[talk-au] Complaint re OSM navigation

2022-02-23 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Also just spotted this note:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3063323

I've asked them for further details so we'll see what they say?

They have just added the track details to the track they were using, & to
be honest, you'd wonder why you'd be driving along there not knowing what
was at the other end?

Thanks

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

[talk-au] Secondary roads in the CBD?

2022-02-23 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Have just spotted a note in Brisbane CBD where someone has queried whether
the road grid should mainly be tagged as secondary roads?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_areas

They are all well & truly busy, but does that count as secondary?

Guidelines don't really talk about the CBD (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_areas)
- but that could be a handy topic for inclusion!

My own thought would be yes, but what do the rest of you think?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Licence mention for static mapon NiceLocal.com.au

2022-02-23 Thread Phil Wyatt 
In that instance, as its using Mapbox, you can also advise Mapbox at the 
contact form at the bottom of this page.

They will also contact the people and make sure it gets the correct attribution.

https://docs.mapbox.com/help/getting-started/attribution/#reporting-attribution-problems

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au  
Sent: Thursday, 24 February 2022 2:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Stéphane Guillou 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Licence mention for static mapon NiceLocal.com.au

Thanks Ben.

In my experience, people rarely reply to my notice. What is the next step, once 
I have waited for a few days/weeks and no one has answered?

One more I found today: https://fuelprice.io/

I've already contacted them. Let's see what happens.

Cheers

On 18/2/22 15:01, Ben Kelley wrote:
> It needs attribution for the static map as well I think.
>
>
>  - Ben Kelley.
>
> On 18/2/22 15:55, Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I just sent a message to NiceLocal.com.au about the copyright 
>> requirements of OSM, because my understanding is that the static map 
>> on their shop profiles does not respect them.
>>
>> For example: https://nicelocal.com.au/brisbane/shops/campus_news/
>>
>> However, because clicking the map opens a slippy map that does 
>> mention the data source, I wanted to ask the list: does it follow 
>> OSM's requirements, or does it need to add an OSM mention next/over 
>> the static map as well?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
--
Stéphane Guillou
http://stragu.gitlab.io/

You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 is 
available on the keys.gnupg.net server.

Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page: 
http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/


___
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] Licence mention for static mapon NiceLocal.com.au

2022-02-23 Thread Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au 

Thanks Ben.

In my experience, people rarely reply to my notice. What is the next 
step, once I have waited for a few days/weeks and no one has answered?


One more I found today: https://fuelprice.io/

I've already contacted them. Let's see what happens.

Cheers

On 18/2/22 15:01, Ben Kelley wrote:

It needs attribution for the static map as well I think.


 - Ben Kelley.

On 18/2/22 15:55, Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au wrote:

Hi all

I just sent a message to NiceLocal.com.au about the copyright 
requirements of OSM, because my understanding is that the static map 
on their shop profiles does not respect them.


For example: https://nicelocal.com.au/brisbane/shops/campus_news/

However, because clicking the map opens a slippy map that does 
mention the data source, I wanted to ask the list: does it follow 
OSM's requirements, or does it need to add an OSM mention next/over 
the static map as well?


Cheers


--
Stéphane Guillou
http://stragu.gitlab.io/

You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 is 
available on the keys.gnupg.net server.

Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page: 
http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/


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

Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

2022-02-23 Thread osm.talk-au 
Just to make this clear:

I'm not really sure I'm qualified to pick and choose on my own what among his 
changes is acceptable or not. That's the whole issue with them, there are 
extensive changes, some of which replace previous specified tagging with 
fundamental different one, and none of them have in any way be discussed.

There may well be parts of his changes that are fine, but I can't just make 
that determination on my own. That's that same as him just making the changes 
undiscussed in the first place.

I can probably using the history figure out what the source of the page should 
look like without any of his changes, if that's what's meant with "agreed 
state".

Cheers,
Thorsten

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 05:26
To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; Dian Ã?gesson 
Cc: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

Hi all
Can I suggest the following

1 get community support from talk au for this process
2 Contact Aaron and get his agreement
3 Thorsten rolls back the wiki to an agreed state
4 Dian tidys up the wiki
5 Aaron does not edit the wiki until Dian has finished
6 we do not call for DWG intervention unless a party will not follow the agreed 
process

Tony
Quoting osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au:

> Well, rearranging and editing, on top of the questionable edits that  
>  are currently on top of the stack of revisions, will cement these   
> changes and make it harder to revert them.
>
>
>
> Some of the changes have completely replaced what previously was   
> listed as correct tagging practice with something totally different.
>
>
>
> From: Dian Ã…gesson 
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 03:04
> To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
> Cc: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?
>
>
>
> Hey Thorsten,
>
> While I don’t intend to simply rearrange sections verbatim, I want  
>  to focus on tidying, copy editing for spelling/grammar, and   
> consolidating rather than making editorial decisions.
>
> As Andrew suggested, I will reach out if there is something   
> egregiously incorrect or contradictory, but I’m not intending to   
> validate the entire wiki for correctness: I feel as though that   
> would be beyond the remit of “tidying”.
>
> More than happy to work with simultaneous updates and additions   
> though—I don’t think it’s a task that can be done in one edit!
>
> Dian
>
> On 2022-02-22 18:54, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au   
>   wrote:
>
> If you do, please make sure to not just incorporate the recent   
> undiscussed, subjective, if not outright wrong changes by Aaronsta.
>
>
>
> From: Dian Ã…gesson mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 17:00
> To: OSM Australian Talk List   >
> Subject: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> The wiki contains loads of really good information, but it's a   
> little bit hard to navigate: the Australian Tagging Guidelines page   
> seems to contain the most current information but is getting very   
> long. There are a lot of state-specific articles that don't seem to   
> have been updated since 2009.
>
> I'd like to do a bit of housekeeping: tidy up some of the sections,   
> mark some of the pages as archived, etc, to try and make it more   
> approachable for newbies and more maintainable. Nothing substantive   
> would change, nothing would be deleted. Does anyone have any   
> objections, thoughts or concerns with regard to this?
>
>
>
> dian
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] 2377 occurrences of fixme="unknown type of water crossing"

2022-02-23 Thread Warin 

Take your pick. It would depend on where;

some places have long stretches of road that are 'flood prone', tagged 
on the road only?


some places have a short section - a ford. So this would need 2 sections 
of stream - one through the culvert (some around me have more than one 
pipe so micro mapping would have 3 culverts!) and another section of 
stream that intersects the road with ford tagging.



One I just walk past today has a culvert .. that part of the road is 
dry, but the road dips down after that and is flooded right now .. depth 
~ 0.6 metres length 30? metres. Did not pay much attention to the length.



On 23/2/22 20:12, Bob Cameron wrote:


Would you mind elaborating?

With the stream under a road (way) as tunnel and the default culvert;

The road over the top has either a node or way ford
Or
is the road/way flood_prone yes
Or
is the stream culvert section additionally ford yes

Tnx

On 23/2/22 19:08, Warin wrote:


Where these are in NSW the DCS Base Map shows where bridges are present.

Some culverts become fords in flood situations, and floods are quite 
possible with intermittent waterways so tagging as both a culvert and 
food way may be best where this occurs.


Personally I'd leave them alone, other than the obvious bridges they 
may not be resolved by imagery alone. I can see them being important 
on main roads .. so possibly those should be done.


On 23/2/22 13:59, Ewen Hill wrote:

Hi,
  A lot of you may have seen and fixed a node on a road adjacent to 
a stream with a single key of fixme="unknown type of water 
crossing", what I didn't realise until I ran an overpass  query 
 was 
that there were 2377 of these fixme remaining in Australia and they 
were all added by a single organisation.


   A lot of these are clearly fords on dry/intermittent creeks and I 
can't see the reason for not mapping these as fords instead of 
adding the fixme note to limit the amount of editing now required to 
fix these imported fixme notes, most from 2018 and 2019.


Row Labels  Count of @version
1   1649
2   604
3   104
4   12
5   5
6   1
7   1
13  1


As the node is adjacent to the stream, I can't see how to easily 
edit these where it is clear it is a bridge or predominantly a ford 
in an easy process. e,g, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6839769585


Any thoughts?

Ewen




___
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] 2377 occurrences of fixme="unknown type of water crossing"

2022-02-23 Thread Bob Cameron 

Would you mind elaborating?

With the stream under a road (way) as tunnel and the default culvert;

The road over the top has either a node or way ford
Or
is the road/way flood_prone yes
Or
is the stream culvert section additionally ford yes

Tnx

On 23/2/22 19:08, Warin wrote:


Where these are in NSW the DCS Base Map shows where bridges are present.

Some culverts become fords in flood situations, and floods are quite 
possible with intermittent waterways so tagging as both a culvert and 
food way may be best where this occurs.


Personally I'd leave them alone, other than the obvious bridges they 
may not be resolved by imagery alone. I can see them being important 
on main roads .. so possibly those should be done.


On 23/2/22 13:59, Ewen Hill wrote:

Hi,
  A lot of you may have seen and fixed a node on a road adjacent to a 
stream with a single key of fixme="unknown type of water crossing", 
what I didn't realise until I ran an overpass  query 
 was 
that there were 2377 of these fixme remaining in Australia and they 
were all added by a single organisation.


   A lot of these are clearly fords on dry/intermittent creeks and I 
can't see the reason for not mapping these as fords instead of adding 
the fixme note to limit the amount of editing now required to fix 
these imported fixme notes, most from 2018 and 2019.


Row Labels  Count of @version
1   1649
2   604
3   104
4   12
5   5
6   1
7   1
13  1


As the node is adjacent to the stream, I can't see how to easily edit 
these where it is clear it is a bridge or predominantly a ford in an 
easy process. e,g, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6839769585


Any thoughts?

Ewen




___
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] 2377 occurrences of fixme="unknown type of water crossing"

2022-02-23 Thread Andrew Harvey 
What would you like them to do? A fixme tag is very low impact, though I
agree at a certain point adding fixmes en masse is not helpful when you
could already assume from the data that it's incomplete.

There was a suggestion to add this to StreetComplete
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/3749 but
unfortuantly it's not available yet.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 19:31, Ewen Hill  wrote:

> Graeme,
>I'm with you for sending it back to them Graeme. I'm trying to clean up
> the Mawson and the Heyson trails where there are clearly no culverts and
> you wouldn't expect a culvert at all. Warin is correct that there can be a
> small pipe or two under the road in some instances to allow limited flow
> under the road but when it rains, it is designed primarily as a ford. You
> would only see this on key roads and not the tracks that most of these are
> on.
>
>I'm hoping that there can be better due diligence when uploading
> significant changes by adding a small set and requesting feedback.
>
> Ewen
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 13:02, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> Giving it back to "the Organisation" responsible, telling them that's not
>> acceptable & asking them to fix it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>
> --
> Warm Regards
>
> Ewen Hill
>
> ___
> 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] 2377 occurrences of fixme="unknown type of water crossing"

2022-02-23 Thread Ewen Hill 
Graeme,
   I'm with you for sending it back to them Graeme. I'm trying to clean up
the Mawson and the Heyson trails where there are clearly no culverts and
you wouldn't expect a culvert at all. Warin is correct that there can be a
small pipe or two under the road in some instances to allow limited flow
under the road but when it rains, it is designed primarily as a ford. You
would only see this on key roads and not the tracks that most of these are
on.

   I'm hoping that there can be better due diligence when uploading
significant changes by adding a small set and requesting feedback.

Ewen

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 13:02, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>
> Giving it back to "the Organisation" responsible, telling them that's not
> acceptable & asking them to fix it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>

-- 
Warm Regards

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

Re: [talk-au] 2377 occurrences of fixme="unknown type of water crossing"

2022-02-23 Thread Warin 

Where these are in NSW the DCS Base Map shows where bridges are present.

Some culverts become fords in flood situations, and floods are quite 
possible with intermittent waterways so tagging as both a culvert and 
food way may be best where this occurs.


Personally I'd leave them alone, other than the obvious bridges they may 
not be resolved by imagery alone. I can see them being important on main 
roads .. so possibly those should be done.


On 23/2/22 13:59, Ewen Hill wrote:

Hi,
  A lot of you may have seen and fixed a node on a road adjacent to a 
stream with a single key of fixme="unknown type of water crossing", 
what I didn't realise until I ran an overpass  query 
 was 
that there were 2377 of these fixme remaining in Australia and they 
were all added by a single organisation.


   A lot of these are clearly fords on dry/intermittent creeks and I 
can't see the reason for not mapping these as fords instead of adding 
the fixme note to limit the amount of editing now required to fix 
these imported fixme notes, most from 2018 and 2019.


Row Labels  Count of @version
1   1649
2   604
3   104
4   12
5   5
6   1
7   1
13  1


As the node is adjacent to the stream, I can't see how to easily edit 
these where it is clear it is a bridge or predominantly a ford in an 
easy process. e,g, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6839769585


Any thoughts?

Ewen

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