[talk-au] When is a road not a road

[Warren]

In this case I know the roads, I have walked, ridden a bike, and in some 
cases driven them.  They exist, but they are in a restricted area.  This 
is possibly why they do not appear on the WAMR data.  I guess my 
question includes the concept of what roads should appear on the OSM 
map.  I know this discussion has been had before.  Do we accept the MRWA 
data as an "approved" set of public roads in WA?


I understand, and agree with, Warin's point about not changing data 
without good cause.  I also understand Sam's point about the "on ground 
accuracy" of the MRWA data.




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

Re: [talk-au] When is a road, not a road?

[Sam Wilson]

I've found that there are quite a few MRWA road centre-lines that bear
no relation to where the actual road is. Usually because there are big
lumps of granite in the way, or quarries, or other physical reasons to
re-route the road. (I guess the road-builders don't tell MRWA that they
changed things?)

But yeah, I'm taking MRWA's geometries as a guide only, and certainly
not assuming their data is 100% complete. :-) So, I'd assume that any
non-track highway that is in OSM but not in MRWA is as-currently-mapped,
and leave it be.

Also, around towns there are often MRWA residential roads with names and
classifications etc. but which haven't actually (yet) been built. These
are sometimes currently firebreaks, but sometimes just scrub.

:-)

Of course, really what we should do it get out there for some
ground-truthing to solve these questions! :-)

—Sam

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, at 01:11 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> The metadata says that it includes roads maintained by Main Roads and 
> "all roads controlled by Local Government (Local Roads) that are 
> assigned road numbers", which is great. It also has "other centreline is 
> also included for paths and unknown roads" which is a bit vague as to 
> how complete the data set is. What do the missing roads look like on 
> aerial imagery?
> 
> On 22/12/16 16:06, Warin wrote:
> > On 22-Dec-16 03:59 PM, Warren wrote:
> >> I suspect the answer to this question  is simple.
> >>
> >> Following Sam Wilson's post about the data sources available for
> >> Western Australian Roads, and using Sam's approach I have begun adding
> >> and checking road names in WA.  In  the area that I am currently
> >> working there are a number of named "roads" on  OSM (usually Highway:
> >> unclassified), that do not appear on the Main roads data.
> >>
> >> If a road is not on the Main roads database does it automatically
> >> become a named track (Highway: Track)?
> >
> > I'd leave it alone... someone thinks otherwise ... contact them for
> > their view.
> >
> > The 'Main roads database' may not include roads maintained by local
> > councils ... that does not make them OSM 'highway=track'.
> >
> > ___
> > 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

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

Re: [talk-au] When is a road, not a road?

[Andrew Davidson]

The metadata says that it includes roads maintained by Main Roads and 
"all roads controlled by Local Government (Local Roads) that are 
assigned road numbers", which is great. It also has "other centreline is 
also included for paths and unknown roads" which is a bit vague as to 
how complete the data set is. What do the missing roads look like on 
aerial imagery?


On 22/12/16 16:06, Warin wrote:

On 22-Dec-16 03:59 PM, Warren wrote:

I suspect the answer to this question  is simple.

Following Sam Wilson's post about the data sources available for
Western Australian Roads, and using Sam's approach I have begun adding
and checking road names in WA.  In  the area that I am currently
working there are a number of named "roads" on  OSM (usually Highway:
unclassified), that do not appear on the Main roads data.

If a road is not on the Main roads database does it automatically
become a named track (Highway: Track)?


I'd leave it alone... someone thinks otherwise ... contact them for
their view.

The 'Main roads database' may not include roads maintained by local
councils ... that does not make them OSM 'highway=track'.

___
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] When is a road, not a road?

[Warin]

On 22-Dec-16 03:59 PM, Warren wrote:

I suspect the answer to this question  is simple.

Following Sam Wilson's post about the data sources available for 
Western Australian Roads, and using Sam's approach I have begun adding 
and checking road names in WA.  In  the area that I am currently 
working there are a number of named "roads" on  OSM (usually Highway: 
unclassified), that do not appear on the Main roads data.


If a road is not on the Main roads database does it automatically 
become a named track (Highway: Track)?


I'd leave it alone... someone thinks otherwise ... contact them for 
their view.


The 'Main roads database' may not include roads maintained by local 
councils ... that does not make them OSM 'highway=track'.


