Re: [talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 15:54 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: > Australian Decliners, > > As a mapper, contributor and member of the project's sysadmin team I > kindly ask you to please reconsider your declined status. Time is > about to run out. I am a decliner, and contributed substantial amounts of data to the map (mainly in Adelaide, Melbourne & Geelong) back in the early days of OSM (late 2007 to mid 2009), although I haven't made any edits in almost 2 years now (that's not OSM's fault -- I just haven't had the time recently). Whilst I'd prefer that my old contributions remained in use by the community, as originally intended, I still have reservations about the open-ended relicensing provisions of the new CTs. I've just re-read the CTs, and must admit they do look less objectionable to me now than when I first read them -- outside of the future reclicensing provisions (clause 3), I don't have any problem with them. Re those provisions, I still have one question, which I'm hoping someone on the list can address. Clause 3 talks about "or such other free and open licence". I'm curious as to how "free and open license" is defined in this context. Both the FSD and the OSD speak specifically to software, not data. In the software world, there have been instances in the past of licenses claiming to be "free" or "open source", without actually adhering to the FSD or OSD. I suspect the same will be true in years to come with respect to licensing of data. To agree to such a future relicensing provision, I think the parameters around it would need to be fairly well defined (not so open-ended). In the absence of a definition in the CTs themselves, that would mean a well-recognised definition of "free and open license" (with respect to data) existing somewhere else (like the FSD & OSD do in the software domain). Can anyone point me to such a definition? Regards, Jack Burton ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Basic search, first attempt
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 13:39 +, John Smith wrote: > This case is an exception since there is a place=* node for Perth which > is marked as a capital city, does anyone know 2 towns or villiages or > ... with the same names in different states? or even same state I > guess... Same state cases: In SA we have two Kingstons and two Stirlings, but we use suffixes to tell them apart (Kingston-on-Murray cf. Kingston SE; Stirling cf. Stirling N -- the latter is not just a normal "just North of" modifier, Stirling N is in a completely different part of the state to Stirling). Different state cases: I remember hearing many years ago that Holden decided to call their Australian models Kingswood & Belmont because they were the only two town/suburb names that occurred in every Australian state. Not sure whether this is apocryphal or not, but I do recall coming across places with those names in at least three different states. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Trivia - Husband and Wife Team
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 23:37 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: > Apart from Victoria and Albert does anyone know of an example > where > > A Husband and Wife have both had roads named after them and that these > roads intersect. At the risk of seeming obvious, a more modern example: Elizabeth Way & Phillip Highway http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.72162&lon=138.66919&zoom=17 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Junctions (to name or not to name)
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 10:03 +1000, Sam Couter wrote: > Only to say that the same questions are raised by motorway_link and > primary_link, except they're even more important when listening to > routing directions. And those questions aren't answered in the Wiki > either, as far as I can tell. Any decent routing algorithm should look ahead to the turn after the next one (or even the one after that, etc. etc., if need be) if the current turn is to an un-named way. e.g. if the route goes from a motorway to an unnamed link road to a named way called "foo", the router should announce "exit left to foo", not "exit left on unnamed ramp". This works well in practise, since the physical signage leading up to most motorway links (and other un-named link roads) usually indicates the name of the road that the link leads to, so the router announcement corresponds with what the driver actually sees. Having said that, though, if the signage leading up to to a motorway_link does _not_ contain the name of the road it leads to, then we should probably be naming that link in accordance with the signage (e.g. "Footown exit"). With roundabouts, the need to name un-named segments is even less, since even if the above method fails (e.g. if all ways on the route from the roundabout to the final destination are un-named), the router can at least announce "enter roundabout, then take the nth exit". As others have said, the issue seems to be a bug in the validator and/or in gosmore, rather than any deficiency in the method most mappers are using to map un-named ways (although of course, as Darrin pointed out, those roundabouts [or link roads] that _do_ have names in the real world should of course be named in OSM too). Just my 2c worth... Regards, Jack Burton ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] [Fwd: Re: Suburb boundaries - getting close]
