Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi,

I also find streams useful to indicate the surrounding ground is 
downhill towards them. Being at the bottom of a valley it is also fairly 
obvious when you encounter one in person.


They are often hard to map from aerial imagery as they may hidden by 
tree cover. This is one reason why many are missing from OSM. Adding 
more of them would be good.


Regards,
Kim

On 26/5/23 13:54, Josh Marshall wrote:
I map streams on the regular. Given most of what I map is bike + 
running single-track, streams are helpful as a clue to the local 
topography.


But I’ve also made relations for all of our local streams and creeks; 
go to the Newcastle area and search for Ironbark or Cottage Creek for 
instance… it used to just return a single hit on one small section for 
almost every creek. My interest here is because much of the area was 
uninhabitable swamp until there was a huge effort to put in some 
monster drains in the 1890s. And yet it will still occasionally flood 
and people complain about council not doing anyway…


Do note, the DCS map can be quite wrong in places… I’m pretty sure a 
lot of it was done once and then never updated.


Arguably most streams in Australia are intermittent, I don’t think the 
definition is totally locked down, but when they are isolated sections 
of standing water in between rain, that is intermittent in my mind.



On 26 May 2023, at 8:00 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 wrote:






On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 22:26, Tom Brennan  wrote:

I'm looking at adding missing stream data in national parks
around Sydney.

However, how much value is there in bringing in all of the stream
data
in say the DCS Base Map vs just the named streams?

I can see for example, the value in bringing in named streams.
But there
are huge numbers of smaller (unnamed) streams.


It's not a bad idea, as it would let anybody needing water in the 
bush, know that there's a creek over there, & also let you know that 
if you go this way, you may get wet feet! :-)


But, do DCS Base & Topo differentiate between permanent & 
intermittent creeks?


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] OSM Wiki Cleanup Update: 6th Tagging Guidelines Page ready

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi Dian,

The AWTGS page referenced isn't much use. As a trail user it doesn't 
tell me if 1 is easy or hard.


Searching for other references I found
https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/safety/bushwalking-safety/australian-walking-track-grading-system
https://naturetrail.com.au/australian-walking-track-grading-system/
https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/things-to-do/hiking-and-bushwalking/choose-the-right-hike/how-walking-tracks-are-rated

all of which use almost identical descriptions and symbols for grades 1 
to 5. Does anyone know what the source for this is, and if we are 
allowed to include the descriptions verbatim in wiki.osm?


Is Pump track missing a key=value pair in the Value column? 
bicycle=designated by its self doesn't imply pump track.


The "Bike Lanes and Street Cycling" section is vague. What does "map 
according to what is on the ground, rather than relying on technical, 
legal definitions" mean? Isn't what is signposted on the ground what the 
legal definition is? Given that many signposted bike lanes and trails in 
Australia are not fit for purpose (eg they have parked cars in them or 
cyclist dismount signs) I don't know how they can be tagged in a 
consistent and useful manner.


The rest of the page looks good.

Kim

On 26/6/22 22:02, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hello,

The sixth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths 
is ready for review.


This page took a significant amount of effort, as there is ongoing 
discussions, conflicting global guidelines, and the previous content 
was quite out of date. This is also likely to be the subpage with the 
most controversy, so I would strongly encourage contributions and 
feedback from all.


Please, as always, don't be shy about providing feedback or raising 
concerns. There are only one subpages to go with the Tagging 
Guidelines pages: Utilities and Infrastructure.


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] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi Tony,

On 16/5/22 07:00, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Kim

Can I please clarify "using highway=cycleway should only be used where 
there are signs allowing"?


That is how I've always used it in urban areas.

Does this apply to just sidewalks (US sidewalk, UK pavement, AU 
footpath) or all paths including paths through parkland, beside 
freeways, rivers and railway lines?


There was discussion about this on talk-au (which I'm unable to find 
with a quick search), and it was noted that legally cycling may be 
permitted on unsigned paths that are not next to roads. I don't remember 
a clear definition being given on when cycling on is permitted on these 
paths not next to roads which makes tagging them difficult. Can anyone 
else clarify this?



Thanks
Tony



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

Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Responses below.

On 15/5/22 13:56, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Sebastian and list

Today I did a number of edits relating to whether a lack of bicycle 
signage, on its own, is sufficient grounds to remove 
bicycle=yes/designated or cycleway. Most of my edits though relate to 
cases where there is signage that had not been noticed by an editor.


I invite anybody with an opinion on this to discuss here (talk-au). So 
far I have two, reproduced below:


_
This is one of two cases of questions that had been asked but not 
answered, I don't have an opinion on this one. Changeset: 115626232, 
Sebastian's answer below


Bob42nd we shouldn?t be mapping based on a Strava heat map as it 
doesn?t not determine that transiting in permissible. The heat map 
indicates that people have used it but we should be mapping on the 
ground with what form of transport is permitted.


