to technical reasons or a risk adverse culture. [1] http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/08/13/hack-mash-and-innovate-contests-coming-soon/ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Norfolk Island
when I was there a few years ago they even had a roundabout painted at
an intersection, someone said to make Canberrans feel at home.
Everyone drove straight over it... :)
jim
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:09 PM, John Smith wrote:
> --- On Thu, 13/8/09, Rob Kemp wrote:
>
>> I can see why the streets wouldn't be tagged
>> Residential. Houses or
>> other buildings are generally well spaced (as in a
>> semi-rural area).
>> Last time I was there max speed on the island was 50 kmph
>> (Not that
>> you'd want to do much faster than that on most of the
>> roads). Roads
>> are generally fairly narrow. Maybe Tertiary would be
>> a better tag?
>
> Sounds more like unclassified, I just updated the wiki deff on the Australia
> Tagging Guideline page to put things in line with the euro-centric/German
> view of things.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Road_Tagging
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
--
_
Jim Croft ~ jim.cr...@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Norfolk Island
--- On Thu, 13/8/09, Rob Kemp wrote: > I can see why the streets wouldn't be tagged > Residential. Houses or > other buildings are generally well spaced (as in a > semi-rural area). > Last time I was there max speed on the island was 50 kmph > (Not that > you'd want to do much faster than that on most of the > roads). Roads > are generally fairly narrow. Maybe Tertiary would be > a better tag? Sounds more like unclassified, I just updated the wiki deff on the Australia Tagging Guideline page to put things in line with the euro-centric/German view of things. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Road_Tagging ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Wikimedia Association Rules
Just reading up on all this stuff, the Australian chapter for wikimedia foundation has their rules more or less inline with what we'd need if things go ahead. http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Rules They've been kind enough to highlight things in red as to what they changed or added :) They also have a statement of purpose, which is something I think we need as well to satisfy OSMF. http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Statement_of_Purpose ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Norfolk Island
I can see why the streets wouldn't be tagged Residential. Houses or other buildings are generally well spaced (as in a semi-rural area). Last time I was there max speed on the island was 50 kmph (Not that you'd want to do much faster than that on most of the roads). Roads are generally fairly narrow. Maybe Tertiary would be a better tag? - Rob > Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:09:32 + > From: delta_foxt...@yahoo.com > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [talk-au] Norfolk Island > > Can anyone that has been to Norfolk island, or lives there, comment on why > 99% of the roads are all listed as secondary? > > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _ Need a new model in your life? Sell your car fast. http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813%2Fai%5F866383&_t=758314219&_r=carpoint_tagline&_m=EXT___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] List of potential datasources
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, James Livingston wrote: > Hi all, > > Yesterday I was thinking about somewhere we could potentially get some > data from, and I thought I'd have a look around to see if anyone had > contacted them before. As far as I know there doesn't seem to be a > single place listing those we've contacted, only those that have been > imported[0]. > > Assuming I haven't missed it somewhere, I think it would be useful to > have a list of those organisation we'd contacts and are talking to, > and those who have said 'no' to us with a reason why. If for example > some groups didn't want to deal with a bunch of random people, we > could then have a list of those to go back to if we get a legal entity > up and running. > > > Does anyone know if a list already exists, or should I trawl back to > the mailing list archives and start one? > > [0] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Imports > email swamp wallaby = brent easton because he got stuff from NSWGNB ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > I received non-legal opinions from the legal-talk list and the best > solution given was to use a barrier=* and no-turning restrictions to > highlight the fact that nothing is there. > > We could also tag things as an area, landuse=* from sat imagery to indicate > the area has been mapped, rather than let people assume otherwise. > > Other than that everything else might be too borderline. It was suggested > we host our own overlay information but I think that just shifts the > copyright debate away from OSM but could still potentially get someone else > in trouble. all of which were hopelessly negative making a public record of someone else's mistake is the strangest form of copyright infringement yet known. we should talk with the RIAA as we didn't want this to be any sort of tag which would be rendered they had queer sorts of answers - for example thinking we would tag the 'service road' to someone's carport ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > > Has anyone discussed the appropriateness of using the > > "4wd_only" nomenclature? > > It seems a bit Australia(NZ?) specific. Maybe that is why > > Is also in at least Iceland. > > > there is so much > > opposition. Seems the Wiki proposal is losing the vote. > > It looks about 50/50, but I just went and looked at the database structure > and it seems to me access=4wd_only or access=4wd_recommended would be much > easier to implement as there is a column for that already, so no code in > the import side of things or anything else would be needed. > > I guess I should have checked sooner on the easiest way to implement this, > not just what someone else had already thought of. there are some things that are best done by action rather than talk and 4wd_only os one of them. we make a decision we go ahead ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] List of potential datasources
Hi all, Yesterday I was thinking about somewhere we could potentially get some data from, and I thought I'd have a look around to see if anyone had contacted them before. As far as I know there doesn't seem to be a single place listing those we've contacted, only those that have been imported[0]. Assuming I haven't missed it somewhere, I think it would be useful to have a list of those organisation we'd contacts and are talking to, and those who have said 'no' to us with a reason why. If for example some groups didn't want to deal with a bunch of random people, we could then have a list of those to go back to if we get a legal entity up and running. Does anyone know if a list already exists, or should I trawl back to the mailing list archives and start one? [0] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Imports ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets
I've added a section about this to the wiki, not sure if I covered all things or not. Please review/comment. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#What_happens_if_another_map_says_a_road_exists_but_isn.27t_really_there.3F ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
