Re: [talk-au] Public Barbeques in the ACT
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 16:19, Riley Baird wrote: > At present, the data is released under CC BY 4.0 international, so it > appears that I would have to send a message requesting permission to > use it in a way compatible with the OSM licence. G'day Riley & welcome I'm sure Andrew & others will be along shortly to explain import procedures further, but you don't have to ask! Have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Catalogue - we've already been given permission to use that info, together with a heap more ACT data. Good luck with it all. Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Public Barbeques in the ACT
Hi, I'm new to OpenStreetMap, but I'd like to try importing some data. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government makes available a significant amount of its data online, at data.act.gov.au, some of which could be useful to have in OSM. As a start, I was considering importing their "Public Barbeques in the ACT" dataset, which does not appear to currently be included in the map. The dataset is available for download here: https://www.data.act.gov.au/Infrastructure-and-Utilities/Public-Barbeques-in-the-ACT/n3b4-mm52/data At present, the data is released under CC BY 4.0 international, so it appears that I would have to send a message requesting permission to use it in a way compatible with the OSM licence. I've looked for Canberran OSM groups, but can only find 2 users listed as being in Canberra on the wiki, and the last meeting was 7 years ago. I'm sending this message as requested by the import guidelines, so I'm open to any feedback that anyone might have about this idea or how I can go forward. Thanks, Riley Baird ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] PSMA Administrative Boundaries
I'll look there. Thanks. On Sun, Oct 7, 2018, at 12:31 PM, Warin wrote: > On 07/10/18 11:22, cleary wrote: > > > > In regard to admin boundaries sharing the coastline, I think that would > > also be incorrect but I am less confident of my view on this. > > > > I did update some administrative boundaries in South Australia using the SA > > Government Data and those boundaries did not coincide with the coastline > > (see the coastline around Streaky Bay, Ceduna, Fowlers Bay and near the > > Nullarbor). The coastline in OSM needs a lot of work - I have looked at > > parts of WA and SA but found it very difficult to use the satellite imagery > > correctly to refine the map of the coastline in areas where there are > > extensive mudflats or large tidal flows and even rocky areas just > > under/above the waterline. But I suggest it is safest, and more accurate, > > to map the administrative boundaries and the coastline separately. > > Might be good to look at Broome for hi/low tide .. there is a fair > distance between the two there so it would be easy to pick in that > location. > > > ___ > 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] PSMA Administrative Boundaries
PS While on coast lines ... computer model of the Kimberly coastline over a few thousand years.. looks like it is breathing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-07/wa-coastline-transformed-by-sea-levels-over-thousands-of-years/10338500 On 07/10/18 11:22, cleary wrote: In regard to admin boundaries sharing the coastline, I think that would also be incorrect but I am less confident of my view on this. I did update some administrative boundaries in South Australia using the SA Government Data and those boundaries did not coincide with the coastline (see the coastline around Streaky Bay, Ceduna, Fowlers Bay and near the Nullarbor). The coastline in OSM needs a lot of work - I have looked at parts of WA and SA but found it very difficult to use the satellite imagery correctly to refine the map of the coastline in areas where there are extensive mudflats or large tidal flows and even rocky areas just under/above the waterline. But I suggest it is safest, and more accurate, to map the administrative boundaries and the coastline separately. ___ 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] PSMA Administrative Boundaries
On 07/10/18 11:22, cleary wrote: In regard to admin boundaries sharing the coastline, I think that would also be incorrect but I am less confident of my view on this. I did update some administrative boundaries in South Australia using the SA Government Data and those boundaries did not coincide with the coastline (see the coastline around Streaky Bay, Ceduna, Fowlers Bay and near the Nullarbor). The coastline in OSM needs a lot of work - I have looked at parts of WA and SA but found it very difficult to use the satellite imagery correctly to refine the map of the coastline in areas where there are extensive mudflats or large tidal flows and even rocky areas just under/above the waterline. But I suggest it is safest, and more accurate, to map the administrative boundaries and the coastline separately. Might be good to look at Broome for hi/low tide .. there is a fair distance between the two there so it would be easy to pick in that location. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] PSMA Administrative Boundaries
In regard to admin boundaries sharing the coastline, I think that would also be incorrect but I am less confident of my view on this. I did update some administrative boundaries in South Australia using the SA Government Data and those boundaries did not coincide with the coastline (see the coastline around Streaky Bay, Ceduna, Fowlers Bay and near the Nullarbor). The coastline in OSM needs a lot of work - I have looked at parts of WA and SA but found it very difficult to use the satellite imagery correctly to refine the map of the coastline in areas where there are extensive mudflats or large tidal flows and even rocky areas just under/above the waterline. But I suggest it is safest, and more accurate, to map the administrative boundaries and the coastline separately. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] PSMA Administrative Boundaries