Sorry - forgot to CC the below to the list: Forwarded Message From: Jack Burton To: BlueMM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries - getting close Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:04:16 +1030 On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 03:41 +, BlueMM wrote: > Assuming we go with the relations option, and ABS:SSC_2006 is tagged on the > relation, what unique id to we tag the individual ways with? Wouldn't most > ways > be derived from 2 closed-area shapes, therefore ABS:SSC_2006 would have to be > a > combination of the parents id's (which might not be unique when converted > anyway). Well spotted. If using methods 2 or 3 from Franc's original email, presumably we'd also need to add a sequence number (actually two since, as you point out, each way would refer to segments of two boundaries) for each way, since a unique boundary ID is no longer unique to the way, once you've split it up into two or more segments. Regards, Jack. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries - getting close
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:09 +1100, Franc Carter wrote: > Ok, it seems my conversion script is now producing sane results so > it's time > to work out what the final output should look like. > > The first question that I think we need to answer is, how do we > represent the > data in OSM, there appears to be 3 options:- > >1. Closed ways >2. Relations >3. Borders with a left/right tag My vote would be for option 1. I won't bore the list by repeating all the reasons for that. > Then we need to decide on what tags to apply to the data. The raw data > has three fields > > * STATE_2006 A numerical identifier for the state the suburb is > in > * SSC_2006An identifier provided by the ABS > * NAME_2006 The name of the suburb, which may have the old name > in '()' after it. > > So, my initial proposal for tags is:- > > * name=? > (with any old name removed) > * source=Based_on_Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics _data (ABS ask > for this) > * ABS:reviewed=no > * ABS:STATE_2006=? > * ABS:NAME_2006=? > * ABS:SSC_2006=? Suggest that where there's an old name, put it in an old_name= tag. Then, with the current name in name= and the old name in old_name=, there'd be no need to keep the ABS:NAME_2006 field. Similarly, it would make sense to put the contents of the STATE_2006 field in an is_in= tag, preferably with ",Australia" appended. If we're going to keep this field in the dataset, it may as well be in a format that's consistent with what's already used. ABS:reviewed=no & ABS:SSC_2006=foo would both seem essential, for tracking changes, as would the source= tag to satisfy the license. > The 'ABS' part is just a suggestion - It's a bit short for my liking Yeah, "ABS" does sound a bit short, but then again, "Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics" sounds kinda long. How about "abs.gov.au"? - short enough to type in one breath (e.g. for search) but still uniquely identifiable. > We also need to decide where these tags go - nodes, ways, relations. I think tagging the nodes is a bit pointless, with only three possible exceptions: (a) if the dataset includes central nodes for each suburb, in which case I'd suggest tagging those, but not any other node; (b) if the attribution requirement of the license mandates attribution on everything (in which case tagging nodes with just a source= tag should suffice); or (c) if you plan to update the dataset in some sort of automated manner in the future (in which case the nodes probably only need the ABS:SSC_2006=foo tag) - but from earlier discussions on the list, this does not seem to be the case. If you go with option 1 or 3, then obviously the ways need to be tagged. Under option 2, I'd suggest tagging both the relations and the ways, so the data can be used in as many different manners as possible. Just my 2c worth... Regards, Jack. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 21:16 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote: > Futher to this I was looking back through this thread (thinking maybe > about having a look at the data myself) and I James said: > > It's described as "These boundaries have been based upon localities > gazetted by the Geographic Place name authority current at the time of > the Census." > > So it's always going to be out-of-date anyway and updated every 4 > years, it's not going to change often. But it's a much better start > than what we have now :) Very good point. I agree now that there's not much point trying to automate updates as the ABS dataset changes - that could be accomplished faster by just manually updating changes as & when gazzetted (so long as someone keeps an eye on each Gazette, but that shouldn't be a problem spread across all the Aussie mappers) [Anyone know what the status is of the copyright (if any) on the Gazette itself?]. I still prefer the idea of areas rather than relations for suburb boundaries in general, for a whole bunch of reasons states earlier (which I won't bore the list with again), but I guess that's just something we'll probably always have differing opinions on... Regards, Jack. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 17:04 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote: > On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:29:39 +1030 > Jack Burton wrote: > > > >1. What way do we want to represent the data, e.g closed ways or > > > relations consisting of borders - something else ? > > > > Closed ways (areas) - as that's how ABS define them, so it will make > > merging updated ABS data into the OSM Australia dataset (each time ABS > > update their dataset, which is presumably quite regularly) > > significantly easier. > > This isn't really relevant. Given the amount of data involved an > automated process will have to be developed to bring it all in, so this > process can just be re-utilised on any update. Very true. But a one-to-one mapping between OSM ways and ABS boundaries (accompanied by some means of identifying that mapping uniquely, like a source_ref:ABS=some_unique_id_from_ABS_dataset tag or similar) would make writing the automated update tool a significantly simpler task (e.g.: use a diff of the old cf. new ABS datasets as your input file, search for corresponding OSM ways by tag, then add/remove/reshape/rename as appropriate). Yes, you can still do that if there's a one-to-many mapping, but it's not quite so simple. And there would be lots more stuff the update process would need to check for (particularly if boundary segments are shared by other, non-place-related tags) before removing/reshaping a boundary during an update. For example: Consider two suburbs, A & B, whose boundary is currently defined by a river. Now let's say that by the time the next ABS update occurs, that boundary has changed, and a small part of what used to be suburb A has become part of suburb B (it can happen). Since the ABS data contains only suburb boundaries (and no separate way for the river itself), and we're using multiple segments per boundary, and someone has helpfully merged that boundary segment with the way that forms the river (as I think you suggested earlier, to avoid stacking up ways on top of each other), there'd be no method for the update mechanism to know whether the course of the river itself has changed (and therefore so has the boundary segment, so it should move the way that defines both) or whether the river has stayed where it was but the boundary no longer uses that part of it (so it should split ways, create a new one, then add it to the boundary relation). With a single closed way around each suburb, the problem does not arise, since the update process does not need to care about the river itself (and should be clever enough to detect that another way uses some of the existing nodes, so duplicate those nodes instead of moving them). Regards, Jack. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 14:26 +1100, Franc Carter wrote: > I just had a conversation with a really helpful person at the ABS. > > She indicated that the ABS is taking a view of the data that is very > similar/compatible with (at least my understanding) the view that > OpenStreetMap is taking towards the data. > > Specifically she indicated that the ABS was not specifically concerned > that attribution was done in a specific manner, just that the > attribution was able to be found. She will put something in an email > so that we have an official statement. > > So, it looks like we may well have a some valuable data to add, which > is good because I already spent a couple of hours working out hot to > import it ;-) That's great news! > There are two issues that I have come across with converting to osm:- > >1. What way do we want to represent the data, e.g closed ways or > relations consisting of borders - something else ? Closed ways (areas) - as that's how ABS define them, so it will make merging updated ABS data into the OSM Australia dataset (each time ABS update their dataset, which is presumably quite regularly) significantly easier. >2. The more technical problem that the boundaries are defined > fairly precisely (or more accurately there are lots of points defining > the boundaries). So the .osm file is very large - so eyeballing it in > josm is not going to work. > So I'm interested in people's suggestions of how we want to represent > the data and on methods we can use to sanity check the data before we > upload it. Might I suggest that trying to verify the entire set of Australian suburb boundaries by inspection would seem an impossible task anyway - wouldn't be able to "see the wood for the trees". For sanity checking purposes, why not split the generated OSM file up into a bunch of small, managable areas - then pick one you know really well and check it out in josm. If you're concerned that areas you don't know well might need checking too, perhaps put the whole lot on a webserver somewhere and ask on the list for other mappers to download & check out areas they know well too before doing the bulk upload to OSM? Regards, Jack. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adelaide out of copyright street directory