Strava heatmap by itself is not a reason to map a path. Strava heatmap 
is useful to align a known path to an accurate location based on lots of 
Strava users' GPS traces.


Mapping a path over a grass area with surface=grass is reasonable, and 
often the best way of indicating in OSM that it is possible to navigate 
between nearby ways. When using OSM for navigation it is often unclear 
if you can travel directly between 2 close ways - there may be a fence 
or house in the way (which you can't walk through), or it may be an 
unrestricted grass area which can easily be walked across. Adding a 
grass way makes it obvious that you can travel directly between the 
points, while surface=grass and informal=yes indicates that there is not 
a high quality path.



_
changeset/120382941 This one had been changed from a cycleway to a 
footway on the basis of no signage indicating that bicycles were 
allowed. Lots of paths have been changed to foot on the basis of no 
signage and I have let many go uncommented because I am not familiar 
with them.


If the path is signposted as "cyclists dismount" then bicycle=designated 
is wrong. bicycle=dismount is the most appropriate tag, though 
bicycle=no is often used interchangeably with bicycle=dismount.


While many cyclists would consider "Cyclists dismount" to be 
inappropriate, it is not OSM's role re-interpret what is appropriate, 
rather, it is to document what is legally allowed.


As cycling on footpaths is not generally allowed in Victoria, using 
highway=cycleway should only be used where there are signs allowing bikes.


IMHO adding foot= and bicycle= tags is usually a waste of effort as in 
Victoria highway=footway implies foot=yes and bicycle=no, while 
highway=cycleway implies foot=yes and bicycle=yes. Adding these tags can 
make things worse as it is unclear if children under 13 can ride on a 
path tagged with bicycle=no. Did the person who added the tag do it 
because all cyclists are banned, or were they just duplicating the 
implied cyclists limitations for footpaths while ignoring the effect the 
age of the cyclist has on what is allowed?


I know  this one well. My understanding is that you have to wheel your 
bike across Macrobertson Bridge but otherwise its OK to ride. I 
signaled my intent to edit 2 weeks ago and got no reply so I made the 
changes. Sebastian's reply below:


The Mapillary link you provided included a big picture of a bike with 
a cross through it painted on the ground indicating that bikes are not 
permitted. Not sure how you have have come to the conclusion that 
bikes are permitted.


 The bridge way that diverts north and follows Yarra Boulevard is not 
part of the Main Yarra Trail.


Please revert the change.
__




___
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] Wiki Clean Up Progress Update

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi Dian,

Some questions and comments.

Are all toll roads highway=motorway? All the ones I know in Victoria 
are. If so, we should add tollways to the description of highway=motorway



   "Construction and maintenance of paved roads in profoundly remote
   areas is both practical and uneconomical"

Should that be "impractical"?



We should discourage the vague surface values of "paved" and "unpaved", 
instead using more specific tags like asphalt and compacted. Can we 
replace the example with something more specific than "surface=unpaved"?


surface=gravel has it's own problems given the common use in Australia 
is different to the wiki description. I'm not sure the best way to 
address this.


Should we talk about pipestems in driveways, given recent discussions on 
this list?


Unnamed Roads should use "noname=yes" and not "noname=*". That's 
probably what you intended, but may not be obvious to someone 
encountering the noname tag for the first time.


Regards,
Kim

On 17/4/22 23:23, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hello list,

Cleanup has of the Tagging Guidelines page is continuing.

The 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australia%27s_First_Peoples 
received positive feedback, and has now been integrated fully into the 
page.


The second Tagging Guidelines subpage of the cleanu[ is ready for 
community 
endorsement:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads.


This subpage was hard. This section had a lot of really old content, 
some of which had been largely unchanged for a decade. There was a lot 
of generic, non-Australia specific advice and explanations justifying 
what is now well accepted tagging practices. I have tried my best to 
update the wording of the relevant sections while keeping the intent 
and advice within consistent with the original while removing outdated 
information. I've also been guided by the actual usage of some of the 
tags suggested, which have not been implemented despite their 
documentation many years ago.


Please, review this page and let me know your thoughts and feedback. 
If there are no objections, the old text from the guidelines will be 
removed.


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] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

To add to the ambiguity of what physically separate means I'll highlight 
the roudabout joining Wonga Road and Oban Road:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-37.79463/145.24154

Here the separation between lanes is similar to a long thin speed hump - 
you can drive over it, but it is a physical bump to discourage people 
from cutting corners:


https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.794785108333=145.24219080806=17=303763387865756=photo

To make it even more confusing these raised humps don't extend the full 
distance of the approach, and they could be mapped as a mix of two 
separate ways, and a two lane way just before the roundabout - but this 
would be getting too pedantic and I can see no benefit of doing so.


