Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Andrew Hughes]

Agree, but still would think both are better. Plus, it's difficult to tag
the way(s), as we don't necessarily know where the 7% ends. Whereas the
sign is a single point location and can be easily geographical tagged.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023, 8:03 pm Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 8/2/23 16:07, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> Thanks for the quick responses!
>
> Andrew Harvey: traffic_sign=AU:R6-22,G9-83 seems better than
> traffic_sign=AU:R6-22;AU:G9-83  but I can see why you say both would be
> valid.
> Q: Let's say there is also another sign "Zombies Ahead" that doesn't have
> a NTC code at the same location. Would that be separated with a semi-colon?
> and tagged as   traffic_sign=AU:R6-22,G9-83;Zombies Ahead
>
> Graeme, ideally the "7km" is recorded in the tagging... mostly because
> some juro's do this so they don't need to place "end of  signage". But
> on that subject
> Q: lots of signage such as G9-82 (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia ) also includes the
> % slope. This is perhaps similar to the  "7km" supplementary information on
> the sign and perhaps the same convention could apply to both. For example
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-35.0542594599=138.5349290306=19.9%5B%5D=all=OpenStreetMap=798881551059257=photo=0.49105747415321865=0.5517154385592334=0
>
>
> The '% slope' would be the key 'incline' that can simply be applied to the
> road way.
> ___
> 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] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Yes...

https://vicroadsopendata-vicroadsmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ef496e07eae049a3bb94351bc496dd6a_0/explore?location=-36.518496%2C145.313781%2C7.55

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

--Andrew


On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 09:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 12:31, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian
>> Dept of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)
>>
>>
> Sorry to be awkward, but do we have permission to use that data?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Phil and Everyone else,

For the structure number, I like the look of...

ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=SN12345

Questions...

   1. All caps, for the VIC:DOT:SN suffix?
   2. Sure there is no "GOV" in there?   ref:AU:*GOV:*VIC:DOT:SN  = ???
   3. If we had to tag both the structure number and the "structure type"
   would this change the convention? Giving something like
  1. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:N=SN12345
  2. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:TYPE=Culvert

Many thanks, as always!
AH


On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 13:49, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> One way would be by using a ref key
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref
>
>
>
> Maybe even something as long as
>
>
>
> ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=2252 or maybe
>
>
>
> ref:AU:VIC:DOT=SN2252
>
>
>
> On the culvert makes sense to me but given you seem to want it related to
> the way I will let others chime in on whether it could go on a node on the
> way (similar to the signs we have recently been discussing). Its not
> something I remember having seen in the past (but I have never looked for
> any such points)
>
>
>
> Either way it would be beneficial to at least describe this in the Ozzie
> roads wiki when its settled, maybe under an infrastructure heading.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Hughes 
> *Sent:* Thursday, 9 February 2023 1:25 PM
> *To:* Talk Au 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I am resurrecting this thread after quite a long time of silence. I think
> it reached an impasse and went down a lot of rabbit holes. But I do need to
> try my best to get resolution on this.
>
>
>
> To bring it back to life I will ask the question again, hopefully far more
> clarity than I once did in 2020.
>
>
>
> Pretext: For many, culverts are considered to be road infrastructure (they
> are even owned/managed by Govt. transport departments), while others
> consider them to be part of the water course. These question(s) below are
> in the context of those who consider them as road infrastructure. This
> isn't a question around water courses that tag the culvert because that
> already has a (good) tagging convention.
>
>
>
> Context:
>
> Given we have more than 50K culvert's
>
> And a culvert is considered to be part of the road infrastructure (and/or
> independently a watercourse)
>
> And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian
> Dept of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)
>
>
>
> Q: How should we create/tag each culvert so that it is (more than just
> geographically) related to the road (way) including its asset/ref
> identification?
>
>
>
> Here's a real world example:
>
>
>
> The culvert (structure SN2252) as GeoJSON can be seen here...
>
>
>
>
> http://geojson.io/#data=data:application/json,%7B%22id%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22Feature%22%2C%22geometry%22%3A%7B%22type%22%3A%22Point%22%2C%22coordinates%22%3A%5B144.29174897%2C-37.098997806%5D%7D%2C%22properties%22%3A%7B%22LAT%22%3A-37.099%2C%22LONGIT%22%3A144.29175%2C%22Archived%22%3A%22N%22%2C%22OBJECTID%22%3A8626%2C%22CD_DIRECTION%22%3Anull%2C%22ID_STRUCTURE%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22Archived_Reason%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22FEATURE_CROSSED%22%3A%22UN-NAMED%20WATERCOURSE%22%2C%22LOCAL_ROAD_NAME%22%3A%222740%20PYRENEES%20HWY%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_1%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_2%22%3Anull%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_3%22%3Anull%7D%7D
>
>
>
> The location in OSM is...
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=219077864#map=20/-37.09900/144.29175
> or the closest node
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=97560366#map=19/-37.09897/144.29190
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=97560366#map=19/-37.09897/144.29190>
>
>
>
> I will leave it at that for now and let people respond with a fresh slate.
>
>
>
> Thanks Everyone,
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 20:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dec 2, 2020, 05:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 2/12/20 3:54 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a
> conclusion
> https://wiki

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

I am resurrecting this thread after quite a long time of silence. I think
it reached an impasse and went down a lot of rabbit holes. But I do need to
try my best to get resolution on this.

To bring it back to life I will ask the question again, hopefully far more
clarity than I once did in 2020.

Pretext: For many, culverts are considered to be road infrastructure (they
are even owned/managed by Govt. transport departments), while others
consider them to be part of the water course. These question(s) below are
in the context of those who consider them as road infrastructure. This
isn't a question around water courses that tag the culvert because that
already has a (good) tagging convention.

Context:

Given we have more than 50K culvert's
And a culvert is considered to be part of the road infrastructure (and/or
independently a watercourse)
And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian
Dept of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)


Q: How should we create/tag each culvert so that it is (more than just
geographically) related to the road (way) including its asset/ref
identification?

Here's a real world example:

The culvert (structure SN2252) as GeoJSON can be seen here...

http://geojson.io/#data=data:application/json,%7B%22id%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22Feature%22%2C%22geometry%22%3A%7B%22type%22%3A%22Point%22%2C%22coordinates%22%3A%5B144.29174897%2C-37.098997806%5D%7D%2C%22properties%22%3A%7B%22LAT%22%3A-37.099%2C%22LONGIT%22%3A144.29175%2C%22Archived%22%3A%22N%22%2C%22OBJECTID%22%3A8626%2C%22CD_DIRECTION%22%3Anull%2C%22ID_STRUCTURE%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22Archived_Reason%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22FEATURE_CROSSED%22%3A%22UN-NAMED%20WATERCOURSE%22%2C%22LOCAL_ROAD_NAME%22%3A%222740%20PYRENEES%20HWY%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_1%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_2%22%3Anull%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_3%22%3Anull%7D%7D


The location in OSM is...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=219077864#map=20/-37.09900/144.29175
or the closest node
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=97560366#map=19/-37.09897/144.29190
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=97560366#map=19/-37.09897/144.29190>


I will leave it at that for now and let people respond with a fresh slate.

