Re: [talk-au] Blocks of land - residential housing

[Andrew Harvey]

On 21/09/12 20:41, Leathal wrote:
> Hi 
> 
> I was just wondering what the tagging standard is for residential housing in 
> suburbs?
> 
> I can't find anything definitive, and most of the common methods such as 
> landuse=residential is set aside for large scale areas (which is correct IMO).

I ensure the residential area doesn't cross any roads. ie. just the
block. eg.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.062412&lon=151.1523&zoom=18&layers=M

I do this because it is more accurate. The road isn't residential and so
shouldn't be covered by the area.

It is a lot simpler that way, because it is very easy to exclude the
corner shop, which is landuse=retail, or the park on the corner.

Tracing the building, or even just a center point node, you can add the
type of building as apartment, house, cabin etc.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Blocks of land - residential housing

[Ben Johnson]

Just on this, can someone please explain why if I search "45 Wharf Street
Forster",  the result I get back is 45, Wharf Street, Forster Keys,
Forster, 2428, 
Australia

Where does it get "Forster Keys" from?  That's an adjacent suburb to the
south.



On 22 September 2012 11:00, Ben Johnson  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> For fast numbering, you might want to check out the technique I tried for
> Wharf Street, Forster NSW.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-32.18045&lon=152.51021&zoom=17&layers=M
>
> This uses the "address interpolation" technique. I wasn't sure at the time
> if I'd done it the right
>
way because nomonatim hadn't been getting updated, but since then it has...
> and I can tell you it works a treat! If you search for any valid number on
> Wharf Street Forster it will point you there with surprising accuracy.
>
> Just draw a parallel way from corner to corner with start/end numbers and
> tell it whether odd or even. Very nice way to quickly make the map
> massively more useable. Search the wiki for more details.
>
> BJ
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 21/09/2012, at 20:41, Leathal  wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I was just wondering what the tagging standard is for residential housing
> in
> suburbs?
>
> I can't find anything definitive, and most of the common methods such as
> landuse=residential is set aside for large scale areas (which is correct
> IMO).
>
> So, I was just wondering if there is some kind of standard that everyone
> is
> using? Or if anyone is using at all?
>
> I just don't like this method of numbers only:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-19.295319&lon=146.71811&zoom=18&layers=M
>
> Any help appreciated. :)
>
> Leathal.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>


-- 
Why do they never cancel buses and put on trains?

/_TANGARARAMA_\../_TANGARARAMA_\
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Blocks of land - residential housing

[Ben Johnson]

Hi,

For fast numbering, you might want to check out the technique I tried for Wharf 
Street, Forster NSW.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-32.18045&lon=152.51021&zoom=17&layers=M

This uses the "address interpolation" technique. I wasn't sure at the time if 
I'd done it the right way because nomonatim hadn't been getting updated, but 
since then it has... and I can tell you it works a treat! If you search for any 
valid number on Wharf Street Forster it will point you there with surprising 
accuracy.

Just draw a parallel way from corner to corner with start/end numbers and tell 
it whether odd or even. Very nice way to quickly make the map massively more 
useable. Search the wiki for more details.

BJ




Sent from my iPhone

On 21/09/2012, at 20:41, Leathal  wrote:

> Hi 
> 
> I was just wondering what the tagging standard is for residential housing in 
> suburbs?
> 
> I can't find anything definitive, and most of the common methods such as 
> landuse=residential is set aside for large scale areas (which is correct IMO).
> 
> So, I was just wondering if there is some kind of standard that everyone is 
> using? Or if anyone is using at all?
> 
> I just don't like this method of numbers only:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-19.295319&lon=146.71811&zoom=18&layers=M
> 
> Any help appreciated. :)
> 
> Leathal.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] National borders

[Paul HAYDON]

Hi Michael,

I'm keen to read up on the process, so that I learn a little more about the 
mapping workflows on OSM. And happy to help, so let me know if I can be of any 
assistance.

BTW, won't the bays be self closing during buffer creation (if the mouth is 
less than the offset)?


Cheers,
Paul.

-Original Message-

From: Michael Krämer
Sent: 21 Sep 2012 17:24:23 GMT
To: Ian Sergeant,Talk-AU OSM,Paul HAYDON
Subject: Re: [talk-au] National borders

Hi,

finally I got the process sorted out to generate a border from
natural=coastline, natural=reef and the baseline segments. The resulting
osm-file can be found at [1].

