Re: [talk-au] How to tag reaches (segments of a waterway)?
On 10/04/11 12:23, 4x4falcon wrote:
> On 09/04/11 16:28, John Smith wrote:
>> On 9 April 2011 18:22, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>> I would like to map some named reaches ("straight portion of a stream
>>> or river, as from one turn to another;") part of a major river.
>>
>> To do this I would shift the river specific information to a relation,
>> which is useful in any case since you can then lump all parts of the
>> river into the same relation and then the individual segments can be
>> tagged differently.
>>
>
> Agree and include the river banks as part of the relation.
>
> Leave all the admin boundary out of it and remove any waterway tags from
> the admin boundary.
>
> You should not need the river way down the middle if the river banks
> have been mapped.
>
Bearing in mind "reach" is also the nautical term for a tack, is it
worth considering Andrew's source map might be documenting the lines of
sailing between navigation markers (or indeed landmarks) which are no
longer even well-known? [Disclaimer: I-am-not-a-sailor.] They may not
even document current-day navigation channels, if that part of the river
required dredging to keep such open in the past.
In other words I am wondering whether it might be best to add the new
names completely independently of both the waterway and the
administrative boundary. Maybe create a tag like "waterway:navigation",
perhaps for the new feature, perhaps?
Justification for independence: these things are straight segments which
rationalise a natural (i.e. curved) waterway for boating purposes...
therefore are not the waterway itself. Similar argument for them not
being the administrative layer (although they might be - can this be
checked in any way?)
My 2c.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories
On 08/04/11 13:46, John Smith wrote: > On 8 April 2011 13:41, Ian Sergeant wrote: >> against the owner's wishes using the law as a shield, I'd want to see >> a pretty solid legal opinion covering all aspects of the data use, not >> just copyright, as each case will depend on its own facts. > > In this case it's pretty straight forward and matches the legal > rulings almost identically, computer generated lists aren't covered by > copyright any more, you have to put thought into building such a list > for it to be covered. I don't know if you guys realised it; but that is the best reasoning I have ever heard for why using (initially) bad data (i.e. you thought about how to correct it) is good for use in OSM. No wonder the project is going around under its personal little black cloud! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors
On 08/04/11 10:46, John Smith wrote:
> On 8 April 2011 07:30, {withheld} wrote:
>> Very naughty thought. I wonder what the reaction would be to a simple,
>> formal request to OSMF to re-grant you your rights to OSM data along the
>> same alignments on the basis OSM is backing up an effective copy of your
>> lost data?
>
> That isn't needed since at no point under the new or old CT do you
> sign your copyright away, previously/currently for some you agreed to
> allow OSM-F to publish your work under cc-by-sa, and possibly in
> future you agree to allow OSM-F to be able to license a copy of your
> data as they see fit. In both cases you still own the copyright, but
> of course in future you have to deal with more than just copyright and
> so that would become a lot less clear if you could do what you want
> with your own submissions if you attempt to extract them from the
> database.
Agreed - and thanks for stating the point I had intended so clearly.
The naughty aspect springs from my awkward attempt to imply the FUD
(fear/uncertainty/doubt) campaign could possibly be played two ways.
That is not to say I seriously think such an approach would be
acknowledged; let alone honoured.
Reminder: this particular sub-thread was attempting to address the
problems of a user who wishes to recover as best they can their own
original survey traces lost as a result of overly-trusting OSM-F to do
the right and honourable thing by their volunteer community.
Nearly choked on that. Wonder why?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors
On 08/04/11 06:37, John Henderson wrote:
> On 08/04/11 06:25, {withheld} wrote:
>
>> Whilst I agree / commiserate with your basic point (been there; done
>> that; spent the fuel), don't you still have the raw traces from your
>> device? I certainly do, and consider at no point have I ever given up my
>> rights to them.
>
> I couldn't see any point in keeping those traces at the time, so a
> couple of years OSM work of mine will be lost to OSM.
That is annoying. I feel for you; as I nearly did the same thing; and in
fact have lost some information as well,but obviously not quite so severely.
Very naughty thought. I wonder what the reaction would be to a simple,
formal request to OSMF to re-grant you your rights to OSM data along the
same alignments on the basis OSM is backing up an effective copy of your
lost data?
VNT-2: You didn't upload the traces to OSM, and thus have the capability
to legitimately download them again; do you? Worth checking:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user//traces.