Thanks Everyone,
Andrew





On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 20:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Dec 2, 2020, 05:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 2/12/20 3:54 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a
> conclusion
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
>
> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e.
> river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water
> traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many scenarios.
> However, it doesn't help with road usage.
>
> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.
>
>
> Would a node that connects both road and water way be sufficient?
>
> That would break current tagging methods that do not merge in one node
> vertically separated
> objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge or road under
> road on a viaduct.
>
>
> OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to footways at a
> singular shared node.
>
> In this case you can transition/move between this features.
>
> Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert indication
> separate from the waterway culvert indication?
>
> No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anything on a road.
>
> And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they can process OSM
> data,
> there is no need at all to tag it manually for over one million of
> culverts.
>
>
> And the OP wants to tag weight and width limits for the road as it crosses
> a culvert...
>
> maxweight maxwidth tags on road are well known solution for that
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Again,

Would someone be able to review this tagging...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132233374

This is really two signs: AU:R6-22 and AU:G9-83 (ref.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia )

However, my tagging effort doesn't capture the "NEXT 7km" aspect of
the AU:G9-83
sign.

I've since found the sign in Mapillary here (please credit them
appropriately if you make further edits):
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-34.99479658=138.69892263=17.81534575874091=all=OpenStreetMap=528596771464853=photo=0.37678059918083406=0.529304273642301=1.3885102923238097


Many thanks,
Andrew


On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 11:41, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

>
> Looking good. Given...
>
> Node:  traffic_sign=AU:R6-22
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3227568911
>
> Way:  low_gears:hgv=designated
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245284221
>
> Question:
>
> The tagging of the way  does not use the AU:R6-22 (signage) code. Can
> anyone elaborate on why this is?  They seem like conflicting tagging
> schemes.
>
>
> Thanks everyone for everything so far.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 16:14, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>
>> I have just done Hobarts ‘Southern Outlet” as an example (and Mapillary
>> available at this location)
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-42.91186/147.30856
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bob Cameron 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, 22 January 2023 4:09 PM
>> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"
>>
>>
>>
>> Some Mapillary "data rich" slow vehicle locations. (ie for
>> checking/testing sign recognition)
>>
>> - Dorrigo mountain - Waterfall Way. (Just west/north of Thora) NSW
>> - Bendemeer to Moonbi - New England Hwy NSW
>> - Black Mountain south - New England Hwy NSW
>>
>> On 22/1/23 15:01, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Would anyone like me to create a mapillary challenge so we can tag a few
>> of these examples?
>>
>>
>>
>> Looks like Mapillary does detect some of this signage, under signs
>> "Trucks rollover" and "Steep descent", a MapRoulette challenge would be a
>> great idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Andrew Hughes]

Looking good. Given...

Node:  traffic_sign=AU:R6-22
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3227568911

Way:  low_gears:hgv=designated
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245284221

Question:

The tagging of the way  does not use the AU:R6-22 (signage) code. Can
anyone elaborate on why this is?  They seem like conflicting tagging
schemes.


Thanks everyone for everything so far.



On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 16:14, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> I have just done Hobarts ‘Southern Outlet” as an example (and Mapillary
> available at this location)
>
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-42.91186/147.30856
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Cameron 
> *Sent:* Sunday, 22 January 2023 4:09 PM
> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"
>
>
>
> Some Mapillary "data rich" slow vehicle locations. (ie for
> checking/testing sign recognition)
>
> - Dorrigo mountain - Waterfall Way. (Just west/north of Thora) NSW
> - Bendemeer to Moonbi - New England Hwy NSW
> - Black Mountain south - New England Hwy NSW
>
> On 22/1/23 15:01, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>
>
> Would anyone like me to create a mapillary challenge so we can tag a few
> of these examples?
>
>
>
> Looks like Mapillary does detect some of this signage, under signs "Trucks
> rollover" and "Steep descent", a MapRoulette challenge would be a great
> idea.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Graeme,

Thank you. The quiet "area" signage is a basket case for me, the reason
being most signage is " in residential areas" or "in built up
areas" and I have no conceivable way of defining those "areas" in OSM.

Maybe the sign could be tagged on a node, or maybe a node (member) of a
way, but definitely not an area that can't be defined and is not suitable
to the way itself in my mind.

Thoughts are definitely welcome.
--AH


On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 11:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 10:40, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> There are other signage like "No Engine Breaking", could anyone propose a
>> convention inline with the above that could be extended for such additional
>> signage?
>>
>
> Answering in reverse!
>
> I thought I remembered something about "quiet zones" for traffic, so did
> some searching & found:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dlevel_crossing#Quiet_zones,
> but which has apparently never been used.
>
> Also found https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#Quiet_lanes
>
> The same idea could possibly be used as designation=quiet_zone, possibly
> with quiet_zone=hgv?
>
> Can anyone suggest the most appropriate way to take ways where the road is
>> signed with "Use Low Gears"?
>>
>
> & maybe the same concept as designation=low_gears?
>
> That one could even come in under
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards as
> hazard=low_gear_required?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Ben, Andrew, Graeme,

Agree 100%, the hazard is the "steep descent" (or similar), which most
likely (but not always) coincides with the include/gradient sign such as
"15%" (and we might see "incline=-15" tag used as well).

possible tags are:

hazard=Descent  <-- because this is applicable to not just trucks!
hazard=Steep Descent  <-- because this is applicable to not just trucks!
hazard:hgv=Descent
hazard:hgv=Steep Descent
hazard:hgv=Steep Descent;Tilting


incline=-15
incline:forward=-15 < if you want to specify direction or is this
implicit in just using incline and direction of the way anyway



The "restriction" (assume that is the common OSM term Andrew?) or signage
on the road is to use low gears.  Q: Tagged on a node and/or  way?

What about

traffic_sign:hvg=Use Low Gears
traffic_sign:hvg=AU:Use Low Gears
traffic_sign:hvg=Tilting
traffic_sign:hvg=Use Low Gears;Tilting


Feedback is most welcome

Would anyone like me to create a mapillary challenge so we can tag a few of
these examples?

Cheers,
Andrew


On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 10:32, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Good point. If it's a restriction, it should be more like the maxspeed
> tag, maxspeed:hgv=*
>
> So something like low_gears:hgv=designated rather than using the hazard
> key.
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 11:25, Ben Kelley  wrote:
>
>> Just one thought on this:
>>
>> The "use low gears" it not itself the hazard. It is the steep hill that
>> is the hazard (where the mitigation strategy for HGVs is to use low gears.
>> Same for rollover/sharp bend.
>>
>>  - Ben
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 10:38, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>>
>>> Thank You Greame,
>>>
>>> The  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards tag
>>> seems very appropriate but in my mind, needs a :hgv namespace.
>>>
>>> still not sure on the actual values but...tag/values I would appreciate
>>> feedback on:
>>>
>>> hazard:hgv=Use low gears
>>> hazard:hgv=Long Steep Descent
>>> hazard:hgv=Use low gears;Long Steep Descent
>>>
>>>
>>> Another example I would appreciate feedback  are QLD "Tilting Truck
>>> signs": https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/warning
>>>
>>> hazard:hgv=Tilting
>>> hazard:hgv=High Risk Rollover
>>> hazard:hgv= ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 11:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 10:40, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are other signage like "No Engine Breaking", could anyone
>>>>> propose a convention inline with the above that could be extended for such
>>>>> additional signage?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Answering in reverse!
>>>>
>>>> I thought I remembered something about "quiet zones" for traffic, so
>>>> did some searching & found:
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dlevel_crossing#Quiet_zones,
>>>> but which has apparently never been used.
>>>>
>>>> Also found
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#Quiet_lanes
>>>>
>>>> The same idea could possibly be used as designation=quiet_zone,
>>>> possibly with quiet_zone=hgv?
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone suggest the most appropriate way to take ways where the road
>>>>> is signed with "Use Low Gears"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> & maybe the same concept as designation=low_gears?
>>>>
>>>> That one could even come in under
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards as
>>>> hazard=low_gear_required?
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Andrew Hughes]

Thank You Greame,

The  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards tag
seems very appropriate but in my mind, needs a :hgv namespace.

still not sure on the actual values but...tag/values I would appreciate
feedback on:

hazard:hgv=Use low gears
hazard:hgv=Long Steep Descent
hazard:hgv=Use low gears;Long Steep Descent


Another example I would appreciate feedback  are QLD "Tilting Truck signs":
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/warning

hazard:hgv=Tilting
hazard:hgv=High Risk Rollover
hazard:hgv= ?