On 06/10/18 21:34, Andrew Harvey wrote: Thanks for raising that. I'd seen some boundaries in WA defined in legislation as, follow this road, then that road etc. but I think that was for school zones. So the LGA and Suburb/Localities are defined by the cadastral plans then? I hear the points and see there is consensus to not reuse existing roads, rivers in the admin boundaries, so I support that approach. What about admin boundaries that border the coastline? Should they share the existing coastline or not? OSM has defined the 'coast line' as the high tide mark as that is easier to pick than the low or mid tide marks. It is probable that the admin boundaries use the low tide mark? Do a sample comparison? That does simplify the import, as there is much less manual effort needed. I guess what we need now is an OSM XML file with both the Suburb/Localities and LGA boundaries together with shared ways (as many ways are in common). I'll see what I can do to put this together, is anyone else working on this too? On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 20:53, cleary wrote: In regard to administrative boundaries being attached to other features such as waterways and roads, I think it is a trade-off between accuracy and convenience. I am most familiar with NSW. Boundaries are not "defined" by words but rather by surveyors' charts. The surveyors may often have been directed to use waterways, roads, mountain ridges and similar features for their surveys. However the waterways and roads have sometimes/often moved but the boundaries have not. Words are sometimes used to describe boundaries such as "it follows the river and then goes south along the main road ... " Such a description is approximate and is near enough for many purposes, especially if one's area of interest is well within the boundaries. However it may not be sufficiently precise if one is concerned with particular locations close to the boundaries. Examples in NSW that might be considered include the boundary on the Murray River west of Tocumwal, the Lachlan River east of Cobb Highway, Willandra Creek south of Roto, Bogan River at Girilambone. If the boundaries were attached to the respective waterways, either the boundaries or the waterways would be incorrect. Where boundaries are mapped on rivers or roads, mappers may re-align the river or road as changes occur and the administraitve boundary becomes distorted, sometimes only slightly but usually increasingly significant over time. Alternatively we could map the waterway or road using the administrative boundary data (as some mappers have done in the past) and ignore the satellite imagery and GPS data but this affects the accuracy of the location of the waterway or road. While I will accept the community's group decision, personally I think accuracy is to be valued over convenience. I strongly advocate for accuracy by mapping administrative boundaries separate from other features on the map, even if they are nearby. The decision in regard to the above issue will affect use of a source tag for the boundary. If the boundary is an approximation and attached to waterways or roads then it would be incorrect to use a boundary source tag, However if boundaries are mapped separately and accurately, then we should record the source of the boundary data. While I would suggest adding the source tag to the relation for the administrative boundary, it might also be added to the way if there is any need to specify the source for the way e.g. if using the administrative boundary for the geography of a river, then also give the source of the boundary data as the source for the waterway. ___ 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] PSMA Administrative Boundaries
Thanks for raising that. I'd seen some boundaries in WA defined in legislation as, follow this road, then that road etc. but I think that was for school zones. So the LGA and Suburb/Localities are defined by the cadastral plans then? I hear the points and see there is consensus to not reuse existing roads, rivers in the admin boundaries, so I support that approach. What about admin boundaries that border the coastline? Should they share the existing coastline or not? That does simplify the import, as there is much less manual effort needed. I guess what we need now is an OSM XML file with both the Suburb/Localities and LGA boundaries together with shared ways (as many ways are in common). I'll see what I can do to put this together, is anyone else working on this too? On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 20:53, cleary wrote: > In regard to administrative boundaries being attached to other features such > as waterways and roads, I think it is a trade-off between accuracy and > convenience. > > I am most familiar with NSW. Boundaries are not "defined" by words but rather > by surveyors' charts. The surveyors may often have been directed to use > waterways, roads, mountain ridges and similar features for their surveys. > However the waterways and roads have sometimes/often moved but the boundaries > have not. Words are sometimes used to describe boundaries such as "it > follows the river and then goes south along the main road ... " Such a > description is approximate and is near enough for many purposes, especially > if one's area of interest is well within the boundaries. However it may not > be sufficiently precise if one is concerned with particular locations close > to the boundaries. > > > Examples in NSW that might be considered include the boundary on the Murray > River west of Tocumwal, the Lachlan River east of Cobb Highway, Willandra > Creek south of Roto, Bogan River at Girilambone. If the boundaries were > attached to the respective waterways, either the boundaries or the waterways > would be incorrect. Where boundaries are mapped on rivers or roads, mappers > may re-align the river or road as changes occur and the administraitve > boundary becomes