Re: [talk-au] Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

[osm.talk-au]

“This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license 
 .”

 

A) Read the actual license instead of an minimal infographic: 
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

 

B) The waiver tells you exactly because of which clauses it is required.

 

From: John Luan  
Sent: Wednesday, 1 December 2021 14:48
To: OSM Aust Discussion List 
Subject: [talk-au] Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

 

Hi Guys,

 

Had a look at this license

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

 

Do we really need a waiver from the data provider?  something like this 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/1/17/AADC_CC-BY_Permission_JK_signed.pdf

 

My feeling is that as long as we list the data provider on the contributor 
list, it should be fine.

 

Regards,

John

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

Re: [talk-au] Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

[Brendan Barnes]

Hey John,

The Legal Eagles of the OSMF Licence Working Group continue to ask for
explicit permission (ie waiver) for CC BY 4.0. The rationale is at
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

You can reach them via their contact details at
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group for any
clarifications, but it appears they have already assessed the wording in CC
BY 4.0.

I know waivers can be difficult to obtain, and government entities may have
internal red tape or few resources available to supply one to the OSM
community. However it's in everyone's best interest, and once we have a
waiver on file for the agencies' datasets, they are good to use
indefinitely.

..Brendan


On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 15:53, John Luan  wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> Had a look at this license
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
>
> Do we really need a waiver from the data provider?  something like this
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/1/17/AADC_CC-BY_Permission_JK_signed.pdf
>
> My feeling is that as long as we list the data provider on the contributor
> list, it should be fine.
>
> Regards,
> John
> ___
> 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] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

[stevea]

Looks like the issues are well-at-hand and being discussed.

Cheers,

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

[talk-au] Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

[John Luan]

Hi Guys,

Had a look at this license
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

Do we really need a waiver from the data provider?  something like this
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/1/17/AADC_CC-BY_Permission_JK_signed.pdf

My feeling is that as long as we list the data provider on the contributor
list, it should be fine.

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

Re: [talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

[Andrew Davidson]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:03 PM Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>
> If this is not disputed, it would be nice to update 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australia.E2.80.99s_First_People
>  with this information otherwise it'll get lost over time in the archives 
> here.

I am basing my interpretation on the tag proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
which says:

"This proposal is for mapping the official reservation boundaries of
recognized aboriginal / indigenous / native peoples"

and explicitly states that it doesn't include:

"Lands outside of reservations that are owned by aboriginal groups,
but which do not have special legal status"
"Areas outside of reservations where aboriginal groups may have
special rights, such as traditional fishing or hunting grounds"

The question would be how different from regular land titles would
something have to be to make it "special"?

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

Re: [talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

[Andrew Harvey]

If this is not disputed, it would be nice to update
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australia.E2.80.99s_First_People
with this information otherwise it'll get lost over time in the archives
here.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 19:58, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 30/11/21 17:51, stevea wrote:
> >
> > This is REALLY going to be different in Oz than USA, but please consider
> boundary=aboriginal_lands.
>
> boundary=aboriginal_lands is not applicable to Australia for at least
> two reasons:
>
> 1. Australia does not have a system of "reservations". Before the 1960s
> there were Aboriginal reserve
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_reserve). But these no longer
> exist for fairly obvious reasons.
>
> 2. Where Indigenous land rights have been recognised in Australia
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_land_rights_in_Australia) this
> is done by issuing a communally owned freehold or leasehold title. In
> effect this is the same as anyone else who owns land in Australia.
>
> The other concept that seems to confuse mappers is the Indigenous
> Protected Area
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Protected_Area). This is an
> area protected by indigenous people rather than for protecting
> indigenous people. The areas have a IUCN protection category so should
> be protect_class 1-6.
>
> ___
> 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] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

So is it Ruth Park or Ruth Park Park? :-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 08:23, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:05 AM Michael Collinson  wrote:
> >
> > Phew, Coombs must have been a ruthless place previously.
> >
>
> Nice. Did not occurred to me that the ruthfulness had gone up.
>
> ___
> 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] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

[Andrew Davidson]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:05 AM Michael Collinson  wrote:
>
> Phew, Coombs must have been a ruthless place previously.
>

Nice. Did not occurred to me that the ruthfulness had gone up.

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

Re: [talk-au] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

[Michael Collinson]

Phew, Coombs must have been a ruthless place previously.



... Sorry. Mike

On 2021-11-30 20:27, Andrew Davidson wrote:
So we have a new park in Coombs that needs a name. A name based on the 
suburb's theme of notable public service:


https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/di/2021-260/current/html/2021-260.html 



___
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] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 20:26, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> > I checked via the overpass wizard query "admin_level=8 in AU" and there
> > are no results, so no australia post borders are mapped that way, and
> > I'm not aware of any.
>
> I think that was an accident of history. boundary=postal_code was
> created after someone chose admin_level=8 for AU post codes.
>
> > So I'm supportive of removing Australia Post Postode Border from
> > admin_level=8.
>
> I second that.
>

Okay I've updated the wiki to remove the mention of postcode boundaries at
level 8 given none are actually tagged this way at the moment, nor do we
think per this thread they should be.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Enriching OpenStreetMap with open data

[Yuchen Pei]

On Fri, Nov 26 2021, Andrew Harvey wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 15:27, John Luan  wrote:
>
>  And we will have another follow up session after we finish the bulk import,
>  and we will talk about our bulk import experience. 
>
> I wasn't able to join the whole talk, but if you're planning on doing a bulk
> import then please make sure you check out OSM's import guidelines at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines. Could you share more
> details here about what you're proposing?

I am curious too ;)

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


Best,
Yuchen

-- 
PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
  


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

[talk-au] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

[Andrew Davidson]

So we have a new park in Coombs that needs a name. A name based on the 
suburb's theme of notable public service:


https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/di/2021-260/current/html/2021-260.html

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

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Andrew Davidson]

On 30/11/21 09:55, Andrew Harvey wrote:


Since we don't have formally defined boundaries for 
place=region,district,city,quarter,neighbourhood,city_block should we be 
adding an admin_level at all?


So should we remove 7/5?


I'd be happy to get rid of admin_level 7. It never really had a good 
definition. The ACT district boundaries are currently 7 so we'd have to 
move them. Maybe to 5, or move 6 to 7 and make 6 the "county" level. We 
currently don't have anything at 5.


I checked via the overpass wizard query "admin_level=8 in AU" and there 
are no results, so no australia post borders are mapped that way, and 
I'm not aware of any.


I think that was an accident of history. boundary=postal_code was 
created after someone chose admin_level=8 for AU post codes.


So I'm supportive of removing Australia Post Postode Border from 
admin_level=8.


I second that.

That leaves should we move localities from 9 to 8? I don't think it 
really matters much to be honest.


Looking at other countries 8 appears to be things that have some form of 
administrative body. We should get rid of either 9 or 10 we don't really 
need both. Maybe move localities up to 9?


We should ask the Nominatim team before we go making any changes. We 
don't want to break their stuff.


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

[talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 30/11/21 17:51, stevea wrote:


This is REALLY going to be different in Oz than USA, but please consider boundary=aboriginal_lands. 


boundary=aboriginal_lands is not applicable to Australia for at least 
two reasons:


1. Australia does not have a system of "reservations". Before the 1960s 
there were Aboriginal reserve 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_reserve). But these no longer 
exist for fairly obvious reasons.


2. Where Indigenous land rights have been recognised in Australia 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_land_rights_in_Australia) this 
is done by issuing a communally owned freehold or leasehold title. In 
effect this is the same as anyone else who owns land in Australia.


The other concept that seems to confuse mappers is the Indigenous 
Protected Area 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Protected_Area). This is an 
area protected by indigenous people rather than for protecting 
indigenous people. The areas have a IUCN protection category so should 
be protect_class 1-6.