Using the dataset I also updated the picture from the post below to show
the differences [2]. It doesn't look that bad everywhere but especially
along the Queensland coast that's not the only place like this.

So no my question is how we should move on from here. I see different
options:
- Upload the dataset "as is"
- Try to get it better e.g. by
 * manually by adding baseline segments (close bays, low water)
 * do a more accurate buffer computation
 * trace more reefs from Bing
 * ...
- dump the idea and look for a better one
- ...

BTW this time I've taken notes so if anyone is interested I could share
the process I've used. The processing hasn't been too acurate given the
limitations of the data. Especially I used a buffer of 0.2 degrees
instead of exactly 12 nautical miles so the distance is always a bit too
short.

Michael

-
[1] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3882550/OSM/NationalBorder.osm.bz2
[2] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3882550/OSM/ComputedCoastline.png

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] GPS accuracy

[Ben Johnson]

That is absolutely fantastic - cant wait to see it. BJ

Sent from my iPhone

On 21/09/2012, at 12:20, Russell Edwards  wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> On this topic -- for what it's worth I have written a JOSM plugin to help 
> with GPS accuracy in the case of having multiple tracks covering the same . 
> You can highlight a set of GPX tracks along a straight path (or taken from a 
> fixed position) and it will a) average them all to find their geometric 
> centre and b) find the direction of maximum variation, to find the likely 
> direction of the path along which they were recorded.
> 
> I hope to have it available within the next week or two. You should get an 
> accuracy improvement factor of equal to or greater than the square root of 
> the number of tracks.  When you have dozens or hundreds of tracks on the same 
> paths, as I do (logs from my runs around town), then it should be a great 
> help in pinning down any offset in the imagery (and potentially, rotation, 
> too).
> 
> Russell
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Blocks of land - residential housing

[Ian Sergeant]

On 21 September 2012 20:41, Leathal  wrote:

> I just don't like this method of numbers only:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-19.295319&lon=146.71811&zoom=18&layers=M

That's the way I do it.  OSM is never going to become a cadastral map
just from tracing.  The numbers are the important info.  Some people
seem to like tracing building outlines.  This looks pretty on the
rendering, but I personally don't think the effort to reward is there
when there are so many other features untraced.

Ian

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Blocks of land - residential housing

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Leathal  wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was just wondering what the tagging standard is for residential housing in
> suburbs?
>
> I can't find anything definitive, and most of the common methods such as
> landuse=residential is set aside for large scale areas (which is correct IMO).
>
> So, I was just wondering if there is some kind of standard that everyone is
> using? Or if anyone is using at all?
>
> I just don't like this method of numbers only:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-19.295319&lon=146.71811&zoom=18&layers=M

I can't point to standards, but I can offer my preferences.

I like the address numbers, but I'd prefer that they were on the
building outlines.  Also, the addr:housenumber should also have
addr:street, iirc.

I'm not a fan of mapping "property lines" as shown in the untagged
ways in that area, for reasons that have been discussed amply on talk@
and talk-us@.  To summarize; we can't know or guess where the property
line is, in many jurisdictions there will be a set back from physical
objects that we can see like the road or fence.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] National borders

[Ian Sergeant]

My inclination is..

1. Document accurately the process you have used
2. Note the activity required to increase the accuracy (reefs, bay closure)
3. Upload the borders currently there (things aren't working properly 
right now).

4. Work to increase the accuracy.
5. Update the borders accordingly.

Ian.


On 22/09/12 03:24, Michael Krämer wrote:

Hi,

finally I got the process sorted out to generate a border from 
natural=coastline, natural=reef and the baseline segments. The 
resulting osm-file can be found at [1].


Using the dataset I also updated the picture from the post below to 
show the differences [2]. It doesn't look that bad everywhere but 
especially along the Queensland coast that's not the only place like 
this.


So no my question is how we should move on from here. I see different 
options:

- Upload the dataset "as is"
- Try to get it better e.g. by
* manually by adding baseline segments (close bays, low water)
* do a more accurate buffer computation
* trace more reefs from Bing
* ...
- dump the idea and look for a better one
- ...

BTW this time I've taken notes so if anyone is interested I could 
share the process I've used. The processing hasn't been too acurate 
given the limitations of the data. Especially I used a buffer of 0.2 
degrees instead of exactly 12 nautical miles so the distance is always 
a bit too short.