VNT-3: Until the full licence change goes through you still have rights
under the SA clause to export "your" area of the map. There are any
amount of utilities available to strip your real data out of the
resulting .osm file(s). XAPI may be your friend here. Try something
like: http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/*[@user=OSMid|OSMid2|OSMid3]
This is quite crude of course: it "scrapes off" details of the latest
edits made in OSM by user OSMid (optional aliases OSMid2 etc.) A full
approach - which I have not experimented with - would be to extract the
list of changesets you had made and to perform a similar extraction for
each one.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors
On 08/04/11 05:47, John Henderson wrote: > On 07/04/11 21:10, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > >> It's sad that this is happening >> A vibrant aussie community has gone down the drain within the last 12 >> months. >> I have spent 3 1/2 years (nearly) adding big tracts of eastern >> australia to the osm map, and now think I will do something else with >> my spare time. > > Agreed. Quite aside from other considerations, the fuel cost and the > wastage of having to do all this work again is staggering to the > individuals concerned. > > It's not as if it can be dome in a lifetime by waiting for OSM > contributors to take all these roads again without going out of their way. > > It wouldn't be nearly so bad if we could simply agree to the new terms > for objects outside Nearmap coverage (and for future contributions), but > have our "contaminated" work removed. Whilst I agree / commiserate with your basic point (been there; done that; spent the fuel), don't you still have the raw traces from your device? I certainly do, and consider at no point have I ever given up my rights to them. Maybe I am wrong; but what is to stop me from reformatting, retracing or extracting information from these (in my case GPX) traces, and subsequently giving this new work away to absolutely anybody I choose? Certainly it will be a lot of work and a monumental annoyance to do so; but I don't remember signing away this aspect of my rights as primary producer of survey data. Any thoughts? P.S. I make no claim to being a "significant contributor"; but if my efforts are expunged I shall ever harbour deep malevolence toward the organisation that does so regarding the hole in the map which is left; even if nobody else notices! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...
On 06/04/11 19:31, John Smith wrote: > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Michael Collinson > Date: 6 April 2011 19:08 > Subject: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ... > To: d...@openstreetmap.org > > > ... the License Working Group intends implementing Phase 3 of the > license change implementation plan [1]. This involves blocking edits > with HTTP "Forbidden" messages until the individual contributor has > Accepted/Declined the new terms by logging in manually via browser at > http://www.openstreetmap.org. The text of the message will explain the > reason. This will happen Real Soon Now, I hope within the next few > days. We will give at least 48 hours notice on the main Talk and other > mailing lists of the exact date/time. > > Please would you check that your editor software has some mechanism > for your users. > > For clarity: > > - This will only affect (77,000) contributors who registered before > May 2010 and who have not accepted the new terms as part of the > voluntary re-licensing program. > > - Once a contributor has Accepted/Declined the new terms, they may > continue editting normally. Even if they decline, they may continue > editting normally until and if Phase 4 kicks in. > > Mike > > Michael Collinson > License Working Group > > > [1] > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_3_-_Existing_Contributor_Mandatory_Re-licensing_.28Phase_2_.2B_5_or_10_weeks.29 Thank you John for forwarding this. Would you please pass back to Michael my respectful disdain for this notification which provides no reassurance nor guidance whatsoever. (I am straining to be polite; in case this is not obvious!) So some change may be made - maybe even soon - to force a decision the result of which may be ignored - by people who may not be using the system any more. Which may not have any effect? I will say no more than express my bewilderment why this announcement(Meta-b Control-k)waste of time and effort was even considered for posting as I doubt I will be able to refrain from insult. I emphasise this last statement is not directed at John. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Need a laff?
On 11/03/11 21:26, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > If you need a laff, try the wiki page on countryside > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Countryside > I don't know laughing at is all that appropriate. Al Mar (I assume that's a he?) is so earnest; it would be like kicking a puppy. If you read past the "Romantic" (pinched from you) introduction; and the strange grammar; and the strange spelling (Germanic influence?), I do think there is a very good point being raised. The road classifications don't work very well in the country - any country. "Track" has too many pernicious overtones to be usable under any circumstances. In hindsight, I wish a system of use-density had been adopted along the lines of (suggest logarithmic scale): G: .. H: .. I: J: K: M: N: O: .. P: .. Secondary roads would probably rate lever O: or above. Antarctic outlying remote monitored stations G: or below... My 2c (after adjustment for inflation, &c.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bulk loading all the Australian Statistical Geography Standard into the OSM - a query from the Australian Bureau of Statistics [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
On 24/02/11 14:46, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> On 24 February 2011 14:33, {withheld} <mailto:pheasant.cou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> For 's sake, with due respect to Andrew Harvey and
> Steve Bennett, shouldn't the community be a whole lot better off
> expressing appropriate gratitude to Marcus Blake for offering this data
> and then pissing off and finding a use for it!
>
>
> Marcus isn't just offering the data, he is also looking for a static
> data repository.
>
> He says that ...