Kind regards,
Andrew



On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 11:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 10:40, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> There are other signage like "No Engine Breaking", could anyone propose a
>> convention inline with the above that could be extended for such additional
>> signage?
>>
>
> Answering in reverse!
>
> I thought I remembered something about "quiet zones" for traffic, so did
> some searching & found:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dlevel_crossing#Quiet_zones,
> but which has apparently never been used.
>
> Also found https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#Quiet_lanes
>
> The same idea could possibly be used as designation=quiet_zone, possibly
> with quiet_zone=hgv?
>
> Can anyone suggest the most appropriate way to take ways where the road is
>> signed with "Use Low Gears"?
>>
>
> & maybe the same concept as designation=low_gears?
>
> That one could even come in under
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards as
> hazard=low_gear_required?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

Can anyone suggest the most appropriate way to take ways where the road is
signed with "Use Low Gears"?

Bonus questions...

1. In the case of SA, there's online reference material and even an Act to
enforce this legally. How/Should that be tagged ref::: and how so, that
this is the SA ref, and NSW might have another e.t.c...  see
https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/driving-and-transport/heavy-vehicles/heavy-vehicles-on-the-south-eastern-freeway
2. There are other signage like "No Engine Breaking", could anyone propose
a convention inline with the above that could be extended for such
additional signage?

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

Re: [talk-au] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Dian,

Working with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and having data that
honours the jurisdiction geography (I.e. state/territory border) is
invaluable to us.

I believe... Ways and State Route (relations) should split at the border.
State routes typically form as members of the national route... therefore I
would say ..
1. Ways are split or borders
2. Ways are members of state route relations  network=AU:QLD
3. State relations are members of a national relation (if they make up the
national network) network=AU

I believe there is far less entropy in this convention as well.

Thoughts?

Cheers.
Andrew

On Fri, 12 Aug 2022, 2:38 pm Dian Ågesson,  wrote:

> Excellent pick up Ben.
>
> For routes that cross state borders, I would favour using AU:NAT (or
> AU:COM/AU:FED/AU:AUS, something that says “interstate or national).
>
> I could also see an argument for creating a seperate relation for each
> state, with a national superrelation…. To be that seems like too much
> overhead.
>
> Dian
>
>
> On 2022-08-12 04:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 13:37, Ben Kelley  wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm guessing more than one state has an A40.
>
>
> & how would we work "Highway 1", with its myriad of alternative
> designations & names?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia)
>
>  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] Tagging Gazetted Road Routes (National, State, Regional...)

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Andrew,

No I had not seen that and it's really helpful thank you.

This is quite challenging to explain in an email but I will try...

*Scenario:* Given a way, how can I determine if that way is part of a state
or national route with a name?

*Scenario in Action:*

   - Given the way "Mulgrave Street Gin Gin QLD"
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31973923
   - Is this part of any relation Yes there are 2
  - First relation is the A1, is this a national/state Highway YES!
  because it has the route=road, network=NH
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198279
  - Second relation is "Bruce Highway", is this national/state, NO!
  because it does not have a network=NH or S tag.
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198331

*What's missing from the above:*

   - The Bruce Highway relation
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198331
  - Does not identify that it is related to the A1 - National Highway
  - Does not identify that south most section in North Brisbane the M1
  - Does not identity that this is a State Route - *but I am unsure if
  it should*
   - Similarly, the A1 relation
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198279
  - Does not identify that it is related to the Bruce Highway (route)
   - The way  "Mulgrave Street Gin Gin QLD"
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31973923
  - Can't be reliably determined to be part of a state/national route
  and found to be named "Bruce Highway". Yes, I can say its on the A1
  (national highway) but I can't say that the Bruce Highway is a State/Road
  route


*My 2c*

I'm unsure if what I am looking for should exist in a hierarchy of
parent/child relations, or if it is best left to trawling through tags and
finding references by convention and hope that things are tagged correctly.
I kinda think the first is correct, or else why would OSM even have
relations?

Parent Child relation down to the way members

   - RELATION: name=National Highway; ref=A1; route=road; network=NH
  - RELATION:   name=Bruce Highway  ref=A1:M3; route=road; network=S
  <--- not sure if this is S or NH
 - RELATION:   name=Bruce Highway  ref=A1; route=road; network=S
- WAY
- WAY
 - RELATION:   name=Bruce Highway  ref=M1; route=road; network=S
- WAY...
- WAY...


The above would allow a way's membership and hierarchy to be traversed.

*Thoughts?*

Please let me know CHEEERS!




On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 at 14:50, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andrew Hughes  wrote:
> > Some worldwide/geographic tagging guidelines exist, that are based on a
> combination with the "network" tag: see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes
> >
>
> Have you read
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes
> ?
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging Gazetted Road Routes (National, State, Regional...)

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

I've been looking into how National, State and possibly Regional road
routes are tagged in Australia.

Our goal is to be able to determine if any given way is a member of a road
route, and if that road route is National, State, Regional, tourist route
such as...

   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_(Australia)
   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_Queensland
   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_South_Australia
   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_New_South_Wales
   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_Victoria
   - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_routes_in_Tasmania
   - ...and so on


Some worldwide/geographic tagging guidelines exist, that are based on a
combination with the "network" tag: see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes

However, I can't see any clear pattern/convention of such tagging in
Australia (that would align with anything in the above wiki page). Do we
have such a guideline already that I am not aware of?

Kind regards,
A Hughes
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] MapRoulette - Propose Tag Change Based Challenges

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

I'm creating my first MapRoulette challenges as a learning exercise and
they involve simply tag edits only.

I found this vid that shows how to perform simple tag only edits in
MapRoulette https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLlvp_3l97c

Challenge is here https://maproulette.org/challenge/17664

That being said, none of the features in the video appear when I start the
challenge, nor can I find any documentation on how to create such a
challenge.

Does anyone know if/how these can be created/activated because they look
fantastic.

Cheers,
Andrew H

p.s. MapRoulette + Overpass was super easy to get working with each others,
really happy with it & now I just want to optimize the editing workflows.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Creating a Mapping Team?

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Andrew,

I don't know the terminology so this might be annoying sorry.

I'd like to discover all the changes made by "NHVR team members". I suspect
that these teams are somewhat related to the osmcha option as seen here:

[image: image.png]

What I would like to know is how can I setup a team so that our users
contributions can be discovered.

