Re: [talk-au] Parks Vic data

[Andrew Harvey]

I agree that in the original email thread at https://wiki.openstreetmap.
org/wiki/Attribution/Department_of_the_Environment_
and_Energy_CAPAD#Follow-up_Email they didn't grant the permission that the
method of attribution we propose is acceptable, which based on my
understanding is required on top of the CC BY license for the data to be
used in OSM.

So thank you Andrew Davidson for following up about this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/
Department_of_the_Environment_and_Energy_CAPAD#Follow-up_Email

As a side note the LWG (License Working Group) are working towards
clarifying the compatibility of CC BY 4.0 as noted at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2016-December/008558.html

On 11 February 2017 at 12:10, Adam Horan  wrote:

> I've had a look at CAPAD, and the statement from the department merely
> seems to be a restatement that it's CC-BY:
>
> *"OpenStreetMap can use CAPAD 2014 under the CC-BY licence conditions
> without any extra permissions from the department or from the contributing
> agencies."*
>
> To my reading this is just a way of saying that you can use it in any way
> compatible with CC-BY. However I didn't think CC-BY on it's own was
> sufficient for OSM & ODBL?
>
> Other Australian datasets on https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Import/Catalogue#Community_Imports (Capad not listed?)  seem to
> have additional explicit permission statements in addition to the CC-BY?
>
> I've have already used CAPAD to manually add a couple of parks and tweak
> some geometry, but I want to check I'm not going to cause problems by
> continuing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 8 February 2017 at 11:17, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> On 8 February 2017 at 11:08, Ross Scanlon  wrote:
>> > capad
>>
>> The links for this are:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Collabo
>> rative_Australian_Protected_Areas_Database_(CAPAD)
>> http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad
>>
>> ___
>> 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 a Track

[Ross Scanlon]

On 11/02/17 12:21, Warin wrote:

On 11-Feb-17 11:28 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:


On 11/02/17 07:00, Warin wrote:
The NSW LPT base map is particularly helpful for road 
classifications .. tracks, unclassified, tertiary and paths.
It is in some ways better than a survey as it looks to take into 
account the importance to the community and that is very hard to 
determine by simply travelling the road.


Where a 'track' travels a long distance .. say over 50 km I would 
argue that it is 'unclassified' as that length suggests it is not a 
simple service/maintenance track but a connection between distant 
points.
As far as seeking out the 'interesting/adventure' roads .. I first 
look for unpaved, then connecting. The old 'Tracks for Australia' 
garmin map is helpful but well out of date.


So your saying above that a track like the Canning Stock Route should 
be an unclassified road?  It's about 1800kms and is definitely a 
track not a road.  There are some sections you could possibly call an 
unclassified road but they are not maintained.  For the majority of 
it's length it is two wheel tracks through the scrub and sand dunes.


I'd suggest everyone have a read of the wiki pages for track and 
unclassified.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
"roads for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks"
"classify them as usual 
 according 
to the conventions in your country,"


You conveniently left out the rest of this sentence:

" Do not use tracks to represent public unpaved roads in *built-up 
areas*[1] 
, that 
would be consideredtagging for the renderer 
. In this 
situation,classify them as usual 
according to 
the conventions in your country, and also provide asurface 
=*tag."



My bolding.

"vehicular use is dominated by field access or forest management, but 
not any heavier sort of industry. "


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified*
"*used for minor public roads typically at the lowest level of the 
interconnecting grid *"
"*The least important sort of minor roads which are either a) proper 
signposted formal parts of the public road network, or b) nominally 
private or just unsignposted but the locals use them anyway. The idea 
is that "4"-wheel vehicular use by the general public is possible, the 
general public use dominates other uses, and no single specific 
purpose dominates.*"


* These are not clear and there is suggestions to refer to the country 
guidelines

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads_.28Dirt.2C_Gravel.2C_Formed.2C_etc.29

and that is not clear either.

I've always tagged them by looking to see if they are 
maintained/graded.  If they are graded, and that's generally pretty 
obvious from aerial imagery as well, then they are minimum 
unclassified.  If not then they are tracks.


