Re: [talk-au] amenity=parking in the middle of a field?
Roy Wallace wrote: > Anyone know what the deal is with this?: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/316607432 Here's another one that seems out by hundreds of metres to me, and from the same source: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/316590785 Although it's been a while since I camped at Cynthia Bay, it was on the other side of the road and on the water's edge at Lake St Clair. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Cycle path under railway
Hello I am slowly mapping parts of Warragul and cycled the shared use path in Linear park. The cycles track runs under the Bairnsdale line railway at one point and I was wondering how to map this. I thought about making two points on the way a bridge but JOSM would not allow this. Do I have to make a separate way for this part and then link it all together. Which raises another point how do I link all the bits that I have mapped into one one way or put in a relation to make it a route. Or do I just work around it by naming all the bits as Linear park track? Thanks for the help in advance. Geoff New to OSM New to Warragul New to Australia and that is why I am here I started using OSM on my South Africa bought Garmin and started a new hobby of mapping. :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Custom highway shields
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:09:22 +1000 John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/28 John Smith : > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields > > I've now listed the default highway shields for Australia but there > may be some ones in other states they may need to be listed different > if the shield design differs from NSW/Qld... Can you include the shield image on the wiki page? -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Custom highway shields
2009/12/28 John Smith : > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields I've now listed the default highway shields for Australia but there may be some ones in other states they may need to be listed different if the shield design differs from NSW/Qld... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Tourism routes in Australia
I'm aware of the site listing all the highways in Australia, but does anyone know of a site or sites that list some or all of the tourism routes in Australia? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Custom highway shields
This has been a niggling problem for a number of people including myself for some time now, while it was possible to due this on the fly that method doesn't really scale so I've had to come up with an alternative plan of action and I've been discussing this with a couple others on and off for the last week or so. However I think we've managed to come up with a suitable technical solution, which was promptly shouted down, even before an implementation even existed, because some people only want the oval highway shields. I'll try to get some time today to come up with some code, but it's the silly season... In the mean time, I've thrown up a wiki page that we plan to use as the basis of a lookup table, once the country of a way is known we can look at other tags/polygons as needed to figure out the shield needed. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields I hope this lookup table should be extensive enough to not only cover numeric shields, but also pictorial tourism shields. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Re: [Osmf-talk] Results of OSMF Member Vote
2009/12/28 Liz : > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Matija Nalis > To: Matt Amos > > I would actually expect OSMF membership to be *more* interested in the > license change issues than the average OSM contributor; but even if we > assume that it is representative of the general OSM population, it is > terrible ! I wonder what numbers are needed if they wanted to change the organisation constitution, you usually need a 2/3'rds majority by default in Australia, something they don't seem to have achieved. > "We should proceed with change of license only if that would result in: This is the problem with polls in general, they are only as valuable as the person writing them, or more to the point how biasly they are writing them. > Opinions above are GNU-copylefted. This is funny, since he would have been better off with a cc-by copyright license in this instance :) Also something no one seems to have answered, if cc-by-sa isn't valid on geodata then no data has to be deleted, it could be simply taken and re-licensed, or what am I missing here? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fwd: Re: [Osmf-talk] Results of OSMF Member Vote
--- Begin Message --- On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:31:28AM +, Matt Amos wrote: > the OSMF member vote has been closed, and the results from 270 members > polled** are: Thanks for the results, Matt > Approved the process:132 > Did not approve the process: 16 > Didn't vote: 122 > > alternatively, > > Approval rate: 89% > Turnout rate: 55% Those numbers frighten me very much, if we are to proceed with ODbL implementation plan as charted. I would actually expect OSMF membership to be *more* interested in the license change issues than the average OSM contributor; but even if we assume that it is representative of the general OSM population, it is terrible ! If the general OSM poll (that is: "do you relicense" question) has the similar results, it would be catastrophic. Data from *more than half* of the users would have to be removed. Add to that the multiple editors of the the same points/ways/relations and we could easily end up with something like 2/3 (or more) of the map being deleted (or at least very heavily damaged). Even *much* better results (like "only" 20% of the map being destroyed) would be IMO too horrible to justify the advantages the clearer license brings. Not to mention the social problems such an action would bring: this project thrives on enthusiasm of users; if much of someones work of several years gets removed because *someone else* didn't want (or bother) to relicense, there is no way such guy/gal is going to spread a nice word about OSM, much less contribute ever again. IMHO, anything more than 10% of data being destroyed (and that is probably less than 10% of the users) would bring much more damage than good to the