Cheers!
AH




On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 22:33, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> The organised editing guidelines at
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines should
> be followed if the whole team is working together on mapping activities in
> a coordinated way. Any questions feel free to ask.
>
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 14:30, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Would anyone be able to please point me in the right direction? I am
>> looking to learn more about mapping teams and how to create one for the
>> National Heavy Vehicle Regulator  https://www.nhvr.gov.au/
>>
>> I have looked high and low, but I can't anything.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Creating a Mapping Team?

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

Would anyone be able to please point me in the right direction? I am
looking to learn more about mapping teams and how to create one for the
National Heavy Vehicle Regulator  https://www.nhvr.gov.au/

I have looked high and low, but I can't anything.

Thanks in advance,
Andrew
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Unclassified Highway Speeds

[Andrew Hughes]

Thank you all for your contributions to this thread so far, much
appreciated!

*Please correct me if you disagree with this...*
1. So it would seem that ALL roads should be tagged with maxspeed and
assigned a numeric value (kph), where the maxspeed is known.
2. Supplementary to #1. the maxspeed:type tag also adds information of
value because it can indicate if the maxspeed is "signed" or on the basis
of it being unsigned and relative to its geographical ("AU:Urban" or
"AU:rural") location.

*Important question...*
The guidelines also suggest that the use of maxspeed = "AU:Urban" or
"AU:rural" without a maxspeed tag could indicate that this has not been
surveyed. Adding this tag (with these values) without a maxspeed is also
encouraged as it improves the data such that the maxspeed can be assumed
with far greater accuracy (50pkh/60kph NT or 100kph), and loosely indicates
the survey status.

Cheers,
AH


On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 at 11:36, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 14:58, Dian Ågesson  wrote:
>
>> Hey Andrew,
>>
>> I’m chiming in as I encountered this issue documenting the “cleaned up”
>> Roads tagging guidelines. (
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads)
>>
>>
>> The tagging guidelines (both prior to, and following cleanup) state it is
>> good practice in Australia to tag every road with a maxspeed.
>>
>> The early guidelines say that the implicit speed limits have not been
>> widely adopted in Australia, but this no longer appears to be true.
>>
> I would agree that it's good practice to tag every road with a maxspeed.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_local_legislation_if_not_bound_to_specific_objects
>  does
> seem to confirm that. Generally being more specific with your tagging
> especially when confirmed on the ground is better.
>
> Similar for surface=asphalt, it used to be the case that you wouldn't
> bother tagging this as you assume it was the case if no surface was tagged,
> but to improve data quality and to distinguish this from "yet to be
> surveyed", and with the rise of editors like iD which give you an explicit
> dropdown or checkbox and StreetComplete which asks for every feature and
> needs an explicit tag to know it's been checked on the ground, it's more
> acceptable to always tag.
>
>
>> In use is both the maxspeed:type tag and source:maxspeed tag.
>> Unfortunately, the earlier guidelines offers advice on the usage of the
>> source:maxspeed tag that is contradictory to the global page. (It suggests
>> local_knowledge to mark implicit speed limits rather than AU:urban). The
>> maxspeed:type tag does not have this contradiction.
>>
>> I am not sure if leaving the maxspeed blank (or using a non-numeric
>> value) would be a good idea; using a non numeric value in maxspeed seems to
>> be much less preferred globally than the alternative methods. I documented
>> maxspeed:type rather than source:maxspeed following a discord discussion,
>> but I believe either of those two schemes are preferable to using
>> maxspeed=AU:urban.
>>
>
> I think those are useful in addition to the maxspeed tag, as they indicate
> if the maxspeed value came from a signpost/road marking, or due to implied
> legal defaults eg in NSW residential roads are 50km/h unless otherwise
> signposted.
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Unclassified Highway Speeds

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

First, I thought the tagging guidelines were "don't tag unless it's a
non-default value" (my language to describe this might be inaccurate, feel
free to improve). If this is true, then I shouldn't tag rural ALL
roads with  maxspeed. It's only those that are "non-default".

*Can anyone please confirm the above please?*

Secondly, it does look like there is a tagging for implicit (speed) values
as per
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed#Implicit_maxspeed_values

maxspeed = AU:urban
maxspeed = AU:rural

I believe that the above is better than tagging 50kph, 60kph or 100kph -
because a change in legislation (as has happened in the past) can change is
without tags needing to be updated.

But that all being said, I would still be tagging all roads and not just
those that are "non-default" on the ground. *Which contradicts the first
point (if it is true that is).*

This feels like a distinct gap in OSM (as others have pointed out). But
this is one I would like to know how to deal with.

Perhaps area's could be tagged with maxspeed=AU:urban or maxspeed=AU:rural
to define "implicit speed areas"? I think this might be what is missing.
*Thoughts?*

Thanks for reading
AH




On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 10:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> In regard to defaults, the default 50kph Qld (Oz-wide?) urban residential
> limit should apply around here, & sure enough, most streets are 50. But we
> also have some residential streets posted as 40, 60 & 70, as well as 40
> conditional school zones.
>
> So I assume (using that terrible word! :-)) that actually tagging a speed
> limit on a road overrides the default?
>
> & while I've seen reference to Default Qld Residential speed limit on the
> map, I've also noticed while driving around that OSMAND isn't showing a
> speed limit?
>
> 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

[talk-au] Unclassified Highway Speeds

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

We're using OSM and pgrouting and it's GREAT!

Something that I have found difficult to come to terms with, is assigning a
"default speed" for unclassified roads (without a maxspeed tag). This is
because in metro area's these are most-likely to be 50kph. However, out in
regional areas these are likely to be 100kph.

*Examples:*

Unclassified Roads in Brisbane: Likely to be 50kph (default)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hLK

Unclassified Roads in Yorke Peninsula Council: Likely to be 100kph (default)
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hLL

*Question:*

What would be the best approach to achieving a more realistic speed given
the above (while also taking into consideration the tagging guidelines)?

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Michael,

Agree, roads (and other major infrastructure) will almost always be in
dedicated cadastre parcels (alternatively easments).

I raised this thread because there's vast amounts of non-spatial data
including Government Gazzetted, which related to roads and they are
typically identified by "Street Name, Suburb/Locality (and possibly LGA)".

I can't easily identify a huge number of such roads in OSM, when the roads
and located along/on boundaries. Cadastre might help, but doesn't exist in
OSM.



Fun and games, thanks for everyone's contribution to the thread thus far :)

AH

p.s. Also as a side note. Govt roads are often located where the road
"should" be. Which is of course, within the legally allotted cadastral
parcels. In many cases, the road on the ground is not within the parcel.
This is very very rare in populated areas, but out in more rural areas
these roads were initially constructed sometimes 100 years ago. They
weren't surveyed and they would work around the geography of the land as
they did the construction. Most if not all Govt datasets need to retain
topology, so roads say within their cadastre. OSM places roads where they
are on the ground so there will always be a inconsistencies between the two
for that reason.