On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 16:23 +1100, Patrick Jordan wrote: > This is fairly definitive: > > http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/G090.pdf/view?searchterm=maps > maps remain in copyright until 70 years after the creator's death. Umm, doesn't that mean that the 1940 vintage street directory that originally started this thread is still under copyright? (unless of course, it was published at least one year (given that it's 2009 now) after the death of the last surviving contributing author/cartographer/editor/guy who designed the cover/...) (or unless a street directory is not classed as a map - but that would seem rather odd, although stranger things have happened) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 17:06 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote: > [On the single area option] > > > Personally I think that is still the best approach (the only downside > > I can see with it would be if a suburb was not defined by a closed > > area - although I'd imagine that would be quite rare). However, > > you'll find plenty of others that prefer one of the other two > > approaches. > > Yeah I'd have to say I actively dislike this approach because it > encourages more and more cases of stacked ways. There's places in > northern Adelaide where 1 road would end up with 6 additional ways > stacked on top of it to represent this setup :/ ... > > But when the boundaries (or more often, parts of them) are just > > imaginary lines, creating multiple ways just for a boundary, then > > grouping them together as a relation seems like an awful lot of > > double handling (both for the mapper putting them in the map and for > > any automated process trying to reassemble them for any useful > > purpose). > > For the mapper I'd say this approach is much easier than trying to > untangle up to 6 areas stacked on top of each other on a common > boundary, 8 along a state boundary! In JOSM, it's fairly simple to see all stacked ways (using the middle mouse button, with control to hold/select) - then (as long as the ways have been tagged) it's very easy to pick the one you want to work with. Not sure whether it's that straightforward in the other editors or not. Also straightforward when working with raw OSM data (again, particularly if the ways have been tagged). With the single area approach, you only ever have to worry about one way per suburb, but you often have to deal with a few stacked ways. Conversely, with the other two approaches, you only have one way in any given place on the map, but you often have a whole swag of boundary ways per suburb. So I guess it's really a case of 6 of one, half a dozen of the other... > And 0.6 api relations are ordered, post-processing of them is > about to become remarkably easier once clients start putting in the > members in order. That sounds more promising. > > Darrin's mapped most of Adelaide's nothern suburbs using this method, > > and that's probably the best Australian example of using relations for > > suburb boundaries (as well as postcode & local government boundaries). > > And haven't I been banging my head against a wall trying to find useful > data to do it, council signs only go so far... > > > But surveying those "imaginary line" parts of boundaries, > > particularly in areas where there are no houses or businesses close > > enough to the estimated boundary to be authoritative is a bit more > > problematic - I haven't come up with a good method yet; perhaps > > someone else on the list can suggest one? (the Government - including > > Aussie Post - published data all appears to be encumbered). > > Yeah, this has caused me the greatest trouble in northern Adelaide as > some areas really are vague. I've opted in the end to use a best guess > estimate of where they lie, following on from someones comment a month > ago when talking about adding roads, that a straight line linking 2 > points where a road run was still accurate at some level. > > My thinking goes - If I know at this point these 2 places are either > side of the boundary and over there those 2 places are then it's > reasonable as a first cut to just link the two points and hope someone > gets some better data later to follow the exact lines. Sounds resonable enough (presumably tagged with source=extrapolation or similar). At least that way, suburb boundaries can be completed. Cheers, Jack. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries
u've chosen, they'll just add one of the others in parallel - as far as I can tell none of the three approaches break any of the others. On a related topic (which Franc also mentioned), finding good non-copyright-encumbered data sources for mapping towns/suburbs can be interesting too: Placing the node for the town centre is fairly easy - a quick trip there (or recent memory of one) should give you a very good idea of where the town centre is. In some places, the council even helps with some signage (I've always been amused that in Canberra, there's a little sign that reads "City Centre", in case you didn't notice that's where you were!). Worst case, you can always put it at the geometric centre of the town/suburb and hope that someone with better local knowledge will come along and move it to the real town centre. Ascertaining boundaries where they're defined by physical features (road, river, etc.) is also fairly straightforward - just know someone who lives (or visit a business & get a business card or receipt with an address on it) close enough to each side of the estimated boundary to get sufficient confirmation. But surveying those "imaginary line" parts of boundaries, particularly in areas where there are no houses or businesses close enough to the estimated boundary to be authoritative is a bit more problematic - I haven't come up with a good method yet; perhaps someone else on the list can suggest one? (the Government - including Aussie Post - published data all appears to be encumbered). Regards, Jack Burton ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Something a little simpler...