project. (And that is assuming ODbL *is* the perfect solution to the problem, which it might turn out not to be). Some time ago[1] I tried (without much success) to get some answers what the Board thinks would be a acceptable number of user/data loss under which the license change should proceed. With this results of OSMF vote; I think it is essential that this is cleared out before we proceed with implementation plan. Actually, I think the OSMF membership should be asked about it. Therefore, I would ask the Board to make the following poll to the OSMF membership before proceeding with implementation plan: "We should proceed with change of license only if that would result in: (a) no data being removed at all (b) less than 1% of the data being removed (c) less than 5% of the data being removed (d) less than 10% of the data being removed (e) less than 15% of the data being removed (f) less than 20% of the data being removed (g) less than 25% of the data being removed (h) less than 35% of the data being removed (i) less than 50% of the data being removed (j) less than 75% of the data being removed (k) less than 90% of the data being removed (l) no matter what the loss of data" (I understand that (a) actually means heavily changing the implementation/backup plan in the lines of having multiple-licensed data to coexist, and that (l) is lunatic, but I wanted to give full range of options.) Then the median of acceptable loss should be calculated, and announced (and used) as a limit at which we abort license change implementation plan (and rethink what to do) instead of proceeding with data removal/archiving. Matija [1] Message-ID: <20091210003726.ga15...@eagle102.home.lan> -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted. ___ osmf-talk mailing list osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk --- End Message --- ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wrong way round the roundabout
2009/12/27 Ross Scanlon : > It would still be nice to have a tool to do it automatically or some way to > scale the circle size. What annoys me about the circle tool in JOSM is the fact it doesn't really make nice looking roundabouts, and more often than not I end up merging half the nodes... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wrong way round the roundabout
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:50:58 +1100 Liz wrote: > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Ross Scanlon wrote: > > But it's just one more reason to use josm. > In JOSM you can use copy and paste > so I can draw one roundabout with 8 or 12 nodes > then copy and paste that roundabout across where I'm working > joining up nodes and ways then erasing the central crossroads Likewise. It would still be nice to have a tool to do it automatically or some way to scale the circle size. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] amenity=parking in the middle of a field?
2009/12/27 Liz : > Can anyone program a bot to pick up these rest areas and mark those without a > subsequent change (ie new author) as not reviewed?? It's easy to pull data from one of the XAPI servers, eg to get all fuel locations for Australia you do this: wget http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.6/node\[amenity=fuel\]\[bbox=112,-45,155,-9\] -O fuel.osm Although the bbox does allow a few locations in from south eastern asia, but then you can load the file into JOSM and run searches on it, but it doesn't seem easy to search on the version number of an object, not sure why but I've filed a bug about this: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/4241 You can however search based on username, so if all points were bulk imported this might be the next best way to do things: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Search_function ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wrong way round the roundabout
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Ross Scanlon wrote: > But it's just one more reason to use josm. In JOSM you can use copy and paste so I can draw one roundabout with 8 or 12 nodes then copy and paste that roundabout across where I'm working joining up nodes and ways then erasing the central crossroads ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] amenity=parking in the middle of a field?
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, John Henderson wrote: > Roy Wallace wrote: > > Anyone know what the deal is with this?: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/316607432 > > Probably should be the nearby rest area. > > I've surveyed a few campsites that had a similar attribution, and had to > move them quite a distance. > > EG, when I surveyed Lowden Forest Park and access roads, the campsite > POI was the only thing already on OSM, and it was out by many hundred of > metres. > > http://www.osm.org/?lat=-35.510088&lon=149.603653&zoom=1 > > John > I'd suggest that the future method of imports should contain a key equivalent to "not reviewed" If these ones had reviewed / not reviewed on them it would be clearer overall Can anyone program a bot to pick up these rest areas and mark those without a subsequent change (ie new author) as not reviewed?? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wrong way round the roundabout
John Smith wrote: 2009/12/27 John Henderson : Richard Colless wrote: I was trying out the latest routable OSM maps, and came across a couple of odd items. One was a roundabout where the Etrex told me to go round it in the wrong direction - anti-clockwise. It's the only one that gave me the wrong direction. I find it a bit odd that Fairwater Drive (a divided road) is "tertiary" in one direction and "residential" in the other. I think the only way that would be possible is if the main road was realigned and old sections of the road was left so existing houses could be access. It's not far from my home. I'll have a look at it in the near future Richard. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Miniature Railways
Mapped out another miniature railway today in Casino NSW and it looks like I forgot to make a request for enhancement after I mapped the last one so I filed a bug for this one: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2577 It may not really be much of an issue that the track doesn't render except that the name does render: http://osm.org/go/ubT3PYBt ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