Personally, I'm less concerned about how these ambiguous cases are 
mapped - whatever we decide you will always be able to find an middle 
case that could be mapped either way.


What is more important is getting the obviously wrong (see other thread) 
turning lanes fixed. I suspect a lot of the problem here is that id and 
the standard OSM render don't visually show lane tags. It is easy to 
visually map separate lanes as separate ways which then looks "good" - 
even though this is wrong by OSM standards.


Regards,

Kim

On 5/3/22 10:46, Luke Stewart wrote:
There are many situations in Australia where you are permitted to 
cross an unbroken white line (for instance, moving to a special 
purpose lane). The wiki is pretty unambiguous, "where traffic flows 
are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), 
which prevents movements between said flows". Emergency vehicles are 
an obvious class where crossing legal barriers such as lines on the 
road is perfectly fine.


___
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] Information source question - sorry kind of lengthy.

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

On 3/2/22 09:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 22:18, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
 wrote:


update a short section of road there with access=no.


=no or =private, because work crews can still drive in there to do 
repairs?
Either would be fine as far as I'm concerned. Both achieve the primary 
objective of stopping routing engines from using this road.


This achieves the main objective of stopping OSM from routing
along the
way. 



& would you also add noexit=yes to each end of the blocked section?
noexit isn't a tag I've used. According to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit "It must be ignored by 
routing (GPS)." - which means its use shouldn't affect routing.


Also, if you use access=private then noexit=yes is wrong because "other 
modes can continue".


If you are using a map checking tool which complains if it doesn't have 
a noexit=yes tag then add it. Personally, I don't normally add tags 
which have no practical effect on how I use the map, and only affect a 
tool which: I haven't used, don't have experience with, and therefore 
can't verify if I'm using the tag correctly.



& in regard to "Local Knowledge" ^^

So you're standing in the pub having a cold beer & the two blokes 
beside you are talking.


"Jeez, Coulsons Creek Road is a mess. Had to go to Merriwa yesterday 
but it's closed from a landslide, so I had to go all the way to Woop 
Woop & back".


"Yep, my sons part of the Main Roads crew looking at the repairs. 
"Very Bad Spot" has gone completely & he reckons it's going to be out 
for at least 2 years"


Does that count as Local Knowledge?


There will always be sources which require a subjective decision on what 
is sufficiently verifiable to justify mapping it. Are the two blokes 
beside you people who you know previously to be reliable sources? Or are 
they the local drunks who are known to tell tall tales?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi,

On 3/2/22 09:34, Phil Wyatt wrote:


…. and then work on getting the def:syntax incorporated as defaults 
into the database somehow?




That would be good, but I'm not sure how to do it.

One place to start would be to mention on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia 
that these defaults have been documented in the state relations and 
include links to these relations. This at least raises the visibility of 
how we have tried to document them, and anyone writing a routing engine 
can see these defaults in machine readable form.


I am happy to edit that wiki, with community guidance, to at least 
show what is in the relations def:’s if that is acceptable. I also 
note other countries have notes in respect of some restrictions so if 
folks have links to relevant material I don’t think it hurts to add them.




Updating the WIKI with state variations would make sense.

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

Re: [talk-au] Information source question - sorry kind of lengthy.

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

What I'll often do is map what I can verify in person and is useful to 
others, even if it isn't complete.


In this situation, the practical use to most others is that the road 
should no longer be routeable for through trips. If you know one end of 
the closure then update a short section of road there with access=no. 
This achieves the main objective of stopping OSM from routing along the 
way. The exact location of the other end of the closure can be added by 
any mapper at a later date when they survey where it is. Why it is 
closed, and how long it is closed for (which may not be accurately 
known) are good to add in a note or description.


On 2/2/22 19:41, Bob Cameron wrote:
MR358 or Coulsons Creek Road between Willow Tree and Merriwa NSW is 
closed for repair of major slippage as it crosses the Liverpool 
Ranges. "Livetraffic" (Traffic for NSW govt site) says not reopening 
until late 2023. A reference on that to a local govt site is devoid of 
any current information.


In the OSM data catalogue Wiki thare are a number of TFNSW waivers but 
I dont see anything obvious that would allow me to copy the 
"Livetraffic" closed road section.


Livetraffic uses Google maps. It is quite explicit as to what 
length/location is closed.


As it turns out I'll be at the Willow Tree and Merriwa ends of this 
road in a week so can view any closure signs. I also know the slippage 
section as I drove on it just before it was closed a year ago. There 
are even Mapillary images of same. I don't however plan to drive up to 
the closure barriers at each end to check for sure!


