Re: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in NSW
Okay, I've updated the part of the wiki that says we shouldn't do it. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#NSW_Alphanumeric_references Ian. On 10 May 2013 09:45, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. The new routes are supposed to be complete by the end of this year. I know it takes me a while to get around to fixing something on OSM. Perhaps if you are keen then approach 2 is OK (and signage will catch up eventually). If you are lazy then 1 is the default. :) - Ben Kelley. On 10 May 2013 07:06, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm surprised you couldn't find some F3 signs there as well! In any event, we can.. 1. Ignore the new routes until they are completed. Then re-reference the road. 2. As soon as the route is confirmed and there are some signs, re-reference the road 3. Adopt some new schema that allows us to have both route references at once. 4. Adopt of hodge-podge approach, and reference partial roads, based on the assessment/whim of the mapper concerned. I originally proposed 1, but now I'm leaning towards 2, because I feel I'm swimming against the tide. I don't think we're capable of doing 3. And I'd hate to end up with 4. Ian. On 10 May 2013 05:29, Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com wrote: I took a look there last weekend. As you say... inconsistencies everywhere. Northbound all are M1 with B74, and there's even a distance reassurance sign (not interchange-related) showing distances to Brisbane, titled M1 Pacific Mwy which I was surprised to see. Southbound all are NR1 with B74. The signs at the top of the ramps are in odd combinations like NR1 Pacific Mwy on one sign, and M1 Freeway on another... It's a real tourist attraction for sign geeks! BJ On 09/05/2013, at 22:11, Nathan Van Der Meulen natvan...@yahoo.com wrote: You're not going to win any way you change the route references. On the ground, around the Tuggerah Interchange alone are references to Nat Route 1, M1, Pacific Motorway etc. Note that the freeway is referenced as M1 from Wyong Rd (B74) but on the freeway it's still NR1. B74 only seems to be referenced at the interchange. If you only edit as per what's on the ground, how do you edit that? Sent from my iPad On 03/05/2013, at 21:00, talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest... Today's Topics: 1. Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant) 2. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ben Kelley) 3. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant) 4. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ben Johnson) 5. Re: Alphanumeric references in NSW (Ian Sergeant) -- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:07:02 +1000 From: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com To: OSM - Talk-au Talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in NSW Message-ID: CALDa4YLY+4KEnutrnBmjcRpE5z3G5hH4z6Yzyu=duwiw5sn...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Hi, I've noticed a few people are changing the references in NSW to the alphanumeric references before the signage has changed. I don't see the purpose of this. I doesn't correspond to what is on the ground, it must be confusing to people actually trying to use OSM for navigation. Also, given it is the RTA coordinate this, it wouldn't be surprising if some of the routes actually differed from the proposed routes on the webpage. To the best of my knowledge the only route that has been re-referenced is the B73, the others still retain their existing signage - with perhaps an uncovered sign here and there. I traced the I'd suggest we can use the wiki to coordinate as these references change? That way we can ensure the entire route is renamed at once, rather than a patchwork? Ian. P.S. Of course there have been a few routes (M7, A31/M31 approaching Albury) that have been this way for a while, and aren't at issue here. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20130503/f593d5da/attachment-0001.html -- Message: 2 Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:33:45 +1000 From: Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com To: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com Cc: OSM - Talk-au Talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Alphanumeric references in
Re: [talk-au] Major 4WD tracks
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com wrote: Major 4wd tracks such as Birdsville track Old telegraph track Wonagatta rd Etc Hi Li, Still not clear on what you mean by major. Do you mean important, significant, famous...or do you mean big,well-maintained etc? If the former, I'd think a route relation (as I described earlier), but you'd need an authoritative source for what the route is. PS Don't forget to reply-all. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Major 4WD tracks
