[talk-au] Re campsites

[Adrian Plaskitt]

Greetings all. I think toilets and  presence of drinking water should be 
separate pieces of information easily obvious to any user. While all campsites 
with drinking water will have toilets, the reverse is often not true in NSW. 
I was at one last weekend - fairly large and popular ( room for 30 or 40 tents 
and vans), within 2 hours drive from sydney, and it had no water except for 
unreliable tank water. ( plenty last weekend lol). 

http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/Dharug-National-Park/Mill-Creek-campground/camping

This information is of interest to cycle tourists particularly, who need to 
manage water supplies quite carefully. It is depressing to get to the campsite 
only to realise you have to cycle another 10ks to get water. So I would suggest 
the second tier be basic plus toilets without an assumption about water. I do 
realise cycle tourists are only a small user group and will probably use other 
more detailed resources though.  
Cheers Adrian 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 3 May 2015, at 10:02 pm, talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: camp sites (Ian Sergeant)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 17:43:11 +1000
> From: Ian Sergeant 
> To: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> Cc: OSM - Talk-au 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] camp sites
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On 3 May 2015 at 15:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Whatever way it is cut there is a 'responsiblity', and I'd rather see the
>> 'rules' and have the mapper make the choice from local knowledge rather
>> than pass it to some remote person who can only judge it from a yes/no
>> answer.
> 
> I'm in also in favour of subjective decisions, when we need a subjective
> decision, to be made close to the source.
> 
> However, there are some tags that simply aim to group objective facts by
> applying a ruleset to them.  From the description this looks like one of
> those cases.  I look to see what amenity a campsite has, look up the
> proposal, and decide on a category to assign it to.  I can choose to list
> the amenities too if I want.
> 
> People might misinterpret the ruleset, and meanwhile, we are losing hard
> data about the amenities.
> 
> Is there supposed to be a subjective step that I'm missing?  That is you
> look at all the amenity, and make a judgement call on the category?
> 
> Ian.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> --
> 
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3
> **

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

Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns- I made Alice Springs a city.

[Adrian Plaskitt]

I agree we need to think about the map, not the rules.

look at the first map you see when you type OSM into google.

Its a map of europe.

It shows London, prague, and warsaw but not paris or berlin.
Lisbon but not madrid, budapest but not rome.

And here, at a slightly different zoom level we get Sydney, Melbourne, Albury 
and Cooma but not the nations capital - canberra.
In fact, Queenbeyan appears before CAnberra.

 I've just noticed that Queenbeyan also appears before Alice Springs, for 
goodness sake.

In my opinion, if the guidelines generate these counter intuitive maps , then 
the guidelines are wrong.

I have made Alice Springs a city, but feel free to change it back if this 
violates some rule.

We are map makers, not programmers, which means we interpret  the physical 
world through a cultural lense to make a document that helps others. 
Embrace subjectivity. The number of people living in an area is only one reason 
a settlement should show up on a map. I would argue one of the lesser reasons, 
unless the purpoe of that map is to map population density.

cheers, adrian.





> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 66, Issue 13
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:00:04 +
> 
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>   talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>1. (Paul HAYDON)
>2. Re: cities changed to towns (Steve Bennett)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:37:43 +1100
> From: Paul HAYDON 
> To: Talk-AU OSM 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Hi everyone, Firstly, a qualification:I've not read the Wiki on this subject, 
> so this is simply my opinion without the support of guidelines/rules/etc. I 
> believe, having authored/compiled some detail Magellan maps for eXplorist 
> GPSrs this year, that more important than guidelines or rules that are 
> documented, there needs to be a hierarchy in the data.  Obviously, a city in 
> Europe will be much larger than one in Australia, and similarly, ours will be 
> much larger than those in more remote countries.  And the size differs, not 
> only in population, but also in geographical area (since population densities 
> also vary). For example, let me just describe the east coast of N.S.W., 
> centred on Sydney: I reckon Sydney, Newcastle, and Wollongong are 
> "no-brainers" - they're cities.  But also, Gosford and Wyong on the Central 
> Coast should be classified the same. Now, while I'm sure such places as 
> Parramatta are also cities (I've not verified this, but I'm pretty sure), 
> from a mapping perspective, Sydney is probably all that is needed. So, on a 
> broad view, you will see Sydney, with Newcastle to the north, and Wollongong 
> to the South, as well as Gosford/Wyong midway between Sydney & Newcastle.  
> The next level should then be those centres within the metropolitan areas 
> which warrant attention: in Sydney, such places as Strathfield, Parramatta, 
> Penrith, Chatswood, Hornsby, Hurstville & Sutherland (plus, I'm sure there 
> are others). IMHO, keeping sight of the end-use (i.e. a map) is more 
> important than strictly applying a "rule" based purely on numbers (although, 
> when in doubt, these can be helpful).  So places like Parramatta might not be 
> classified as "cities" when in fact they are, while others in more remote 
> parts of our country might be classified, even though they might not be 
> "cities". Any thoughts?  Cheers,Paul.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:56:37 +1100
> From: Steve Bennett 
> To: Alex Sims 
> Cc: talk-au 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> >I would want "place=city" to refer to an urban populated area of at least
> 100,000 people as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Values
> 
> >
> > I've taken to fixing errors from Geofabrik OSMI and have changed places to
> > match the schema above. Whilst I find hamlet & village grate on me as
> > words, they are merely "code" for an object to be mapped. It's only really
> > issue because I speak English (A

Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.

[Adrian Plaskitt]

Hi, adrian here, yeah don't assume no rpelies means no support - Ive just been 
waiting for the "its time to vote" email. Think that the idea for extending 
tracktype is great. Think that the argument to use is that if OSM wants to be 
considered global then it is just common sense that there must be a visual and 
electronic indication that a major road is unsealed or requires a specialised 
vehicle - there are many places in the world where this is the case. And I 
think there is nothing to be feared in subjectivity - all mapping is 
subjective, in the end. Otheriwise we would tag a road with width, 
surface,colour, construction method, traffic flow, traffic destination, 
speedlimit etc and ask the renderer to deduce that it is a primary or secondary 
road. This process has been formalised in the case of most roads by a 
governemnet agency - but it is still subjective - we are just all so used to it 
that it seems objective. Subjective information from a local oe experienced 
traveller -  is invaluable and should be embraced - not discouraged. That's why 
guide books and sketch maps are still widely used in specialist applications - 
eg bushwalking, skiing, rockclimbing etc.  So roll on election day.. Cheers. 
 > From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 65, Issue 20
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:00:04 +
> 
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>   talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>1. Re: tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up. (Michael Kr?mer)
>2. Re: tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up. (Ian Steer)
>3. Re: tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up. (Andrew Harvey)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:49:17 +0100
> From: Michael Kr?mer 
> To: Talk-AU OSM 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Well, I'm one of those European countries with almost no unpaved roads -
> and therefore also think they should be rendered differently. A driver
> encountering an unpaved road here is usually quite confused if that's
> really an official road...
> 
> But looking at some of the older discussions around this (e.g. [1] or [2])
> I wouldn't really expect any change to the default rendering anywhere soon.
> So I wonder if anyone ever considered to provide an own map rendering
> taking the surface/smoothness/4wd_only into account? As the default
> rendering doesn't really match the traditional coloring scheme in Germany
> there's a special "German style" available ([3]).
> 
> But I assume the problem is to have enough ressources for this...
> 
> I didn't entirely follow this thread so I hope this isn't something which
> came up earlier and which I have missed.
> 
> Michael
> 
> -
> [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2011-June/022789.html
> [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-January/055961.html
> [3]
> http://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html?zoom=10&lat=52.51448&lon=13.40603&layers=B000TF
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:29:26 +0800
> From: "Ian Steer" 
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.
> Message-ID: <005101cdc181$6019fbf0$204df3d0$@net.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> I have been following this topic on a "casual basis" (ie I don't feel
> passionately about it), but I think that what you have written sounds fine.
> 
> I guess that you will hear from people that feel passionately against your
> views, but those that think that what you have written makes sense might
> form the silent majority.
> 
> Don't give up - there will always be views at odds with your own.
> 
> Maybe all the others that think the proposal makes sense should speak up too
> !
> 
> regards
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:01:38 +1030
> From: "David Bannon" 
> To: "Andrew Harvey" 
> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 
> OK, I have to recognise that my "proposed proposal

Re: [talk-au] relations

[Adrian Plaskitt]

Thanks, fellas, I had worried that splitting ways would cause trouble with 
route finding etc as one street would become 2 adjoining streets with the same 
name.  Regards, adrian

> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 61, Issue 34
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:00:07 +0100
> 
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>   talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>1. Re: Question about relations (SomeoneElse)
>2. Re: Redaction recovery (Leon Kernan)
>3. Re: Question about relations (John Henderson)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:38:47 +0100
> From: SomeoneElse 
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Question about relations
> Message-ID: <500f9477.6050...@mail.atownsend.org.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Adrian Plaskitt wrote:
> > My specific question is, when the route passes down only part of a 
> > way, say just a few blocks of a longer street, how do you assign the 
> > relation to just a few internodes. Is it necessary to split the ways 
> > at the nodes and then just assign the relation to the segments 
> > between, or is it necessary to create a new way over the top which is 
> > just the walking route, or is there some method that is simpler that I 
> > have failed to appreciate.
> 
> I'd split the way, like this:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/141369518
> 
> Here the end of "Mandalay Beach Road" has been split and the part of the 
> road that belongs to the walking route has been added to the walking 
> route relation ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/400098 in 
> this case).
> 
> The result looks like this on a map designed to show long distance 
> hiking routes:
> 
> http://hiking.lonvia.de/en/?zoom=17&lat=-35.00144&lon=116.53484
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:35:34 +1000
> From: Leon Kernan 
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Redaction recovery
> Message-ID: <18353cab-6f82-4d09-a7f4-5031dfbc3...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Don't worry too much about the Hume, it's almost fixed as far as i can tell. 
> I think I fixed the last issue affecting routing between Melbourne and Sydney 
> tonight. (hopefully)
> 
> South west sydney is full of broken roads.  
> I'm not too familiar with central Sydney but if a local could take a look, 
> i'm not game to get too far into that mess.
> 
> If you need a change, Adelaide is also a huge mess.
> 
> On 24/07/2012, at 8:34 PM, Michael Hampson wrote:
> 
> > Hi Brian,
> > 
> > Good have you on board Brian. Take a look at the Hume Hwy and M5 motorway 
> > if you get a chance. Both head south west out of Sydney.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Michael 
> > On 24/07/2012 8:23 PM, Brian Prangle wrote:
> >> Hi All
> >> 
> >> I can give assistance retracing roads from bing concentrating on motorways 
> >> and primary roads - I've made a start in South Sydney. Let me know if 
> >> there's anywhere more urgent. I map mostly in Birmingham UK wher we're now 
> >> pretty complete and are mostly tracing buildings from bing and addressing 
> >> which is slow tedious work - so this provides a bit of welcome relief. It 
> >> also reminds me of my visit to Oz 4 years ago - might even revisit some 
> >> favourite places virtually!
> >> 
> >> Regards
> >> 
> >> Brian
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ___
> >> 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
> 
> -- nex

[talk-au] Question about relations

[Adrian Plaskitt]

Greetings all. I usually confine my mapping to bush tracks and cycle paths as 
this is what I am most interested in and is often not available from other 
sources. With the recent devastation of the base map I am remapping some of my 
local area, and rapidly realising how little I really understand, so forgive 
this basic question. I also find the wiki very hard to practically understand 
as it assumes a level of knowledge that is beyond me.

I am interested in mapping/remapping the walking route the great north walk, 
which is an established relation. My specific question is, when the route 
passes down only part of a way, say just a few blocks of a longer street, how 
do you assign the relation to just a few internodes. Is it necessary to split 
the ways at the nodes and then just assign the relation to the segments 
between, or is it necessary to create a new way over the top which is just the 
walking route, or is there some method that is simpler that I have failed to 
appreciate.

I am only able to use the potlach editor. 

Thanks, and regards, adrian.






> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 61, Issue 32
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:05:00 +0100
> 
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>   talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>1. Re: LTUAE (Ian Sergeant)
>2. Re: LTUAE (Michael Hampson)
>3. Re: Establishing Priorities on the Central Coast (Michael Hampson)
>4. Re: LTUAE (Ian Sergeant)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:18:12 +1000
> From: Ian Sergeant 
> To: jink...@bigpond.net.au
> Cc: talk-au 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] LTUAE
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> >   But for metroad 10 for
> > example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten.  I expected they were
> for
> > north and south bound routes as that is the way they appeared to be listed
> > in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done.  Put one
> relation
> > for north and the other for south.  If that's not right let me know and I
> > will fix.  Not sure how a routing relation works anyway.
> 
> For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that use
> two directional relations for each metroad.  This allows the connectivity
> of the route to be checked quickly during the reconstruction phase, and
> otherwise does no harm.  When we have reached the next stage of maturity we
> can decide if we want to merge them back into a single route relation with
> directional elements.  So, yes, what you have done is correct.
> 
> > 2. for the road naming where the ref tag for metroad 10 was MR10 I have
> > changed those to network=MR and ref=10.  Same for the other roads I have
> > worked on.  Not *certain* that is correct though either so if someone
> could
> > enlighten me would be good thanks
> >
> 
> That is correct.  See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki.
> 
> > 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific highway
> and
> > then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific
> highway
> > sh29 *and* mr1.  what should I use to reflect that?
> 
> It can be part of both route relations.
> 
> > Just my own view on the redaction process.  No issue with people who
> > declined the licence agreement.  However it was annoying for me to see one
> > of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a puff of smoke. It
> > was just a building outline, a coles supermarket.  I named it, put in the
> > opening hours, telephone number, full address details eg addr: city: etc
> > etc.  I turned it into a thing of beauty by entering approx 10 odd pieces
> of
> > information, just for practice and learning.  I thought it a bit harsh
> just
> > because someone traced a building roof everything I added went as well.
> > Tracing the building would have taken less than a minute.  I spent 40
> > minutes researching and entering that extra detail on that single item.
> 
> Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least refer
> to the info you have added.  And yes, the loss of data in this way is the
> hardest.  One person just traces from an aerial and then does not agree.
> Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that are lost to OSM.  I
> don't know if it still possible to better use some of this "unattached"
> data in the database down the track.
> 
> Ian
> -- next part --
>

