Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney
On 5 September 2011 14:31, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: You need to be explicit about the comparison you're making. This is volunteer labour, and you can't meaningfully compare the contribution that people are willing to make against the contribution you'd prefer they make. And if you want to, you have to factor in time and other costs. I can trace 10 streets in the time you can survey one. We could argue about which is the more valuable contribution - or we could recognise that both are valuable, and get back to it. Hi, As I said, it is an issue as old as OSM that isn't likely to be resolved here and now. You may recall in the early days of segments, there was a capability to add a path from tracing, which didn't appear on the map, and then when it was surveyed, confirmed and named, it would have a rendered way that was part of the map. Personally, I think people shouldn't map areas when they don't have any knowledge of the topology and layout because I think fixing errors takes several orders of magnitude longer than the tracing. Any perceived time saving is illusory, when someone has to visit the area sooner or later anyway. I think having a complete map is very long term goal, and having an accurate map is a higher priority. I'd much rather a street be missing than wrong, and accuracy comes cheaper when accurate work is done the first time. OSM remains a successful project, and when we have people who are mapping underground pipes and antennas on top of buildings, volunteer time doesn't seem to be the first consideration. However, I understand that the community has a divergence of views. I understand that everyone makes mistakes, even from the most detailed survey, and accordingly I'm sure you will find as many supporters of your position as detractors. If everyone makes sure that the source tags are updated accurately, and continue to discuss errors we find in a cooperative manner, hopefully we'll all manage to map happily every after. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: As I said, it is an issue as old as OSM that isn't likely to be resolved here and now. You may recall in the early days of segments, there was a capability to add a path from tracing, which didn't appear on the map, and then when it was surveyed, confirmed and named, it would have a rendered way that was part of the map. Personally, I think people shouldn't map areas when they don't have any knowledge of the topology and layout because I think fixing errors takes several orders of magnitude longer than the tracing. Any perceived time saving is illusory, when someone has to visit the area sooner or later anyway. I think having a complete map is very long term goal, and having an accurate map is a higher priority. I'd much rather a street be missing than wrong, and accuracy comes cheaper when accurate work is done the first time. OSM remains a successful project, and when we have people who are mapping underground pipes and antennas on top of buildings, volunteer time doesn't seem to be the first consideration. The imagery never becomes available before the on the ground geography. Giving eager mapers time to fill in via survey before the imagery comes. However, I understand that the community has a divergence of views. I understand that everyone makes mistakes, even from the most detailed survey, and accordingly I'm sure you will find as many supporters of your position as detractors. If everyone makes sure that the source tags are updated accurately, and continue to discuss errors we find in a cooperative manner, hopefully we'll all manage to map happily every after. ... and if you find errors in the existing data (whether it be from survey or tracing) you are free to fix it up. The only grounds I can think of for the community to not accept data from contributors is incompatible license or incorrect data. If imagery leads to incorrect data, all the community can do is fix it up from their survey work. All the time we are really a do-ocracy. If you prefer ground survey, then go out and do some ground surveys and soon the map will be full of ground surved work, in fact I've probably passed you in the Shire doing the same thing without even realising. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: The imagery never becomes available before the on the ground geography. Giving eager mapers time to fill in via survey before the imagery comes. Not always true, actually. New building sites appear on Nearmap (yes, I know...) before public access is available. And there's lots of stuff that can't really be mapped any other way (industrial sites come to mind). The only grounds I can think of for the community to not accept data from contributors is incompatible license or incorrect data. If imagery leads to incorrect data, all the community can do is fix it up from their survey work. Well, if there are contributors whose output costs others more time than it saves, then of course the community should reject it. Usually the debate about whether that's the case will totally overwhelm whatever the difference is though. Anyway, I'm quite glad there are people who enjoy ground surveying. And some of those people apparently are glad that there are people who prefer aerial tracing. What a team we all make! Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
Does anyone have a good justification for keeping this road route reln? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/538443 The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway. It is just wrong IMO. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route number. I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. - Ben. On Sep 6, 2011 7:04 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone have a good justification for keeping this road route reln? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/538443 The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway. It is just wrong IMO. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney
I wonder if this thread may have deviated a little from my original topic, but anyway: I noticed some un-mapped streets on Sydney's northern beaches. They look to be under construction on Bing (and not particularly clear in the photo) so they could use a survey, if anyone happens to be in the area. Somewhere around here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-33.72396lon=151.27789zoom=17layers=M I suspect the missing streets are just north of James Wheeler Place in Narabeen, or possibly James Wheeler Place has been extended. - Ben. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Contribution review??