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022, 8:11 am Michael James,  wrote:

> There is some conceptual misunderstandings with how the spatial data is
> stored by Government and how it is different to the way we store it in OSM
>
>
>
> Government data does not define a road as a line like we do rather it is
> the space between property allotments, that space is not always even and
> the road as used by cars often is much smaller then the total area.
>
>
>
> Checking my area, when a suburb boundary follows a road it is in the
> centre of the gap between the properties that are either side of the road
> and that centre line is not always the paved road that you see on the
> ground.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Dian Ågesson 
> *Sent:* Friday, 7 January 2022 9:29 PM
> *To:* Andrew Hughes 
> *Cc:* OSM Australian Talk List 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
>
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> There a few conceptual things I don't understand about how is_in would be
> implemented with regard to suburbs
>
> I'm curious; if the border of a suburb is defined by a road; does the
> border change when the road is changed? If, for some reason, the boundary
> road was moved 10m north, does the suburbs grow/shrink accordingly? Is the
> suburb border an infinitely narrow line in the "centre" of the roadway, or
> does the road sit entirely within one suburb or another? What if a lanes
> are uneven?
>
> If it is not bound to the roadway, and is instead "static" geometry, then
> you could have a situation where a road which is supposed to be the border
> is actually entirely misaligned with the legal border. Is_in doesn't cause
> these issues, but I think it may worsen individual situations by providing
> a misleading explanation about where a road actually is. I'd also be
> concerned about maintenance in growth areas where new suburbs are declared,
> etc.
>
> Dian
>
> On 2022-01-07 18:38, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Since I am only trying to define those that cannot be determined
> spatially, this sounds correct to me:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in
>
>
>
> Explanation: Yes, they do say that the use is discouraged, but that is
> purely on the basis of boundaries being used as spatial relationships. I'm
> looking at exactly when that is not possible. I wouldn't want to tag
> something that clearly has a spatial relationship (topologically correct)
> with a boundary. Then, there's not discussion aroune what to do when this
> happens, only that others still advocate its use for such a scenario.
>
>
>
> For the record, an example of why this is needed
>
>
>
> We'll have a list of roads "Evergreen Terrace, Springfield" and we'll have
> some information about the road like "Cars from Shelbyville are not
> allowed". If we can't locate these road(s) in OSM because  the topology of
> the road/suburb is inaccurate - we can't map it. Thus, either the
> topology needs fixing (which I believe is impossible and I'm not going to
> bother talking about that) or the roads on the boundary can have a tag
> which is absolute and can be used preferentially (if desired).
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> AH
>
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 09:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 20:03, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
> Hi Graeme and happy new year,
>
>How m

Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

Since I am only trying to define those that cannot be determined spatially,
this sounds correct to me: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in

Explanation: Yes, they do say that the use is discouraged, but that is
purely on the basis of boundaries being used as spatial relationships. I'm
looking at exactly when that is not possible. I wouldn't want to tag
something that clearly has a spatial relationship (topologically correct)
with a boundary. Then, there's not discussion aroune what to do when this
happens, only that others still advocate its use for such a scenario.

For the record, an example of why this is needed

We'll have a list of roads "Evergreen Terrace, Springfield" and we'll have
some information about the road like "Cars from Shelbyville are not
allowed". If we can't locate these road(s) in OSM because  the topology of
the road/suburb is inaccurate - we can't map it. Thus, either the
topology needs fixing (which I believe is impossible and I'm not going to
bother talking about that) or the roads on the boundary can have a tag
which is absolute and can be used preferentially (if desired).

Thoughts?

Cheers,
AH

On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 09:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 20:03, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
>> Hi Graeme and happy new year,
>>How much can you datamine from a suburb:left , suburb:right ? I would
>> suggest suburb polygons and street names only which would cover all
>> eventualities and allow for the change in the suburb area without having to
>> touch each road affected
>>
>
> I agree entirely & wouldn't use it myself, but was suggesting a possible
> option!
>
> I'd leave it as Sandgate Road by itself, but with 436 Sandgate Road,
> Clayfield Qld 4011, & 475 Sandgate Road, Albion Qld 4010, tagged on the
> individual buildings themselves, as they currently are.
>
> 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

[talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know
what could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or
addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs"
to can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms the
boundary of the suburb/area).

I'll leave it at that (purposely open ended).

Examples:
Suburb:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=306101556#map=17/-27.42763/153.04615
LGA:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=368601578#map=19/-27.60641/152.90991

Thanks for reading.
A Hughes
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Service Roads?

[Andrew Hughes]

Thanks All,

Graeme: naming might help, but I am not sure if they would conflict with an
official signposted name.

Dian: Interesting with the "frontage road". Yes, that is suitable but the
tagging guidelines do not have anything unique about these roads. They are
simply the standard (non _link) highway=* tags. Perhaps "service"="frontage
road" would help, but I don't know if this would collide with other
conventions.

Thanks all!





On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 22:13, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> From your description in example A, it sounds like you are describing
> frontage roads (what we would call service roads in Australia). Rather
> confusingly, the service tag isn’t the best tag for these roads;
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Frontage_road has a good explanation.
>
> Dian
>
> On 2021-11-19 15:56, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> Hi Again,
>
> With regards to service roads. I would like to know if there is a tagging
> convention that would provide a distinction between roads that appear to
> all fall under highway=service for the following examples:
>
> Example A: This is what is referred to "traditionally" as a "service road"
> (outside the OSM world that is). I'd describe it as,a minor road that is
> associated with a major road, it runs parallel to its major road
> counterpart and gives general access to the local area so that the major
> road is occupied by traffic that does not want to stop in the local area
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118171809
>
> Example B: A way (perhaps even a driveway or parking_isle?) that provides
> access to a carpark. It's not really paired with a major road and is not
> designed to "split" the local traffic from traffic passing through as per
> A  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28262128
>
>
> The main difference I feel between A and B is that A is really part of a
> major/bigger arterial way and services the local needs that the arterial
> way will not. B is not really a thoroughfare and is more in line with the
> "destination" rather than a thoroughfare. You only use the B way to
> access the carpark(s). Someone else might have a better interpretation
> however I do feel like on the ground they are very different roads and
> tagging with highway=services alone doesn't reflect that.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Andrew
>
> ___
> 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] Service Roads?

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Again,

With regards to service roads. I would like to know if there is a tagging
convention that would provide a distinction between roads that appear to
all fall under highway=service for the following examples:

Example A: This is what is referred to "traditionally" as a "service road"
(outside the OSM world that is). I'd describe it as,a minor road that is
associated with a major road, it runs parallel to its major road
counterpart and gives general access to the local area so that the major
road is occupied by traffic that does not want to stop in the local area
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118171809

Example B: A way (perhaps even a driveway or parking_isle?) that provides
access to a carpark. It's not really paired with a major road and is not
designed to "split" the local traffic from traffic passing through as per
A  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28262128


The main difference I feel between A and B is that A is really part of a
major/bigger arterial way and services the local needs that the arterial
way will not. B is not really a thoroughfare and is more in line with the
"destination" rather than a thoroughfare. You only use the B way to
access the carpark(s). Someone else might have a better interpretation
however I do feel like on the ground they are very different roads and
tagging with highway=services alone doesn't reflect that.

Thanks in advance,
Andrew
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

[Andrew Hughes]

  Thanks yet AGAIN Andrew,

I believe ...

*operator:type:government=state*

...best suits.

I can see us using wikidata for other similar situations. Thank you for
also pointing that out.