Do I have enough to make an educated guess as to what section would be 
deemed closed without violating any copy-write etc stuff.


Tnx


___
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] Path versus Footway

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

On 2/2/22 21:45, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its 
not usually editable by mappers?




See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652

Specifically the tag: def:highway=footway;access:bicycle = yes

While it appears to be editable just like any other relation in OSM, 
changing the state defaults without first discussing on this list would 
be likely get your changes reverted.


To find the state relation and defaults zoom in on any location in 
Tasmania, click the Query features icon and click anywhere in Tasmania, 
eg 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=-41.99883=146.57288#map=17/-42.8/146.57296 

then click on the "State Boundary Tasmania 
" link. The same process 
can be used to find the defaults for any other state or territory.


Regards,
Kim


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

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi,

Is there any advantage to tagging addresses with the state when the 
state is already well defined in OSM and the state for a given address 
location can be obtained from existing map data?


I'm not criticising Justin's work - improved consistency is good. I'm 
asking the open ended question: is there a better way of recording this 
data that avoids duplication?


Regards,
Kim

On 29/1/22 23:56, tabjsina wrote:

Hello,

I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies 
if I'm doing it wrong :)


I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to 
confirm updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia 
to "WA", if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already 
"WA", 9% were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), 
and the remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a 
suburb/city name.


Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed 
that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym, 
NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full 
name.


Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the 
rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes 
sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, 
VIC, SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital 
Territory, etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise 
this value at all.


Thanks,
Justin


___
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] Importing 200 emergency markers?

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

On 26/11/21 9:09 pm, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 26/11/21 18:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:

Hi,

The markers were installed by the railway, and are maintained by the 
railway. They are pole numbers attached to each telegraph pole along 
the railway. 


So they are pole reference numbers that are being used as emergency 
markers?


Yes.

Being used by the Railway and ESTA as emergency markers.


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

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi,

On 26/11/21 5:34 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Further
If the marker looks the same as the bottom photo of 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Demergency_access_point


For an example see

https://photos.app.goo.gl/bcvgcPLYmpU25fQB9

This is PBM010. The marker only has the text "010", and does not include 
the "PBM" prefix used by ESTA.


then the dataset is 
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers/resource/44add10f-a478-4ab0-a6fa-227493663b28


It should be part of the ESTA data set, but I can't find them in that 
data. I'm assuming ESTA haven't included all emergency markers for 
whatever reason - maybe because they aren't signposted in a way that the 
public would recognise.


Regards,
Kim


Tony


Hi

This subject was discussed in October.
The dataset they are sharing is likely to be
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/esta-emergency-markers/resource/44add10f-a478-4ab0-a6fa-227493663b28 



and it was determined that we do not have the right licence to use 
this data.


I say likely to be the same dataset, I am fairly sure but no guarantee.

Tony


Are these emergency markers created and maintained by the Puffing Billy
Railway?

If not they might be sharing a dataset with you that they don't have
permission to share for this purpose?

Adam

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 16:24,  
wrote:


Maybe just create a simple page on the wiki describing what you 
intent to
do along with a link to information about the received permission? 
Just to

make it easier to find in the future if there are any concerns.



*From:* Andrew Harvey 
*Sent:* Friday, 26 November 2021 13:46
*To:* Kim Oldfield 
*Cc:* OSM-Au 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?



That sounds fine to me, this email consulting with the community,
informing of your plan and what steps you've taken is enough in my 
opinion.




I would ask if you could share more information about the 
permission you
obtained? So long as you have sufficient rights to submit the data 
under

the OSM contributor terms.



On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 04:56, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

Hi,

I have a list of 200 emergency marker locations along 22km of the
Puffing Billy Railway which were provided to me by the railway with
permission to include them in OSM.

I've been reading through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import -
most of which appears to be geared toward larger imports and using
publicly available data with various licenses. The data for my 
import is
not publicly available, and was provided to me when I asked to 
import it

into OSM.

I've searched overpass-turbo and there are no
highway=emergency_access_points, name~"PBM", or ref~"PBM" near the 
list

of nodes I have to import. This indicates that none of the nodes are
already mapped.

Based on the example file on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM_file_format I've converted 
the

emergency marker list into xml, the start of which looks like:




  
  

...

In JOSM I can import this file and merge the layer. I'm intending to
then upload this with appropriate an comment noting that the data was
provided by Puffing Billy Railway with permission to include it in 
OSM.


I'm proposing to import this as a one off, single change set under my
existing OSM username.

Is this a reasonable way to do this import? Is there anything else I
should do?

