Re: [talk-au] Road centerline?

[Nev W]

Using http://overpass-turbo.eu/  to find 
road=centerline in Australia there are quite a few of these and all by the same 
mapper.
I only checked Australia but assume there would be others elsewhere

https://imgur.com/a/FVFsa4l

> On 11 Oct 2022, at 3:23 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> Just spotted this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/679847388 
> 
> 
> What's a "road=centerline [sic]"? 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> ___
> 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] Next tagging clean up project

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Graeme,

 

I reckon the vast majority of the ‘sheds’ are currently tagged 
building=fire_station.

 

I think I will start in Tassie, as I have been to many of the stations, and see 
what else crops before moving to any other states.

 

Thanks for all the thoughts folks

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2022 9:21 AM
To: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project

 




 

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 18:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
 > wrote:

The name of the station/brigade/* goes on the 'plot' not the building. 

I'm not certain of the operator tags - I think only on the amenity/plot not on 
the building .. ? 

 

Both of those are how I currently do it, except in the cases of joint use 
buildings, in which case that name etc goes on a node inside the building.

 

Question re building=fire_station though - do we still use that, when it's only 
a shed to look at?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

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

[talk-au] Road centerline?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

 Just spotted this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/679847388

What's a "road=cent*er*line [sic]"?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 18:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The name of the station/brigade/* goes on the 'plot' not the building.
>
> I'm not certain of the operator tags - I think only on the amenity/plot
> not on the building .. ?
>

Both of those are how I currently do it, except in the cases of joint use
buildings, in which case that name etc goes on a node inside the building.

Question re building=fire_station though - do we still use that, when it's
only a shed to look at?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Yep, all visible, thanks, Tony.

Certainly appears to show that the south side of Hummingbird is a signed
shared path.

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 07:38,  wrote:

> Hi
> The Mapillary is partially processed, it may not appear on the
> worldmap yet but hopefully this link gives access to the sequence of
> photos
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/tonyf1?lat=-38.150390215353=145.29166281667995=16.813496063643257=681595696442544=photo
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> > Sebastian wrote
> > This was had no visible sign to indicate it was a shared way but it is
> > tagged as a shared way in OSM.
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903736648#map=17/-38.15145/145.29173
> >
> > I replied
> > I would not change the tags till I had been out on site and I would
> > take Mapillary images.
> >
> > Well I have been on site this afternoon and have uploaded Mapillary
> > images, they will take a day or two to process.
> >
> > Way: 903736648 has 2 segments, Craig Rd and Hummingbird Dve, both have
> > visible shared path signage and there is also implicit evidence of a
> > cycleway:
> >
> > Craig Rd has shared path signage painted on the path on the south side
> > of the Hummingbird Dve intersection.
> >
> > Hummingbird Dve has a shared path sign on a pole at the Seasons Dve end.
> >
> > The additional cues are:
> > The traffic light has a pedestrian and a cyclist,
> > Phil Wyatt's observation that the wide paths are shared and the narrow
> > ones foot
> > End shared path signs at the intersection of Saddleback and Craig
> > Bicycles painted both sides of the intersection of Craig with
> > Hummingbird and with Saddleback, ie further north than the segment of
> > Craig in question
> > There were also bike warning signs in 2 locations on Hummingbird
> >
> > So the tagging looks fine to me.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
> > _
> > This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> > see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Cycle permissions by a user

[forster]

Hi
The Mapillary is partially processed, it may not appear on the  
worldmap yet but hopefully this link gives access to the sequence of  
photos


https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/tonyf1?lat=-38.150390215353=145.29166281667995=16.813496063643257=681595696442544=photo

Tony




Sebastian wrote
This was had no visible sign to indicate it was a shared way but it is
tagged as a shared way in OSM.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903736648#map=17/-38.15145/145.29173

I replied
I would not change the tags till I had been out on site and I would
take Mapillary images.

Well I have been on site this afternoon and have uploaded Mapillary
images, they will take a day or two to process.

Way: 903736648 has 2 segments, Craig Rd and Hummingbird Dve, both have
visible shared path signage and there is also implicit evidence of a
cycleway:

Craig Rd has shared path signage painted on the path on the south side
of the Hummingbird Dve intersection.

Hummingbird Dve has a shared path sign on a pole at the Seasons Dve end.

The additional cues are:
The traffic light has a pedestrian and a cyclist,
Phil Wyatt's observation that the wide paths are shared and the narrow
ones foot
End shared path signs at the intersection of Saddleback and Craig
Bicycles painted both sides of the intersection of Craig with
Hummingbird and with Saddleback, ie further north than the segment of
Craig in question
There were also bike warning signs in 2 locations on Hummingbird

So the tagging looks fine to me.

Tony



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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging fire stations

[Bob Cameron]

Hi Y'all. (So lived in Texas in a past life..)

Possibly also worth noting

- Many a rural/remote site has an ill defined block boundary. Some are 
tucked in corners of rec reserves and some are even on private land. 
(which affects road access tags)


- Naming (on signs etc) may be problematic. Service vs Brigade vs 
Station for example. ie is it a concern that using the name from an 
allowed database contras what locals use. To add confusion I have seen a 
crop of fairly new buildings with "official" signage, but the existing 
(still in use) sheds (now with a 2nd appliance) retain the old.


Cheers, Bob

On 10/10/22 16:49, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Hi Folks,

Well I am not too sure that the correct tagging of buildings is 
applied at all in Australia as I can only see about 200 uses of 
building:use=* in all of Oz! Seems most folks use the building tag to 
denote current use rather than initial construction intention. I am 
sure there are more than 200 building adaptations across the country.