Thanks again,
Andrew


On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 07:00, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> My opinion is it's better to keep the values high level as listed at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator:type.
>
> I'd opt to instead use operator:wikidata=* to specify which government or
> government agency is the operator and use wikidata to record other details.
>
> eg. operator:wikidata=Q1735793 (Main Roads Western Australia),
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1735793 which is recorded as part of
> Government of Western Australia, which in turn is recorded as instance of
> state government.
>
> operator:wikidata can similarly be used for Local Governments, Airports,
> Ports, Forestry Corporations, private mine site operators, private retail
> companies eg https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18378048
>
> If you preferred to store this directly in OSM, then something like your
> second option operator:type:government=state could work.
>
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 03:20, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Thanks everyone,  I just learnt a whole lot.
>>
>> operator:type = private
>> operator:type = government
>>
>> Is a nice fit (thanks again Andrew).
>>
>> Now, to probably extend the question a little bit (sorry). What if I
>> tried to add more specific info about the type, for example
>>
>> operator:type=
>>
>> government:state
>> government:lga
>> government:airport
>> government:port
>> government:forestry
>> private:mine
>> private:retail
>> private:industrial
>> 
>>
>> Or coule a new key (suffix?) such as ":subtype" get used...
>>
>> operator:type:subtype=
>>
>> state
>> lga
>> airport
>> ...
>>
>>
>> Thanks for all the answers so far!
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, 9:36 pm Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 9/11/21 9:57 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>>
>>> We have a tag for this
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator:type
>>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> Housing estates are simply pieces of land that have been developed and
>>> sub divided by a 'developer' - once finished the houses are sold off and
>>> the roads, water pipes, sewage pipes, electricity supply etc etc and
>>> 'given' by the 'developer' to the respective bodies - thus the maintenance
>>> is no longer the 'developers'. The council may also require parklands, a
>>> local library as part of the development. If the community is gated then
>>> they may have to maintain things, do rubbish collection and disposal ...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 17:31, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering how I could tag ways that would indicate that they are
>>>> belonging to "non-government" - aka these are private assets and do not
>>>> belong to the public sector.
>>>>
>>>> Some examples would be ways within:
>>>>
>>>>- housing estates
>>>>- gated communities
>>>>- within an 'industrial'/'commercial' facility
>>>>
>>>> Note: this is not related to access=private that is different.
>>>>
>>>> One example:
>>>>
>>>>- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/853338244
>>>>-
>>>>
>>>> https://inpg.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/82-96_HAMPSTEAD_RD_S020_EXT_STREETSCAPE_FINAL_R-web-1920x1279.jpg
>>>>- https://inpg.com.au/project/hampstead-park/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Andrew
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing 
>>> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://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
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

[Andrew Hughes]

Thanks everyone,  I just learnt a whole lot.

operator:type = private
operator:type = government

Is a nice fit (thanks again Andrew).

Now, to probably extend the question a little bit (sorry). What if I tried
to add more specific info about the type, for example

operator:type=

government:state
government:lga
government:airport
government:port
government:forestry
private:mine
private:retail
private:industrial


Or coule a new key (suffix?) such as ":subtype" get used...

operator:type:subtype=

state
lga
airport
...


Thanks for all the answers so far!


On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, 9:36 pm Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 9/11/21 9:57 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> We have a tag for this
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator:type
>
> +1.
>
> Housing estates are simply pieces of land that have been developed and sub
> divided by a 'developer' - once finished the houses are sold off and the
> roads, water pipes, sewage pipes, electricity supply etc etc and 'given' by
> the 'developer' to the respective bodies - thus the maintenance is no
> longer the 'developers'. The council may also require parklands, a local
> library as part of the development. If the community is gated then they may
> have to maintain things, do rubbish collection and disposal ...
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 17:31, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I was wondering how I could tag ways that would indicate that they are
>> belonging to "non-government" - aka these are private assets and do not
>> belong to the public sector.
>>
>> Some examples would be ways within:
>>
>>- housing estates
>>- gated communities
>>- within an 'industrial'/'commercial' facility
>>
>> Note: this is not related to access=private that is different.
>>
>> One example:
>>
>>- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/853338244
>>-
>>
>> https://inpg.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/82-96_HAMPSTEAD_RD_S020_EXT_STREETSCAPE_FINAL_R-web-1920x1279.jpg
>>- https://inpg.com.au/project/hampstead-park/
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Andrew
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://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

[talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

I was wondering how I could tag ways that would indicate that they are
belonging to "non-government" - aka these are private assets and do not
belong to the public sector.

Some examples would be ways within:

   - housing estates
   - gated communities
   - within an 'industrial'/'commercial' facility

Note: this is not related to access=private that is different.

One example:

   - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/853338244
   -
   
https://inpg.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/82-96_HAMPSTEAD_RD_S020_EXT_STREETSCAPE_FINAL_R-web-1920x1279.jpg
   - https://inpg.com.au/project/hampstead-park/


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

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Minutely Replication Not Updating > 24hrs

[Andrew Hughes]

Thanks Andrew,

It doesn't appear that a (github) issue has been submitted yet. I'm not
sure my French would be helpful.

I have done my best with Google translate
https://github.com/osm-fr/infrastructure/issues/327

As always, thanks again Andrew!

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 10:54, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> That service is run by OpenStreetMap France, they have technical contact
> details at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/France/OSM-FR/Groupes_de_travail/Technique
> and GitHub tickets at https://github.com/osm-fr/infrastructure/issues
>
> All their replication feeds have the same issue
> https://download.openstreetmap.fr/replication/planet/minute/state.txt so
> not just australia.
>
> The primary OpenStreetMap replication feed isn't stalled
> https://planet.openstreetmap.org/replication/minute/state.txt so the
> issue is on the openstreetmap.fr side.
>
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 11:29, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> It looks like the minutely updates for Aust. stopped updating ~1am
>> yesterday (Wednesday 20th October) Brisbane Time (UTC
>> 2021-10-19T14\:54\:14Z).
>>
>> Live State:
>>
>> http://download.openstreetmap.fr/replication/oceania/australia/minute/state.txt
>>
>> At the time of writing this email the state.txt was
>>
>> #Tue Oct 19 14:54:17 UTC 2021
>> sequenceNumber=4764378
>> timestamp=2021-10-19T14\:54\:14Z
>>
>> Is anyone aware of anything related to this? Additionally, if this is a
>> problem I don't know who would be the appropriate person to bring this to
>> their attention.
>>
>> Thanks everyone for reading.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Aust. Minutely Replication Not Updating > 24hrs

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

It looks like the minutely updates for Aust. stopped updating ~1am
yesterday (Wednesday 20th October) Brisbane Time (UTC
2021-10-19T14\:54\:14Z).

Live State:
http://download.openstreetmap.fr/replication/oceania/australia/minute/state.txt

At the time of writing this email the state.txt was

#Tue Oct 19 14:54:17 UTC 2021
sequenceNumber=4764378
timestamp=2021-10-19T14\:54\:14Z

Is anyone aware of anything related to this? Additionally, if this is a
problem I don't know who would be the appropriate person to bring this to
their attention.

Thanks everyone for reading.

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Asset ID's (bridges as a priority)

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

Thanks for all the replies, very helpful. The bridge name seems very clean
cut.

The asset id, requires more research but first I will have a look into
nominatim to see how it could influence how it can play a part in locating
assets by their ID.

Thanks again, got the job done!


