[talk-au] Bushwalking site using OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

I just wanted to share a project I've been working on recently, which
provides bush walking information, mainly in NSW.

http://beyondtracks.com/

Most of the route geometries have come from OpenStreetMap, the
basemaps are using OpenStreetMap, I've pulled in points of interest
along the walk from OpenStreetMap and the search uses names of
features near the walk from OpenStreetMap.

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

Re: [talk-au] Explicit Permission to use NSW Land and Property Information data in JOSM

[Andrew Harvey]

I've put together a JOSM Imagery Sources document at
https://gist.github.com/andrewharvey/84959a3025d32ef6237c and added
this to the list for JOSM at
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Maps/Australia.

Next job is to translate this into JSON for
https://github.com/osmlab/editor-imagery-index.

On 6 December 2015 at 11:32,   wrote:
> Wow, this is like an early xmas present :-D
> - I'm super-happy to get access to missing street names around Sydney
> for OSM.
>
>>QUESTION
>>How do I get this imagery into JOSM?! They have one access in javaGIS ... A 
>>simple explanation ?
>
> In JOSM, go to: Edit --> Preferences, WMS TMS tab, in the bottom right
> click on "+ TMS" icon.
> URL:
> http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Base_Map/MapServer/tile/{zoom}/{y}/{x}.png
> maximum zoom: 19
> The generated TMS URL should look like:
> tms[19]:http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Base_Map/MapServer/tile/{zoom}/{y}/{x}.png
> Layer name: NSW LPI
>
> Then you're done :-)
>
> Cam.
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.com - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
>   love email again
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Explicit Permission to use NSW Land and Property Information data

[Warin]

On 8/12/2015 3:14 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:


On 8 December 2015 at 04:54, Paul Norman > wrote:


When we're talking about source tags, we should use whatever is
useful for mappers. In theory source date tags can be useful, but
in practice I've not seen them worth the bother.


Agreed. As a mapper something easy to type is ideal such as 
lpi_imagery, lpi_basemap, but I'm not overly fussed. I don't know how 
much I would use the Base map though since I generally favor on the 
ground verification. the Imagery will be very useful for more accurate 
tracing.



I have been surprised at how accurate the base map is in its location.  
The imagery would be usefull for building locations etc.


The base map has things like post offices, libraries, medical, RFS, 
parks, mountain tops, saddles, creeks, stations (homesteads, ranches) 
with their names. And  property address numbers for adding the address 
information.


On the ground sourcing is a much much slower process ... and has 'us' 
with lots of blank information. The base map will be very usefull to me 
at least... to get information that is presently missing in OSM. Must be 
1,000s of street names missing in Sydney alone.


I'm using JOSM .. and find a source tag can be nicely descriptive and 
used repetitively using a simple mouse click process once typed 
initially. You could also use a copy and paste system. I tend to use one 
source at at time so this works well for me.


Verification is a much quicker process - you spot what is wrong and only 
need to note that .. not every street name and its location.


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

Re: [talk-au] Explicit Permission to use NSW Land and Property Information data

[Andrew Harvey]

On 6 December 2015 at 18:17, cleary  wrote:

> I suggest we use the earliest date on which data is taken from a dataset
> but then add an amended date if, at any time, an update of the entire
> dataset is imported into OSM.
>

As part of other questions I've independently submitted to LPI after your
letter, I've inquired if a date range in the form "earliest date to
present" would meet their requirements. If okay, then we can simply list
all the datasets with "6 Dec 2015 to present" and mappers are free to pluck
out whichever bits of data whenever they like without needing to do
anything further.

On 8 December 2015 at 04:54, Paul Norman  wrote:

> When we're talking about source tags, we should use whatever is useful for
> mappers. In theory source date tags can be useful, but in practice I've not
> seen them worth the bother.
>

Agreed. As a mapper something easy to type is ideal such as lpi_imagery,
lpi_basemap, but I'm not overly fussed. I don't know how much I would use
the Base map though since I generally favor on the ground verification. the
Imagery will be very useful for more accurate tracing.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

[Daniel O'Connor]

> Those individuals who are concerned should lobby the government NOW. Not
wait for the licence to be declared, nor any requirements made.

There is already a commitment for CC-BY-3.0 or better due to
http://www.ausgoal.gov.au/creative-commons  and http://data.gov.au/about

Prematurely lobbying the teams who are responsible for this without
understanding prior commitments they've made; and without evidence they'll
violate those commitments might do more harm than good.


The web link in the above ref  (http://data.australia.gov.au) is no longer
> valid ...


Irrelevant: data.gov.au and data.australia.gov.au are the same site run by
the department of finance, the explicit permission was given in response to
an email titled *data.gov.au  feedback*. The older URL
was simply retired after the Gov 2.0 taskforce was over and pilot phase was
done.



> At the moment if looks like you have to subscribe and then they send you
> out the data.


Please read the original announcement carefully. Specifically: "The G-NAF
and Administrative Boundaries datasets will be published under an open data
licence at no cost to end users on data.gov.au in February 2016."
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

[Warin]

Those individuals who are concerned should lobby the government NOW. Not 
wait for the licence to be declared, nor any requirements made.