Michael

-
[1] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3882550/OSM/NationalBorder.osm.bz2
[2] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3882550/OSM/ComputedCoastline.png



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] National borders

[Michael Krämer]

Hi,

finally I got the process sorted out to generate a border from 
natural=coastline, natural=reef and the baseline segments. The resulting 
osm-file can be found at [1].


Using the dataset I also updated the picture from the post below to show 
the differences [2]. It doesn't look that bad everywhere but especially 
along the Queensland coast that's not the only place like this.


So no my question is how we should move on from here. I see different 
options:

- Upload the dataset "as is"
- Try to get it better e.g. by
* manually by adding baseline segments (close bays, low water)
* do a more accurate buffer computation
* trace more reefs from Bing
* ...
- dump the idea and look for a better one
- ...

BTW this time I've taken notes so if anyone is interested I could share 
the process I've used. The processing hasn't been too acurate given the 
limitations of the data. Especially I used a buffer of 0.2 degrees 
instead of exactly 12 nautical miles so the distance is always a bit too 
short.


Michael

-
[1] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3882550/OSM/NationalBorder.osm.bz2
[2] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3882550/OSM/ComputedCoastline.png

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Blocks of land - residential housing

[Leathal]

Hi 

I was just wondering what the tagging standard is for residential housing in 
suburbs?

I can't find anything definitive, and most of the common methods such as 
landuse=residential is set aside for large scale areas (which is correct IMO).

So, I was just wondering if there is some kind of standard that everyone is 
using? Or if anyone is using at all?

I just don't like this method of numbers only:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-19.295319&lon=146.71811&zoom=18&layers=M

Any help appreciated. :)

Leathal.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aligning steets

[John Henderson]

On 20/09/12 22:41, Ross Scanlon wrote:


No, a mini-roundabout can be traversed by ANY vehicle legally and
this is not the case in Australia.  You can only do so where
impracticable for the vehicle.


That bit about "ANY vehicle" is not part of the current definition of a
mini_roundabout in OSM.

"A mini-roundabout is a one-way street with right-of-way and a
traversable center island. In particular, large vehicles are allowed to
drive across the center island if otherwise not possible due to their
dimensions, i.e. it might be impossible for a large vehicle to drive
through a roundabout but possible to drive through a mini-roundabout
with the same dimensions."

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout#Possible_misinterpretations

John



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aligning steets

[Ross Scanlon]

On 20/09/12 22:30, Stephen Hope wrote:

I'm not saying that a mini-roundabout isn't a roundabout, it is, and all
the normal signs and laws apply. What it also is, however, is
traversable.  If you have a vehicle that cannot go around it, because it
is too large, then you're allowed to go over it.


No, a mini-roundabout can be traversed by ANY vehicle legally and this 
is not the case in Australia.  You can only do so where impracticable 
for the vehicle.



I'd be just a happy to use a normal roundabout way, and mark it as
traversable with traversable=yes. Traversable could have values like
yes/no/semi (for those ones that have a traversable skirt but a raised
centre plinth). However, when I suggested that on the talk list a while


Agree.

Cheers
Ross

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aligning steets

[Ross Scanlon]

On 20/09/12 18:37, Stephen Hope wrote:


On 20 September 2012 09:41, Ross Scanlon mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote:

Yes it is a small roundabout as you can not legally drive over it
unless it is impractical to do so.

The vehicle in the street view is clearly about to drive around the
center island.  Whereas if it was a truck/bus/caravan it would be
able to drive over it if necessary.

Read through the mailing list archives all this discussion was
thrashed out years ago and nothing has changed.


What you just described is the exact definition of a mini-roundabout.


No, it's the Australian road rules in relation to roundabouts.  Notice 
on the wiki that the image has a blue sign.  This legally defines the 
roundabout as a mini-roundabout and ALL vehicles MAY traverse the center 
island whilst still complying with the rules applicable to roundabouts.


In Australia this just does not exist, so they are all roundabouts, just 
varying in size.



  Mini-roundabout doesn't mean you can legally drive over it in any
vehicle, it means that you can physically drive over it if you need to.
The australian guidelines are wrong, in this case.  And yes, I know how
they evolved to this state, I've kept up on the discussion over the
years.  But with the recent clarifications to the definition of
mini-roundabout and roundabout in the main tagging guideline, and the
fact that you can't tag a fully drawn out roundabout as traversable,
there is now a need for using mini-roundabout in Australia.


Why?

Most of this is just people just being slack and not wanting to draw the 
roundabout.  It's not that hard.


Cheers
Ross


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au