Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests

[Brendan Barnes]

A relevant open source dataset would be Vicmap Lite - Public Land
Classification Polygon (CC-BY 4.0 with waiver)
https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-6WFVT7Kbk2STaCyQsxWl8CiRaic Note
Vicmap Lite already has softwood plantation polygons on public land.

Public Land Management PLM25 (CC-BY)
https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-NWpWstpxTV460Xf5VoZa2BDVN3 is a
great product to look at, however I don't believe we have a waiver for
DELWP datasets that might include non-Vicmap (waivered) products within the
dataset. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 17:07, Little Maps  wrote:

> Thanks folks, I’ll use just leisure=nature_reserve, as suggested.
> landuse=forest will probably only be needed for plantations now I guess.
> Ewen, many of the OSM State Forest boundaries in Vic are ‘guesstimate’
> boundaries that were first mapped many years ago. Some are really rough and
> very approximate. The Wombat SF boundary includes lots of obvious private
> land in many places. At least it’s a lot easier to see the problems when
> the admin boundary is mapped separately from the vegetation patterns, after
> landuse=forest is replaced by nature reserve and a separate wood layer.
> Thanks again all, best wishes for 2024, Ian
> ___
> 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] New tags for Vic State Forests

[Brendan Barnes]

Agree with Andrew that perhaps leave off boundary=protected_area for now,
until further clarification is received.

Looking at the DPC media releases, budget changes were announced
https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/delivering-certainty-timber-workers and
VicForests had a similar statement at the time
https://www.vicforests.com.au/publications-media/latest-news/vicforests-statement-regarding-native-timber-harvesting
and modified their Timber Release Plan to align to the cessation date.
However I can't find yet if any specific legislation has been passed to
alter the current state of the State Forest protections or boundaries on
Crown land.

I agree landuse=forest should be removed from the State Forest boundaries
in general, however will still be needed for "farm forests" plantation
timber on private land (landuse=forest, operator=VicForests,
produce=timber).

Always agree that vegetation mapping should be separate to administrative
boundary mapping :)


On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 12:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Sounds good to me!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 11:15, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
>
>> I would leave off boundary=protected_area until they have IUCN
>> Categories assigned. It doesn't add any more information than
>> leisure=nature_reserve.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:52 AM Little Maps  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all, landuse=forest is widely used to denote State Forests in OSM,
>> due to legislated landuse of timber harvesting. However, from 1 Jan this
>> year, timber harvesting is now banned in all native forests in Victoria, so
>> the problematic landuse=forest tag is no longer appropriate.
>> >
>> > I’m seeking feedback on the most appropriate tag to use now. Down the
>> track, individual decisions will be made on conservation / recreation /
>> Indigenous management priorities in each reserve. In the interim, are there
>> any objections to replacing landuse=forest with the following tags…
>> >
>> > boundary=protected_area
>> > leisure=nature_reserve
>> >
>> > plus name tags etc, and mapping separate natural=wood etc boundaries as
>> needed. Among other advantages, getting rid of landuse=forest will make
>> vegetation mapping a lot simpler in State Forests in Vic.  Cheers Ian
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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 mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Parks Victoria - Volunteering Innovation Fund open till 3 October

[Brendan Barnes]

Hi all,

The Volunteering Innovation Fund is a key new initiative under the
Victoria’s Great Outdoors Program, which seeks to get more Victorians, from
all walks of life outdoors enjoying nature.

Funding is available for a broad range of innovative volunteering projects
on Victorian Crown land that benefit heritage and cultural values and
improve the natural environment. Projects should:
* invite more Victorians to volunteer in and for the environment
* have the ability to leave a legacy (can be
continued/expanded/extended/re-invigorated in the future); and
* be a new method, idea, item, event or service.

If anyone is interested in putting together a proposal involving OSM
volunteers mapping Victorian crown land, or develop a new volunteer service
which leverages OSM data, please let me know.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

[Brendan Barnes]

Great feedback Alex! Always great working with government on projects.

It's a two-way street. If agencies have spatial datasets to share, they
should consider publishing on https://data.sa.gov.au/ with an ODbL
compatible licence, or CC-BY-4.0 with waiver.

The more data they provide for common good, the more the OSM community can
map with them.


On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 11:37, Alex Sims  wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> I’m at the EMSINA (Emergency Management Spatial Information
> Network Australia) PDP day as part of AFAC (Australasian Fire and
> Emergency Service Authorities Council) 2022 Conference in Adelaide and
> finding a few “OpenStreetMap used here”.
>
>
>
> Feedback from participants I’ve spoken to:
>
>- The price is right, free!
>- Good coverage of health facilities
>
>
>
> Uses of OpenStreetMap I’ve not noticed before, mainly background maps
>
>- Find a police station (SA Police)
>https://www.police.sa.gov.au/about-us/find-your-local-police-station
>(via ESRI)
>
>
>
> And oddly an attribution where OpenStreetMap is credited but its SA
> government mapping
>
>- Bus Stop location map https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/stops?id=16490
>
>
>
> My own observation and I suppose the reason I’m here is there are plenty
> of users of our mapping but not much feedback from users as to what they
> want, which we are probably willing to map.
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Declared Hazardous Areas in Vic

[Brendan Barnes]

Hi all,

I've noticed these signs in Victorian Alpine areas
https://kartaview.org/map/@-36.897592376139094,147.06169030221406,16z

And on a quick online seach came up with
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/licences/licence-and-permit-types/authority-to-drive-in-hazardous-areas

Would a tag to represent such roads be expressed something like:

bus:conditional = permit @ Jun-Oct
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Recommended CB radio channel for road

[Brendan Barnes]

Absolutely agree with you Bob. I'm just talking about specific "hazardous"
roads where the jurisdiction's Roads Authority has put up a permanent sign
advising road users to operate on a specific channel for that road. I'm
cognizant not to encourage use of 5/35, unless in an emergency.

