[talk-au] Tourist routes in ACT - do they still exist?

[Mark Pulley]

I posted this recently to the Oceania forum, but haven’t had a reply yet. Does 
anyone here know the status of ACT tourist routes?

———

I was about to start adding Tourist Route 5 in the ACT after a recent trip.
Tourist Route 6 is already in OSM - but I noticed that this is being removed, 
as according to this document (linked to from one of the changesets) it no 
longer exists.
https://www.cityservices.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/1378528/Municipal-Infrastructure-Standards-12-Guide-Signs-1-1.pdf
 - page 35: “Tourist Drives routes are no longer signed within the ACT”
I have no idea about the status of Route 6, but Route 5 still seems to be well 
signposted.
Should I add Route 5 based on the signs, or is this route being decommissioned?
If Route 6 has gone, is it safe to remove the relation for this route?

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Track route names used to name paths

[Mark Pulley]

> On 18 May 2024, at 5:36 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/5/24 00:10, Mark Pulley wrote:
>> I’ve just uploaded a changeset deleting the overlapping ways for the Grand 
>> Clifftop Walk.
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151456052
> Thanks Mark. That is quite a bit of work.
> 
> I would have done it later in a week or two, just to make certain there were 
> no objections.
> 
> I started the Grand Cliff Top Walk relation so as to get it on 
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=17595958&type=relation&map=15.0/-33.7223/150.3398
> 
> then I came across the overlapping ways ...
> 
> My thoughts are ...
> 
> You have to be very careful with using 'route signs' to name paths. 
> 
> Without knowledge the path name may not be the route name, so I would not tag 
> the path with the name unless I could verified it.
> 
I wasn’t sure if this last section was a general comment or specifically for 
this changeset.
In this case, apart from deleting the duplicate 'