[talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

[Little Maps]

Hi folks, some advice please…

In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves (those that 
include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to be given the generic 
name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South West Woodland Nature Reserve” 
or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, the South West Woodland Nature Reserve 
across western NSW has  >20 isolated segments, all called the same name:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485

On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of these 
patches are known and signposted with different names for different patches. 
The ones I know are compound names comprising the “local patch” name plus the 
name of the broader reserve network, e.g. “Collendina Murray Valley Regional 
Park”. (Which was named after Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed 
into the newer “Murray Valley Regional Park”.)

I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names that 
are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) whether this is 
considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do so.

I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members of a 
broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this change would 
require: (1) removing the individual patch from the boundary relation for the 
entire reserve network, (2) creating a separate polygon or m/polygon for the 
isolated segment using the existing imported line work, and (3) entering the 
new name for the isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into 
the newly separated patch.

This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the CAPAD 
boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. However, given the 
huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, I believe it’s important 
to include the names that individual reserves are signposted as and known in 
the regions.

Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian




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

Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

[Warin]

On 16/5/22 20:31, Little Maps wrote:

Hi folks, some advice please…

In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves 
(those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to 
be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South 
West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, 
the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has  >20 
isolated segments, all called the same name:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485



Not quite all with the 'same name'?


While they are all members of the same relation some carry a name. e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225222372




On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of 
these patches are known and signposted with different names for 
different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the 
“local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. 
“Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after 
Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer 
“Murray Valley Regional Park”.)


I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the 
names that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) 
whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to 
do so.



Yes .. desirable to add the names that appear 'on the ground'.

Possibly best to add the names on the individual ways .. assuming the 
single way encompasses the area concerned?





I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to 
members of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can 
see, this change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from 
the boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a 
separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the 
existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the 
isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the 
newly separated patch.



Humm .. the individual patches are still part of the larger thing. 
Removing them from the relation looses that connection to the others? 
Don't know .. but I'd try to follow what has been done before?




This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the 
CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. 
However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks 
cover, I believe it’s important to include the names that individual 
reserves are signposted as and known in the regions.


Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian



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

Re: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[Ian Steer]

Tony,

 

I'm wondering about the usefulness of adding foot=yes to highway=path and
highway=track.

 

I have never done this because I thought it would be assumed that
pedestrians (and cyclists) can use paths and tracks ?

 

In WA, where people have (in my opinion) wrongly classified a path as a
footpath (and hence excluded bicycles), I have often changed it to a path,
but never tagged foot=yes and/or bicycle=yes.

 

Ian

 

>Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:55:42 +1000

>From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  

>To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org  

>Subject: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

 

>Hi

 

>I have edited

>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Footpath_
Cycling

 

>(1) to record the different international English uses of footpath,
pavement and sidewalk

>(2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.

 

>Not intending to redefine anything, sorry if anything is controversial.

 

>Tony

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

[Little Maps]

On 16 May 2022, at 8:57 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Not quite all with the 'same name'?
> 
> While they are all members of the same relation some carry a name. e.g. 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225222372
>> 

Thanks for that example. As I understand it, this puts a name on the way but 
does not specifically put a name on the section of the protected area, unless 
one devises a query that searches for all named ways in the broader relation? 
Hence the name never appears on any map unless one knows that this indirect 
technique was used, and devises a query to show such names. I might have 
interpreted the example wrongly? 

> Yes .. desirable to add the names that appear 'on the ground'.
> 
> Possibly best to add the names on the individual ways .. assuming the single 
> way encompasses the area concerned?

This becomes much more difficult along rivers, where ways delineating named 
reserves may need to be split from longer ways, and the newly divided segment 
would need to be delineated by a multipolygon, with some shared boundaries. 
Thanks again.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[forster]

Hi Ian
I did not edit Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
only Footpath Cycling

Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
contains ... controversial information. See the talk page. This page  
has been archived as part of the Australian wiki cleanup

I wonder where that controversial material has gone?

Yes adding foot=yes to highway=path seems strange to me.

Tony


Tony,



I'm wondering about the usefulness of adding foot=yes to highway=path and
highway=track.



I have never done this because I thought it would be assumed that
pedestrians (and cyclists) can use paths and tracks ?



In WA, where people have (in my opinion) wrongly classified a path as a
footpath (and hence excluded bicycles), I have often changed it to a path,
but never tagged foot=yes and/or bicycle=yes.



Ian




Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:55:42 +1000



From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 



To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 



Subject: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling





Hi





I have edited



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

Cycling




(1) to record the different international English uses of footpath,

pavement and sidewalk


(2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.





Not intending to redefine anything, sorry if anything is controversial.





Tony











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

Re: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Tony, Ian

The Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks section has not changed in some 
time.  I added the {{Controversial}} template following the extensive 
discussions around the time I started cleaning up the wiki pages 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-February/015886.html) 
to indicate that the section is still very much in discussion.


The template includes a link to the talk page for the wiki page, which 
cannot be removed. The archives for that page are accessible via the 
link in the top right (Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Archive_1).


I hope this helps. This section is definitely going to be the most 
disputed of the guideline subpages!


Dian

On 2022-05-16 11:37, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:


Hi Ian
I did not edit Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
only Footpath Cycling

Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
contains ... controversial information. See the talk page. This page  
has been archived as part of the Australian wiki cleanup

I wonder where that controversial material has gone?

Yes adding foot=yes to highway=path seems strange to me.

Tony

Tony,

I'm wondering about the usefulness of adding foot=yes to highway=path 
and

highway=track.

I have never done this because I thought it would be assumed that
pedestrians (and cyclists) can use paths and tracks ?

In WA, where people have (in my opinion) wrongly classified a path as a
footpath (and hence excluded bicycles), I have often changed it to a 
path,

but never tagged foot=yes and/or bicycle=yes.

Ian

Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:55:42 +1000
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

Hi

I have edited
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Footpath_ 
Cycling


(1) to record the different international English uses of footpath, 
pavement and sidewalk


(2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.

Not intending to redefine anything, sorry if anything is controversial.

Tony


___
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] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi Tony,

On 16/5/22 07:00, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Kim

Can I please clarify "using highway=cycleway should only be used where 
there are signs allowing"?


That is how I've always used it in urban areas.

Does this apply to just sidewalks (US sidewalk, UK pavement, AU 
footpath) or all paths including paths through parkland, beside 
freeways, rivers and railway lines?


There was discussion about this on talk-au (which I'm unable to find 
with a quick search), and it was noted that legally cycling may be 
permitted on unsigned paths that are not next to roads. I don't remember 
a clear definition being given on when cycling on is permitted on these 
paths not next to roads which makes tagging them difficult. Can anyone 
else clarify this?



Thanks
Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

[cleary]

I had looked at this a few years ago. I edited one area , making it part of two 
relations :
South West Woodland Nature Reserve   (relation 5825677)
South West Woodland Nature Reserve - Hiawatha Precinct  (relation 7477098)

The first relation includes all twenty or more areas that comprise the reserve, 
while the second shows just the particluar local area with its particular name.

The reason I did not try to add names for more precincts or sub-areas is that I 
could not, at the time, find a permitted source for the names.  Looking now, I 
see that I was remiss in not adding a source for the name of the Hiawatha 
Precinct - I had visited the area and I am guessing it was probably signposted 
or there was some other local source. Not sure if the names of all precincts 
are now available to OSM - if so, I think use of dual relations works well.




On Mon, 16 May 2022, at 8:31 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi folks, some advice please…
>
> In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves 
> (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to 
> be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South 
> West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, 
> the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has  >20 
> isolated segments, all called the same name:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485
>
> On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of 
> these patches are known and signposted with different names for 
> different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the 
> “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. 
> “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after 
> Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray 
> Valley Regional Park”.)
>
> I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names 
> that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) 
> whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do 
> so.
>
> I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members 
> of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this 
> change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the 
> boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a 
> separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the 
> existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the 
> isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the 
> newly separated patch.
>
> This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the 
> CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. 
> However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, 
> I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves 
> are signposted as and known in the regions.
>
> Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, 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] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[Andrew Harvey]

A highway=track without any other access tags is ambiguous, so you should
always tag either access=* or foot=*. An agricultural track on private
property should have access=private to prevent trespassing. A fire trail
which only authorised emergency services and land management vehicles can
use would be motor_vehicle=private, and if walkers are allowed then
foot=yes should be added to distinguish it from private property.

highway=path is for mixed use or unspecified modes, so foot=yes can help
make it clearer walkers are allowed, as some highway=path would be on
private property and access=no, so always best to explicitly tag the access.

On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 21:17, Ian Steer  wrote:

> Tony,
>
>
>
> I’m wondering about the usefulness of adding foot=yes to highway=path and
> highway=track.
>
>
>
> I have never done this because I thought it would be assumed that
> pedestrians (and cyclists) can use paths and tracks ?
>
>
>
> In WA, where people have (in my opinion) wrongly classified a path as a
> footpath (and hence excluded bicycles), I have often changed it to a path,
> but never tagged foot=yes and/or bicycle=yes.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> >Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:55:42 +1000
>
> >From: fors...@ozonline.com.au
>
> >To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> >Subject: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling
>
>
>
> >Hi
>
>
>
> >I have edited
>
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Footpath_Cycling
>
>
>
> >(1) to record the different international English uses of footpath,
> pavement and sidewalk
>
> >(2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.
>
>
>
> >Not intending to redefine anything, sorry if anything is controversial.
>
>
>
> >Tony
>
>
> ___
> 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] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[Andrew Harvey]

Thanks that's great. I changed them to use a caption, and tweaked the text,
but if you feel that's worse feel free to revert or let me know and I will.