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









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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning






___
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] Importing 200 emergency markers?

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi,

The markers were installed by the railway, and are maintained by the 
railway. They are pole numbers attached to each telegraph pole along the 
railway. To help emergency services locate points along the railway 
Puffing Billy provided their location to ESTA with the "PBM" prefix.


As the railway created and maintains them I assume they are allowed to 
give permission for others to use them.


Regards,
Kim

On 26/11/21 4:56 pm, Adam Horan wrote:
Are these emergency markers created and maintained by the Puffing 
Billy Railway?


If not they might be sharing a dataset with you that they don't have 
permission to share for this purpose?


Adam

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 16:24, <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au>> wrote:


Maybe just create a simple page on the wiki describing what you
intent to do along with a link to information about the received
permission? Just to make it easier to find in the future if there
are any concerns.

*From:*Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>>
*Sent:* Friday, 26 November 2021 13:46
*To:* Kim Oldfield mailto:o...@oldfield.wattle.id.au>>
*Cc:* OSM-Au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

That sounds fine to me, this email consulting with the community,
informing of your plan and what steps you've taken is enough in my
opinion.

I would ask if you could share more information about the
permission you obtained? So long as you have sufficient rights to
submit the data under the OSM contributor terms.

    On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 04:56, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hi,

I have a list of 200 emergency marker locations along 22km of the
Puffing Billy Railway which were provided to me by the railway
with
permission to include them in OSM.

I've been reading through
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import> -
most of which appears to be geared toward larger imports and
using
publicly available data with various licenses. The data for my
import is
not publicly available, and was provided to me when I asked to
import it
into OSM.

I've searched overpass-turbo and there are no
highway=emergency_access_points, name~"PBM", or ref~"PBM" near
the list
of nodes I have to import. This indicates that none of the
nodes are
already mapped.

Based on the example file on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM_file_format
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM_file_format> I've
converted the
emergency marker list into xml, the start of which looks like:




   
   

...

In JOSM I can import this file and merge the layer. I'm
intending to
then upload this with appropriate an comment noting that the
data was
provided by Puffing Billy Railway with permission to include
it in OSM.

I'm proposing to import this as a one off, single change set
under my
existing OSM username.

Is this a reasonable way to do this import? Is there anything
else I
should do?

Regards,
Kim





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

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



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

[talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi,

I have a list of 200 emergency marker locations along 22km of the 
Puffing Billy Railway which were provided to me by the railway with 
permission to include them in OSM.


I've been reading through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import - 
most of which appears to be geared toward larger imports and using 
publicly available data with various licenses. The data for my import is 
not publicly available, and was provided to me when I asked to import it 
into OSM.


I've searched overpass-turbo and there are no 
highway=emergency_access_points, name~"PBM", or ref~"PBM" near the list 
of nodes I have to import. This indicates that none of the nodes are 
already mapped.


Based on the example file on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM_file_format I've converted the 
emergency marker list into xml, the start of which looks like:





  
  

...

In JOSM I can import this file and merge the layer. I'm intending to 
then upload this with appropriate an comment noting that the data was 
provided by Puffing Billy Railway with permission to include it in OSM.


I'm proposing to import this as a one off, single change set under my 
existing OSM username.


Is this a reasonable way to do this import? Is there anything else I 
should do?


Regards,
Kim





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

Re: [talk-au] Service road highway areas as frontage road access

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

I've updated the intersection to a similar layout to that suggested by 
Thorsten.


I have a passing familiarity with the area.

It looks like Ewan has just suggested a similar layout.

While making that edit I noticed Burwood Highway is tagged with 
foot=yes. My first response was that's wrong as walking down a highway 
would be dangerous (and illegal?). But then, foot=yes can imply a 
footpath which is safe to use, but then the highway would be better 
tagged with footway=sidewalk or sidewalk=left, though on the south side 
of Burwood highway it would be better to tag the service lane, and not 
the main highway. The next step is to map individual footpaths. I 
decided to avoid that rabbit warren, and left foot=yes on the highway 
for now.


On 23/10/21 5:18 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:


Looking on mapillary, it seems you can also enter there, so the 
current mapping is wrong.


Also, I can’t see any legal reason, besides it being dangerous if 
there is traffic, to cross all the way from the parking lot at the top 
to that Burnwood Highway Service Road at the bottom, or the other way 
around.


I’m not going to actually touch it, as it’s way outside my usual 
mapping area, but personally I would map it like this:


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/901351143542784050/unknown.png 



Cheers,

Thorsten

*From:*Graeme Fitzpatrick 
*Sent:* Saturday, 23 October 2021 14:23
*To:* Dian Ågesson 
*Cc:* OSM-Au 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Service road highway areas as frontage road 
access



On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 at 13:54, Dian Ågesson > wrote:


On the most recent edit, a highway=service area has been
introduced for a roadway between a main road, a frontage road and
a side street

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/995553123


I have not seen this before, and it doesn’t strike me as correct.