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 21:28 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote: > Trying to work out the tags to apply to the "Greenfield Wetlands" near > Salisbury. It's a wetland area but as I understand the natural=wetland > tag that's more to define the borders of the actual wetland area rather > than the border of the park which includes the wetlands. And > landuse=recreation_ground doesn't work either because it's basically > not a sport/recreation area, it's a big hole in the ground to flood. > Any ideas? I haven't actually been there, so I don't know whether these will fit, but how about: landuse=basin or natural=mud; layer=-1 ? Cheers, J. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] (LONG) Adelaide Highway Classification (was: Highway Classification Issues)
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 19:46 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote: > Rest assured I won't change any existing definitions from now on until > we sort this out. Okay, me neither (excepting any _links that don't match their associated way type, as you pointed out in the other thread). > > > I propose that all "A" routes in Adelaide and only "A" Routes are > > > labelled trunk. > > > > I don't think this makes sense. Here's why: > > > > Firstly, I'll get the two red herrings out of the way: if I recall > > correctly, the Gawler Bypass is signposted as A20, but it's actually a > > motorway. Similarly, the Port River Expressway signposted as A9 (and > > A13 for the part that used to be called the South Rd-Salisbury Hwy > > Connector Road), but also is a motorway. But I don't really think you > > intended the trunk definition to include those two. > > Ok, good point, that's a lack of my definition which should have > included "unless the route is superseeded by being near-freeway > conditions in which case it should be a motorway" or something similar. > The motorway tag I think always dupes any other lower tag. Agreed. > > Leaving those two aside, trunk routes (at least in urban areas) imply > > the big, heavily trafficed, wide, long, most significant roads within > > the greater metropolitan area. > > This isn't the definition as I see it from the wiki: > > highway=trunk. "Metroads" in the cities where they exist, or other > similar cross-city trunk routes in cities where they do not. Yes, a circular definition -- I'd missed that. Perhaps "cross-city arterial routes" rather than "cross-city trunk routes" might make more sense in a definition of "trunk". > Going by how metroads are used in the relevant cities there are roads > of lower quality that some of the roads you are proposing to eliminate > labelled as turnk roads (southern end of metroad 3 in sydney comes > immediately to mind). > > All the met-roads in other cities are about the cross-city nature of > things rather than the quality of the road. I would suggest the only 2 > "A" routes in Adelaide that don't fit this rule are the A22 and the A14. > And yes the southern portion of the A15 past Norlunga Centre is another > case that's debatable. A6 is not cross-city either, well, at least I didn't think it was until I saw your comments below about seeing A6 signposted in the Eastern suburbs. Nor are A5, A7, A10 or A20, but they are all significant major arterial routes that I think everyone would agree should stay as highway=trunk. A11 isn't cross-city either, but I'm still undecided on that one. > However even though I don't think they deserve it, I think it's much > easier to define it as "all A roads" and be able to display that than > make a list that everyone keeps debating about. If highway status is to determined solely by route class, why bother even having a highway tag -- you could render roads based on the ref tag instead. And perhaps, for an alternative rendering designed to highlight numbered routes, that's not such a bad idea. But my understanding was that the highway tag should describe what you will find when you get there - size/capacity (relative to the city it's in, of course), nature of junctions, usefulness for navigation, etc. - whilst the ref tag should describe where it fits into the national or state road numbering scheme. > > * Anzac Highway as far as the coner of Tapleys Hill/Brighton Roads > > Actually I'm not sure about the tagging of A5 on this one as a side > note. IIRC last time I was down that way the A5 stopped at Brighton > Road (no A5 ahead at that point, and nothing at all at the next > junction). So perhaps we need to check that's the case (I don't trust > my memory enough on this one). and pull back the A5 there :) I'm not 100% sure either. Will check next time I'm down that way (possibly tomorrow). > > * Glen Osmond Road from the cnr of Greenhill Road to the Freeway > > Part of this road isn't even an "A" Route, so does this suddenly open > us to defining other roads as trunk if we think they're busy enough? It's the main route into the CBD for traffic arriving in Adelaide on the M1, including most traffic from the East Coast. > > * The portion of Fullarton Road that has an A reference > > This is one easily questioned for example, what makes it special/ sure > the A1 goes along it but if Glen Osmond road is a trunk to carry all > the traffic into the city, what purpose does Fullarton Road server > except to carry a few wandered who didnt make the A17 turn past the > city? Hmm, good point. The bit between Glen Osmond & Greenhill Roads (A1) is wide, heavily trafficed and generally trunk-like. As far as the A21 portion goes, I guess I'm contradicting myself more than a little here, but I think it'd look a bit silly if the A21 didn't link up to itself as a trunk -- after all it's a circle route. > > * Salisbury Highway/John Rice Avenue > > This is another one I though long and hard about trunking