Hi - I am a new contributor to OSM and in the spirit of people shouldn't map areas when they don't have any knowledge of the topology and layout because I think fixing errors takes several orders of magnitude longer I would appreciate a 'contribution review'. I know the area but I little knowledge of OSM JOSM baffles me so I have been using Potlatch. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Ariconte/edits Cheers, Richard. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway. It is just wrong IMO. I'm not sure what you mean by this. If anything, the Princes Highway is *the* canonical road route in Australia, exactly as you describe: a single named route that is made up of many other roads with different names. But I'm not familiar with the Sydney end of it, so maybe I'm missing something. I'm also curious why there are more than one relation. Here's another Princes Highway relation in southeastern Melbourne: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/215662 Note the ref tag. According to Wikipedia, it should extend all the way from Adelaide to Sydney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Highway Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney
Someone wrote Yep. A one-way street mapped as a two-way street is better than nothing. To me this statement absoluetly defines the difference between people who just want to see lots of lines on the map and people who want to actually use the map for navigation. Many moons ago I was driving on the 17 mile drive, trying to get to a golf course for a round. I accidently took a wrong turn and then the pathetic Teleatlas maps tried to get me to turn up one way streets the wrong way, eight times in a row. I just turned off the unit and navigated by the sun (which is hard for us Aussies in the Northern Hemisphere). This experience (plus some others with the substandard sensis maps) convinced me that we really need up-to-date ACCURATE maps which match reality. In Canberra I think I've fixed up all the one way streets that were not so marked. When up in Queansland, I was on a left handed golf tour and on the way home the bus driver, at one of the stops, admitted he was new to the job and didn't know the way to the next hotel. Of course I was capturing gps traces at the time so I told him just turn left into Smith street and then take the next right at the T junction. Unfortunately I was using sensis mapping and when we got to the right turn, there was a no right turn sign. The whole bus laughed a lot at this useless computer technonoly and the bus driver in frustration just turned right anyway, nearly taking out the sign and a few pedestrians as well. There are so many other examples where near enough is good enough maps are just so dangerous but time does fix most things and eventually the planet will be surveyed properly and we will have usefull maps. I think 10 years may see Australia with good mapping. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney
I wrote: Personally, I think people shouldn't map areas when they don't have any knowledge of the topology and layout because I think fixing errors takes several orders of magnitude longer than the tracing. On 6 September 2011 10:31, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: Who cares? Um, Me? Maybe you? That's not the right comparison. Does fixing the errors take several times longer than editing it from nothing? I think it does, yes. And in the meantime you have data that may be wrong. Personally, on the local scale where most OSM Australia mapping is up to, I struggle to see much benefit of having the vectors traced from imagery on a map over the raw imagery itself. The local visit can certainly add more details, (street names for a start) but it's damn rare that it will get a better overall layout positioning. Lot's of gps traces can be just as good, but that takes multiple visits on different days to get good averaging. I think this is a proposition that could probably do with more empirical evidence. Especially with the halcyon days of nearmap behind us. I do have roads and cycleways that I have many many GPS traces for the single way over multiple visits, and the divergence appears very limited. Of course GPS signals can lose it entirely occasionally with reflections, etc, but it isn't like the surveyor doesn't have the imagery as another arrow in their quiver. If things get displaced it isn't hard to highlight areas of possible concern and investigate the errors further. If after understanding the topology, on-the-ground changes, and any offset, the easiest way is to trace the imagery for a way, then that is an option still open to the surveyor. Any perceived time saving is illusory, when someone has to visit the area sooner or later anyway. Again, who cares? You are only responding to half an argument. Steve was saying that he can map 10x the area from imagery than I can from surveying in the same time, and advocating that as a benefit of imagery tracing. My response to that was that the time saving is illusory, because after he maps from the imagery, I still have to go there and survey it. Well, words to that effect anyway... Beside which, you're wrong. I've done a lot of mapping, and it takes the less time overall to do an area from good imagery first, then go fill in the details on the ground than to do it all from tracing. It also makes the ground visit quicker, As I said, I recognise there is a divergence of views here, including among people who have made substantial contributions to the map. Most of the views have been given a fair airing in the past, and I'm not expecting a new consensus here and now. However, I do, with respect, still disagree with you. As you say, time isn't the only consideration. I wouldn't want to be navigating anywhere important based on a map merely consisting of vectorised aerial imagery. IMO OSMers are the ones who should be having the adventures down the road that may or may not connect, may or may not be open to the public, etc, leaving our data consumers with the benefit of our endeavours with maps accurately reflecting what is on the ground. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route number. So best to use the route number to define a route when it exists, rather than a road name 'route', yes? I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. The Princes Hwy used to run through the town centre as the main road. The through route gets diverted around town to different road. Some time later the road running through centre of town gets assigned a different name (or made into pedestrian mall, one way, etc). The Princes Hwy road name no longer exists. It is apparent where the through route is, tagged with the route number. When the name and topology of the road has changed, I don't know how you can definitively tell where this Princes Highway Route, should go, it is fairly arbitrary. I think I've located the source of this named route, in an RTA internal road classification document. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/downloads/lgr/reg_table_for_internet_31jan11.pdf This document tells which roads are RTA funded, and which are local roads, and does have a Princes Hwy route for the purposes of funding. However, I really believe we should stick to mapping what is on the ground, else we are going to run into trouble. Noting as well, that the document doesn't accurately define the route any more than the suburbs it runs through. Ian. - Ben. On Sep 6, 2011 7:04 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone have a good justification for keeping this road route reln? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/538443 The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway. It is just wrong IMO. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 06/09/11 10:50, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route number. So best to use the route number to define a route when it exists, rather than a road name 'route', yes? No. The route is still the Princes Highway as per here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Route_Numbers I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. The Princes Hwy used to run through the town centre as the main road. The through route gets diverted around town to different road. Some time later the road running through centre of town gets assigned a different name (or made into pedestrian mall, one way, etc). The Princes Hwy road name no longer exists. It is apparent where the through route is, tagged with the route number. When the name and topology of the road has changed, I don't know how you can definitively tell where this Princes Highway Route, should go, it is fairly arbitrary. Then the new route should be added to the relation and the old route ways removed. As Steve pointed out the relation should one from Adelaide to Sydney as that's where the Princes Highway runs although many different road names make up that highway. Just as many different road names make up the route relation for highway 1. Cheers Ross Ian. - Ben. On Sep 6, 2011 7:04 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com mailto:inas66%2b...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone have a good justification for keeping this road route reln? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/538443 The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway. It is just wrong IMO. Ian. ___ 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] Contribution review??
Hi Richard, Welcome to OSM. A few observations. Nearmap is no longer an acceptable source for OSM, since they do not allow traces from their imagery to be re-licensed. I notice at least one of your edits sourced nearmap, and that isn't allowed any more. If you were using Potlatch, perhaps you were using bing and didn't notice it? Using the name tag to describe the way or the amenity probably isn't best practice, it really should be the name of the way if it has one, and just left blank if not. Putting path connecting two streets, isn't the name, but you can put it in a note tag if you think the information is important. Same with the playground, etc. The name is what displays on the map as the label. You also don't need to put (dirt) in the name, instead you can use the surface tags, or tracktype tags. You don't need to put steps in the name, you can use highway=steps, or steps=yes. Apart from that, it looks good, and I look forward to grabbing my GPS and walking the Bungaroo Track soon. Ian. On 6 September 2011 07:49, Richard Ames rich...@ames.id.au wrote: Hi - I am a new contributor to OSM and in the spirit of people shouldn't map areas when they don't have any knowledge of the topology and layout because I think fixing errors takes several orders of magnitude longer I would appreciate a 'contribution review'. I know the area but I little knowledge of OSM JOSM baffles me so I have been using Potlatch. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Ariconte/edits Cheers, Richard. ___ 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] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 13:21, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: No. The route is still the Princes Highway as per here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Australian_Tagging_** Guidelines#Route_Numbershttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Route_Numbers How do I tell where this named route goes? I've read the Australian tagging guidelines, but they seem to be quite at odds with the recommendations for using the relation elsewhere. Is there anywhere other than Australia where we attach a road name to a road named differently road? Then the new route should be added to the relation and the old route ways removed. As Steve pointed out the relation should one from Adelaide to Sydney as that's where the Princes Highway runs although many different road names make up that highway. Just as many different road names make up the route relation for highway 1. But what is the new route, and what is the old route? If we can't answer this question, then we can't map it. In Wollongong, you have the RTA official Princes Hwy route taking Bellambi Lane and the Northern Distributor, while the parallel road is named, the Princes Highway, Flinders St, Crown St. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? In Victoria you have the Princes Fwy, in some instances the Princes Highway runs next to it. The Princes Hwy in some sections isn't even a through route. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? In Sutherland you have the Sutherland Bypass on Acacia Rd, (Route MR1), the old Princes Hwy goes into Sutherland, and then stops. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? Do you see the problem? If we aren't mapping what is on the ground, what are we mapping? Who makes the decision, and how to we arbitrate. Not mapping what is verifiable on the ground is a radical departure for OSM, and we need to think this through again. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Contribution review??