Re: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?

[Adrian Plaskitt]

Greetings all, occasional mapper, first time poster.

Lachlan, I live in Newcastle and cycle commute to Woodrising and have mapped a 
few bits and pieces around the lake.  I personally would like to see your style 
of cycling routes on OCM but understand the "slippery slope argument" detailed 
below that would arise from different interpretations of the same route. For 
example when I link the Fernleigh track to Green Point the best route for me on 
my road bike is different to the route I take the kids on which involves a fair 
bit of footpath riding to avoid traffic hot spots. If you are interested I have 
been writing some pages for a website with links to maps on bikely, photos and 
route descriptions. (A project that gives a good excuse to go out cycling). 
Unfortunately I have not managed to make my webhosting service work, but if you 
send me an email (adrianplask...@hotmail.com) I will show you what I have done 
so far - I would appreciate comments and we could swap notes. The newcastle 
cycleways movement has some maps as well.

Ben and  Ian, perhaps you or others can help me - With regard to tagging I find 
that a lot of information gets lost in this process. For example I have mapped 
some of the minor tracks around Belmont Lagoon that allow you to extend the 
Fernleigh track south to Swansea without going down the highway. I know which 
of these paths are suitable a road bike, a mountain bike, hybrid , young kids 
etc, but this information is lost in my mapping with the tags dirt/gravel/width 
in Potlach - is there a way of making this more nuanced? I imagine every mapper 
knows the same things about their tracks, but the reality is (I think) that if 
you have not visited the area it is impossible to know if a 1m dirt path is 
strewn with boulders and tree roots excluding hybrids or an easy well formed 
path for a 6 year old. I have found some MTB tagging guidelines in the wiki but 
these seem more suited to formal mountain bike parks like perhaps glenrock, and 
I have not found how to apply  them in Potlach. If I downoad one of the other 
editors will these appear, and  will they be renderd on the standard map ?

More generally to the forum  thanks to all those serious mappers who have 
contributed so much - I have been reading the posts over the last few months 
from time to time and have been amazed at the amount of work and passion that 
have been put into this project - its great.

regards adrian



> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 58, Issue 9
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:00:06 +0100
> 
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>   talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>1. Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake Macquarie?
>   (Lachlan Rogers)
>2. Re: Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake   Macquarie?
>   (Ian Sergeant)
>3. Re: Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake   Macquarie?
>   (Ben Kelley)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:09:04 +1000
> From: Lachlan Rogers 
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [talk-au] Tagging for "unofficial" Cycle routes in Lake
>   Macquarie?
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> I've recently moved back to Lake Macquarie after some years in Canberra,
> and I'm delighted to find that there are more cycle paths around the
> central coast and Lake Macquarie than I was previously aware of.
> Unfortunately many of them are either incomplete or disconnected from each
> other.
> 
> I am wanting to scout out optimal on-road routes to connect cycle paths
> into excellent recreational routes.  For instance the recently opened
> Fernleigh (Rail trail) Track ends in Belmont, and just a few kms away there
> is a great path around Green Point.  I want to tag a route (probably as
> "lcn") through the streets of Belmont so that viewers can see how best to
> join these rides together.  To my knowledge there is no official
> council-endorsed cycle route.
> 
> I recognise some people may have a philosophical aversion to this, because
> it is tagging based on usefulness rather than on what is "actually on the
> ground".  I feel, however, that we have an opportunity to scout out optimal
> connections and start using them for cycling now, while we lobby councils
> to make such routes "official".  I would choose a tagging scheme along the
> lines of "network=lcn" with "status=unoffic