On 7/12/2015 1:50 PM, Daniel O'Connor wrote:

Hi all,
Many of you may be interested in
https://blog.data.gov.au/news-media/blog/geocoded-national-address-data-be-made-openly-available

Provided the license is CC-BY-3.0 or better; we already have explicit 
permission to use said data:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission


The web link in the above ref  (http://data.australia.gov.au) is no 
longer valid ...


For those of you interested in what specific data this is, I'd 
encourage you to have a read of:

https://www.psma.com.au/sites/default/files/g-naf_product_description.pdf


At the moment if looks like you have to subscribe and then they send you 
out the data.


Of interest to us:
 * Address points with geocoding and full structured address information
 * Authoritive street names for a given suburb, with geocoding (points 
though, not polylines)
 * Authoritative suburb/locality points, geocoded - likely of better 
accuracy than ABS "Statistic Suburb" data.
 * Data refreshed quarterly; sourced from local and state government 
(so emailing your council to submit a data correction from survey is 
plausible)


Contains Australia Post boundaries for post codes. Might be used for 
suburban name boundaries?



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

Re: [talk-au] Explicit Permission to use NSW Land and Property Information data

[Warin]

I am removing my changes that used LPI data .. I have no faith that the 
data will remain available.


I would think that questions would be better placed here or sent to cleary.
The possibility that numerous people would contact LPI as participants 
of OSM may lead LPI to see OSM as not worth engaging with due to the 
'noise' that arises.


Hopefully the same will not occur with forth coming the Federal 
Government release. And that wont be imagery but POI data so maybe seen 
as less usefull.


 On 7/12/2015 2:45 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:

This conversation is quite scattered now but,

I've followed up with contact given in your letter (Diana Stewart) 
with my concerns and questions. Specifically I've asked:


1. what does the statement "Where specific licence terms (such as
Creative Commons) are applied to datasets, those licence terms
shall prevail over any inconsistent provisions in this statement."
mean? Because we need these additional permissions from LPI beyond
the scope of the CC license to be legally binding so that we may
use LPI data within OpenStreetMap. We need this additional
permissions from LPI to prevail over the problematic clauses
within the CC license.

2. "To ensure consumers are informed of the currency and accuracy
of data, LPI asks that the date of extraction be marked in red."
This requirement is difficult to implement for us due to the way
we would like to use LPI data, furthermore if implemented it would
be misleading. If the OpenStreetMap community were to include LPI
data or derived data within OpenStreetMap then this would be an
 ongoing adhoc inclusion of pieces of LPI data. As such, any
single statement intending to indicated data currency wouldn't be
accurate.

3. Could you please clarify that "on the 'Contributors' page of
OpenStreetMap" refers to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia and not
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright


I've asked this in the context of my pretext:

I am of the understanding that as it currently stands the Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode) isn't
compatible with the terms we (OpenStreetMap) need for inclusion of
such data or derived data in OpenStreetMap.

For example the above CC license in clauses 4A(b),4A(e),4B(a)
certain notices must be kept intact when we create new works
derived from your CC licensed LPI data. However, OpenStreetMap has
decided that this level of downstream attribution is too onerous
(so for example if OpenStreetMap included some data from LPI and a
3rd party web site includes an OpenStreetMap map, that website
shouldn't need to attribute LPI, rather they would only attribute
OpenStreetMap and in tern OpenStreetMap would attribute LPI).

Because of this, OpenStreetMap require specific explicit
permission from the copyright owner that such method of
attribution is acceptable since it is unclear if this is
acceptable under the plan CC BY 3.0 AU license.

Furthermore clause 4B(c) requires identification of changes made
to the original work. This isn't practical for OpenStreetMap so we
require that copyright holders grant us that we may simply state
something such as "in part derived from...".


I want to make sure that we have solid legal foundations for this, and 
would like to run it by the legal-talk list first for advice.



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


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

Re: [talk-au] Explicit Permission to use NSW Land and Property Information data

[Paul Norman]

On 12/5/2015 11:17 PM, cleary wrote:
1. The requested acknowledgement, as specified by LPI, applies only to 
the information in the "Contributors" page of the wiki, not to the 
tags of each data item.  I think the source tag for each data item 
should be shorter but accurate e.g "NSW Base Map, LPI" or "NSW Points 
of Interest, LPI" etc.
2. Like one other mapper, I am also a little uncertain about including 
the date, however that is what has been requested and it is a small 
price to pay for access to such rich data. Where a whole dataset is 
imported on a particular date, it clearly makes sense but would seem 
less practical where data is extracted on an ongoing basis. Unless any 
clarification of this is received and since the stated intent of LPI 
was to indicate to users where data may be not the most recent, I 
suggest we use the earliest date on which data is taken from a dataset 
but then add an amended date if, at any time, an update of the entire 
dataset is imported into OSM. For example the current local government 
boundaries are to be extensively re-drawn in the next 6-9 months and 
it would be important to show whether any local government boundaries 
imported from LPI are the soon-to-be-obsolete 2015 version or a 
subsequent version.


When we're talking about source tags, we should use whatever is useful 
for mappers. In theory source date tags can be useful, but in practice 
I've not seen them worth the bother.


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