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

[talk-au] When is a road, not a road?

[Warren]

I suspect the answer to this question  is simple.

Following Sam Wilson's post about the data sources available for Western 
Australian Roads, and using Sam's approach I have begun adding and 
checking road names in WA.  In  the area that I am currently working 
there are a number of named "roads" on  OSM (usually Highway: 
unclassified), that do not appear on the Main roads data.


If a road is not on the Main roads database does it automatically become 
a named track (Highway: Track)?




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

Re: [talk-au] Local Government Areas without Councils

[Warin]

On 21-Dec-16 05:10 PM, Warin wrote:

Hummm
How about looking at it from a data consumers view point?
Who would use boundary level 6  and what for?

A resident/occupier/potential purchaser/developer may want to know who 
is the relevant authority for a particular property ...
A new employee many want confirmation of the boundaries of the 
authority they are working for.

 I suppose you could ask a real estate agent (joke) or look in OSM ...
If you are in one of these 'unincorporated areas' then with Andrew's' 
'rule' you won't get an answer.. not much help.


I would think that the 'rule' is easily expanded to include 
unincorporated areas.
What is/are  the objection/s to this expansion? Other than 'it is not 
in the wiki'.


 On 21-Dec-16 11:35 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote:

It's pretty simple:

1. Admin level 6 boundaries are supposed to enclose a "Local 
Government Authority".


2. In NSW the only form of "Local Government Authority" are councils 
incorporated under the Local Government Act.


3. The areas covered by these councils are "incorporated areas".

4. The three polygons in the LPI dataset labelled "UNINCORPORATED" 
represent areas that are not in the "incorporated areas" and 
therefore have no "Local Government Authority".


5. You don't put boundaries around things that don't exist.


Unincorporated areas exit.
They form a similar role to 'Local Councils'.
The areas do not overlap, in fact sharing the same ways/part boundaries.
There would be no data conflict in adding these to boundary level 6.


Looking at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries 

the United kingdom for level 6 boundary has "administrative counties / 
Unitary authorities , 
City of London"


And the wiki on Unitary authorities 
 says in part "type of 
local authority that has a single tier and is responsible for all local 
government  functions 
within its area"








QED.

The SA case is complicated by the existence of the Outback 
Communities Authority. According to the Office of Local Government 
it's not included:


http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/local_govt.

Which is supported by the fact that the name includes the phrase 
"unincorporated area".


On 2016-12-21 09:15, cleary wrote:


I have been adding administrative boundaries in NSW and SA using the
Government data for which OSM has been given explicit permission. I am
currently working on the "Pastoral Unincorporated Area" in SA and
another mapper commented that it was inappropriate. I responded but my
response appears not to have satisfied the other mapper.  I then found
that the same mapper had deleted the "Unincorporated Area of New South
Wales" because it was not administered by a council.

Both of these "unincorporated" areas are defined and designated in the
respective government datasets, that is (1) South Australian Government
Data - Local Government Areas and (2) LPI NSW Administrative Boundaries
- Local Government.

The issue for the other mapper appears to be the acceptability of the
form of governance of these areas. While the majority of local
government areas are administered by councils, this model works less
well in areas which are sparsely populated. The Pastoral Unincorporated
Area in South Australia is administered by a designated authority, the
Outback Communities Authority, which is not a council either in name or
in the usual sense. I am aware of three other designated local
government areas in South Australia that do not have councils - two are
administered by the indigenous residents although they appear to have
some form of executive committee to make routine decisions. One
designated local government area does not appear to have a council 
and I
have not ascertained the form of governance.  In the Unincorporated 
Area

of New South Wales, responsibilities are dispersed and do not rest with
any one body, for example roads are managed by the Roads and Maritime
Services (state authority) and there are local advisory committees in
some isolated communities.

The key issue is whether the form of governance in an area should
determine whether or not areas should be mapped in OSM. It seems to me
to be akin to removing Northern Territory and ACT on the basis that 
they

have different forms of governance and are not proper states!

The comments on the Pastoral Unincorporated Area can be viewed at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44528330#map=12/-34.3720/140.4687 


The relation for the Pastoral Unincorporated Area is at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6804541
The deleted relation for Unincorporated Area of New South Wales is at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5892272 and refers to Changeset
#44531564

Do other members of the OSM community have a view on whether the 
form of

governance should determine what areas are shown on