Re: [talk-au] secondary_link
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 17:34 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote: > I didn't do it completely off the top of my head, I did think "I wonder > if secondary_link and tertiary_link will work?" so I threw in a couple > of them, waited for information freeway to update, saw secondary_link > DID work and tertiary_link didn't so I just assumed someone hadn't > updated Map Features and it was a workable option. As for the using > them in the wrong place well that's been made clearer to me now and > I've cleaned up nearly all those issues near me now anyway. > > > Having thought about it a bit now, I think secondary_link and probably > > tertiary_link as well should be made valid values for the highway tag. > > But we should probably introduce this as a proposed feature on the > > wiki for a while before actually using them, hopefully getting at > > least the main renderers to recognise them first. > > Guess the validity of this depends on exactly how those roads are > defined. Which is of course issue of that other thread ;) Okay. I didn't realise that secondary_link worked correctly with osmarender. Given that's the case, let's keep using it, and I promise not to butcher any more of them. All that remains is to get it documented on the Map Features & Tag:Highway wiki pages. tertiary_link may require some more effort to get off the ground... > > Where > > residential roads have slip lanes, they often have addresses on them > > (cf. slip lanes on more major roads), so would need to verify which > > street at the junction those addresses belong to (quick look at street > > numbers for continuity should do the trick), then name the slip lane > > accordingly. > > > > As an alternative for use with highway=unclassified & > > highway=residential, would tagging the slip lanes and/or central > > turning lanes as highway=service be suitable? > > Ah now you are talking about 'turn left anytime with care' type lanes > where the "_link" option kind of fits, my thoughts were once I realised > anything < secondary wouldn't work with _link and given they're > generally pretty rare just label them as the existing road type with > name. Where they have addresses on them, so we can verify what street they're part of, I agree. Where they don't have addresses on them, there's no way of knowing for sure which of the two intersecting streets they form part of, so I don't think a name would be appropriate. Cheers, Jack. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adelaide Highway Classification (was: Highway Classification Issues)
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 11:47 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote: > OK, to take this a step further I'll start the ball rolling in Adelaide: > (As we get a consensus I'll write a Adelaide/South Australia Wiki page > to reflect the decisions, I'm happy to do that) To date, I've been following the guidelines on the Australian Roads Tagging wiki page, specifically those for "Urban Areas" (since everything I've done on OSM so far has been urban). > 1) Trunk Roads in City > > I propose that all "A" routes in Adelaide and only "A" Routes are > labelled trunk. I don't think this makes sense. Here's why: Firstly, I'll get the two red herrings out of the way: if I recall correctly, the Gawler Bypass is signposted as A20, but it's actually a motorway. Similarly, the Port River Expressway signposted as A9 (and A13 for the part that used to be called the South Rd-Salisbury Hwy Connector Road), but also is a motorway. But I don't really think you intended the trunk definition to include those two. Leaving those two aside, trunk routes (at least in urban areas) imply the big, heavily trafficed, wide, long, most significant roads within the greater metropolitan area. I think everyone will agree that for Adelaide that includes: * The metro portion of Main North Road * The metro portion of Main South Road/South Road * The A21 city bypass route (with all its myriad of names) * Port Road * Anzac Highway as far as the coner of Tapleys Hill/Brighton Roads * Glen Osmond Road from the cnr of Greenhill Road to the Freeway * The metro portion of Victor Harbour Road (at least as far as Aldinga Road, beyond that it's no longer within the "urban" problem domain :) * The portion of Fullarton Road that has an A reference * Portrush Road/Lower Portrush