How frequently are they graded? Sections of the Canning are graded. A 
track locally to me was recently graded .. last grading was probably 
done 20 years ago ...but I'd not call it 'unclassified' as it is not 
important enough. It is in quite good condition now.


As I said sections of the CSR are probably unclassified, but the 
remainder is definitely a track.  There's always exceptions, so the "a 
track longer than 50kms" really does not apply to tracks like the CSR.   
And the CSR can


I'm talking about well maintained roads by council or state governments, 
graded at least once a year and could be sealed easily with spray pave 
if needed it's just an example of what is a road and not a track.  There 
are lots of these in WA in particular that are tagged as track but 
should really be unclassified surface=gravel/ground.


Tracks are like the image on the highway=track wiki page.  The actual 
track is only maintained by the passage of vehicles along it.





Have a look at this area in josm, with bing imagery

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-30.0090/116.8188


or here it is on bing maps:

https://binged.it/2kcYMV6

and where it's unsealed

https://binged.it/2kd8irh


Looking at the road that comes up from the south east and then 
according to MRWA it continues to the north west.
MRWA classifies the south east part as osm tertiary and the north 
west part as unclassified.


However I'd tag the north west part as track as it's little more than 
two wheel tracks through the scrub and the further you go along it 
the more it deteriorates.




The condition/difficulty of the road is best determined by 
travelling the road, I don't add that detail unless I have travelled 
it. I do add surface=unpaved/paved ...
on some bridges I remove the surface tag as I cannot be certain what 
is there, on a few I change it to concrete.


On 

Re: [talk-au] When is a Road a Track

[Warin]

On 11-Feb-17 11:28 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:


On 11/02/17 07:00, Warin wrote:
The NSW LPT base map is particularly helpful for road classifications 
.. tracks, unclassified, tertiary and paths.
It is in some ways better than a survey as it looks to take into 
account the importance to the community and that is very hard to 
determine by simply travelling the road.


Where a 'track' travels a long distance .. say over 50 km I would 
argue that it is 'unclassified' as that length suggests it is not a 
simple service/maintenance track but a connection between distant 
points.
As far as seeking out the 'interesting/adventure' roads .. I first 
look for unpaved, then connecting. The old 'Tracks for Australia' 
garmin map is helpful but well out of date.


So your saying above that a track like the Canning Stock Route should 
be an unclassified road?  It's about 1800kms and is definitely a track 
not a road.  There are some sections you could possibly call an 
unclassified road but they are not maintained. For the majority of 
it's length it is two wheel tracks through the scrub and sand dunes.


I'd suggest everyone have a read of the wiki pages for track and 
unclassified.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
"roads for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks"
"classify them as usual 
 according 
to the conventions in your country,"
"vehicular use is dominated by field access or forest management, but 
not any heavier sort of industry. "


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified*
"*used for minor public roads typically at the lowest level of the 
interconnecting grid *"
"*The least important sort of minor roads which are either a) proper 
signposted formal parts of the public road network, or b) nominally 
private or just unsignposted but the locals use them anyway. The idea is 
that "4"-wheel vehicular use by the general public is possible, the 
general public use dominates other uses, and no single specific purpose 
dominates.*"


* These are not clear and there is suggestions to refer to the country 
guidelines

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads_.28Dirt.2C_Gravel.2C_Formed.2C_etc.29

and that is not clear either.

I've always tagged them by looking to see if they are 
maintained/graded.  If they are graded, and that's generally pretty 
obvious from aerial imagery as well, then they are minimum 
unclassified.  If not then they are tracks.


How frequently are they graded? Sections of the Canning are graded. A 
track locally to me was recently graded .. last grading was probably 
done 20 years ago ...but I'd not call it 'unclassified' as it is not 
important enough. It is in quite good condition now.