And Graeme thanks for the research! I'll have a think and do a little Any
Tags You Like on the first road. Probably a bit too early for any formal
tagging guidelines proposal at this stage. I'll tag Great Alpine Road soon,
and see if it evolves to other roadways with verifiable CB signage.


On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 13:22, Bob Cameron  wrote:

> Keep in mind to also not run afoul with legislation. That might seem to be
> about emergency use (UHF 5/35) or telemetry (UHF 22-23), but using simplex
> on the input frequencies of UHF repeaters (31-38 & 71-78) that one is
> within the operational range of is not allowed. Many contract roadwork
> gangs for example use these and jam repeaters up.
>
> There are also roadsigns out in country areas that suggest 5/35 for
> general information rather than the legislated "emergency use only".
>
> Suggesting one be careful creating features that specify these channels.
>
>
> On 22/3/22 10:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 18:42, Brendan Barnes  wrote:
>
>>
>> Other than a one-off traffic_sign=*, is there a relational way to advise
>> which CB radio channel to use on a specific road?
>>
>
> Interesting idea, Brendan!
>
> I've often thought it would be a handy thing to have, rather than just
> working on the standby of 18 / 40 for caravans, + 29, but which then
> changes depending on the highway you're travelling.
>
> For example, Great Alpine Road advises users to operate on UHF 29
>> (verifiable at https://kartaview.org/details/3545149/1056/track-info)
>> and I was just curious to see if that data has ever been mapped before.
>>
>
> As far as I can see, no, it hasn't?
>
> I can find a few mentions of "radio" & such like, but they're not what
> we're talking about here:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:communication:radio
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:communication:amateur_radio
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Communications
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/radio_communication
>
> TI isn't much help either:
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=radio
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/communication%3Aradio#values
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/radio_frequency#values
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/communication%3Acb_radio#values
>
> So lot's of negative results :-(
>
> Maybe modify https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:communication:radio
> so that it's not just talking about radio towers, but also other types of
> radio comms?
>
> then possibly have something like
> communication:radio=CB + CB_channel=*, possibly attached to the relation
> for the particular highway you're on?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> ___
> 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] Recommended CB radio channel for road

[Brendan Barnes]

Hi all,

Other than a one-off traffic_sign=*, is there a relational way to advise
which CB radio channel to use on a specific road?

For example, Great Alpine Road advises users to operate on UHF 29
(verifiable at https://kartaview.org/details/3545149/1056/track-info) and I
was just curious to see if that data has ever been mapped before.

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

Re: [talk-au] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Brendan Barnes]

I do see on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Motorway_with_lanes_and_destinations,
at least in a motorway context, it is to be mapped as one way until there
is a physical separation, which at that point it separates into separate
ways. Although it specifically describes motorways, I don't see why the
same style wouldn't apply to primary and lesser-grade roads (but please
correct me if I've missed something!)

Also on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway it says don't
map as two carriageways if it's just a paint or other non-physical barrier.

But I'm keen to hear some clarification on the mapping style. In the past,
I myself used to branch-off right turn lanes as their own way. But back
then it seemed to be the abundant style in the Australian areas which I
contributed, so I just continued mapping the same way.

If the "no separate way for painted turn lanes" is the agreed style for the
community, I'm happy to assist in fixing some. But it will be a lot of work
to standardise, and ensure the many complex intersection relations are
preserved.


On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 16:33, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'd like some assistance resolving a disagreement I'm involved with
> regarding the correct mapping of dual carriageways at intersections. I have
> previously mentioned this topic on the mailing list here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html
> 
> .
>
> To summarise briefly, a very active contributor prefers to model dual
> carriageway intersections in a manner that I don't believe is correct.
>
> Turn lanes are split from main carriageways at the start of the new turn
> lane, then cross over each other in an "X" shape, rather than a Box shape
> that I've seen documented. (Examples, because I am bad at explaining: Burwood
> Hwy/Mountain Hwy , Smith
> St/Dandenong Rd , 
> Burwood
> Hwy/Dorset Rd , Princes
> Hwy/William Rd )
> Additional highways are introduced for left hand turns where there is no
> physical separation (eg, Mt Dandenong Tourist Rd/Mountain Highway
> , Greville St
> N/Sturt St , Glenleith
> St/Church St ). This
> editor has been an extremely active contributor for many, many years: I
> found these examples by just zooming in on a given town or suburb, found
> intersection that was modelled this way, and checked the history to confirm
> the source.
>
> I initially engaged with the user in September (111051481
> ), and after some initial
> delay, we have engaged in a productive conversation
> 
> since. To the user's credit, they have been patient and understanding in
> our interactions, and have made adjustments to their mapping style based on
> my feedback. Unfortunately, we have reached a fundamental point of
> disagreement , and I
> don't believe further changeset discussions are going to be productive.
>
> I'm now a little too close to this discussion to be objective, and I would
> really appreciate some assistance with this disagreement. Due to the
> extraordinary output of this user, simply avoiding editing in similar areas
> isn't going to be practical. But am I incorrect in my assessment of
> intersection modelling? Is this a question of style, or of accuracy?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Dian.
> ___
> 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] People's views on naming on and off ramps.

[Brendan Barnes]

Yeah I see this a lot, too. I think the global tagging standards for
motorway_junction and motorway_link would suffice for the Aussie context
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_link

Ie a name tag for the motorway_junction *only* if the junction or
interchange is named. No name tag necessary for motorway_link. Destination
tag and lane tagging goes really well here.


On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, 12:15 Andrew Davidson,  wrote:

> It appears that people like to make up names for on and off ramps. By
> made up I mean the "names" don't appear on other maps nor are they
> signed. Normally I just don't pay attention to them but we have a note:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3064262
>
> asking what "name" should be on an off-ramp and I don't know what the
> answer is.
>
> Do people have a view on how these should be mapped? Are they something
> we should be using the destination tagging for rather than using names?
> Could we come up with some words to go in the guidelines?
>
> ___
> 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] Driver-Reviver?

