Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Brendan Barnes]

Cheers Andrew :)

If you're interested in some trying some advanced mapping techniques, check
out:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon_Examples#Forest_.28One_closed_way.29
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Touching_inner_rings

Welcome to the mind-melting world of advanced multipolygons :D


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 17:48, Andrew & Ingrid Parker 
wrote:

> Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK to have an area inside
> or overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to what I had
> been told by another mapper. It may be the case that I misunderstood what
> they were saying.
> Cheers
> Andrew Parker
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state
>>> parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such
>>> as water, waterways, woods etc.  While they sometimes approximate, they
>>> rarely coincide exactly.
>>>
>>> Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because
>>> there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded.  Best to
>>> map the park with its official boundary and then map the natural features
>>> separately using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite
>>> imagery.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag
>> natural=wood on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct, but
>> eventually as the mapping becomes more detailed separate natural=wood is
>> the way to go.
>> ___
>> 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] Basic question

[Andrew & Ingrid Parker]

Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK to have an area inside or
overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to what I had been
told by another mapper. It may be the case that I misunderstood what they
were saying.
Cheers
Andrew Parker

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary  wrote:
>
>>
>> Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state
>> parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such
>> as water, waterways, woods etc.  While they sometimes approximate, they
>> rarely coincide exactly.
>>
>> Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because
>> there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded.  Best to
>> map the park with its official boundary and then map the natural features
>> separately using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite
>> imagery.
>>
>
> Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag
> natural=wood on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct, but
> eventually as the mapping becomes more detailed separate natural=wood is
> the way to go.
> ___
> 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] Mapping tree cover

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

On 8/10/21 2:17 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd > wrote:


Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact
them to be able to find out what they are thinking?

If you're using the default iD editor, select a feature, then in the 
bottom left there is a link to view on OSM, which shows in the left 
panel who changed it last, but you can select "View history" at the 
bottom of the panel to see what and who changed it.


Or, when looking at openstreetmap.org, click the "Query features" arrow, 
then click somewhere in the Grampians, for example 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=-37.20902&lon=142.51812
Under Enclosing features, click on "Protected Area Grampians National 
Park" which takes you to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2703380

You can click "View History" at the bottom of the relation page.

To see a nicely formatted table of the changes you can put this relation 
ID into OSM Deep History which takes you to 
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/2703380
Here we can see that it was initially natural=wood, which was removed on 
15/1/2013, restored on 8/11/2015, and removed again on 12/12/2018. This 
most recent changeset can be viewed at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65393733 . Before making changes 
read the change comment and discussion as you aren't the first to query 
this change.


Regards,
Kim

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

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary  wrote:

>
> Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state
> parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such
> as water, waterways, woods etc.  While they sometimes approximate, they
> rarely coincide exactly.
>
> Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because
> there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded.  Best to
> map the park with its official boundary and then map the natural features
> separately using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite
> imagery.
>

Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag natural=wood
on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct, but eventually as the
mapping becomes more detailed separate natural=wood is the way to go.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Russian Town Names?

[Andrew Harvey]

There general rule in OSM is only tag if the place does have a common name
in that language, and not tag transliteration. If you really want to add
transliterations this can be done via Wikidata which can be linked to OSM.
Some maps like Mapbox will then use the Wikidata linked transliterations
for translated labelling.

You can ask via a changeset comment where the names came from, their
justification and if you don't hear back or they clearly transliteration
only it could be reverted.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 13:35, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I’ve stumbled upon a considerable trove of towns that have had Russian
> names added to them. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bRp
>
> After going through them they nearly all seem to be transliteration done
> my the same handful of users (who have various amounts of blocks).
>
> While the tag is obviously valid for some towns and cities (capitals,
> tourist spots or places with a large Russian community) I don’t think that
> the majority of these towns should have the tag. Some of the towns have
> populations of less than 50!
>
> Do others agree? If so, what is the best way to rectify this?
> ___
> 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] Mapping tree cover

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd  wrote:

> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
> able to find out what they are thinking?
>

If you're using the default iD editor, select a feature, then in the bottom
left there is a link to view on OSM, which shows in the left panel who
changed it last, but you can select "View history" at the bottom of the
panel to see what and who changed it.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 13:04, Adam Horan  wrote:

> Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't know if
> they should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire severity
> then it's possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, or not for a
> long time. I assume there's some precedent & convention based on the large
> fires in the east a couple of years back.
>

I would argue it's still natural=wood after a fire since some trees will
survive and regrow. Tracking when it last burnt and the burn
intensity might be asking too much for OSM and might be best done as a
raster overlay potentially derived from satellite.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 13:32, EON4wd  wrote:

> Another part of the question is how many trees before it can be classified
> as such?
>

In Australia we have closed forest (dense canopy, little sunlight reaches
the ground), open forest (no continuous canopy), woodland (lower tree
density) which are all natural=wood. Then we have closed and open scrubland
(natural=scrub), heath (natural=heath), and more. Even up to 20m between
tree crowns could still be open woodlands and tagged as natural=wood.