>
>> From the ABS point of view the principle reason for doing this is
>> that an the OSM database would hold a copy of the official version
>> of the boundaries and that this point of truth would be available for
>> all OSM users and downstream distributors.
>
> I don't believe OSM offers that. It is kindness in stating that directly
> up front.
>
> That doesn't mean that OSM can't continue to work with the ABS data in
> other ways.
Not quite sure I fully accept that point, as I interpret Marcus' wording
more in the sense of its generosity than him stating restrictions. (A
government department asking for charity? Doesn't make sense.)
However I still hold the community should accept the offer and be
grateful. Carping about internal politics just looks bad. And whiny. And
doesn't encourage anybody else ever offering similar largesse ever again.
Do we really want to appear like a bunch of inconsiderate losers; or do
we have any sort of pretence to be a professional outfit? Or is this
community just comprehensively hopeless at everything we attempt?
In case I am the only person to do this: Thank you Marcus, for your fine
and generous offer. It will be looked into, and somebody will get back
to you as and if appropriate.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bulk loading all the Australian Statistical Geography Standard into the OSM - a query from the Australian Bureau of Statistics [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
On 24/02/11 12:50, John Smith wrote: > On 24 February 2011 10:52, Steve Bennett wrote: >> 1) OSM's core purpose is as a street map > > This hasn't been the case for quite some time. > > Not to mention that the previous ABS data has been very useful in > regional areas for plotting physical features, like roads, that > couldn't be obtained any other way at the time. I can only assume the > new data would be the same, if not better, than the existing data > which would continue to improve map data available in regional areas. For 's sake, with due respect to Andrew Harvey and Steve Bennett, shouldn't the community be a whole lot better off expressing appropriate gratitude to Marcus Blake for offering this data and then pissing off and finding a use for it! No wonder no bloody government supplier wants to give us data. We are so damned ungrateful for what we get! I genuinely hope I have hurt a few feelings. At least I will have made the point. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] temp name change
On 18/02/11 20:00, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/18/3142067.htm > anyone fixing this on the map? > Please note the last line of that article: "Both the town and Phil Down will revert to their original names in a month." Why bother? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
Here is a suggestion:
Whenever a situation like this comes up (i.e. posted signage which does
not fit neatly in a predetermined/official tag case), why not introduce
a new tag:
signposted: "Literal text from sign"
...on the basis such a thing cannot be questioned, because that is what
is there in reality. (Further hint: photograph to prove it?)
Which reminds me, I need a picture of one of the semi-local "Unlimited:
Drive to Conditions" signs. Second thoughts, scratch that it has already
been done: http://www.gobbie.net/stuff/DriveToSuitConditionsSmall.jpg
On 17/02/11 18:02, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
> Make a new specific tag ("unsuitable_for_caravans=yes;
> source:unsuitable_for_caravans=survey"), and document it on the wiki
> (with a photo of a sign). At least that's explicit and clear.
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:58 AM, John Smith > wrote:
>
> Saw a couple of roads signed "unsuitable for caravans" which seems
> like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a
> sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline
On 27/01/11 20:21, 4x4falcon wrote: > On 27/01/11 14:12, Steve Bennett wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:10 PM, 4x4falcon wrote: >>> Physical things can change (eg road or railway realignment), non >>> physical >>> don't necessarily change. In the case of boundaries do we definitely >>> know >>> that when a road is realigned does the boundary change with it. This >>> has >>> been discussed many times since the import of the ABS boundary data. >> >> My guess would be that the boundaries generally do change, but I could >> be totally wrong. And I think high quality traces are likely to be >> more accurate than the ABS's data. > > That's the problem it's your guess. There has been no definitive answer > since the original import. > I really don't know why this knotty problem keeps cropping up. I can readily find examples locally for each of these cases: * ABS2006 boundaries don't follow roads when road alignment changes. * ABS2006 boundaries don't follow rivers when river channels change. * ABS2006 boundaries don't follow coastlines when coastlines change. * ABS2006 boundaries do not always correspond to suburb boundaries. * ABS2006 boundaries do not always correspond to postcode boundaries. * ABS2006 boundaries do not always correspond to shire boundaries. * ABS2006 boundaries do not always correspond to parish boundaries. I couldn't find an example rail line easily; but I think the pattern ought to be clear. (Simple logic says a single exception disproves the rule.) As I've stated elsewhere in this very thread, just because the boundaries *look* like something we want; does not necessarily *mean* they represent that thing. And bending them to fit a fiction just damages what worth they originally had... statistical boundaries for a past census? This is the one immutable fact about them. Their casual correspondence to a feature we would like to map helps locate and identify that feature (even if the drawing happens to be co-linear with the ABS boundary), and they should be applauded for providing those few hints, especially in areas with few other mapped features. However, if somebody has an accurate survey of (to drag the conversation back to it's Subject), say the Victorian Coastline, why aren't they drawing/updating the thing they have surveyed. Who cares if it happens to follow another line on the map? This is not a comparison of like with like. The real problem is: How to explain this clearly and simply to people who don't read/understand/follow this argument? My 2c. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline
On 20/01/11 17:51, ed...@billiau.net wrote: > >> >> As an aside, as large and as remote in parts of Australia are, I'd be >> surprised if you could put your finger on a way that will never be >> touched again, either by on the ground survey, or by aerial >> photography review. If you'd care to name one, I'd be happy to place >> a wager! >> >> Ian. > > I don´t gamble, a religious objection. > However I have been to quite a number of places that no-one is expected to > go to again. We´ve turned off the beaten track to map some odd spots just > for OSM, to get that last bit of data, and we have no intention of > returning. These places have landsat as the best aerial imagery available > in Jan 2011, so don´t expect to see any aerial imagery used as an update. > Secondly my son doing mineral exploration has been to a number of spots to > which no-one will return - places where they found nothing under the > ground. > I´m not naming any - making a list will make people deliberately make sure > they get that last piece of the jigsaw puzzle. > > You can check the diffs between the CC-by-SA data and the ODbL data when > the new set exists and work out how long it takes to get the data. Thank you Liz for responding to this profitless debate in exactly the manner I wish I was smart enough to do so! Victorian Coastline notwithstanding guys, please remember the data under discussion is the ABS2006 set. It seems to have largely followed physical boundaries; but not quite always. It seems to have followed suburb boundaries; but not quite always. See the pattern yet? I have found cases of the boundaries following roads which closed prior to the 1920s. And rivers which since have flooded and cut across old loops in the 1970s. And will be wildly wrong next year after the recent floods. That last is a realistic betting proposal for you! And don't forget the 2006 date. Drawn up by statisticians for data collection boundaries. So if anything it follows anticipated population contours, so why is anybody trusting it at all? Answer, because sometimes it is the best thing available. Equally it should not be wilfully overwritten as it does not ever represent the thing the updater thinks it does. The only valid update agent can only be a future ABS release. So you are both right. And both wrong. For reasons you haven't even seemed to have considered! And in any case what else seriously uses the admin_level tag in a conflicting sense? If anything does a new tag should be introduced, otherwise what are they for? Renders be buggered. They can/should be fixed, our aim is data capture not pretty-printing, YES? Special note to Ian Sergeant: Stop arguing with John Smith. You will not outlast him. You are making a fool of yourself. You are starting to look like an immature jerk. At least keep a minimum of dignity. Rant OFF. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] license change map
On 22/11/10 15:37, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote: > The attributions are Google for USA, Sensis for Australia and Tele > Atlas for Europe etc. after this update: > http://google-au.blogspot.com/2010/11/your-new-map-of-australia.html > So no MapQuest worries! > My personal experience has been Google's mapping of my home ground has been absolutely wrecked since that announcement was made (the street I live on and several streets around were expunged for reasons unknown.) I'd be interested to know if this is a "country" thing, or universal, by the way... Just to see what would happen, I've submitted around 50 corrections "off the cuff", and only yesterday some kind of autobot responded to 35 of them, admitting fault. The 35th was "escalated", which probably means my description of fault was too colloquial for the process-bot (I had pointed out of three identical cases nearby, this one was the odd one out, and wrong to boot. Lesson: all feedback should be to the lowest expected denominator, halved.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] license change map
On 22/11/10 11:49, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Nick Hocking wrote: >> Certainly, it unfortunately appears that there will be whole villages/towns >> that will remain red. These will need to be resurveyed. I believe that this >> will take about one year (or maybe two at the most) but considereing OSM's >> huge importance to society, I do not see this as a big issue. In fact it >> would give me a good reason to visit towns that I have not yet seen since >> I've run out of roads to survey. > > Was there any particular reason to throw this almighty "fuck you" out > there? Just trying to cause a lot of anger, or was there some sort of > productive intent that I missed? > > Steve Um, remind me again which part of "rhetorical question" confuses you? Fact is, uncertainty buggers volunteer efforts. Party A has been lazy/greedy/incompetent/arrogant/(this list could get really tedious soon) with regard to its membership. Some of whom take abiding offence. Even fewer of whom are going to have long memories, and never do another useful thing for Party A. Some rare individuals are going to obstruct Party A. A rare few gifted psychotics are out there researching Molotov and coming to strange conclusions. Welcome to the diversity and perversity that is human nature. Now back to that question about questions. Just why is anybody acting surprised? Oh, and I forgot to mention there are a plethora of parties springing up who are not Party A... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