[Brendan Barnes]

Yeah good idea to write these down. Just say due to their temporary nature
they are not mapped.

They could be mapped in the future if the amenity had regular opening hours.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022, 09:55 Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
wrote:

> Thanks everybody!
>
> The closest to here is an actual hut rather than a van, but yes, it only
> operates on long weekends, the first & last weekends of school holidays &
> times like that.
>
> I'll leave the one I spotted just as a Rest Area.
>
> Is it worthwhile including a note in the Guidelines to NOT map D-R stops?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 at 19:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> NSW
>>
>> Better off making your own or a proper cafe. In short - well intended
>> but not worth the bother.
>>
>> They are only present during 'holiday peaks' ... not certain if they are
>> always at the same locations.
>>
>> On 26/2/22 16:01, cleary wrote:
>> > Perhaps others have different perceptions but the driver reviver places
>> I've seen in NSW operated only for limited hours on certain days such as
>> until mid-afternoon on weekends and public holidays.  I was so disappointed
>> that I have not stopped at one for a while.  I do not recall any food being
>> available and the coffee was undrinkable (by me, at least) - I recall a
>> hot-water urn and tin of coffee powder on one occasion. Unless you can add
>> days and hours of operation and be clear about what is offered, I would be
>> reluctant to map them.  The ones I have seen are not permanent and are
>> often just vans that are parked at the locations for a few hours. Anyone
>> expecting a "cafe" would be very disappointed.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, 26 Feb 2022, at 12:34 PM, Dian Ågesson wrote:
>> >> Perhaps a simple food=yes on highway=rest_area?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2022-02-26 11:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Just spotted one of these on a Note.
>> >>>
>> >>> Do we map them at all, & if so how?
>> >>>
>> >>> Cafe perhaps, possibly together with rest-area?
>> >>>
>> >>> 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] "Bad" directions on Outback roads

[Brendan Barnes]

Thanks Graeme, I'll just tweak your brackets a little to be a valid tag:

vehicle:conditional=no @ (Dec-Apr "Road is generally impassable during the
wet season - seek local knowledge")

My only feedback would be an explicit conditional=*no* should only be used
if there's signage or other evidence to support no general public access
for those months each year.

If there's consensus seasonal roads should be tagged as such, I'm happy to
write something up in the Australian tagging guidelines.


On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 09:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 08:25,  wrote:
>
>>
>> The challenge with specifying months is the "wet"/"dry" season is it is
>> not always fixed.
>>
>
> True, but if we modify Brendan's suggestion a bit to:
>
> vehicle:conditional=no @ Dec-Apr ("Road is generally impassable during
> the wet season - seek local knowledge")
>
>  that "should" (?) stop routers from going along it, but when you stop at
> the servo & ask if the road to Burketown is open, they'll be able to say
> yes / no.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Bad" directions on Outback roads

[Brendan Barnes]

Yep opening_hours was approved for ways, and an example given was for
summer-only roads
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:opening_hours#Voting_addon_.22way.22

Whilst opening_hours is popular on amenities, the tag really doesn't seem
to get much usage on highway tags. Perhaps wrapping it in an
access:conditional works better for highways? As a benefit, conditional
tags can provide a lot more states, eg:

vehicle:conditional=discouraged @ (Dec-Apr "Road is gnerally impassable
during the wet season")

On doing a little more research, opening_hours.js script used by popular
generators and validators throw an error on the opening_hours formatting
being months only eg May-Nov and it expects May-Nov 00:00-24:00 or a
comment
https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/?EXP=May-Nov%2000%3A00-24%3A00

Mapping complex tagging for routing engines to parse will always be a
chicken-and-egg situation. But I suppose build it and they will come (or
route around it in this case).


On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 16:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> Thanks, fellas! It's not an utterly stupid idea then!
>
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 14:46, Brendan Barnes  wrote:
>
>>
>> If a road has definitive closure dates we might be able to utilise
>> opening_hours. I tried to start something similar on Victorian Alps
>> seasonal road closures, for example
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105842220. However these closures are
>> usually described something like "closed to vehicles from Queens Birthday
>> weekend to Cup Weekend" and are proving difficult to describe in OSM tag
>> format without having to upload new dates each year.
>>
>
> I've been mapping Surf Life Saving clubs with:
>
> opening_hours=Sep-Apr Sa-Su 08:00-17:00, which seems to work?
>
> Would just opening_hours=May-Nov work?
>
> I know a lot of the roads in Cape York Peninsula are only open during the
> "dry" season, but not sue how they're tagged, if they are at all?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Bad" directions on Outback roads

[Brendan Barnes]

Absolutely Steva. Better routers make better decisions.

But yeah Graeme, my preference would be a router to read live GeoJSON
sources, for the most accurate "what's happening on the ground right now"
when considering traffic hazards. This is (relatively) easier for websites
and smartphone apps than simple car head units.

Baking seasonal hints into OSM, such as access:conditional=seasonal @
(dry_season) (or similar - I'm sure there's a better way) can definitely be
done. However we need to consider a lot of factors, such as are these
definitely closed reliably each season and by enforced signage, or are
closures subject to the prevailing weather conditions.

If a road has definitive closure dates we might be able to utilise
opening_hours. I tried to start something similar on Victorian Alps
seasonal road closures, for example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105842220. However these closures are
usually described something like "closed to vehicles from Queens Birthday
weekend to Cup Weekend" and are proving difficult to describe in OSM tag
format without having to upload new dates each year.


On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 15:18, stevea  wrote:

> On Feb 8, 2022, at 8:08 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
> > Do routers "read" such things as flood-prone, intermittent & seasonal?
>
> My "quick, off-the-cuff" answer would be:  "better routers SHOULD."  The
> real answer is very much "check your particular router."
> ___
> 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] "Bad" directions on Outback roads

[Brendan Barnes]

Some jurisdictions do publish live traffic updates in GeoJSON, examples:

   - https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/live-traffic-hazards
   -
   
https://www.data.qld.gov.au/dataset/131940-traffic-and-travel-information-geojson-api

Note a lot of these API feeds are licenced CC-BY, so downstream consumers
would need to comply with attribution requirements when synthesising OSM
and live traffic datasets.