Significant was what I meant. Using route relation makes sense. — Li On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Li Xia lisxia1...@gmail.com wrote: Major 4wd tracks such as Birdsville track Old telegraph track Wonagatta rd Etc Hi Li, Still not clear on what you mean by major. Do you mean important, significant, famous...or do you mean big,well-maintained etc? If the former, I'd think a route relation (as I described earlier), but you'd need an authoritative source for what the route is. PS Don't forget to reply-all. Steve___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
Hi all, This is a really interesting discussion, and thanks for the insights about Australia vs Europe vs US. A few comments: 1) I think TileMill/MapBox will be a game changer for the rendering guys won't listen to us problem. I suspect it will soon be much, much easier to have lots of different map views out there, and we can create Australian-specific maps easily. So we should continue to work out the best tagging system and use that - even if it's not currently supported by any rendering styles. 2) If we do use tags that are essentially unique to Australia, we should consider still doubling up with standard tags where convenient. If 4wd_only means you shouldn't attempt this track without a 4 wheel drive, even if this particular section is ok, then we can still add track_type tags to the relevant sections, if known. 3) There are decades of practice in cartography to learn from. We might as well go with existing practice in current 4WD maps. The standard distinctions seem to be something like 4WD/2WD/dirt/sealed, and sometimes one more category indicating something like possibly impassable. So no need for the 10 point roughness/tracktype scale - it's too hard. 4) And yes, we should have simple tags that correspond to existing cartography practice: MVO, (subject to seasonal closure) and 4WD only. Steve On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:48 PM, David dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Kristy, you have spotted the problem, no clear acceptance of any one standard when it comes to 4wd tracks. And while its being done a number of different ways (or not done at all) we have little chance of getting the rendering people to listen to us. In western Europe, little interest, complete lack of understanding of the need. The US does have some great 4wd tracks but they are more recreational in nature, you go somewhere, drive a great track and then go home. They also don't understand our model of using these tracks to get to somewhere really interesting ! Asia, (far) eastern Europe, get it but don't seem to want to support the ideas. I believe (strongly) we need a multi level tag that indicates a track is somewhere between a bit dodgy right through to Oh wow. That, by its very nature means its subjective, you and I might well disagree with at what stage a typical SUV and inexperienced driver should be warned off. We cannot help that, 4wds are all different, drivers are different in their skills and willingness to take risks. The 4wd_only tag is 'official' and was a good try. But not used very much outside of Oz. And its a yes/no and life is never a yes/no situation. Further, so much OSM data ends up in a psql database, one column per tag. Believe it or not, psql does not like having column names start with numerals. It can be worked around but I suspect that's one reason mapnik (or more correctly, its slippery map) won't show 4wd_only. I prefer an extension to the tracktype= tag, its already widely used internationally and, somewhat, rendered on the slippery map. We can add three more levels to it (grade6, grade7, grade8) being possibly not suitable for conventional car, 4wd stuff and 4wd extreme. I currently use both 4wd_only= and tracktype= But I would support any new, sufficiently flexible proposal. I don't really this a physical meet up is necessary, be surprised if we could agree on a convienant location ! David . Kristy Van Putten kristy.vanput...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Matt, I think your conclusions is right, that we need to put an Australian standard together. It sounds like the ground work has been done (maybe even multiple times) but there has not been a clear acceptance of any particular schema. How do you think we should go forward with this? My suggestion is that we make a weekend of it, where we come together - where there are plenty of different types of 4WD tracks - and try and test the schema already made. I know I am still living outside of the country, so for me this maybe hard over the next couple of months. I am home in July for a couple of weeks and I am sure I could convince someone to lend me a 4WD. However it is winter, so it won't be the warmest weather! Maybe we could wait till summer? Would anyone be keen? Cheers On 06/05/2013, at 4:22 PM, Matt White mattwh...@iinet.com.au wrote: I'm also very interested in 4wd trails - it's what 80% of my mapping consists of I think (that, and house numbers in the inner north of Melbourne) The current 4wd_only tag was one of the tags I proposed a few years ago - there was a massive barney at the time over the smoothness=* and surface=* tags, and all I wanted to do was mark roads that were clearly tagged as 4wd only (proper 4wd as in low range, high clearance). The surface/smoothness debate was interesting, but got in the way of the larger problem. I've come to the conclusion that the Australian mappers pretty much have to go it alone in this area - what the
Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
On 10/05/13 17:01, Steve Bennett wrote: 1) I think TileMill/MapBox will be a game changer for the rendering guys won't listen to us problem. I suspect it will soon be much, much easier to have lots of different map views out there, and we can create Australian-specific maps easily. So we should continue to work out the best tagging system and use that - even if it's not currently supported by any rendering styles. This is an excellent point. From a cartography perspective, excluding unneeded detail is essential for producing a usable map. I've long felt the official OSM rendering is far, far too detailed - it's basically grey goop at a distance and a riot up close. People really shouldn't be lobbying for more features to be added to official tilesets, instead what is needed is many more additional, more specialised tilesets, and for desktop/web/mobile apps to let people easily make use of them. //Mike -- ⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler. ⚙ http://mjog.vee.net/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
From: David [mailto:dban...@internode.on.net] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government Further, so much OSM data ends up in a psql database, one column per tag. Believe it or not, psql does not like having column names start with numerals. It can be worked around but I suspect that's one reason mapnik (or more correctly, its slippery map) won't show 4wd_only. Column names beginning with numerals are fine in PostgreSQL. You have to quote them, but that's not a big issue. You have to quote the natural column too as natural is a reserved word in SQL. The technical issues preventing styling based on 4wd_only on tile.osm.org, the default osm.org layer, are threefold: 1. To add a column to the database on yevaud (the tile.osm.org rendering server) would require a database reload. The hstore feature can now be used to avoid this, but hstore is relatively new and not enabled on yevaud. It could be enabled, but again this would require a database reload. I think the last database reload was in 2011. 2. The mapnik stylesheet (osm.xml) used for tile.osm.org is horrendously hard to edit and does not have a maintainer. I guess this isn't really a technical issue, but it's tied up with the next one 3. The tile.osm.org stylesheet has been ported to carto, an easier language to write stylesheets in. Unfortunately, it is slower and deploying this new stylesheet is waiting on a hardware upgrade. This is also related to the database reload. Two non-technical issues are 1. There is no cartographer maintaining the osm.org stylesheet. Deciding what to include and what not to include takes a design skill that I know I don't have. 2. Unlike other layers, the tile.osm.org layer has a strong influence on how mappers tag. For this reason care needs to be used when adding new tags, because what's rendered is much more likely to be tagged. For what it's worth, if I was maintaining the tile.osm.org style and a patch came in adding some kind of indication of 4wd status to it, I don't know if I'd accept it. I've traveled the 4wd roads in Australia so I know how their terrain matters, and I've also studied it at work, the problem is the style already shows too much information. Thankfully, it's not up to me as I don't have cartographic design skills. Of course if no one proposes a change to the stylesheet with a patch, we'll never have that discussion and there's no chance of adding it then. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
On 10 May 2013 17:01, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: 3) There are decades of practice in cartography to learn from. We might as well go with existing practice in current 4WD maps. The standard distinctions seem to be something like 4WD/2WD/dirt/sealed, and sometimes one more category indicating something like possibly impassable. So no need for the 10 point roughness/tracktype scale - it's too hard. But your overall point is surely that as long as we have the basics, if some group of people want the extra information and are willing to gather it, and some other group of people want to use the information and are willing to render/route it, then all is good. We're here to use our data in new an innovative ways, right? On this topic, we seem to have some people who are keen to build apps with 4wd data, and other people who would like to add the 4wd tags to specific data. Both sides seem to be looking to the Wizard of OSM for the answer, but they appear to be wearing ruby slippers. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