Have a look at this area in josm, with bing imagery

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-30.0090/116.8188


or here it is on bing maps:

https://binged.it/2kcYMV6

and where it's unsealed

https://binged.it/2kd8irh


Looking at the road that comes up from the south east and then 
according to MRWA it continues to the north west.
MRWA classifies the south east part as osm tertiary and the north west 
part as unclassified.


However I'd tag the north west part as track as it's little more than 
two wheel tracks through the scrub and the further you go along it the 
more it deteriorates.




The condition/difficulty of the road is best determined by travelling 
the road, I don't add that detail unless I have travelled it. I do 
add surface=unpaved/paved ...
on some bridges I remove the surface tag as I cannot be certain what 
is there, on a few I change it to concrete.


On 10-Feb-17 05:55 PM, David Bannon wrote:


Do you mean without seeing them yourself Warren ?  I personally 
think that you should only correct another mapper's work if you have 
personally seen something that needs correction. I am sure there are 
some exceptions. But here, in particular, you seem to have 
"negative" information.


Its also worth remembering that highway= indicates the purpose of 
the road or track, a number of other tags indicate its condition. In 
theory 


David


On 10/02/17 10:51, Warren wrote:
I have asked this question before but did not really get a clear 
answer.


I am working off the Western Australian Main Roads data checking 
against the OSM road attributes.  Occasionally I come across lines 
that are classed in OSM as highway:unclassified or 
highway:residential that do not appear on the Main Roads data base.


I would argue that these are named tracks rather than roads but I 
wanted to check others opinion.


Do I leave them alone or change the classification to 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/listin

Re: [talk-au] Parks Vic data

[Adam Horan]

I've had a look at CAPAD, and the statement from the department merely
seems to be a restatement that it's CC-BY:

*"OpenStreetMap can use CAPAD 2014 under the CC-BY licence conditions
without any extra permissions from the department or from the contributing
agencies."*

To my reading this is just a way of saying that you can use it in any way
compatible with CC-BY. However I didn't think CC-BY on it's own was
sufficient for OSM & ODBL?

Other Australian datasets on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue#Community_Imports
(Capad not listed?)  seem to have additional explicit permission statements
in addition to the CC-BY?

I've have already used CAPAD to manually add a couple of parks and tweak
some geometry, but I want to check I'm not going to cause problems by
continuing.

Thanks,

Adam


On 8 February 2017 at 11:17, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> On 8 February 2017 at 11:08, Ross Scanlon  wrote:
> > capad
>
> The links for this are:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/
> Collaborative_Australian_Protected_Areas_Database_(CAPAD)
> http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad
>
> ___
> 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 a Track

[Ross Scanlon]

On 11/02/17 07:00, Warin wrote:
The NSW LPT base map is particularly helpful for road classifications 
.. tracks, unclassified, tertiary and paths.
It is in some ways better than a survey as it looks to take into 
account the importance to the community and that is very hard to 
determine by simply travelling the road.


Where a 'track' travels a long distance .. say over 50 km I would 
argue that it is 'unclassified' as that length suggests it is not a 
simple service/maintenance track but a connection between distant points.
As far as seeking out the 'interesting/adventure' roads .. I first 
look for unpaved, then connecting. The old 'Tracks for Australia' 
garmin map is helpful but well out of date.


So your saying above that a track like the Canning Stock Route should be 
an unclassified road?  It's about 1800kms and is definitely a track not 
a road.  There are some sections you could possibly call an unclassified 
road but they are not maintained.  For the majority of it's length it is 
two wheel tracks through the scrub and sand dunes.


I'd suggest everyone have a read of the wiki pages for track and 
unclassified.  I've always tagged them by looking to see if they are 
maintained/graded.  If they are graded, and that's generally pretty 
obvious from aerial imagery as well, then they are minimum 
unclassified.  If not then they are tracks.


Have a look at this area in josm, with bing imagery

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-30.0090/116.8188


or here it is on bing maps:

https://binged.it/2kcYMV6

and where it's unsealed

https://binged.it/2kd8irh


Looking at the road that comes up from the south east and then according 
to MRWA it continues to the north west.
MRWA classifies the south east part as osm tertiary and the north west 
part as unclassified.