On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 19:47, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Thanks Andrew, great answer!
>
>
> Cheers - Phil,
> On the road with his iPad
>
> On 14 Apr 2021, at 7:40 pm, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> 
> Other replies already alluded to this, but the bridge is often mapped as
> an area like at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/604254012 with
> man_made=bridge. This allows you to tag all the attributes of the bridge
> distinct from the road way which crosses the bridge. eg. name=* and ref=*.
>
> On the main road way like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52981128 (but
> also in this case each of the cyleways that are part of the same bridge,
> the bridge reference would then be bridge:ref= as ref= would refer to the
> road reference not the bridge reference.
>
> Yes this results in duplicate information tagged on both the highway=* way
> and man_made=bridge area but it makes it easier for data consumers this
> way, otherwise you need to do spatial intersection tests.
>
> While smaller bridges won't have a man_made=bridge mapped out, over time
> as the map improves they would be added.
>
> It also helps determine, for example in the Merimbula Lake Bridge case, if
> there is one bridge that the road and cycleways share, or there is a road
> bridge and then two seperate bridges for the cycleways adjacent. Tagging
> man_made=bridge makes it clear (again through a spatial intersect) that
> there is just a single bridge, whereas without it, it would be unclear.
>
> I think the ref=* tag on man_made=bridge, and bridge:ref=* tag on
> highway=* is the way to go.
>
> Bob for your case I'd go with aeroway:ref=* for the airstrip reference,
> leaving ref=* for the road reference.
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 16:48, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've found an appropriate tag of bridge:name and have applied it to the
>> bridge:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Merimbula%20Lake%20Bridge
>>
>> But I also know this bridge has an asset id of "BID7" for the asset
>> owner. These asset id's are frequently referenced within the transport
>> industry and I believe they would be beneficial to OSM.However, I can't see
>> anyway of adding an ID to the bridge (or any other asset for that matter).
>>
>> Furthermore, being able to search by the asset id using nominatim would
>> also be highly desirable - just as searching for the bridge name works a
>> treat! So if there's any potential there it would be great.
>>
>> Any advice would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks in advance Andrew
>>
>> ___
>> 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

[talk-au] Tagging Asset ID's (bridges as a priority)

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

I've found an appropriate tag of bridge:name and have applied it to the
bridge: https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Merimbula%20Lake%20Bridge

But I also know this bridge has an asset id of "BID7" for the asset owner.
These asset id's are frequently referenced within the transport industry
and I believe they would be beneficial to OSM.However, I can't see anyway
of adding an ID to the bridge (or any other asset for that matter).

Furthermore, being able to search by the asset id using nominatim would
also be highly desirable - just as searching for the bridge name works a
treat! So if there's any potential there it would be great.

Any advice would be appreciated.

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

Thanks everyone for your feedback.

We would like the culvert to be an  'isolated' segment of road for a number
of reasons. General (light vehicle) limits are typically signed however
anything that is 'really heavy' such as a mobile crane, concrete pump or
heavy freight are assessed individually. So for us, it's important that the
culvert is identifiable so that it's not just 'somewhere' on the road
because it's not signposted - possibly mixed along segments with other
culverts. This is exactly the same as why a waterway would be isolated and
tagged with the culvert also - so that its location can be established.
Additionally, culverts can be quite wide (depending on the water body) so a
point/node is not an accurate representation - they should be ways. This
will also allow spatial relationships to be used with far greater accuracy
& application.

Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and
that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road.

Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal
structure/identification numbers. We would like to see OpenStreetMap cater
for both spatial and a-spatial relationships to external systems -
typically those in local and state government. Many of these 'external'
systems do not have a spatial component and would compliment each other
nicely.

We also feel that mapping these out in OpenStreetMap in this way would
greatly assist in the event of natural disaster. The royal commission into
bushfires last summer discussed the issue of data either not existing,
being inaccessible or not within in a national context. Placing this data
into OpenStreetMap would be a great way to show what is possible.


I hope this helps explain just a few reasons why we would like to see
culverts mapped this way.

Is there a reason why it is a bad idea to map Culverts this way?

Kind regards,
--Andrew





On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:12, cleary  wrote:

> Thanks for that info.
>
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, at 11:15 AM, Mark Pulley wrote:
> > There is flood_prone=yes that can be used for these roads - but only
> > where signposted.
> >
> > Mark P.
> >
> > > On 27 Nov 2020, at 8:19 pm, cleary  wrote:
> > >
> > > In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think
> that is a separate issue.  Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as
> floodways and I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for
> that. If so, it should be only where signposted and we should not assume
> that every place where a road crosses a stream is necessarily subject to
> flooding.
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Graeme,

Thanks for looking at these.

Your layer=-1 / layer=1 suggestion would be very suitable if we were just
looking to visualize, however our end goal is to map these in such as way
that routing responses will identify all of the assets/structures being
traversed (including culverts). I would avoid using a spatial relationship
as it is unreliable nor easy to maintain.

I should've stated that looking at either of the x2 the (road) ways I used
as examples: 783119480 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480> &
27885431 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431> it's not possible to
determine that either (specifically) traverses a culvert. Best you can
determine on  783119480 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480> is
that it traverses a "bridge" of no specific type/structure (bridge=yes).

re: splitting 27885431 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431> - only
part of the way traverses the culvert. Just like 783119480
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480> iis the traversal of the
culvert(s) only.

I really didn't want to throw out ideas - because I'm such a novice and
there's a high probability that they will be nothing but noise. But it does
seem sensible (on the surface - pardon the pun) to use bridge=culvert (like
a water course is tagged with tunnel=culvert). There's alternate
discussions around using bridge=simple_brunnel (or man_made=culvert) but
all have extremely low adoption and seem controversial.


Thanks for taking a look, much appreciated.
Andrew



On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 10:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 10:19, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>>
>> Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?
>>
>
> Sorry, got to say that I personally can't see anything "wrong" with either
> of them?
>
>>
>>- Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 :
>>   - *Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?*
>>
>> It looks like a defined bridge passing over a (probably) storm-water
> drain. The road is tagged as a bridge at layer=1. The drain could be tagged
> as -1 but I believe that's not strictly necessary.
>
>>
>>- <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677>
>>- Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480
>>   - Way needs to be split
>>   - Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with
>>   tunnel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
>>   - *Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?*
>>
>> Why does the way need to be split? On imagery, it looks like a road
> without a discernible bridge, while the drain runs under it through a
> culvert as -1, which seems to be fine?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

Apologies for the boring subject, but I'd like to talk about mapping out
Culverts on (way/highway) roads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert

The reason we would like to map these is that they influence road usage and
in particular usage for heavy vehicles. They are very much like a bridge in
that they have weight & width limits and often have conditions of use (such
as maximum speed) or considerations during natural disaster scenarios (i.e.
flooding). *Note - tagging should be on the way, not on a node.*

This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a
conclusion
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section

>From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e.
river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water
traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many scenarios.
However, it doesn't help with road usage.

We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.

Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?

   - Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 :
  - *Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?*
  
   - Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480
  - Way needs to be split
  - Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with
  tunnel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
  - *Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?*

We plan to be tagging a lot of culverts in the future, so it's important
for use to get some clarity around this for obvious reasons.

Thanks for reading & look forward to hearing your responses.
Andrew
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Working with local government

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

We expect to encounter the same problem at the NHVR if we begin to use OSM.

My (possibly unfounded) initial thoughts are based around linking the OSM &
Source feature outside OSM in something similar to a "join" table. The join
might be on attribution (id), geometry or both. Then, you have to accept
that the link/join will break and a process is needed to detect breakages
when they happen so they can be repaired (a mix of automated & manual).

Someone else might be able to comment on this with more clarity.

The way I see it, you can't stop the breakage. You have to accept it and
deal with change.