On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 14:35, Michael Collinson  wrote:

> We have a reasonable if not perfect tagging system for a router to assess
> (and make assumptions) about the quality of a road for various types of
> vehicle in BEST CASE  conditions. motorway versus track, tracktype, asphalt
> versus gravel being the main ones.
>
> From a router point of view it would be nice to dynamically place routing
> penalties on roads or stretches of road according to temperature, snow,
> rain, side wind (and ?). Simplistically, input "snow" and pick up from OSM
> tags advising "often impassable in snow" or "snow chains advised in winter"
> and then the router can decide how much penalty to apply given projected
> conditions and vehicle type.
>
> Sounds reasonably simple to devise and implement. I've played mentally
> with the same idea for suggesting footpath routes that vary depending on
> the weather.
>
> More esoterically and more real time would be a community project to
> develop an open overlay database of transient data where the public and/or
> authorities can label osm ways with advisories quantitative enough for
> routers to again assess a routing penalty. The obvious starting point would
> be a simply "closed".
>
>
> Mike
> On 9/2/22 1:17 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Reading this article earlier:
>
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-08/google-maps-to-fix-routes-trapped-travellers-queensland/100805884
>
> So what's the best way to avoid the same issues?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> 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] Parks Victoria Volunteering Innovation Fund now open

[Brendan Barnes]

Hi Victorian Mappers,

ParksVic Round 3 Volunteering Innovation Fund is now open for applications,
closing 10 January.

ParksVic are looking to fund community-led projects that consider new ways
of volunteering in and for the environment in Victoria. More information is
available at
https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/get-into-nature/volunteering/volunteering-innovation-fund

I was thinking that the OpenStreetMap project is a unique and new way for
volunteers to get involved in our parks. There could be a broad-range of
activities, from hosting map-a-thons, to surveying walking trails, to
recording imagery of vehicle tracks.

There's an online information session tomorrow lunch, details on their
website.

Should anyone be interested in collaborating on an OSM submission, please
get in touch via direct email.

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

Re: [talk-au] Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

[Brendan Barnes]

Hey John,

The Legal Eagles of the OSMF Licence Working Group continue to ask for
explicit permission (ie waiver) for CC BY 4.0. The rationale is at
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

You can reach them via their contact details at
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group for any
clarifications, but it appears they have already assessed the wording in CC
BY 4.0.

I know waivers can be difficult to obtain, and government entities may have
internal red tape or few resources available to supply one to the OSM
community. However it's in everyone's best interest, and once we have a
waiver on file for the agencies' datasets, they are good to use
indefinitely.

..Brendan


On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 15:53, John Luan  wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> Had a look at this license
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
>
> Do we really need a waiver from the data provider?  something like this
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/1/17/AADC_CC-BY_Permission_JK_signed.pdf
>
> My feeling is that as long as we list the data provider on the contributor
> list, it should be fine.
>
> Regards,
> John
> ___
> 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] M11 naming

[Brendan Barnes]

Unfortunately the Major Road Projects Victoria website is not compatible
with the ODbL, as "no part may be reproduced or used for any commercial
purposes whatsoever". The press release on their site has no other
licencing information, so we should treat it as copyright and not use it as
a source for OSM data.

The Engage Victoria website is CC BY 4.0 (State of Victoria (Department of
Premier and Cabinet)), but unfortunately we don't have a waiver for.

To ensure data in our database is sourced correctly, we need to collect
street naming from on-the-ground surveys, compatible imagery providers, and
any other compatible licence sources.


On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 00:07, Adam Horan  wrote:

> The existing southern end of this road which was known through
> construction as 'Peninsula Link', and is mapped as such now, should
> probably also be called 'Mornington Peninsula Freeway.'
> See relation
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12622680#map=12/-38.1791/145.1193
> and ways within.
> Here is a VicRoads doc referring to upgrades on the southern part, and
> calling it Mornington Peninsula Freeway https://engage.vic.gov.au/mpfu
> However roadsigns along the road seem to call it Peninsula Link still.
>
> re the Mordialloc end - the project page is clear that *"The 9km long
> Mordialloc Freeway connects the Mornington Peninsula Freeway in Aspendale
> Gardens to the Dingley Bypass in Dingley Village..."*
> https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/projects/mordialloc-freeway
> The press release for opening it calls it Mordialloc Freeway
> https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/news/mordialloc-freeway-open
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 22:51, Brendan Barnes  wrote:
>
>> Nice work from the community surveying and mapping so quickly since early
>> opening.
>>
>> There's no KartaView imagery of the extension, and Mapillary isn't
>> loading for me right now, so it's hard to weigh-in as an armchair mapper.
>>
>> On sampling some of the ways (example
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/913115111), both name=* and
>> official_name=* appear to be sourced correctly and follow the "map what's
>> on the ground" good practice.
>>
>> My only suggestion would be alt_name=* being the same as official_name=*
>> is probably redundant.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 21:11, Dian Ågesson  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There has been a flurry of activity in South-East Melbourne surrounding
>>> the opening of the brand new M11 extension. Unfortunately, it seems as
>>> though sources vary on the name of this new section of road.
>>>
>>> The construction has been heavily advertised and promoted as the
>>> 'Mordialloc Freeway'. That is the name of the road on Vicnames as well.
>>>
>>> Every roadsign I've seen in the area though uses 'Mornington Peninsula
>>> Freeway'. Wikipedia (currently) uses that name as well, but the editors
>>> there seem unsure what to call it as well.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Dian
>>> ___
>>> 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 mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Enriching OpenStreetMap with open data

[Brendan Barnes]

That was an informative session. John, thanks for presenting!

If anyone has other OSM-based presentations, feel free to let the list
know. Cheers.