Road/Hampstead Road * North East Road * Grand Junction Road * Port Wakefield Road Most of us will probably agree that it also includes: * Cross Road (A3) * Salisbury Highway/John Rice Avenue I'm 50/50 on Payneham Road/Lower North East Road -- it's a road of importance (definitely at least primary), but not the main trunk route in the area (that would be North East Road). Likewise, with the A15 (Tapleys Hill Road/Brighton Rd/Lonsdale Rd/etc. etc.). Again, it's definitely a road of importance (at least primary), but particularly at the Southern end, I'd say not the main trunk route in the area (that would be Main South Road). For example, if you look at the area South of Seaford Road, Main South Road is currently tagged as primary, whereas Commercial Road (A15) is tagged as trunk, despite Main South Road being a much longer & wider road, with higher speed limits, greater traffic, more link-style access roads, less direct intersections, better signage and servicing more destinations. Granted, Main South Road doesn't seem to have an A designation past the corner of Victor Harbour Road, but it still seems to be more of a trunk road than Commercial Road is (despite Commercial Road's A designation). On the other hand, I can see why the Northern end of the A15 (Tapleys Hill Road) could be considered a trunk route. > I can understand some hesitation from people with respect to the A22, > parts of the A16 because they are low quality roads, but if we're going I think the A16 is tagged correctly at present (trunk from the corner of Port Road to the corner of North East Road, then primary beyond that. UPDATE: Just checked the map. I didn't realise that the A16 continued up the LeFevre Peninsula. That part definitely should not be trunk (probably okay left as primary). The A22 on the other hand, hardly seems to be a trunk route, with the area being serviced by the much more major routes of A13 (South Road), A1 (Main North Road) and A16 (Grand Junction Road). > to tag to a reference pattern they need to fit. I think that's the problem. The reference indicators need to be on the map, so people can use the MABC signs as navigational aids, but I don't think they should define the highway= tag -- at least, not in metro Adelaide, and probably not in other metro areas either. There are dozens of examples of where this would inappropriate, including the above. But also think about the A14: Whilst I personally believe Marion Road is correctly tagged as primary, I can see how some might consider it trunk; but Holbrooks Road & East Avenue (also part of A14) -- surely not. > 2) Definition of rural vs city area > > I propose that the area bounded by lines joining Two Wells, Gawler, > Birdwood, Mount Barker, Willunga, Aldinga and the Coast line are > defined as "City" area, and that areas outside these are considered > "Rural" (We can define other "city" areas around Mount > Gambier/Whyalla/Whatever if people have definitions?). I think the > current Rural definitions as provided on the Wiki are pretty close to > spot on for these areas. I agree wholeheartedly with your proposed Northern, Southern and coastal borders. I agree in principle with your proposed Eastern border. However, that's not how most
Re: [talk-au] secondary_link
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 09:28 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote: > Futher on this, is you are going to correct them, please check the > roads you are connecting them to. > > I'm seeing examples of valid primary & trunk links being turned into > secondaries and cases of primary cross-link's where I (have now) > correctly labled them as primary instead of primary_link being changed > into secondaries whilst the main road remains primary. I've seen that too, but I think it has a different cause. Certainly, I've only retagged ways found as highway=secondary_link as highway=secondary. But there are some roads that were entered as, for example highway=primary, with the links being tagged as highway=primary_link to begin with, then at some later stage the highway itself was retagged as highway=trunk, but the _links were not changed. For example, most of Sir Donald Bradman Drive, although I think I've fixed that one now. This relates more to your next thread rather than this one, so I'll answer it there. Cheers, Jack. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] secondary_link