A Hughes


On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 23:10, Sebastian Spiess  wrote:

> On 9/7/20 7:52 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Jul 9, 2020, 06:50 by greg.dutkow...@gmail.com:
>
> Hi,
> Bicycle Network Tasmania are trying to improve the quality of cycling
> infrastructure information in OSM.
> Much has been done by volunteers in various jurisdictions, and we have
> done lots locally, but the tagging is quite complex for cycle paths and not
> always correct.
> Local councils are responsible for much of the infrastructure, but they
> usually have little interaction with OSM.
> It would be most efficient if the councils GIS data worked in tandem with
> OSM data so that they kept each other up to date, each storing the info
> that is most useful for them. For instance, for bike parking, there is
> little utility in OSM storing the asset numbers and other info that the
> councils use to maintain their assets (although the ref tag could be used
> as a foreign key to help keep the two in sych).
> The Hobart councils we work with are concerned with the quality of the
> data in OSM and the ability of anyone to change it.
> Does anyone know of any examples we could learn from of local government
> itself working to keep OSM data up to date?
> Thanks.
>
> One of the easiest things that local government may do is to
>
> 1) publish their datasets on an open license allowing to use it by mappers
> 2) react to reports of mistakes in their data
>
> Both work relatively well in Poland for address data - with publishing
> required by
> national law (though still ignored be many local governments)
>
> Note that (1) is useful for mappers even if data quality is unsufficient
> to import it
> into OSM. I am using a bit noisy bicycle parking in locating unmapped ones
> (often location, description and real location mismatches significantly,
> but
> almost always it allows me to find something that was missing in OSM)
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> Hi, indeed great to see you reach out.
>
> Yes I agree that a good approach is to make the data open. However, I
> understand Greg is asking if there are working concepts on how to maintain
> a link between local government GIS (which might have additional
> information) and OSM data.
>
> Once the relevant information has been entered into OSM, how is the
> council to track the data? e.g. to see if tags get modified, nodes moved,
> added.
>
> e.g. worst case is that a nicely mapped and tagged area gets re-done by
> someone. This results in new node and way numbers.
>
> A good example would be a single node gets expanded by OSM users.
>
> In both cases the data is diverging from another. How to keep track? Are
> there concepts/solutions?
>
> Yes
> ___
> 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] OSM Way & Govt Street (centerline) Correlation, how?

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Again Everyone,

Thanks for your replies, very helpful. I'm trying not to elaborate too much
on what we hope to one day achieve... more appropriate for a meet-up than
mailing list.

I think I can conclude that aligning the two isn't a realistic expectation
and even if we did partially achieve it, it will always sit in as a "race
condition" with the edits of other users - possibly because the Govt geom
is actually "less correct".

Matching algorithms could be a useful QA tool for us, but I'm very doubtful
that they could be the gatekeeper/authority we require.

This will change our tactics and raise other questions... something I will
take up on another thread.

Thanks everyone for your help, much appreciated - look forward to speaking
with you next!

Andrew Hughes

p.s. Apologies to Andrew Harvey... two Andrew H's in here and he was here
first. Maybe I need to use an Alias :)



On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 08:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Andrew
>
> Just reading a discussion on the Tagging list that included this post
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/053895.html,
> which includes
>
> "So far all I have is a "toy" application that uses Valhalla to generate a 
> route given a start and
> stop lat/lon. The eventual goal is to leverage OSM information (buildings and 
> their tags, POI's and their tags) to
> automatically select start and stop points in order to generate *lots* of 
> routes, and to then
> feed that into SUMO for kinematic simulation."
>
> I've got to say that means not much at all to me, but it may to you?
>
> May be worthwhile you contacting the author, *Matthew Woehlke* mwoehlke.floss
> at gmail.com
> 
> & talking transport to each other? :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OSM Way & Govt Street (centerline) Correlation, how?

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

Thanks for your responses. I'd love to speak more about our scenario but
I'd end up writing a 10 page email. I'm not joking. Maybe theres a virtual
meetup or something like that?

Continuing with the thread of conversation...

When I say "correlation", we really like to know that a satisfactory amount
of (Govt) gazetted roads exist is OSM. If we could identify missing roads
that would be ideal.

Everyones responses have been very insightful. It would seem possible to
geographically align (albeit temporarily) OSM and gazetted roads, but only
practiable with "simple" roads. The granularity I encountered comparing
Govt and OSM data were worlds apart in populated areas where roads are more
complex (which is exactly what Andrew said). Expecting OSM to align with
Gazetted roads would be an exercise in dramatically downgrading OSM data.

A "map match algorithm" might be helpful but only to a point.

I don't believe this is a blocker for OSM within the NHVR. It simply means
we have to approach this from another angle.

Thanks for everyones responses while I get up to speed.

Andrew Hughes



On Tue, 7 Jul. 2020, 7:31 pm Andrew Harvey, 
wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> Just to add what others have said already,
>
> > OSM adoption is largely dependent on a minimum correlation between the
> OSM ways and the streets found in Government centerline/road datasets
> (States and/or LGAs)
>
> Could you elaborate on what exactly you mean by that or what specifically
> you're aiming to achieve?
>
> For example could you use a map matching algorithm to match OSM data to
> other road network data but since there will always be differences between
> multiple datasets that's never going to be perfect.
>
> Graeme mentioned on/off ramps, but more generally there could be
> differences in how the centerline is represented. For example, OSM splits
> ways where there is a physical separation, so you might find other datasets
> just have one centerline, but OSM would have two parallel ways for each
> direction. The transition between these two modes is never ideal either.
> This isn't saying one is necessarily wrong but rather have different
> guidelines on where the line should be drawn.
>
> The other consideration is that most states we only have access to GPS or
> satellite imagery to derive road geometries from so the geometry accuracy
> in OSM isn't necessarily as great as survey grade data.
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:00, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> First time poster and very new to OSM so please feel free to throw
>> anything at me you think I should educate myself on.
>>
>> I'm currently the GIS Lead at the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator
>> (HNVR). We're very serious about adopting OSM for some of our needs.
>> However, our OSM adoption is largely dependent on a minimum correlation
>> between the OSM ways and the streets found in Government centerline/road
>> datasets (States and/or LGAs).
>>
>> Q: Would anyone be able to provide me with some insight as to what we
>> might expect when looking to achieve the correlation we need? Please be
>> aware, our intent is to contribute and "close the gap" but we need to know
>> if/how this can best be done in a cohesive way within the OSM community. *I'm
>> also aware there may be licensing issues, please overlook these for now.*
>>
>> The NHVR are quite serious about what it hopes to achieve in the next 12
>> -24 months through GIS and we are very enthusiastic to learn and contribute
>> to OSM. I hope to be speaking with you a lot more in the near future.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Andrew Hughes
>>
>> ___
>> 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] OSM Way & Govt Street (centerline) Correlation, how?

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

First time poster and very new to OSM so please feel free to throw anything
at me you think I should educate myself on.

I'm currently the GIS Lead at the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (HNVR).
We're very serious about adopting OSM for some of our needs. However, our
OSM adoption is largely dependent on a minimum correlation between the OSM
ways and the streets found in Government centerline/road datasets (States
and/or LGAs).

Q: Would anyone be able to provide me with some insight as to what we might
expect when looking to achieve the correlation we need? Please be aware,
our intent is to contribute and "close the gap" but we need to know if/how
this can best be done in a cohesive way within the OSM community. *I'm also
aware there may be licensing issues, please overlook these for now.*

The NHVR are quite serious about what it hopes to achieve in the next 12
-24 months through GIS and we are very enthusiastic to learn and contribute
to OSM. I hope to be speaking with you a lot more in the near future.

Thanks in advance,
Andrew Hughes
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au