On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 16:41, John Luan  wrote:

> Hi Map Fans,
>
> Just a reminder, tonight at 7pm Melbourne time. A meetup for how to enrich
> osm with open data.
>
> https://www.intelematics.com/events/enriching-openstreetmap-with-open-data/
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 10:15, John Luan  wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> There is a virtual meetup session for openstreetmap data contribution.
>>
>>
>> https://www.intelematics.com/events/enriching-openstreetmap-with-open-data/
>>
>> Regards,
>> John
>>
> ___
> 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] Unconnected ways

[Brendan Barnes]

We've previously used proposed tag fuzzy=[metres] for other "non track"
routes, which may be of assistance.


On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 14:36, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> More inclined to use description=invisible route on beach sand.
> On 26/11/21 2:12 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>
> Possibly path=link?
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Harvey 
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, 26 November 2021 12:34
> *To:* Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* OSM Australian Talk List 
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
>
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 11:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it
> is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no.
>
>
>
> Agreed, and while I still don't think it's perfect, it's probably the best
> compromise at the moment.
>
>
>
> You could also add informal=yes
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] M11 naming

[Brendan Barnes]

Nice work from the community surveying and mapping so quickly since early
opening.

There's no KartaView imagery of the extension, and Mapillary isn't loading
for me right now, so it's hard to weigh-in as an armchair mapper.

On sampling some of the ways (example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/913115111), both name=* and
official_name=* appear to be sourced correctly and follow the "map what's
on the ground" good practice.

My only suggestion would be alt_name=* being the same as official_name=* is
probably redundant.


On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 21:11, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There has been a flurry of activity in South-East Melbourne surrounding
> the opening of the brand new M11 extension. Unfortunately, it seems as
> though sources vary on the name of this new section of road.
>
> The construction has been heavily advertised and promoted as the
> 'Mordialloc Freeway'. That is the name of the road on Vicnames as well.
>
> Every roadsign I've seen in the area though uses 'Mornington Peninsula
> Freeway'. Wikipedia (currently) uses that name as well, but the editors
> there seem unsure what to call it as well.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Dian
> ___
> 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] Proposed features/Snow chains

[Brendan Barnes]

Hi all,

For the NSW and Victorian snowfield mappers, user Trapicki has submitted a
comprehensive snow chains proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Snow_chains

A lot of Aussie chain bays are (incorrectly) tagged as parking lots, so
proposed tags may be useful.

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

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[Brendan Barnes]

Thanks Ian, I was getting lost in all the Forestry datasets! Cheers.

Unfortunately I'm also unclear as to whether we have permission to use
these. If a CC-BY-4.0 dataset is "derived" from a base layer, and we have
permission for that base layer, is permission inherited? That is assuming
the "VMPROP" product listed is "Vicmap Property", of course. Two
assumptions made just then.

@Andrew Harvey , or anyone else familiar with our
requirements, is it worthwhile revisiting the Vicmap waiver to get clarity
on Vicmap derivatives?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf

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

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

[Brendan Barnes]

On the topic, does anyone know which Vicmap dataset (or any other
licence-compatible dataset) has Victorian State Forest boundaries?

I happened to be looking for this myself this week. Thank you.


On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 13:01, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Exactly as Ian's said. We have permission to use Vicmap CC BY data, you
> can search on https://www.data.vic.gov.au/. It looks like a few state
> forest and public land data is available.
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, 12:08 pm Little Maps,  wrote:
>
>> Hi all, can I offer a different spin on this - interested to hear
>> feedback. I think the question of whether we have permission to use
>> MapShare is inappropriate.  (And hence the original changeset comment is
>> inaccurate). MapShare is just a data portal. We have permission to use a
>> number of Vic gov datasets in OSM, as listed on the permissions waiver wiki
>> (eg the roads dataset). The Vic gov provides these datasets to the public
>> in a range of ways, including as GIS datasets, on the MapShare page and the
>> VicNames register, amongst others.
>>
>>
>> Hence we have explicit permission to use *some* of the data that is shown
>> on the MapShare site (roads, POI, etc), but not all of it. Similarly, we
>> have permission to use some of the data shown on the VicNames register, but
>> not everything that is shown on the register.
>>
>>
>> This makes it really hard for users to judge which info we can and can’t
>> use, but there’s probably not a simple way around that. The key question
>> here, imo, is whether we have permission to use the dataset that contains
>> the State Forests boundaries.
>>
>>
>> If we do, then the data could be accessed through Mapshare or any other
>> means. If we don’t, then the official boundaries can’t be obtained from any
>> available source. That’s how I interpret it, but I’m basing this
>> interpretation off the fact that we need to seek permission to use each
>> dataset, not the portal it is obtained from. Hope that makes sense. Curious
>> to hear how others view things. Thanks for raising the question Andrew.
>> Cheers Ian
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Path discussion tagging guidelines

[Brendan Barnes]

Hi all,

There's been great discussion over the past few weeks about cycling and/or
footpath tagging. Personally, it's been hard to keep up with all the
messages.

Does the tagging guidelines wiki reflect a summary of what has recently
been discussed?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Footpaths_and_Cycleways

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

Re: [talk-au] Monitoring admin boundaries Was: Re: Mapping tree cover

[Brendan Barnes]

There's some very smart people working on OSM. Thanks for being on top of
this issue already :)


> It might be worth having a service that reports on when and how much an
> admin boundary changes in OSM to let other mappers have a chance to
> check if this is a real change or an oops.
>

If such a service was ever produced in the future (and I know it's a lot of
work), could admin boundary state datasets be included eg Vicmap Parkres,
not just PSMA.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Brendan Barnes]

Regarding bushfires, some tagging syntax was discussed at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Dwood#Burned_Woodland
a few years ago.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Brendan Barnes]

Our mappers "map what's on the ground" and use "one feature, one OSM
element". I agree as OSM matures and the detail of these remote areas is
surveyed, we should be distinctly mapping natural features vs
administrative boundaries as separate entities. I've helped with detailing
natural areas in the Victorian Alps, and I can say unpicking natural tags
from administrative boundaries is a lot of work! (and prone to accidentally
breaking the odd poly or two in the process, sorry about that)!

