Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Little Maps]

> I missed the last part where it mentions driveways are included, I'll take 
> another look to see what can be improved to filter these out.
> 
Andrew, the 1:25,000 Vic gov topo mps show tracks/driveways on private 
properties in a different colour to those on public land and the map legend 
clearly distinguish the two. So hopefully there is a public/private field in 
the dataset that can be used to distinguish the two. Cheers Ian
> ___
> 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] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Andrew Harvey via Talk-au]

Thanks for the feedback,

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021, at 7:03 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Thanks for a great series of projects Andrew. One query… is there an error in 
> the Victorian all tracks challenge? It includes nearly 250,000 tracks to be 
> reviewed and potentially added to OSM. By contrast, taginfo states that there 
> are “only” 188,000 tracks (highway=track) in OSM across all of Australia at 
> the moment. At the suggested rate of nearly 6 minutes per track, that’ll take 
> more than 6 person-years of mapping, if one were to map non-stop for 10 hours 
> every day and 7 days every week. It certainly makes the ACT challenge look 
> attractive - they have less than 100 to do. Cheers Ian

The VIC (Priority) https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/20216 challenge is 
the better place to start for Victoria unless you're really just looking at a 
small local area you are interested in. It only has 317 tasks compared to 
249,850 for the whole VIC. It focuses on strategically important fire trails 
which are missing in OSM.

I realised I need to re-upload the VIC tasks because it doesn't auto-load them 
into JOSM.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021, at 10:33 AM, Adam Horan wrote:
> I've done some spot checks on the VIC priority, and I see they're also 
> included in the Track VIC challenge. Although the 316 in VIC Priority will be 
> a small dent in the 249850 in Tracks VIC.

I can try to remove these, alternatively if the VIC priority ones get done, 
then I can just re-run the rest of VIC which will pick up most of the changes 
automatically.

> Many of the ones in Tracks VIC seem to be driveways (certainly in the 
> Melbourne periphery that I scanned through), is this expected?

These tracks were done by filtering down Vicmap Transport, specificly class 6 
and 7 which are defined as:

* 6 Track 2-Wheel Drive Unimproved roads which are generally only passable in 
two wheel drive vehicles during fair weather and are used predominately by 
local traffic. Also included are driveways regardless of construction.

* 7 Track 4-Wheel Drive Unimproved roads which are generally only passable with 
four wheel drive vehicles.

I missed the last part where it mentions driveways are included, I'll take 
another look to see what can be improved to filter these out.

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

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[osm.talk-au]

I think this way is wrong: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676954097

 

It’s currently mapped as a parking aisle, but as far as I can see from the 
imagery, that appears to actually be a pedestrian area, and not a roadway at 
all.

 

Yes, very clearly:

 

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-33.8547285,151.06632,3a,68.2y,95.57h,92.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swmU2inPdEll5F_KUNUqO4g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DwmU2inPdEll5F_KUNUqO4g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D98.22062%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Monday, 16 August 2021 21:15
To: Mateusz Konieczny 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] highway=service

 

And this one definitely should be inverted:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.85421/151.06761

 

Agreed. Surprise no one fixed this already, I've done so now.

 

On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Are you allowed as a cyclist to leave sidewalk using them?

 

Well in NSW you can't cycle on the sidewalk...

 

Is it OK to use them for u-turn?

 

Yes.

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

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Aug 17, 2021, 00:24 by bjceravo...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 21:19, Andrew Harvey <> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>>> And this one definitely should be inverted:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.85421/151.06761
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. Surprise no one fixed this already, I've done so now.
>>  
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <>> 
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Are you allowed as a cyclist to leave sidewalk using them?
>>>
>>
>> Well in NSW you can't cycle on the sidewalk...
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> Is it OK to use them for u-turn?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> But you don't need the routing engine to tell you that. So being private is 
> fine.
>
For initial/final segment? no so important, though I have seen cases where
router took nearest public way (footway) instead of highway=residential
and driveway mapping helped it to produce reasonable routing.

But sometimes entering footway, pushing small section
and leaving footway via driveway is useful in the middle

Or leaving cycleway via driveway.
See 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-31.99292&mlon=115.91624#map=19/-31.99292/115.91624

Without mapping public driveways routing would direct cyclists all the way
to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-31.99326&mlon=115.92041#map=18/-31.99326/115.92041
- possibly ignoring this route and proposing an inferior alternative.


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

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[Warin]

On 16/8/21 9:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:


And this one definitely should be inverted:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.85421/151.06761



Agreed. Surprise no one fixed this already, I've done so now.
On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


Are you allowed as a cyclist to leave sidewalk using them?


Well in NSW you can't cycle on the sidewalk...


You can use them if your a child (under 16) or escorting a child who is 
riding.



Vic & WA linit it to children under 12


Every other place allows bicycles on footpaths. There is pressure to 
make them all the same - allow bicycles on footpaths without restriction.




Is it OK to use them for u-turn?


Yes.


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