Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
It's been a couple of months, and Gaia has now refreshed its tiles based on the updates I made for Kanangra. The informal tracks are now rendered with significantly less priority than the formal tracks. I should have taken a screenshot of before, but I didn't. The formal tracks look to be the same style as previous, but the informal tracks are now faint. https://www.gaiagps.com/map/?loc=14.3/150.1142/-33.9881 I did miss a few small tracks - I was focussed at the large scale. I don't know how other downstream applications render the same data - I'm not on Strava for example. This could be useful for working with NPWS. cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com On 25/02/2024 11:09 pm, Tom Brennan wrote: I thought I'd see if the tagging details in the US Trail Access Project link might be useful for Australia. I tagged all of the tracks out at Kanangra - mainly because it has a mix of tracks, but few enough that it's easy to cover them all - with operator=NPWS or informal as appropriate. Basically the maintained ones with operator tags, others as informal. I know Gaia (for example) renders informal tracks with less priority than formal tracks, though I don't know exactly the combinations of tags they are focussing on. I believe they refresh their tiles every 2-3 weeks so I'll have a look again in a few weeks. If you're into mapping bush tracks, I hacked an Overpass Turbo query which does a pretty good job of visualising some of the useful tags (and where tags are missing). Happy to share. cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com On 24/02/2024 8:10 am, Mark Pulley wrote: I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix (mainly to keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the recommendation seems to be to keep the tags as they are now (access=discouraged, informal=yes). Mark P. On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan wrote: Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration resource between mappers and land managers https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project cheers Tom ___ 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] SA House Numbers
Hi Bryce, Of those datasets, the City of Adelaide one appears to be the only one containing house numbers with some kind of geographical reference, so it's got some potential for an import if someone has the time to go through it. The roads dataset doesn't include house numbers, and the Playford Property Database doesn't have any kind of coordinates so there'd be no way to import those for adding house numbers. I've been using StreetComplete and Every Door on mobile phones to help with mapping house numbers for any buildings drawn into OSM near me while walking, otherwise the best way to help out is just going to be going out and surveying house numbers. Tools like Field Papers could be helpful for this to let you print out a map, write down house numbers as you go, and then bring it back into an editor to add as address nodes in OSM. --- Thanks, Andrew Welch m...@andrewwelch.net On 24/04/2024 9:13 am, Bryce wrote: Hi All, I'm new(ish) to OSM and want to contribute house numbers for South Australia. None exist and it makes it hard to use mobile apps that use OSM data (there are work arounds). OSM only has street names for SA. What format or data is needed? Where do I send it? As a starting point, Data SA has some available data such as: * https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/property-database/resource/f45bd7d0-720d-4206-81c6-2f979a61e674 * https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/property-boundaries * https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/roads Not sure where to go from here. Thanks ___ 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] SA House Numbers
Hi All, I'm new(ish) to OSM and want to contribute house numbers for South Australia. None exist and it makes it hard to use mobile apps that use OSM data (there are work arounds). OSM only has street names for SA. What format or data is needed? Where do I send it? As a starting point, Data SA has some available data such as: 1. https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/property-database/resource/f45bd7d0-720d-4206-81c6-2f979a61e674 2. https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/property-boundaries 3. https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/roads Not sure where to go from here. Thanks ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
Ben, On 23/04/2024 05:22, Ben Ritter wrote: Our solution involves extra work to accommodate the atypical workflow of NPWS deleting paths as a means of communicating their updated access rights. You're very generous towards NPWS with your wording here; some might call that "atypical workflow" vandalism ;) I'm all for reaching a solution that works for both parties but it is worth noting that NPWS agents deleting valid data are in violation of OSM's terms. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
Hi Sebastian Thanks for your input but I am not sure what you mean. Can you give a bit more detail please? Tony Please don?t use Strava as your reference as to whether access is permitted on a specific way as a lot of people do the wrong thing. On 23 Apr 2024, at 4:25?PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: ?Quoting Ben Ritter : ... *Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in collecting any and all examples. Hi Ben Strava seems to be not respecting private. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413772229 Edited 5 months ago by DM9 It is private but shows the same colour as public use tracks. I expect the private tag is correct because its not national park between Lanes and Ryans Rd and there are no open gates. I expect its private land belonging to Lanes. 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
Please don’t use Strava as your reference as to whether access is permitted on a specific way as a lot of people do the wrong thing. > On 23 Apr 2024, at 4:25 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > > Quoting Ben Ritter : > > ... >> *Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are >> encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in >> collecting any and all examples. > > Hi Ben > Strava seems to be not respecting private. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413772229 > Edited 5 months ago by DM9 > > It is private but shows the same colour as public use tracks. I expect the > private tag is correct because its not national park between Lanes and Ryans > Rd and there are no open gates. I expect its private land belonging to Lanes. > > 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS
Quoting Ben Ritter : *Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in collecting any and all examples. Not sure about this one but Way: Road 30 (569541638) access=no Edited 10 months ago by VicWM In strava shows the same as road35 which is tagged without access= tag The bit that I am not sure about is whether road 35 is wrongly tagged Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