No, I would agree that it is not correct, & there's no real need for 
it to be there.


From looking at what's already mapped, it would appear to be OK, with 
one possible exception?


Can traffic from the Hwy enter the service road at the Rose St 
intersection, or is it one-way outwards only?


If it's two-way, then Rose St should be broken, & the section between 
the service road & the Hwy made two-way. At the same time, you could 
also move it to the middle of the intersection, but that's only my OCD 
neatness coming out! :-)


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] Mapping tree cover

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi Adam,

On 5/10/21 10:23 am, Adam Horan wrote:

Hi Kim,
highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
highway=footway.
I only included highway=pedestrian as it is part of 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia 
which I'm trying to get a consensus on. What you you think the default 
access tags should be for highway=pedestrian in Australia?


bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're 
discussing here.

Also included only because it is part of the default access wiki page.
Given it doesn't get used much in Australia is it worth deviating from 
the worldwide defaults?



I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless 
there's a sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no

Agreed.


Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
either
highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway 
"The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways which are 
used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians" so highway=footway is not 
appropriate for many bike paths which are mainly used by bikes, and less 
so by pedestrians.

or
highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer 
this one, but it's a mild preference)
In Victoria there are not many bike only paths, so it makes more sense 
to use this for paths for combined bike and foot traffic. This is also 
how it is commonly used on OSM in Victoria (and the rest of Australia?).


As mentioned by  by Sebestian, using highway=cycleway is also much 
easier to visually distinguish. As using highway=cycleway an equally 
valid way to tag, I'd consider this to be practical tagging, and not 
tagging for the renderer. According to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer it is 
actually//"Don't deliberately enter data incorrectly for the renderer".


If we set the default in Australia for highway=cycleway to be foot=yes 
then we don't need to repeat foot=yes on each way.



This is mostly with a VIC perspective.

Likewise.


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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi Andrew and list,

How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, 
or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any 
consensus we reach on this list?


We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per 
Andrew's email below).


We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for 
various highway= values at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia 
and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." 
Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:


highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about 
bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken 
up by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. 
In Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about 
the other states?
These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations 
with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.


On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, 
Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal 
footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no 
can still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has 
pointed out cases where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no 
but Mapillary shows bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this 
you've actually surveyed in person and confirmed that the situation 
has change recently (happy to be proven if this is the case, though I 
think it unlikely) then we should proceed to roll back your changes 
because it's evident it goes against the community wishes here and the 
bulk changes have brought in these errors.


Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this 
discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be 
willing to work through and revert these changes you've made?


___
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] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will 
some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The 
majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified (not 
defined)which I think is fine.
The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by cyclist 
takes information from OSM and then creates a route based on the 
permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.


In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults). 
The is defined in the wiki at

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
and more formally in OSM at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741

As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as part 
of the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any software 
which ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We should not 
tag all footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which doesn't 
understand the defaults already configured in OSM.


It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.

[*] Is that the name of the person using 
osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au? You don't appear to have used a name 
in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as domains 
often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that I'm right.


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

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

The wiki suggests you should use the addr tags instead:

addr:street=Jardine Road
addr:housenumber=32
addr:unit=a/b/c or leave off for common driveway

I have tried this in the past, but validation tools complained.
I'm not sure if it is acceptable to set an address on a driveway.

On 24/9/21 10:02 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

z
On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 09:40, > wrote:


Hi
I see that you have named the driveways. How does this sit with
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only



I don't "think" it goes against the grain of anything listed there?

No, driveways aren't (usually) signposted, but there will usually be a 
mail box beside them saying "32" - is that good enough to use as a 
street sign?


As mentioned, I did it that way to help people find the property - if 
there's overwhelming objection to it, I'll stop!


 Thanks

Graeme


?

Tony

> On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 20:17, Tom Brennan
mailto:webs...@ozultimate.com>> wrote:
>
>> Graeme - are you saying that you are tagging them all the same?
Just as
>> separate ways?
>>
>
> Yep.
>
> Here's one that I did recently:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-28.07919/153.23456
, which was
> apparently a single property that was sub-divided.
>
> (Notes: I've just repositioned 32b's driveway as new imagery
shows it
> further over to the side, & 32d could have it's own short stub,
but it's
> not visible)
>
> Anybody (particularly Emergency Services!) can see that to get
to 32 you go
> down here, & B is over there, C down that way, D right beside
the road & A
> is right up the end.
>
> "32" is a service=driveway (+ access=private) from the road in
to the A / C
> junction, & each of the other three are exactly the same from 32
to each
> house.
>
> 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] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi Andrew,

A couple of days ago I updated this intersection to remove a couple of 
short ways, merge some ways, and update the turn restrictions. There 
should now be only one ways to negotiate the intersection from any entry 
to exit. This may explain why online directions are working, while 
OsmAnd may be using older data.