> I have been to the Grampians within the last 12 months and I did not find
> any scorched area left. All trees had growth.
>

A good argument for leaving natural=wood intact after fires.


> If I look at the satellite picture from the OSM id editor, large areas
> look burnt. Look around Lake Wartook. All this area is definitely not burnt
> now and I think should classify as covered in trees. Other satellite images
> show this area better.
>
> I would agree that ‘natural’ areas should be separated from ‘boundary’
> layers.
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Survey/GPS trace request for Snowies Iconic Walk Phase 2

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Brendan,

 

Maybe drop a request on the NSW section of the bushwalk forum. Bound to be 
someone heading that way. There are also a few OSM folks on there as well

 

https://www.bushwalk.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=36

 

There is also a guy that makes files for Garmin GPS’s based on OSM so plenty of 
OSM supporters.

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Dcz7gnbU6K14-sNOy_NnVstBMpX-Js9H

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

From: Brendan Barnes  
Sent: Thursday, 7 October 2021 8:39 PM
To: talk-au 
Subject: [talk-au] Survey/GPS trace request for Snowies Iconic Walk Phase 2

 

Hi OSM Bushwalkers,

 

This spring will be the official opening of the "Snowies Iconic Walk Phase 2" 
in Kosciuszko National Park. This will be a brand new 5.6km stretch of alpine 
hiking trail built to modern standards that follows the Snowy River between 
Illawong Lodge and Charlotte Pass, and features the brand new Spencers Creek 
Bridge - now Australia's highest suspension bridge (1627m).

 

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/park-management/community-engagement/walking-tracks-and-trails-in-national-parks/snowies-iconic-walk

 

Unfortunately I'm stuck on the wrong side of a state border for the foreseeable 
future and am unable to survey and trace this new trail. If there's any keen 
walkers on the list who are permitted to travel to Kosci, I think your data 
would be a valuable contribution to the OSM project.

 

With this track being new and coming under the Snowies Iconic Walk banner I'm 
sure this will become a very popular walk. Being able to map what's on the 
ground so quickly, I'm hoping the OSM community will be able to map the new 
5.6km section so that downstream hiking apps can leverage our data this summer. 
Further, once signage is complete, this will be the first major realignment of 
the Australian Alps Walking Track in quite some time.

 

If there's anyone with survey or trace info, I'd be happy to collaborate and 
help with the mapping.

 

Thanks and happy trails,

..Brendan

 

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

[talk-au] Russian Town Names?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

I've stumbled upon a considerable trove of towns that have had Russian 
names added to them. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bRp


After going through them they nearly all seem to be transliteration done 
my the same handful of users (who have various amounts of blocks).


While the tag is obviously valid for some towns and cities (capitals, 
tourist spots or places with a large Russian community) I don't think 
that the majority of these towns should have the tag. Some of the towns 
have populations of less than 50!


Do others agree? If so, what is the best way to rectify this?___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[EON4wd]

Another part of the question is how many trees before it can be classified as 
such?

I have been to the Grampians within the last 12 months and I did not find any 
scorched area left. All trees had growth.

If I look at the satellite picture from the OSM id editor, large areas look 
burnt. Look around Lake Wartook. All this area is definitely not burnt now and 
I think should classify as covered in trees. Other satellite images show this 
area better.

I would agree that ‘natural’ areas should be separated from ‘boundary’ layers.

 

From: Adam Horan  
Sent: Friday, 8 October 2021 12:59 PM
To: EON4wd 
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

 

There is another aspect to your question, which is how to map woods/trees after 
a fire?

 

You're right it looks like someone has mapped the wooded areas as a relation 
with holes for non-wooded areas

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history

 

Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't know if they 
should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire severity then it's 
possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, or not for a long time. I 
assume there's some precedent & convention based on the large fires in the east 
a couple of years back.