On 06/09/11 11:26, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi Richard, Welcome to OSM. A few observations. Nearmap is no longer an acceptable source for OSM, since they do not allow traces from their imagery to be re-licensed. I notice at least one of your edits sourced nearmap, and that isn't allowed any more. If you were using Potlatch, perhaps you were using bing and didn't notice it? If you look in the history you will see that it's prior to 17 July 2011 and not added by Richard as a source he has just added more detail. As Richard is using Potlatch he will be unable to access Nearmap imagery any way. Using the name tag to describe the way or the amenity probably isn't best practice, it really should be the name of the way if it has one, and just left blank if not. Putting path connecting two streets, isn't the name, but you can put it in a note tag if you think the information is important. Same with the playground, etc. The name is what displays on the map as the label. You also don't need to put (dirt) in the name, instead you can use the surface tags, or tracktype tags. You don't need to put steps in the name, you can use highway=steps, or steps=yes. Ditto to all from me. If your using highway=track then you should also include tracktype. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: But what is the new route, and what is the old route? If we can't answer this question, then we can't map it. Ian, the world is a complicated place, and the answers to these questions are not always straightforward to answer. It doesn't mean we should just delete everything. Also, if you think road routes are complicated, try cycling routes! The documentation on them is pretty scant, and you have to piece together signage, documentation, local knowledge and common sense to map a meaningful route. Yes, it means that there are small elements of subjectivity in how we map, but that doesn't prevent the end result being very useful and meaningful. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Contribution review??
On 6 September 2011 13:44, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: If you look in the history you will see that it's prior to 17 July 2011 and not added by Richard as a source he has just added more detail. Oops, sorry, I should have checked the history. Thanks for picking that up. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Yep. A one-way street mapped as a two-way street is better than nothing. To me this statement absoluetly defines the difference between people who just want to see lots of lines on the map and people who want to actually use the map for navigation. Or maybe the difference between people who think all navigation takes place on four wheels and the rest of us. /snark Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 06/09/11 11:43, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 6 September 2011 13:21, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: No. The route is still the Princes Highway as per here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Australian_Tagging___Guidelines#Route_Numbers http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Route_Numbers How do I tell where this named route goes? I've read the Australian tagging guidelines, but they seem to be quite at odds with the recommendations for using the relation elsewhere. Is there anywhere other than Australia where we attach a road name to a road named differently road? I don't know but that was the original reason for creating route relations with the highway name and a second with the highway number. Then the new route should be added to the relation and the old route ways removed. As Steve pointed out the relation should one from Adelaide to Sydney as that's where the Princes Highway runs although many different road names make up that highway. Just as many different road names make up the route relation for highway 1. But what is the new route, and what is the old route? If we can't answer this question, then we can't map it. Then leave what is there until someone goes and surveys it. In Wollongong, you have the RTA official Princes Hwy route taking Bellambi Lane and the Northern Distributor, while the parallel road is named, the Princes Highway, Flinders St, Crown St. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? In Victoria you have the Princes Fwy, in some instances the Princes Highway runs next to it. The Princes Hwy in some sections isn't even a through route. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? In Sutherland you have the Sutherland Bypass on Acacia Rd, (Route MR1), the old Princes Hwy goes into Sutherland, and then stops. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? Do you see the problem? If we aren't mapping what is on the ground, what are we mapping? Who makes the decision, and how to we arbitrate. Not mapping what is verifiable on the ground is a radical departure for OSM, and we need to think this through again. But your saying what I'm saying map what is on the ground. All of the above can be included in the relation a route does not have to be a through route. It may have side branches as in the Sutherland example. But if the sign says Old Princes Highway then it should be changed to that and removed from the Princes Highway relation. If it's part of another named road then use alt_name. Look at the Warlu Way in WA, not yet in osm, it does not have a route number but could be included in a route relation. It's not a through route but has a start and end and has many side branches. Likewise the Savanah Way, some of which is in osm. Because things change then the route relation needs to change. If you find these things on the ground then you need to modify them rather than just writing about it here. But don't just delete the whole relation because one section is wrong, correct the section(s) that are wrong. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 13:48, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Ian, the world is a complicated place, and the answers to these questions are not always straightforward to answer. It doesn't mean we should just delete everything. Agreed, but not by any stretch what I'm suggesting. Yes, it means that there are small elements of subjectivity in how we map, but that doesn't prevent the end result being very useful and meaningful. I'm going to create a route called the Princes Highway. I'm going to place roads in it which aren't called the Princes Highway, when the road called the Princes Highway goes off in another direction, or exists elsewhere. Hmmm.. it is subjective, but I can't see how it is useful or meaningful. This is why route numbers were invented. So routes can be followed across multiple road names. The route numbers are on the ground, or otherwise discoverable. Is there another map in the world you can point to, which maps what we are trying to do here? I can see some reasoning for when the Princes Highway changes name temporarily through a country town, that we have an alt_name through the town, beyond that though... Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 13:59, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: But your saying what I'm saying map what is on the ground. All of the above can be included in the relation a route does not have to be a through route. It may have side branches as in the Sutherland example. But if the sign says Old Princes Highway then it should be changed to that and removed from the Princes Highway relation. If it's part of another named road then use alt_name. I have surveyed, it is removed from the relation, and consequently the relation has a gap. My understanding is for this relation type - a route - gaps are not allowed. After all, this is the whole point of having a route isn't it? If you find these things on the ground then you need to modify them rather than just writing about it here. But don't just delete the whole relation because one section is wrong, correct the section(s) that are wrong. If I thought the sections were possible to correct, I would just do so. However, with this relation, I see it as hopelessly flawed, and my inclination is to delete it. Since there seems to be support for it, I'll leave it be, and move along, and hope someone else can make more of it. I do pity the person who has this information currently in their navman, I think they'll be lost pretty damn quick. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: This is why route numbers were invented. So routes can be followed across multiple road names. The route numbers are on the ground, or otherwise discoverable. I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but: assuming that there is an uncontroversial route number of some sequence of roads, then we should have a relation describing that same sequence of roads. ref=* tags on ways are ok; relations are better. Do you agree with that? Or are you contesting the actual value of relations? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Missing street signs in Sydney
Steve Bennett wrote Or maybe the difference between people who think all navigation takes place on four wheels and the rest of us. It's interesting that you choose to use the I presume to speak for lots of other people and imply that there are way more of us than there are or you approach. If you were to use a statistical approach to the issue, I firmly believe that you would find that a significant majority of people that need/use/pay-for accurate mapping, are in an area unfamilar to them and are either on foot or more likely on 4-wheels. In either case they will need street names, that need to be collected locally, and if on 4-wheels, then turn restrictions are vital for safety. Another point is that walkers and cyclists can easily and safely pull over and stop to consult the map and make sense of it compared to what they see around them. Motorists usually don't have this advantage and therefore it is critical that their maps must be completly accurate and up-to-date. I also think that cycle paths must be surveyed rather than traced, since it is vital to note any local issue that may catch a fast moving cyclist unawares. Fortunately, I believe Canberra has been expertly mapped is this regard. Therefore my stance is that any map that has roads without the turn restrictions or correct names (as shown on the street sign) should be considered (at best) just as good as google,teleatlas navteq sensis etc,etc,etc. (and that, IMNSHO,is not not very good at all. /dismount SB ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