I haven't see a response to my question of when to use multiple lanes or 
separate ways. In this intersection there are small plastic obstructions 
between lanes. I can see arguments for modelling them either way. For a 
picture of these see 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.794368611389=145.24075834056=17=1146194895843889=photo 
<https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.794368611389=145.24075834056=17=1146194895843889=photo>


Regards,
Kim

On 21/9/21 6:54 pm, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 18/9/21 9:04 pm, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:


Andrew, are you familiar with this intersection from travelling 
through it?




No, and it may be some time before I could visit in person :-(

I came across this one because it had a broken turn restriction. Based 
on what had been mapped I assumed that someone was trying to give lane 
guidance. This is just a standard roundabout except for the fact that 
you need to be in the left lane to turn left on some of the arms.


OSRM and Graphhopper will give you correct directions (ie take the nth 
exit on the roundabout) but OSMAnd fails to notice you are going to 
drive through a roundabout. The first two routers are getting the 
correct answer by accident because the fake slip roads have been 
tagged as _link, as a result the router prefer to follow the main road 
into the roundabout.


It had occurred to me that the same outcome (lane guidance) could now 
be given using turn and change tagging.


___
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] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi,

I'd agree with Tony here. Personally I simply tag a footpath with 
highway=footway. The implication (in Victoria) is that adult bicycles 
are not permitted. I don't see the benefit of explicitly tagging with 
foot=yes and bicycle=no. Tagging also ignores the subtly of who is 
allowed to ride on footpaths (children, adults with children, etc). If 
there is a sign which explicitly forbids riding then I'll tag it with 
bicycle=no/dismount.


Likewise with highway=cycleway. In Victoria this means that both 
pedestrians and bikes are allowed. Explicitly tagging foot=yes and 
bicycle=yes adds unnecessary noise.


I've seen a proliferation of foot=yes/designated and 
bicycle=yes/designated tags on bike paths. Generally I ignore them 
unless they are wrong. Do they provide any value?


What happens if the law is changed and adults are allowed to ride on 
footpaths? These tags all become worse than nothing as there is no way 
to tell from OSM which paths have signs prohibiting cycling, and which 
tags are stating the default from before the law was changed.


What is the advantage of explicitly tagging paths as described in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Footpath_.28no_sign.29 


when the tags are merely duplicating the state law?
Are we just adding thousands of tags to make it easier for routers which 
don't know the state laws?


We have default access by highway type documented at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia 

Why is this being duplicated by manually adding these tags to ways? 
Should states be added to this table?


Regards,
Kim

On 20/9/21 4:05 pm, Tony via Talk-au wrote:

Hi all

I am thinking that OSM maybe could better confine itself to what can 
be ground truthed.


If a path exists, motor vehicles are physically excluded and that 
there is no signage

motor_vehicle=no highway=path

if there's signage then =designated or no

Its not for us to judge if the path is legally a footpath. Applying a 
bicycle=no is not even correct because under 12 year olds and 
accompanying adults can use it.


Let the map renderers and routing engines worry about the legalities 
which change over time and which apply equally to the same physical 
features and can be applied "globally" by them and let OSM concentrate 
on the ground truthed physical features.


Tony



Yeah, I?m aware of that. As far as I can tell, there is no legal  
difference between (unsigned) footpaths and (signed) Shared Paths in 
 regards to bicycles in Queensland as far as I can tell.




e.g. 
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle#footpath




simply lists the two cases together as one.



On one hand, that makes bicycle tagging easy.



On the other hand, because of the equivalence, the local council, at 
 least in my suburb, doesn?t seem to bother putting up any shared  
path signs, despite the fact that some paths are by their  
construction (2.5m+ in width) pretty clearly designed as shared paths.




I noticed yesterday that some of them have this stamped on the 
surface every few 100m: 
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/889335852357025822/unknown.png


But, legally speaking, because of the absence of shared path signs,  
they are still footpaths.




Now, under the Australian Tagging Guidelines, I?m supposed to tag  
all of these as highway=footway as far as I can tell: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australian_Footpath_.28no_sign.29




But I don?t think that really makes sense in this context because  
you do want the 3m paths perfect for cycling to stand out from the  
80cm footpaths.