It's worth the effort though, and we end up with detailed outdoor maps like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-37.1194/146.6790 Also, we used to
have one massive natural=wood polygon stretching hundreds of kilometres
from the outskirts of Melbourne up to the NSW border, which meant any
breakages during editing would lose half a state's worth of tree cover.
Chunking this down into several polys has made localised natural features
detailing far more manageable for editors.

On the topic of natural features, can anyone advise the recommended largest
size on what a multipolygon can be? I remember some editors and renderers
used to struggle with thousands of members in the relation, but I can't
seem to find the recommended maximum anymore
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11101

You can also use Overpass Turbo to query natural features, eg
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bRC

Regarding administrative boundaries, developers, is it possible for the
ones that were imported many years ago to be re-validated somehow? Some
form of scheduled script to check that the OSM data still matches the
official open source dataset to prevent editing drift?

..Brendan

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 16:35, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On 8/10/21 2:17 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd  wrote:
>
>> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
>> able to find out what they are thinking?
>>
> If you're using the default iD editor, select a feature, then in the
> bottom left there is a link to view on OSM, which shows in the left panel
> who changed it last, but you can select "View history" at the bottom of the
> panel to see what and who changed it.
>
>
> Or, when looking at openstreetmap.org, click the "Query features" arrow,
> then click somewhere in the Grampians, for example
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=-37.20902=142.51812
> Under Enclosing features, click on "Protected Area Grampians National
> Park" which takes you to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2703380
> You can click "View History" at the bottom of the relation page.
>
> To see a nicely formatted table of the changes you can put this relation
> ID into OSM Deep History which takes you to
> https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/2703380
> Here we can see that it was initially natural=wood, which was removed on
> 15/1/2013, restored on 8/11/2015, and removed again on 12/12/2018. This
> most recent changeset can be viewed at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65393733 . Before making changes
> read the change comment and discussion as you aren't the first to query
> this change.
>
> Regards,
> Kim
>
> ___
> 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] Basic question

[Brendan Barnes]

Cheers Andrew :)

If you're interested in some trying some advanced mapping techniques, check
out:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon_Examples#Forest_.28One_closed_way.29
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Touching_inner_rings

Welcome to the mind-melting world of advanced multipolygons :D


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 17:48, Andrew & Ingrid Parker 
wrote:

> Thank you everyone. It is clear now that it is OK to have an area inside
> or overlapping another area. That is logical and contrary to what I had
> been told by another mapper. It may be the case that I misunderstood what
> they were saying.
> Cheers
> Andrew Parker
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state
>>> parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such
>>> as water, waterways, woods etc.  While they sometimes approximate, they
>>> rarely coincide exactly.
>>>
>>> Tagging a state park as natural=wood is usually inappropriate because
>>> there will, nearly always, be parts of the park that are unwooded.  Best to
>>> map the park with its official boundary and then map the natural features
>>> separately using other unofficial sources such as survey and satellite
>>> imagery.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed, though as a rough first pass it has been common to tag
>> natural=wood on the administrative boundary if it's 90% correct, but
>> eventually as the mapping becomes more detailed separate natural=wood is
>> the way to go.
>> ___
>> 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] Survey/GPS trace request for Snowies Iconic Walk Phase 2

[Brendan Barnes]

Hi OSM Bushwalkers,

This spring will be the official opening of the "Snowies Iconic Walk Phase
2" in Kosciuszko National Park. This will be a brand new 5.6km stretch of
alpine hiking trail built to modern standards that follows the Snowy River
between Illawong Lodge and Charlotte Pass, and features the brand new
Spencers Creek Bridge - now Australia's highest suspension bridge (1627m).

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/park-management/community-engagement/walking-tracks-and-trails-in-national-parks/snowies-iconic-walk

Unfortunately I'm stuck on the wrong side of a state border for the
foreseeable future and am unable to survey and trace this new trail. If
there's any keen walkers on the list who are permitted to travel to Kosci,
I think your data would be a valuable contribution to the OSM project.

With this track being new and coming under the Snowies Iconic Walk banner
I'm sure this will become a very popular walk. Being able to map what's on
the ground so quickly, I'm hoping the OSM community will be able to map the
new 5.6km section so that downstream hiking apps can leverage our data this
summer. Further, once signage is complete, this will be the first major
realignment of the Australian Alps Walking Track in quite some time.

If there's anyone with survey or trace info, I'd be happy to collaborate
and help with the mapping.

Thanks and happy trails,
..Brendan
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Suburb, or Town?

[Brendan Barnes]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dtown

I'd also go with suburb for places within Melbourne metropolitan area.


On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 21:18, cleary  wrote:

>
> I say suburb.  If it is within a city or city metropolis, I'd say it's a
> suburb.
>
> Further, I'd say the mapper who changed the tag for Keilor Downs with the
> explanation "Changing place=suburb to place=town so that streets can be
> found in map in next map release" is seriously wrong.
>
> A town is a large settlement with homes and businesses but smaller than a
> city and not part of a city.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2021, at 5:57 PM, Diacritic wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Hopefully this is a quick question!
> >
> > Should metropolitan suburbs be recorded as suburbs, or as towns?
> >
> > I’ve seen some contrasting approaches in the same city; compare Keillor
> > Park, Melbourne with Keillor Downs, Melbourne. Which is correct, or are
> > both acceptable?
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Friend requests from 'Porn Bots'

[Brendan Barnes]

And here I was thinking some very attractive people want to be my Mapping
Friends today...