On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 16:58,  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I have edited
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Footpath_Cycling
>
> (1) to record the different international English uses of footpath,
> pavement and sidewalk
> (2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.
>
> Not intending to redefine anything, sorry if anything is controversial.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

[Little Maps]

Thanks Cleary, that’s an interesting approach. Two questions: (1) would you be 
open to the same approach being used if the local relation contained just a 
single closed way, rather than a pair of polygons as in your example? (2) in 
your example, the relation for the local area contains just the boundary tag 
and the local name tag, and all the other tags that describe the entire network 
are provided in the broader relation. This seems to be a good way to avoid 
duplicating tags unnecessarily?

As far as I know, we don’t have permissions to use gov maps that show the names 
of individual reserves. Like you I have used signs at reserve entrances as the 
source of local names. Thanks again, Ian

> On 17 May 2022, at 1:00 pm, cleary  wrote:
> 
> 
> I had looked at this a few years ago. I edited one area , making it part of 
> two relations :
> South West Woodland Nature Reserve   (relation 5825677)
> South West Woodland Nature Reserve - Hiawatha Precinct  (relation 7477098)
> 
> The first relation includes all twenty or more areas that comprise the 
> reserve, while the second shows just the particluar local area with its 
> particular name.
> 
> The reason I did not try to add names for more precincts or sub-areas is that 
> I could not, at the time, find a permitted source for the names.  Looking 
> now, I see that I was remiss in not adding a source for the name of the 
> Hiawatha Precinct - I had visited the area and I am guessing it was probably 
> signposted or there was some other local source. Not sure if the names of all 
> precincts are now available to OSM - if so, I think use of dual relations 
> works well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, 16 May 2022, at 8:31 PM, Little Maps wrote:
>> Hi folks, some advice please…
>> 
>> In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves 
>> (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to 
>> be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South 
>> West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, 
>> the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has  >20 
>> isolated segments, all called the same name:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485
>> 
>> On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of 
>> these patches are known and signposted with different names for 
>> different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the 
>> “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. 
>> “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after 
>> Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray 
>> Valley Regional Park”.)
>> 
>> I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names 
>> that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) 
>> whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do 
>> so.
>> 
>> I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members 
>> of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this 
>> change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the 
>> boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a 
>> separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the 
>> existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the 
>> isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the 
>> newly separated patch.
>> 
>> This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the 
>> CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. 
>> However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, 
>> I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves 
>> are signposted as and known in the regions.
>> 
>> Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, 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

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

Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

[cleary]

I presume that a single closed way for an area would work  - I think I might 
have done it somewhere but I don't recall where.   The Hiawatha precinct was 
memorable because of its unusual name.



On Tue, 17 May 2022, at 2:44 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Thanks Cleary, that’s an interesting approach. Two questions: (1) would 
> you be open to the same approach being used if the local relation 
> contained just a single closed way, rather than a pair of polygons as 
> in your example? (2) in your example, the relation for the local area 
> contains just the boundary tag and the local name tag, and all the 
> other tags that describe the entire network are provided in the broader 
> relation. This seems to be a good way to avoid duplicating tags 
> unnecessarily?
>
> As far as I know, we don’t have permissions to use gov maps that show 
> the names of individual reserves. Like you I have used signs at reserve 
> entrances as the source of local names. Thanks again, Ian
>
>> On 17 May 2022, at 1:00 pm, cleary  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I had looked at this a few years ago. I edited one area , making it part of 
>> two relations :
>> South West Woodland Nature Reserve   (relation 5825677)
>> South West Woodland Nature Reserve - Hiawatha Precinct  (relation 7477098)
>> 
>> The first relation includes all twenty or more areas that comprise the 
>> reserve, while the second shows just the particluar local area with its 
>> particular name.
>> 
>> The reason I did not try to add names for more precincts or sub-areas is 
>> that I could not, at the time, find a permitted source for the names.  
>> Looking now, I see that I was remiss in not adding a source for the name of 
>> the Hiawatha Precinct - I had visited the area and I am guessing it was 
>> probably signposted or there was some other local source. Not sure if the 
>> names of all precincts are now available to OSM - if so, I think use of dual 
>> relations works well.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, 16 May 2022, at 8:31 PM, Little Maps wrote:
>>> Hi folks, some advice please…
>>> 
>>> In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves 
>>> (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to 
>>> be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South 
>>> West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, 
>>> the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has  >20 
>>> isolated segments, all called the same name:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485
>>> 
>>> On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of 
>>> these patches are known and signposted with different names for 
>>> different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the 
>>> “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. 
>>> “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after 
>>> Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray 
>>> Valley Regional Park”.)
>>> 
>>> I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names 
>>> that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) 
>>> whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do 
>>> so.
>>> 
>>> I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members 
>>> of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this 
>>> change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the 
>>> boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a 
>>> separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the 
>>> existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the 
>>> isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the 
>>> newly separated patch.
>>> 
>>> This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the 
>>> CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. 
>>> However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, 
>>> I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves 
>>> are signposted as and known in the regions.
>>> 
>>> Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, 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

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