 

Adam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:33, Adam Horan mailto:aho...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you possibly have 
different viewpoints or opinions on it.

 

I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and accurate as time 
progresses. In the beginning the map was blank, and people added large areas of 
landcover just to get something down. Mappers took conveniences like marking a 
national park as all desert or all trees.

 

However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding more 
detailed, accurate information and using more sophisticated tagging schemes.

 

I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If there's a 20m 
gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire break, or there's been 
clearing, then people should map that in detail if they have time and 
inclination.

 

Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's almost like 
they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends beyond the National Parks 
in a continuous run, and similarly there are clearings, lakes, meadows, 
moorlands within the parks.

 

However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the blanket 
landcover from the admin boundary.

 

Adam

 

 

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au> > wrote:

Hi,

Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.

I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create my own maps from 
the data.

My interest is in 4wd tracks.

The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed which in my 
opinion is now not correct.

See

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867

The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.

There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually) and a few lakes 
and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries, but generally speaking it is 
completely covered in trees, everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.

I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they could see via a 
satellite image after a fire went though.

Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be able 
to find out what they are thinking?

Traditionally, the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then other features 
are added on top, such as the lakes and roads.

Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been very 
carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the fence 
lines and tracks then marked on top.

Not necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of where the trees finish and 
the road side has been cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?

 

Thanks

Ian Winter

 

___
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] Mapping tree cover

[Adam Horan]

There is another aspect to your question, which is how to map woods/trees
after a fire?

You're right it looks like someone has mapped the wooded areas as a
relation with holes for non-wooded areas
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history

Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't know if
they should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire severity
then it's possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, or not for a
long time. I assume there's some precedent & convention based on the large
fires in the east a couple of years back.

Adam







On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:33, Adam Horan  wrote:

> I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you possibly have
> different viewpoints or opinions on it.
>
> I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and accurate as
> time progresses. In the beginning the map was blank, and people added large
> areas of landcover just to get something down. Mappers took conveniences
> like marking a national park as all desert or all trees.
>
> However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding more
> detailed, accurate information and using more sophisticated tagging schemes.
>
> I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If there's a
> 20m gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire break, or there's been
> clearing, then people should map that in detail if they have time and
> inclination.
>
> Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's almost
> like they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends beyond the
> National Parks in a continuous run, and similarly there are clearings,
> lakes, meadows, moorlands within the parks.
>
> However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the blanket
> landcover from the admin boundary.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.
>>
>> I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create my own maps
>> from the data.
>>
>> My interest is in 4wd tracks.
>>
>> The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed which in my
>> opinion is now not correct.
>>
>> See
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867
>>
>> The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.
>>
>> There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually) and a few
>> lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries, but generally speaking
>> it is completely covered in trees, everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.
>>
>> I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they could see
>> via a satellite image after a fire went though.
>>
>> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
>> able to find out what they are thinking?
>>
>> Traditionally, the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then other
>> features are added on top, such as the lakes and roads.
>>
>> Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been
>> very carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the
>> fence lines and tracks then marked on top.
>>
>> Not necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of where the trees
>> finish and the road side has been cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ian Winter
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Basic question

[Adam Horan]

Yep,
although you do see lots of natural=wood and natural=water overlapping. I
usually see this as a temporary hack until someone wants to put in the
effort of creating a relation with a hole in it and moving the tags there.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:52, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> Yes, good point. And equally, it'd be unlikely for natural=wood and
> natural=scrub to overlap.
> On 8/10/21 8:36 am, Adam Horan wrote:
>
> That's probably a good rule of thumb, although with the addition of same
> type and 'level'.
>
> Admin boundaries overlap and nest all the time, but you wouldn't normally
> expect two of the same type and level to overlap.
> LGA within State within Country etc
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:31, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that areas should not overlap only where they are of
>> a similar type. Areas of natural=wood and boundary=national_park aren't
>> similar and so it's fine for them to overlap.
>> On 8/10/21 6:25 am, Adam Horan via Talk-au wrote:
>>
>> "Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a forested area
>> are not the same."
>>
>> I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled with
>> separate areas.
>>
>> I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put 'natural=wood' on a
>> park admin boundary.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38,  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>> If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
>>> Tony
>>>
>>> > Hi everyone
>>> > I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I
>>> find
>>> > while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every
>>> now
>>> > and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other
>>> editors
>>> > happy with what I do.
>>> >
>>> > My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by
>>> someone in
>>> > this group that you can't.
>>> >
>>> > For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
>>> > forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told
>>> that you
>>> > can't do that.
>>> > This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>>> >
>>> > I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
>>> > Kind regards
>>> > Andrew Parker
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing 
>> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Basic question

[Sam Wilson]

Yes, good point. And equally, it'd be unlikely for natural=wood and 
natural=scrub to overlap.