I could think of several building in my state that have had second or 
third lives from the original intention and none have building:use 
tagging and there must be 10,000’s across the country. I also 
understand that the fire station tagging will likely be much harder in 
cities than in rural areas where most will be a shed on a block 
somewhere. Also the more recent trend of combining fire, ambulance and 
maybe SES is also something that sort of hinders a ‘generic’ standard 
approach but nodes really help for each of these functions across a 
single site with combined building use.


I am inclined to think that the gold standard for a standalone fire 
station would be


  * amenity=fire_station for the block of land on which it stands
  * operator, wikidata etc and all other details on the block rather
than the building
  * combined with building=fire_station (if built specifically) or
building:use=fire_station if its known that it was built for
another purpose

Sample – standalone = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102488871

and the gold standard for a combined facility

  * amenity=emergency_service on the block (no tagging for the 
renderer by using amenity=fire_station!)
  * building tags of building=government (if not specific buildings
for each service)
  * nodes for each service if there are not specific buildings
dedicated to each service and include all the operator, wikidate
etc on these nodes
  * If specific buildings then tag the buildings (operator, wikidata
etc) instead of individual nodes

Sample – separate buildings = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102327375

Sample – combined buildings = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102321688

More thoughts?

Cheers - Phil

*From:*Mark Rattigan 
*Sent:* Monday, 10 October 2022 10:24 AM
*To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org
*Cc:* p...@wyatt-family.com
*Subject:* Re: Tagging fire stations

Hi Phil

I suspect that 'cleaning-up' these tags would require local knowledge 
for each location, and is certainly not as clean-cut as making sure 
that either one or the other is used.


There are cases when only the building tag should be used, and some 
when only the amenity tag should be used. And others when both are 
appropriate.


The building tag is intended for the original purpose of the building 
- ie, built as/to be a fire station. A historical/defunct fire station 
is still tagged as building=fire_station, even when it's no longer in 
use as such. (The same philosophy applies to building=church, even 
when it's no longer a place of worship)


The amenity=fire_station indicates a location from which fire brigades 
(currently) operate.


For example, the DFES Education and Heritage Centre in Perth could be 
tagged as building=fire_station because that was its original purpose 
- it was originally No. 1 Fire Station. It couldn't be 
amenity=fire_station as it's not used as a fire station.


There are also plenty of minor RFS brigades which operate out of 
buildings that weren't originally built to be fire stations.


As for the amenity and whether it's an area or a point - it could 
possibly depend on whether the facility is solely for a fire brigade.


For example, my local emergency service building houses all of Police, 
Ambulance, Fire, RFS and SES. It seems to have the following tags:


For the building (perhaps this is incorrect though!)

building=government

amenity=fire_station

Within this building there are separate nodes:

1: emergency=ambulance_station (for Ambulance)

2: amenity=fire_station (for RFS)

3: amenity=emergency_service and emergency=ses_station (for SES)

4: amenity=police

(I thought there used to be a node tagged amenity=fire_station for
Fire, but it's no-longer.)

Cheers

Mark

Message: 4

Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2022 20:10:15 +1100

From: "Phil Wyatt" 

To: "OSM-Au" 
Subject: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project
Message-ID: 

Re: [talk-au] Tagging fire stations

[Warin]

On 10/10/22 10:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 09:27, Mark Rattigan  wrote:


There are also plenty of minor RFS brigades which operate out of
buildings that weren't originally built to be fire stations.


But how then do we tag all of those where the firies operate out of a 
tin shed?


Is it a building=fire_station, as that is what it was built as, or a 
building=shed, because that's what it actually is?




Most 'sheds' are adapted for the use to which they are put.. they are 
fairly easy to adapt from one use to another are most of them are just a 
steel structure.


Changing to a large door to accommodate a fire engine .. easy. Adding 
whatever they need also easy... I think it is a building=fire_station... 
or soon will be. ???
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[forster]

Sebastian wrote
This was had no visible sign to indicate it was a shared way but it is  
tagged as a shared way in OSM.  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903736648#map=17/-38.15145/145.29173


I replied
I would not change the tags till I had been out on site and I would
take Mapillary images.

Well I have been on site this afternoon and have uploaded Mapillary  
images, they will take a day or two to process.


Way: 903736648 has 2 segments, Craig Rd and Hummingbird Dve, both have  
visible shared path signage and there is also implicit evidence of a  
cycleway:


Craig Rd has shared path signage painted on the path on the south side  
of the Hummingbird Dve intersection.


Hummingbird Dve has a shared path sign on a pole at the Seasons Dve end.

The additional cues are:
The traffic light has a pedestrian and a cyclist,
Phil Wyatt's observation that the wide paths are shared and the narrow  
ones foot

End shared path signs at the intersection of Saddleback and Craig
Bicycles painted both sides of the intersection of Craig with  
Hummingbird and with Saddleback, ie further north than the segment of  
Craig in question

There were also bike warning signs in 2 locations on Hummingbird

So the tagging looks fine to me.

Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project

[Warin]

On 10/10/22 10:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 19:14, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

Should it always be the case that the ‘plot’ on which the fire
station building resides is the ‘amenity’ and the ‘building’
should be separate within the plot? To me, its not 100% clear in
the wiki’s.


That was the way I thought it was supposed to work?



That is 'ideal'. However the 'plot' may not be obvious, in that case I 
use a node within the building. In NSW there is the DCS Base Map .. but 
even then some of them have no obvious bounds for the plot.



The name of the station/brigade/* goes on the 'plot' not the building.


I'm not certain of the operator tags - I think only on the amenity/plot 
not on the building .. ?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au