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

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Dian Ågesson]

From my (admittedly limited) understanding, there are several different 
forms of recognition and ownership of land by Australia's First Peoples, 
and it varies from state to state. I don't believe the specific 
boundary=administrative tag is appropriate for any of the use cases, but 
I want to make clear that I don't believe using a different tag should 
in any way detract from the legitimacy, ownership or importance of these 
areas. Because the legal framework is complicated, unfortunately I think 
the tags will inevitably be complicated as well


Traditional Owners

Most (all?) states recognise particular Indigenous Corporations as the 
"Traditional Owners" of areas of land. As Traditional Owners, these 
corporations are given certain rights (often a requirement to be 
consulted on land changes) but don't necessarily have any specific legal 
power or self-governance over land in the same way as an LGA might. For 
this reason, I don't believe Traditional Ownership boundaries are suited 
to "administrative" boundaries, for the same reason that planning 
overlays wouldn't be appropriate as "administrative" boundaries. The 
boundary=aboriginal_lands tag seems to be more targeted towards 
"reservations", which doesn't seem to suited to Traditional Owner 
Recognition. My suggestion would be either:


boundary=protected_area
heritage=3 _(as is state recognition)_
protection_title=Registered Traditional Ownership
heritage:operator=_Traditional Owners Corporation_
protect_class=24
name=Traditional Owners
name:aus=_Traditional Owners_

_or, to coin a tag_

boundary=aboriginal_lands
aboriginal_lands=traditional_ownership

Native Title

Native Title is separate to Traditional Ownership as defined by the 
states, but tends to afford more rights over the land (and compensation, 
if I recall correctly). Again though, I don't believe it is equivalent 
to an administration area.


boundary=protected_area
heritage=2 _(as is federal recognition, not state)_
protection_title=Native Title
heritage:operator=_Traditional Owners Corporation_
protect_class=24
name=Traditional Owners
name:aus=_Traditional Owners_

_or, _

boundary=aboriginal_lands
aboriginal_lands=native title

Indigenous Protected Areas

This is another volunteary arrangement between Indigenous Organisations 
and Australian Government, but is also focussed on conservation. To be 
an Indigenous Protected Area, the land must be owned by First Peoples. 
(it's not clear whether ownership is akin to sovereignty or land 
ownership.)


These appear to already be mapped as Nature Reserves 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8317126#map=8/-28.507/134.436)


Aboriginal LGAs

There are also Indigenous Land Councils that operate and administer land 
as the LGA. They will already be captured as an administrative boundary 
(See APY lands https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6792088)


They could perhaps be enriched with an additional tag indicating their 
unique status, but should probably stay the same as other LGAs?


Aboriginal Land Permits

Separate to that legal mechanism, there are areas where a perit is 
required to enter private land owned by Indigenous Organisations. These 
are probably the closest equivalent to the standard 
boundary=aboriginal_land tags, but I'm really not sure of the legal 
distinction between state to state.


If the data can be sourced appropriately and respectfully with First 
Peoples I would wholeheartedly support their inclusion.


Dian

On 2021-11-30 17:51, stevea wrote:

On 2021-11-30 18:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 16:55, stevea  wrote:


On Nov 29, 2021, at 10:39 PM, Ewen Hill  wrote:

Indigenous nations/country
I have a strong belief that we should allocate an entry around level 
three to six for indigenous country. There will be discussion on 
fuzziness of boundaries and ownership, a number of these have been 
resolved already by the Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAP) for an 
area however I don't see that being a huge issue. My key issue is 
appropriation of the country and area polygons for the ability for 
others to commercialise this or reduce the purchasing of indigenous 
materials.


I don't see that all RAPs and others would update the map, however I 
see having the ability to add this data and be able to index it, is 
important to OSM in Australia.


Ewen

Yep, great idea!

We did discuss this briefly a little while ago, when Aus Post started 
pushing for / allowing "Country" names to be included in mailing 
addresses.


https://auspost.com.au/about-us/supporting-communities/rachael-mcphail-making-traditional-place-names-part-of-mailing-addresses

I agree that it may not be something that is very usable "now", but 
it's something that will only gain in popularity over time, so let's 
get in early with OSM!



"Um," (he begins timidly)...


It's alright Steve, we don't bite! (that hard anyway :-))

To sum it up simply - it's complicated!