On 8/10/21 8:36 am, Adam Horan wrote:
That's probably a good rule of thumb, although with the addition of 
same type and 'level'.


Admin boundaries overlap and nest all the time, but you wouldn't 
normally expect two of the same type and level to overlap.

LGA within State within Country etc

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:31, Sam Wilson > wrote:


My understanding is that areas should not overlap only where they
are of a similar type. Areas of natural=wood and
boundary=national_park aren't similar and so it's fine for them to
overlap.

On 8/10/21 6:25 am, Adam Horan via Talk-au wrote:

"Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
forested area are not the same."

I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled
with separate areas.

I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put
'natural=wood' on a park admin boundary.

Adam


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38, mailto:fors...@ozonline.com.au>> wrote:

Hi
If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
Tony

> Hi everyone
> I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map
errors I find
> while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more
ambitious every now
> and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to
keep other editors
> happy with what I do.
>
> My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was
told by someone in
> this group that you can't.
>
> For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State
Park and a
> forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I
was told that you
> can't do that.
> This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>
> I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
> Kind regards
> Andrew Parker
>





___
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] Basic question

[cleary]

Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state parks, 
conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such as water, 
waterways, woods etc.  While they sometimes approximate, they rarely coincide 
exactly.  

Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because there 
will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded.  Best to map the 
park with its official boundary and then map the natural features separately 
using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite imagery.




On Fri, 8 Oct 2021, at 7:59 AM, Andrew & Ingrid Parker wrote:
> Hi everyone
> I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I 
> find while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious 
> every now and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep 
> other editors happy with what I do.
>
> My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone 
> in this group that you can't.
>
> For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a 
> forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that 
> you can't do that. 
> This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>
> I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
> Kind regards
> Andrew Parker
> ___
> 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] Basic question

[Adam Horan]

That's probably a good rule of thumb, although with the addition of same
type and 'level'.

Admin boundaries overlap and nest all the time, but you wouldn't normally
expect two of the same type and level to overlap.
LGA within State within Country etc

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:31, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> My understanding is that areas should not overlap only where they are of a
> similar type. Areas of natural=wood and boundary=national_park aren't
> similar and so it's fine for them to overlap.
> On 8/10/21 6:25 am, Adam Horan via Talk-au wrote:
>
> "Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a forested area
> are not the same."
>
> I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled with
> separate areas.
>
> I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put 'natural=wood' on a
> park admin boundary.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38,  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
>> Tony
>>
>> > Hi everyone
>> > I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I
>> find
>> > while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every
>> now
>> > and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other
>> editors
>> > happy with what I do.
>> >
>> > My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone
>> in
>> > this group that you can't.
>> >
>> > For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
>> > forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that
>> you
>> > can't do that.
>> > This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>> >
>> > I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
>> > Kind regards
>> > Andrew Parker
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Mapping tree cover

[Adam Horan]

I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you possibly have
different viewpoints or opinions on it.

I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and accurate as
time progresses. In the beginning the map was blank, and people added large
areas of landcover just to get something down. Mappers took conveniences
like marking a national park as all desert or all trees.

However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding more
detailed, accurate information and using more sophisticated tagging schemes.

I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If there's a
20m gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire break, or there's been
clearing, then people should map that in detail if they have time and
inclination.

Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's almost
like they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends beyond the
National Parks in a continuous run, and similarly there are clearings,
lakes, meadows, moorlands within the parks.

However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the blanket
landcover from the admin boundary.

Adam


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.
>
> I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create my own maps
> from the data.
>
> My interest is in 4wd tracks.
>
> The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed which in my
> opinion is now not correct.
>
> See
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867
>
> The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.
>
> There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually) and a few
> lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries, but generally speaking
> it is completely covered in trees, everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.
>
> I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they could see via
> a satellite image after a fire went though.
>
> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
> able to find out what they are thinking?
>
> Traditionally, the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then other
> features are added on top, such as the lakes and roads.
>
> Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been very
> carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the
> fence lines and tracks then marked on top.
>
> Not necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of where the trees
> finish and the road side has been cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Ian Winter
>
>
> ___
> 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] Basic question

[Sam Wilson]

My understanding is that areas should not overlap only where they are of 
a similar type. Areas of natural=wood and boundary=national_park aren't 
similar and so it's fine for them to overlap.