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 18:55 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote: > I can tell you jack that they are 2-way roads, since I'm the one who's > put them in there. Ok, good. That's what I thought. > Let me explain the reasoning behind my use of those tags (which upon > reflection and the comment by Stuart earlier made me realise I've done > it wrong, for which I apologise). > > I use JOSM to edit the maps and I have the validator turned on. This > causes those little bits of road to come us as invalid because they > don't have a name. So I went looking for a way put the cross overs in > those cases without having to enter the road name all the time (It just > seemed redundant to enter the name of the road to shut up the validator > for the sake of a few turn lanes.) I saw the motorway_link > and primary_link entries which talk about 'slip lanes' to enter/exits > roads, which seemed to fit for these cases. AT NO POINT in the easily > accessible (or anywhere I've so far found) portions of the Wiki does it > make it clear that those lanes are one way, so I assumed they just > covered general entry/access road pieces. > > So my question therefore becomes what DO you tag these roads with? > > I've found roads of secondary, tertiary and residential categories that > effectively have _link level turn lanes in addition to central turning > lanes. In the case of tertiary and residential I've just using the > normal tags for all of them (and having to put the name of the road in > on every case to shut up the validator & map lint) although I might > have snuck a tertiary_link or two in around the place to be honest :) Hmm, good point. I don't think just adding secondary_links into the dataset alone will solve the problem though. A quick fix could be to patch the validator, so it doesn't complain about unnamed highway=secondary or highway=tertiary ways, so long as they contain no more than say 3 nodes and have length of less than some arbitrary cutoff (say, 15 metres?). That would fix the problem for central turning lanes. But it wouldn't fix the problem altogether for slip lanes, since many of these contain multiple nodes for smoothing and can sometimes be as long as a short legitimate named road (and we wouldn't want the validator ignoring them). Having thought about it a bit now, I think secondary_link and probably tertiary_link as well should be made valid values for the highway tag. But we should probably introduce this as a proposed feature on the wiki for a while before actually using them, hopefully getting at least the main renderers to recognise them first. I'm not sold on _link derivatives for highway=residential or highway=unclassified though. If these have central turning lanes, they should probably be upgraded to highway=tertiary anyway. Where residential roads have slip lanes, they often have addresses on them (cf. slip lanes on more major roads), so would need to verify which street at the junction those addresses belong to (quick look at street numbers for continuity should do the trick), then name the slip lane accordingly. As an alternative for use with highway=unclassified & highway=residential, would tagging the slip lanes and/or central turning lanes as highway=service be suitable? What does everyone else think? Regards, Jack. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] secondary_link
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 18:37 +1100, Stuart Robinson wrote: > Links are by default oneway, I think that's what the other person is > getting at. Ah, I didn't realise that. I don't think most of the ways in question should be oneway, i.e. they allow both turning right from the (dual carriageway) secondary road onto the (single carriageway) tertiary road and vice-versa, but I could well be wrong on that -- I'll go and check out a few of them on the ground before changing anything. Thanks for the tip. Cheers, Jack. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] secondary_link
Hello all.
A few days ago, I noticed a fair number of small ways in Adelaide's
suburbs tagged as highway=secondary_link.
There's no reference to secondary_link in Map Features, Australian Roads
Tagging, or in any proposed feature on the wiki.
So I assumed this was just an error, and changed them to
highway=secondary so that all renderers would display them properly.
Last night I noticed that a lot of them had been changed back to
highway=secondary_link and about half of those were tagged additionally
with note='LEAVE IT A secondary_link OR ENTER ALL THE OTHER DETAILS'.
So I searched a little deeper in the wiki and found only two references
anywhere to highway=secondary_link, both in German and both suggesting
that secondary_link was not a valid value for the highway tag (at least
I think that's what they were suggesting -- my German is a little
rusty).
I'd like to change these back to highway=secondary again (as I have done
already for those not tagged with the note), but first want to make sure
I'm not doing the wrong thing, so thought I'd ask the list.
The alternative suggestion in the note ("enter all the other details")
doesn't seem to make much sense for these ways. The ways in question are
all short two node links between the sides of dual-carriageway roads
where right turns to/from lesser (i.e. tertiary, residential,
unclassified or service) roads are allowed. It doesn't seem to make
sense for these very short ways to have names or refs, and things like
maxspeed would seem to be moot on such short ways. Tags like is_in or
postal_code wouldn't make sense either, since there are no addresses on
any of these ways. So I'm not sure what was meant by "all the other
details".
Can anyone shed some light on the most appropriate tags for these ways?
Cheers,
Jack.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
