Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Kevin Pye]

>
> Hi all
> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
> ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
> says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which
> dictionary.


"The dictionary" is the dictionary in schedule 5 pf the Road Safety Road
Rules --
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/sch5.html

The definition there is fairly broad: ""footpath", except in rule 13(1)
,
means an area

open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses,
use by pedestrians"

Not particularly helpful.

On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 21:44,  wrote:

> > In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all
> > paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."
> > Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs
>
> Hi all
> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html
> ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
> says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which
> dictionary.
>
> Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different
> countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
> "A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English),
> footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a
> road."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk
>
> This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria
> Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line
> and the kerb.
>
> That's not we are talking about here
> ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015&lng=145.329104&z=17&pKey=941113219764485&focus=photo
>
> So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal
> purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Kevin Pye]

The Vicmap TR_ROAD table has a column "restrictions", in which a value '4'
indicates that the road is private. In the latest version of the data,
which was released only in the last couple of weeks, there are 158,466
roads with that restriction.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 15:26, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021, at 4:40 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> > Andrew, the 1:25,000 Vic gov topo mps show tracks/driveways on private
> > properties in a different colour to those on public land and the map
> > legend clearly distinguish the two. So hopefully there is a
> > public/private field in the dataset that can be used to distinguish the
> > two. Cheers Ian
>
> There's nothing I can see in the Vicmap Transport dataset to distinguish
> this, if you know of another dataset that would help I'm keen to have a
> look. I tried looking at the crown land data from Vicmap, and while this
> would certainly help, it misses some areas where public forestry tracks
> occur.
>
> Another option would be to use existing OSM mapped features for parks and
> reserves, which could be used to prioritise those on public land, I'll
> touch on the private land tracks below...
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021, at 6:11 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> > Apologies for repeated posts on this issue,
>
> Oh no need to apologise, the more eyes on this the better.
>
> > but a data dump of 250,000
> > ways is worth some discussion I believe…
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Andrew, if it is not possible
> > to separate public and private roads using tags in the Vic gov
> > database, can the Vic Tracks MapRoulette Challenge please be pulled
> > down immediately? If you scan around the state, it’s obvious that the
> > great majority of the “unmapped tracks” are on private property and not
> > on public land. Even in the forested highlands of Gippsland, there are
> > far more “unmapped tracks” on private property around the margins of
> > the forests, and in the surrounding farmlands than in the forest itself.
> >
> > With no better data available, it seems reasonable to suggest that this
> > MapRoulette Challenge includes 100,000-150,000 roads/tracks/driveways
> > on private land (maybe more), with no indication of that fact to inform
> > well intentioned mappers, and no suggested tagging to indicate
> > access=private. Many of the private roads are indeed short driveways
> > that have no through connectivity, but many are longer and create
> > through ways. In private forestry plantations in W Vic for example, all
> > of the private internal roads are included in the challenge, which
> > creates a wide grid of new “public” roads. I’ve only looked at the Vic
> > challenge so far and have no feedback yet on the challenges in other
> > states.
>
> highway=track are documented as forestry, agricultural or fire trails, so
> shouldn't be considered as public roads by data consumers.
>
> Tracks on private land are useful too, for deliveries, fire management and
> emergency access.
>
> Whenever I'm out surveying I always try to set foot, bicycle and
> motor_vehicle access tags on highway=track since I don't think you can
> safely assume any particular access "defaults" apply unlike other highway
> classifications where there are reasonable access defaults.
>
> So in my view there is no harm in mapping tracks we know exist but don't
> yet know access restrictions, in fact I think there is a lot of benefit to
> getting them in and then later mappers can follow up with setting access
> tags once they are known.
>
> > A couple of months ago, Microsoft’s mapping team was told to cease and
> > desist after they mapped a few 1000 private roads without indicating
> > private access (they responded to that request admirably). This
> > challenge dwarfs that issue 100-fold. I’m confident that the intentions
> > were good but this implementation is fundamentally flawed. The fact
> > that the data dump and challenge were sponsored and paid for by a
> > government department with no notification or discussion from the
> > Australian mapping community until after the fact makes the issue even
> > more problematic in my mind.
>
> I saw the discussion in brief, but my recollection was that involved
> tagging some roads as unclassified or residential where data consumers do
> assume by default they are public access.
>
> OSM has always been someone does a bit of mapping and others build upon
> it, rarely are things mapped perfectly from the first upload, it only
> becomes a problem when some tags data consumers have assumed defaults.
>
> From my side I do consider this a soft launch, by uploading and publishing
> the challenges on MapRoulette it provides a good medium to distribute the
> results to the mapping community to look over. So I am very open to further
> feedback here which I can use to rebuild the challenges.
>
> So far there is no organised mapping happening to work through these
> challenges.
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021, at 6:25 PM, Warin wrote:
> > For

Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?

[Kevin Pye]

The term you're looking for is "gravel stack". A gravel pit is indeed a
quarry -- but that's something else.

Kevin.

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 12:31, Michael James 
wrote:

> As someone who drives a lot of country highways they are both temporary
> and permanent.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sebastian S. 
> *Sent:* Monday, 17 February 2020 11:11 AM
> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Graeme Fitzpatrick ;
> OSM-Au 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?
>
>
>
> Is this a temporary thing?
>
> Or is this similar to sand boxes they (used to) have next to rail lines?
> (For traction in winter)
>
> On 17 February 2020 10:14:47 am AEDT, Graeme Fitzpatrick <
> graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What do we map gravel pits as? (Areas off the side of a main road, used by
> Dept of Transport Main Roads to dump gravel etc for road building / repairs)
>
>
>
> Quarry seems a bit excessive!
>
>
>
> Depot doesn't really cut-it either as there's nothing there except for a
> pile of dirt.
>
>
>
> & is this another Aussie-only?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Question about lanes

[Kevin Pye]

2010/1/23 Sam Couter :

> The second photo shows cars parked on both sides of the street facing
> away from the camera, which suggests it's a one-way street. It's a poor
> example.

You can't necessarily assume that a street is one way based on the
direction the cars are parked. In some parts of the world it's legal
and common to park on the wrong side of the road.

Kevin.

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