When I started mapping my suburb donkey years ago, some of these  
larger ?footpaths? where mapped as highway=cycleway with various  
inconsistent tags on top. I?ve since standardized them to:




highway=cycleway

foot=designated (should that be only yes?)

bicycle=yes (to distinguish them from signed ?real? shared paths  
which are designated)


segregated=no



I believe this falls under the inverse of the rule:

Unfortunately, it is possible in Australia for a legally designated  
cycle facility to be completely unusable. A bicycle lane that is  
really a parking lane, or a shared path sign on a obstructed or even 
 non-existent path. Mappers should use common sense and discretion,  
and map the effective facility that exists on the ground if it  
differs to what is defined by the Australian road rules.




But, given that I think this situation (councils not bothering to  
put up shared path signs for paths that are clearly designed as  
such) is probably common in Queensland and other states where there  
is equivalence of unsigned paths and shared paths in regards 

Re: [talk-au] Another Melbourne intersection for review

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi,

When should separate ways be drawn, and when should lane tags be used on 
a single way? In this intersection the asphalt is continuous between 
parallel lanes, but they are separated by long rubber strips with a 
cross section about 20cm wide and 10cm high - not something a router 
should expect people to drive over. Should these be separate ways (as 
this intersection has been drawn)? Or should lane tagging be used 
instead? See the yellow hump between lanes in the bottom of the photo at 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.794368611389=145.24075834056=17=1146194895843889=photo=0.5099759524408607=0.6241051450966552=0 



As for changes, I'd suggest removing 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/703254763 
 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/703254777 
. Some turn restrictions 
could also be added, but many restrictions are not required as the ways 
are all one way.


Andrew, are you familiar with this intersection from travelling through it?

Regards,
Kim

On 18/9/21 7:23 pm, Andrew Davidson wrote:

I came across this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.79462/145.24176

which is no doubt causing routers all sorts of headaches.

I'm thinking of combining the roundabout part of the intersection into 
a single roundabout and adding some lane tagging.


Does anyone have an objection to this proposal?


Thanks.

___
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] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

In Firefox type in the address about:performance to see which Firefox 
tabs are using the most CPU ("Energy Impact") and memory.

Closing the top tabs in this list can speed Firefox up.

On 28/7/21 5:59 pm, Bob Cameron wrote:


Task Manager (ctrl-alt-del and select) will show process/ram hogs. 
sort by cpu usage then memory, grab the process name and search on it...


4GB may be a little light too.. If your hard drive flogs (swaps) a lot 
that may be worth a look.


G'luck!


On 28/7/21 3:22 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 16:57, Adam Horan > wrote:


I've hit quota blocks so many times in the last few days trying
to get these queries working at all


Another question, possibly re this?, for you & anybody else who may 
be working Roulette.


These last few days, while I've been working on Roulette problems, my 
laptop (Win 8.1, Firefox 90.0.2, 4GB Ram) has been absolutely chewing 
CPU & Memory. ATM with only Roulette & GMail open, it's sitting on 
40% CPU & 90+% Memory usage :-(, while actually editing OSM is 
painfully slow.


I've cleared the cache, restarted, run a MalwareBytes scan & all 
normal troubleshooting but no go.


 Anybody else had similar issues, or any suggestions?

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] Tags for bike tail you are not allowed to ride on?

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Thanks for your replies Warin and Ewen.

I've gone with highway=footway and bicycle=dismount.

I don't know how bicycle routing will deal with this. I'll try OSRM and 
GraphHopper once they have had a chance to pick-up my changes.


Regards,
Kim

On 20/6/21 5:33 pm, Warin wrote:

highway=footway too as you are not allowed to ride on it.
It can still be part of the bicycle route relation, just as a 'non 
riding' segment.


I'd think the name Eastlink Trail is wrong for this segment  and 
probably others too. There may be signs with 'Eastlink Trail' on them 
but that does not mean the segments carry that name but rather the 
route they form carries that name.


On 20/6/21 4:43 pm, Ewen Hill wrote:
Interesting conundrum Kim. Setting bicycle=no would probably route 
cyclists onto busy roads and setting bicycle=yes is not legal so use 
bicycle=dismount instead.


Ewen

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 18:35, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


Hi,

What is an appropriate set of tags for a bike path you aren't
allowed to ride on?

Specifically https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25313938
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25313938> has signs saying
that cycling is prohibited. It is also part of the "EastLink
Trail" bicycle route.

Presumably it should have bicycle=dismount, and not the current
bicycle=designated. I have not received a reply from HighRouleur
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/HighRouleur> as to why it was
changed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88285752
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88285752>

Should it be highway=cycleway as it is part of the EastLink
Trail, or highway=footway as you are not allowed to ride on it,
or something else?

Regards,
Kim


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



--
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill


___
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