distorted, sometimes only slightly but usually increasingly > significant over time. Alternatively we could map the waterway or road using > the administrative boundary data (as some mappers have done in the past) and > ignore the satellite imagery and GPS data but this affects the accuracy of > the location of the waterway or road. > > While I will accept the community's group decision, personally I think > accuracy is to be valued over convenience. I strongly advocate for accuracy > by mapping administrative boundaries separate from other features on the map, > even if they are nearby. > > The decision in regard to the above issue will affect use of a source tag for > the boundary. If the boundary is an approximation and attached to waterways > or roads then it would be incorrect to use a boundary source tag, However if > boundaries are mapped separately and accurately, then we should record the > source of the boundary data. While I would suggest adding the source tag to > the relation for the administrative boundary, it might also be added to the > way if there is any need to specify the source for the way e.g. if using the > administrative boundary for the geography of a river, then also give the > source of the boundary data as the source for the waterway. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] PSMA Administrative Boundaries
On 06/10/18 20:52, cleary wrote: In regard to administrative boundaries being attached to other features such as waterways and roads, I think it is a trade-off between accuracy and convenience. +1. If the admin boundaries use other features as there boundaries then it is the other feature that takes priority in accuracy over that of the boundary. The tags on the way will have those of the other feature, possibly including the source of that other feature. If the admin boundary is moved because the other feature is changed then so be it. I have come across a few admin boundaries that are attached to things .. and from now on I'll move them to match the other feature, if that is a problem for you then make the admin boundary separate. I for one am tired of separating them. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] PSMA Administrative Boundaries
In regard to administrative boundaries being attached to other features such as waterways and roads, I think it is a trade-off between accuracy and convenience. I am most familiar with NSW. Boundaries are not "defined" by words but rather by surveyors' charts. The surveyors may often have been directed to use waterways, roads, mountain ridges and similar features for their surveys. However the waterways and roads have sometimes/often moved but the boundaries have not. Words are sometimes used to describe boundaries such as "it follows the river and then goes south along the main road ... " Such a description is approximate and is near enough for many purposes, especially if one's area of interest is well within the boundaries. However it may not be sufficiently precise if one is concerned with particular locations close to the boundaries. Examples in NSW that might be considered include the boundary on the Murray River west of Tocumwal, the Lachlan River east of Cobb Highway, Willandra Creek south of Roto, Bogan River at Girilambone. If the boundaries were attached to the respective waterways, either the boundaries or the waterways would be incorrect. Where boundaries are mapped on rivers or roads, mappers may re-align the river or road as changes occur and the administraitve boundary becomes distorted, sometimes only slightly but usually increasingly significant over time. Alternatively we could map the waterway or road using the administrative boundary data (as some mappers have done in the past) and ignore the satellite imagery and GPS data but this affects the accuracy of the location of the waterway or road. While I will accept the community's group decision, personally I think accuracy is to be valued over convenience. I strongly advocate for accuracy by mapping administrative boundaries separate from other features on the map, even if they are nearby. The decision in regard to the above issue will affect use of a source tag for the boundary. If the boundary is an approximation and attached to waterways or roads then it would be incorrect to use a boundary source tag, However if boundaries are mapped separately and accurately, then we should record the source of the boundary data. While I would suggest adding the source tag to the relation for the administrative boundary, it might also be added to the way if there is any need to specify the source for the way e.g. if using the administrative boundary for the geography of a river, then also give the source of the boundary data as the source for the waterway. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] PSMA Administrative Boundaries
>Do you have examples of the overlapping ways? It looks pretty okay around Brisbane to me. Here's an a mesh of the LGA's in GeoJSON which you can import into JOSM with enough memory. https://tianjara.net/data/LGA_mesh.geojson.xz Just import the shapefile into JOSM and use the validation. The GeoJSON file is looking much cleaner. >That's fairly easy to as a preprocessing step, eg with ogr2osm or via other scripts. I've been working on processing the PSMA data to make it easier to import. Since I think we should reuse existing ways where possible, if we did that it's a mostly manual process anyway. Even without reusing existing way, to get relations you need shared ways on the borders. One approach is to use https://github.com/andrewharvey/geojson-mesh to get single ways for the border which we then manually join up into the full relations in JOSM. We might just have to do this. It would be a lot faster then trying to find overlapping ways, at least on the LGA data. >If there's an existing place node, then we should use that as the label member of the relation Yes this is what I was intending. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au