On Sun, 12 Sept 2021 at 21:59, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 12/09/2021 12:44, Matthew Davalle wrote:
>
> Having some weird friend requests coming through after submitting
> changesets to OSM, one I account was deleted however the second account
> still exists
>
> That's normal - it just means that someone has reported it and it has
> already been deleted.
>
>
> and has a hyperlink in their bio linking to what seems to be some dodgy
> porn site with the link using openstreetmap.org as a referee in the URL.
>
> Dunno if it's appropriate to attach the URL of said account to this post
>
> It'll hopefully be deleted by the time that anyone gets to read this, so
> not much point really.
>
>
> but I was wondering if anybody else has seen dodgy friend requests
>
> There were a few last month:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-August/014922.html
> and they just seem to have kicked off again.  I've seen reports elsewhere
> and have had a couple myself.
>
> The best thing to do is to click the "report user" button in the user
> profile and report it as spam. The admins tend to delete them fairly
> quickly.
>
>
> (It's the first time I've seen it and I've been mapping for nearly 2 years)
>
> Welcome back!
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> 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] NSW Open Data - Road Trip Innovation Challenge

[Brendan Barnes]

This competition will be of interest to mappers in the local OSM community:

*About the Challenge*
Transport for NSW (TfNSW) is challenging innovators to come up with digital
solutions to help people navigate our Tourist Drives and get the most out
of tourist road trips in NSW for when we can travel across NSW again.

Seed funding up to $25,000 is available for successful applicants, if
required.

A virtual information session
 will be held on
Wednesday 8 September, providing interested parties an opportunity to learn
more about the challenge, what’s on offer, and ask questions about the
process. Register for the information session via Eventbrite
. Can’t make it on the
day? A recording of the information session will be made available on this
page after the event.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Brendan Barnes]

Thanks all for the discussion. I can see there will be further separate
discussion around the OSM mapping of landowner-unsanctioned tracks/paths.

Back to my original post which I was seeking advice on, I was requesting
clarity of mapping an official hiking route, which a small section of it
happens to not follow a defined track/path and a compass bearing is
required. The hiking route is *official*: it has NSW NPWS signage which I
have personally surveyed at the start of the segment denoting the "off
track" route, the Australian Alps National Parks Cooperative Management
Program publishes a map also detailing it, and all popular hiking guides
have it listed, too. This small off track section forms part of the
official route.

I've taken Andrew's advice and added fuzzy=500 to the way.


On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 14:14, Brendan Barnes  wrote:

> Hey Greg,
>
> I agree we shouldn't tag for the renderer. Have you looked at lifecycle
> tags such as was:highway=path? A lifecycle prefix like this does a good
> job with Carto, OsmAnd, and other renderers and not using those former
> (formal or informal) paths for browsing or routing by end users. However
> they can show up in OSM editors for mappers to see the history and note.
>
>
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 12:17, Greg Lauer  wrote:
>
>> Within this group we are 'experienced' mappers and in most cases familiar
>> with the various OSM mapping tools, and may even use these to plan a trip.
>> Where is the general public use apps (such as MapsMe, Guru ect) that are
>> really dependent on what the apps render displays. I have not seen any apps
>> that, for example, display any attribute (or graphic) to show a track is
>> closed.
>>
>> So the tagging of trails is not visible to most users, and we have the
>> issue of maintaining the tags as they are usually fluid (open, closed etc),
>>
>> The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and
>> seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and
>> tagged as such but not visible on the map).
>>
>> I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail
>> as closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an
>> attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz
>> trail [Closed]
>>
>> It would be great to see our state land management agencies follow the
>> lead of DoC in NZ (https://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/maps-and-data/) or
>> USGS (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70192717) and make
>> the relevant data open (and current!), and encourage crowd sourcing.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 07:24,  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew
>>>> Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.
>>>> Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of
>>>> illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a catch-22 then, without the signage then it's per the law not
>>> illegal to use. To be honest I don't think placing a trail closed sign at
>>> the trail start makes it more visible and attracts traffic, many people
>>> will see that sign and choose not walk there, compared to no signage when
>>> they'd be like oh there's a track here, nothing to say it can't be used.
>>>
>>>
>>>> A park will often
>>>> have signage at all entrances which says "keep to formed trails" which
>>>> can be ambiguous especially to a mapper who believes in mapping
>>>> everything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "keep to formed trails" but those illegally constructed tracks look like
>>> formed trails to many users of the park, so keeping to the formed trails to
>>> me still allows me to walk on the illegally constructed tracks.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Parks will refer you to a copyright map of legal trails and have
>>>> difficulty understanding why you can't use that as evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't want to be the enemy here, I'm all for preserving sensitive
>>> landscapes to prevent damage and erosion, where a track has legally been
>>> closed then we should mark it as access=no which data consumers should
>>> treat that as no open to the public.
>>>
>>> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
>>> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
>>> installing signage everywhe

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Brendan Barnes]

Hey Greg,

I agree we shouldn't tag for the renderer. Have you looked at lifecycle
tags such as was:highway=path? A lifecycle prefix like this does a good job
with Carto, OsmAnd, and other renderers and not using those former (formal
or informal) paths for browsing or routing by end users. However they can
show up in OSM editors for mappers to see the history and note.


On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 12:17, Greg Lauer  wrote:

> Within this group we are 'experienced' mappers and in most cases familiar
> with the various OSM mapping tools, and may even use these to plan a trip.
> Where is the general public use apps (such as MapsMe, Guru ect) that are
> really dependent on what the apps render displays. I have not seen any apps
> that, for example, display any attribute (or graphic) to show a track is
> closed.
>
> So the tagging of trails is not visible to most users, and we have the
> issue of maintaining the tags as they are usually fluid (open, closed etc),
>
> The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and
> seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and
> tagged as such but not visible on the map).
>
> I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail
> as closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an
> attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz
> trail [Closed]
>
> It would be great to see our state land management agencies follow the
> lead of DoC in NZ (https://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/maps-and-data/) or
> USGS (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70192717) and make
> the relevant data open (and current!), and encourage crowd sourcing.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 07:24,  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew
>>> Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.
>>> Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of
>>> illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic.
>>
>>
>> It's a catch-22 then, without the signage then it's per the law not
>> illegal to use. To be honest I don't think placing a trail closed sign at
>> the trail start makes it more visible and attracts traffic, many people
>> will see that sign and choose not walk there, compared to no signage when
>> they'd be like oh there's a track here, nothing to say it can't be used.
>>
>>
>>> A park will often
>>> have signage at all entrances which says "keep to formed trails" which
>>> can be ambiguous especially to a mapper who believes in mapping
>>> everything.
>>>
>>
>> "keep to formed trails" but those illegally constructed tracks look like
>> formed trails to many users of the park, so keeping to the formed trails to
>> me still allows me to walk on the illegally constructed tracks.
>>
>>
>>> Parks will refer you to a copyright map of legal trails and have
>>> difficulty understanding why you can't use that as evidence.
>>>
>>
>> I don't want to be the enemy here, I'm all for preserving sensitive
>> landscapes to prevent damage and erosion, where a track has legally been
>> closed then we should mark it as access=no which data consumers should
>> treat that as no open to the public.
>>
>> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
>> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
>> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we
>> authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install
>> signage to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park
>> operators, it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might
>> not have intentionally created.
>> ___
>> 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] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Brendan Barnes]

Thanks Phil, I appreciate your insights on this.

On the side issue, yes I definitely agree "informal path" track-tracing can
have an effect on human use in the local, often wilderness, environments
where they are recorded. However I have a preference to better tag these
tracks eg abandoned=path or trail_visibility=no etc. Deleting a way on OSM
loses the context of why it should no longer be used - it's just gone. A
good example of this is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/635206779 - by
having access=no, removed=yes etc and a clear note on why not to use the
way is useful to mappers, and it doesn't display on the popular renderers.
If the way was deleted, in the future there'd be nothing to stop a
well-intentioned armchair mapper creating a new way based on what they see
on aerial imagery, who doesn't know about the no entry signage surveyed on
the ground.

My question was more about tagging a hiking *route*, not a *track*. I'd
like to produce AAWT route data from OSM. In real life, the AAWT route
passes through Dairymans Creek area and I'd like OSM to convey that as it
does form part of the one long overall AAWT hiking route. Comparing what I
surveyed on the ground (GPS trace, and noting NPWS signage at wilderness
boundary) to the official map (not licenced for use -
https://theaustralianalps.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/map-15.pdf) all
sources do mark the Dairymans Creek segment as forming part of the overall
AAWT *route*.

Perhaps Way 813749214 could be widened to an area covering the width of the
plain? I'm open to ideas. My preference is for "something" to go here so
OSM matches the context of the one overall AAWT hiking route, rather than
"nothing" and leave a gap in the AAWT relation.

Cheers.


On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 19:36, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Personally, as an ex Parks Track Management Officer, I have actively
> removed unformed, off track tracks from OSM. There are frequently
> management plans for such areas where active promotion of the “tracks” is
> discouraged and book authors are also encouraged to not mark the track in
> their guide books.
>
> It’s about ensuring that such off track opportunities are available in the
> future and that there is no “invitation”, and to ensure levels of use that
> prevent major impacts.
>
>
> Cheers - Phil,
> On the road with his iPad
>
> On 21 Oct 2020, at 7:07 pm, Brendan Barnes  wrote:
>
> 
> Hi all,
>
> Hoping for some advice please. There's a few sections of the Australian
> Alps Walking Track official route that are specifically "off track", that
> is, there is no formal hiking path and hikers are requested by the National
> Parks signage at both ends of these wilderness sections to navigate from a
> compass bearing or visible landmark, till the track resumes at the other
> side.
>
> I haven't been able to find a standard for "hiking routes" on OSM or the
> Aussie tagging guidelines <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813749214>.
>
> For one section I tagged Way 813749214
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813749214> as route=hiking and nothing
> else so far, and made it part of the AAWT relation.
>
> Is there a better way to map "off track" hiking routes? Or are there other
> examples of where this occurs?
>
> Thanks,
> ..Brendan
> ___
> 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] vine row tagging

[Brendan Barnes]

Depends of level of detail sought, but each grapevine could be marked as
natural=shrub .

My first thought was to use barrier=fence
, but the wiki
defines it as a "freestanding structure designed to *restrict or prevent
movement across a boundary*".

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 17:46, Adam Steer  wrote:

> Hey John
>
> What are the owners of the properties containing vines saying? Are they
> fully aware that their farm data will be open for everyone to see?
>
> ...and what data/tagging useful to them?
>
> Cheers,
> Adam
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 08:40, John Bryant  wrote:
>
>> So, map the strainer posts on the ends of the rows, rather than the rows
>> themselves, and then the end user could use them to interpolate the row?
>> That's an interesting idea.
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:33, nwastra  wrote:
>>
>>> Many vineyards have numbered rows with a tag on the end strainer posts
>>> to assist direction of workers, etc.
>>> These could be numbered using the addr interpolation scheme and then
>>> individual rows would not need to be mapped but does need a close survey.
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2020, at 3:32 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:13, John Bryant  wrote:
>>>
 Looking more broadly, it looks like vine rows haven't been widely
 mapped before.

>>>
>>> Do you need to?
>>>
>>> I think it could be automatically assumed that all vineyards have their
>>> vines in rows, approx the same distance apart?
>>>
>>> I noticed vine_row_orientation
>>> =* : vine
>>> row orientation (in degrees)on the wiki page - wouldn't that be sufficient?
>>>
>>> For vine *rows* (ie. the linear features within the vineyard), we've had
 suggestions of natural=tree_row,

>>>
>>> If you were going to put a tree_row on every row of vines, you'd have
>>> nothing but a solid mass of them!
>>>
>>> denotation=agricultural,

>>>
>>> Sorry, not sure what you mean with this?
>>>
>>> and crop=grape,

>>>
>>> Marked as being redundant as all vineyards grow grapes! :-)
>>>
>>> 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
>>
> ___
> 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