On 8/10/21 6:25 am, Adam Horan via Talk-au wrote:
"Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a forested 
area are not the same."


I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled with 
separate areas.


I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put 'natural=wood' 
on a park admin boundary.


Adam


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38, > wrote:


Hi
If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
Tony

> Hi everyone
> I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map
errors I find
> while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious
every now
> and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep
other editors
> happy with what I do.
>
> My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by
someone in
> this group that you can't.
>
> For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park
and a
> forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was
told that you
> can't do that.
> This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
>
> I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
> Kind regards
> Andrew Parker
>





___
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] Basic question

[Adam Horan via Talk-au]

"Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a forested area
are not the same."

I'd say that this is common and expected, and should be handled with
separate areas.

I feel it's very much the old style of mapping to put 'natural=wood' on a
park admin boundary.

Adam


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 08:38,  wrote:

> Hi
> If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
> Tony
>
> > Hi everyone
> > I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I find
> > while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every
> now
> > and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other
> editors
> > happy with what I do.
> >
> > My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone
> in
> > this group that you can't.
> >
> > For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
> > forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that
> you
> > can't do that.
> > This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.
> >
> > I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
> > Kind regards
> > Andrew Parker
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping tree cover

[EON4wd]

Hi,

Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.

I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create my own maps
from the data.

My interest is in 4wd tracks.

The Grampians has had the 'landcover - tree' 'areas' changed which in my
opinion is now not correct.

See

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867

The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.

There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually) and a few
lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries, but generally speaking it
is completely covered in trees, everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.

I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they could see via a
satellite image after a fire went though.

Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
able to find out what they are thinking?

Traditionally, the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then other
features are added on top, such as the lakes and roads.

Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been very
carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the fence
lines and tracks then marked on top.

Not necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of where the trees finish
and the road side has been cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?

 

Thanks

Ian Winter

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

[forster]

Hi
If you were told this by changeset comment, can you give the URL?
Tony


Hi everyone
I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I find
while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every now
and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other editors
happy with what I do.

My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone in
this group that you can't.

For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that you
can't do that.
This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.

I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
Kind regards
Andrew Parker







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

[talk-au] Basic question

[Andrew & Ingrid Parker]

Hi everyone
I am a basic OSM editor. I usually just correct obvious map errors I find
while hiking/cycling. I have tried to be a little more ambitious every now
and then, but I have found it can be quite difficult to keep other editors
happy with what I do.

My question is: Can you have overlapping 'areas'? I was told by someone in
this group that you can't.

For example; Where something like the boundaries of a State Park and a
forested area are not the same. This is the issue where I was told that you
can't do that.
This makes no logical sense to me as this happens all the time.

I would appreciate some guidance on this issue.
Kind regards
Andrew Parker
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Survey/GPS trace request for Snowies Iconic Walk Phase 2

[Brendan Barnes]

Hi OSM Bushwalkers,

This spring will be the official opening of the "Snowies Iconic Walk Phase
2" in Kosciuszko National Park. This will be a brand new 5.6km stretch of
alpine hiking trail built to modern standards that follows the Snowy River
between Illawong Lodge and Charlotte Pass, and features the brand new
Spencers Creek Bridge - now Australia's highest suspension bridge (1627m).

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/park-management/community-engagement/walking-tracks-and-trails-in-national-parks/snowies-iconic-walk

Unfortunately I'm stuck on the wrong side of a state border for the
foreseeable future and am unable to survey and trace this new trail. If
there's any keen walkers on the list who are permitted to travel to Kosci,
I think your data would be a valuable contribution to the OSM project.

With this track being new and coming under the Snowies Iconic Walk banner
I'm sure this will become a very popular walk. Being able to map what's on
the ground so quickly, I'm hoping the OSM community will be able to map the
new 5.6km section so that downstream hiking apps can leverage our data this
summer. Further, once signage is complete, this will be the first major
realignment of the Australian Alps Walking Track in quite some time.

If there's anyone with survey or trace info, I'd be happy to collaborate
and help with the mapping.

Thanks and happy trails,
..Brendan
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au