Re: [talk-au] Residential Roads
On 10/12/11 21:11, Sam Couter wrote: Many urban residential roads have speed limits of 60 or maybe 70km/h. I think rural roads with moderately dense residential acre blocks and 80km/h speed limits are still residential, unless they're also the main route to a neighbouring town, in which case they're tertiary. This is my rule-of-thumb also. Another aspect is the classification applied by local councils for rate purposes. If we followed this, I think more rural unclassified roads would be tagged as residential. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Residential Roads
On 11/12/11 08:35, Sam Couter wrote: In the ACT 50km/h is the default if there are no signs. I know that's what the road signs say as you enter the ACT. It's also repeated on official ACT government web sites. But it's an over-simplification. The ACT version of the Australian Road Rules tells the real story. The default 50 km/h limit applies only in built-up areas. The default speed limit elsewhere in the ACT is 100 km/h. A built-up area is defined as: built-up area, in relation to a length of road, means an area in which either of the following is present for a distance of at least 500 metres or, if the length of road is shorter than 500 metres, for the whole road: (a) buildings, not over 100 metres apart, on land next to the road; (b) street lights not over 100 metres apart. See http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2010-113/current/pdf/2010-113.pdf rule 25 and dictionary of terms. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure
As time and opportunity arises, I've started re-entering rural roads where it's clear that the original is scheduled for deletion. I'm deleting the old way completely, and re-entering it from GPS data I'm gathering. JOSM now has a License Check plugin to identify potential deletions, bringing up the way's history and looking at the mapper's details shows whether the original ways (and significant edits) were mapped by somebody who's declined the new contributor terms. Similar functionality seems to be available in Potlatch. Are others doing this? Is there a better way of maintaining OSM's integrity given the situation we find ourselves in? John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure
That's fine so long as you are not transferring any tags from the original way. See Frederik's comments to NE2 re this, on the osm-talk list. Mind you, you've got a lot to do in AU. Cheers Ross On 14/12/11 13:56, John Henderson wrote: As time and opportunity arises, I've started re-entering rural roads where it's clear that the original is scheduled for deletion. I'm deleting the old way completely, and re-entering it from GPS data I'm gathering. JOSM now has a License Check plugin to identify potential deletions, bringing up the way's history and looking at the mapper's details shows whether the original ways (and significant edits) were mapped by somebody who's declined the new contributor terms. Similar functionality seems to be available in Potlatch. Are others doing this? Is there a better way of maintaining OSM's integrity given the situation we find ourselves in? John ___ 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] another badly mapped junction
around -37.932622, 145.1560615 can somebody familiar with the area make this into a sensible junction? Frank ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure
On 15/12/11 02:15, Ross Scanlon wrote: That's fine so long as you are not transferring any tags from the original way. Yes, and that's why I'm trying not to reuse any original nodes. I imagine a lot of corners and other detail is going to disappear from some ways which remain (as I interpret the influence of individual mappers on the cleansing process). I see it's perfectly feasible to cautiously remap from historical GPS traces. The caution relates to having local knowledge about realignments resulting from road works. Is source=survey the correct attribution for using others' GPS traces? It seems the most appropriate of the established values. Much of Australia's major highway network is going to be removed without such action. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure
Hi John, For towns that I have completely suryeyed, I will be remapping roads, as necessary to ensure that my survey work is not lost to the project. These roads will be completely replaced by my original data, maybe with some help from Bing imagery where it will help improve the accuracy of my GPS traces. Other things (like power lines etc) will need to be remapped at some time. I'm not sure I can complete this by the cutover date but that is no great problem for a long term project. From memory, these towns include, but are not limited to. Canberra Queanbeyan Yass Murrumbateman Goulburn Marulan Gunning Bowning Binalong Harden Cootamnundra Junee Jugiong Tumut Cooma Batemans Bay Moruya Mogo Narooma Merimbula Eden Tuross Heads Hervey Bay Aldgate Striling Crafers Harndorf Mylor Durras Ulladulla Braidwood Bungandore Tarago Tin Can Bay Bega Bredbo Delegate Bombala Rainbow Beach Majors Creek Captain's Flat Michaelago Sutton Gundaroo Potato Point Bodalla Narracoorte Bridgewater Nelligan Bemboka Nimmitabel Cunningar Heathfield Picadilly Uradlia Summertown Yeppoon Coolooa Cove Malua Bay Broulee Beramgui Tathra Pambula Bibbenluke Talbingo Adelong ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure
Hi. I think it's clear we need an automated way to remove non-new-ct-accepting edits from ways where v1 was by an acceptor. Even assuming the trace data is in OSM there is still an immense amount of work needed to cleanse these ways. - Ben Kelley. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure
Problem with this is that you are breaching copyright. This is the same as what the user did with the data in Sydney and it was removed by the data working group. It's also what Frederik was discussing on the talk list in regards to NE2. You are not resolving the issue of the original data being provided by a non valid source. You can only do this if you remove the non compliant data and remap with totally new source, gps, bing, etc. Cheers Ross On 15/12/11 12:34, Ian Sergeant wrote: Certainly it is astoundingly clear to me. For a couple of objects, I've just copied the v1 object, deleted the current object, and reloaded into OSM with an attribution tag for the v1 author. It isn't too many clicks to do this in JOSM, but tidying up around the edges (linking the object) is a little time consuming. If there is no interest from anyone with db rights to do this, there would be potential to develop this method further via the API. Ian. On 15 December 2011 15:12, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. I think it's clear we need an automated way to remove non-new-ct-accepting edits from ways where v1 was by an acceptor. Even assuming the trace data is in OSM there is still an immense amount of work needed to cleanse these ways. - Ben Kelley. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure
No I'm not. I think you may be misunderstanding what I am doing. If the v1 object author has agreed to the CTs, but the v2 author has not, I simply delete the object, load the v1 object directly, make my changes, link the object and attribute the v1 author using the attribution tag. No copyright breach. I'm only using CT compliant data, I'm not even looking at the non compliant object, and I'm attributing as is polite and required. Ian On Dec 15, 2011 5:16 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure
Only if v1 is from a non-acceptor. I assumed from Ian's post that v1 is from an acceptor. (Or have I read that wrong?) Quoting Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com: Problem with this is that you are breaching copyright. Cheers Ross On 15/12/11 12:34, Ian Sergeant wrote: For a couple of objects, I've just copied the v1 object, deleted the current object, and reloaded into OSM with an attribution tag for the v1 author. Ian. On 15 December 2011 15:12, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's clear we need an automated way to remove non-new-ct-accepting edits from ways where v1 was by an acceptor. - Ben Kelley. Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