However I'd tag the north west part as track as it's little more than 
two wheel tracks through the scrub and the further you go along it the 
more it deteriorates.




The condition/difficulty of the road is best determined by travelling 
the road, I don't add that detail unless I have travelled it. I do add 
surface=unpaved/paved ...
on some bridges I remove the surface tag as I cannot be certain what 
is there, on a few I change it to concrete.


On 10-Feb-17 05:55 PM, David Bannon wrote:


Do you mean without seeing them yourself Warren ?  I personally think 
that you should only correct another mapper's work if you have 
personally seen something that needs correction. I am sure there are 
some exceptions. But here, in particular, you seem to have "negative" 
information.


Its also worth remembering that highway= indicates the purpose of the 
road or track, a number of other tags indicate its condition. In 
theory 


David


On 10/02/17 10:51, Warren wrote:
I have asked this question before but did not really get a clear 
answer.


I am working off the Western Australian Main Roads data checking 
against the OSM road attributes.  Occasionally I come across lines 
that are classed in OSM as highway:unclassified or 
highway:residential that do not appear on the Main Roads data base.


I would argue that these are named tracks rather than roads but I 
wanted to check others opinion.


Do I leave them alone or change the classification to 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



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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 116, Issue 11

[Warren]

Thank you all

I have a clearer picture now.


On 10/02/2017 8:00 PM, 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
https://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. Re: When is a Road a Track (David Bannon)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:55:31 +1100
From: David Bannon 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] When is a Road a Track
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed


Do you mean without seeing them yourself Warren ?  I personally think
that you should only correct another mapper's work if you have
personally seen something that needs correction. I am sure there are
some exceptions. But here, in particular, you seem to have "negative"
information.

Its also worth remembering that highway= indicates the purpose of the
road or track, a number of other tags indicate its condition. In theory 

David


On 10/02/17 10:51, Warren wrote:

I have asked this question before but did not really get a clear answer.

I am working off the Western Australian Main Roads data checking
against the OSM road attributes.  Occasionally I come across lines
that are classed in OSM as highway:unclassified or highway:residential
that do not appear on the Main Roads data base.

I would argue that these are named tracks rather than roads but I
wanted to check others opinion.

Do I leave them alone or change the classification to highway:track?


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




--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 116, Issue 11




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

Re: [talk-au] When is a Road a Track

[Warin]

The NSW LPT base map is particularly helpful for road classifications .. 
tracks, unclassified, tertiary and paths.
It is in some ways better than a survey as it looks to take into account 
the importance to the community and that is very hard to determine by 
simply travelling the road.


Where a 'track' travels a long distance .. say over 50 km I would argue 
that it is 'unclassified' as that length suggests it is not a simple 
service/maintenance track but a connection between distant points.
As far as seeking out the 'interesting/adventure' roads .. I first look 
for unpaved, then connecting. The old 'Tracks for Australia' garmin map 
is helpful but well out of date.


The condition/difficulty of the road is best determined by travelling 
the road, I don't add that detail unless I have travelled it. I do add 
surface=unpaved/paved ...
on some bridges I remove the surface tag as I cannot be certain what is 
there, on a few I change it to concrete.


On 10-Feb-17 05:55 PM, David Bannon wrote:


Do you mean without seeing them yourself Warren ?  I personally think 
that you should only correct another mapper's work if you have 
personally seen something that needs correction. I am sure there are 
some exceptions. But here, in particular, you seem to have "negative" 
information.


Its also worth remembering that highway= indicates the purpose of the 
road or track, a number of other tags indicate its condition. In 
theory 


David


On 10/02/17 10:51, Warren wrote:

I have asked this question before but did not really get a clear answer.

I am working off the Western Australian Main Roads data checking 
against the OSM road attributes.  Occasionally I come across lines 
that are classed in OSM as highway:unclassified or 
highway:residential that do not appear on the Main Roads data base.


I would argue that these are named tracks rather than roads but I 
wanted to check others opinion.


Do I leave them alone or change the classification to 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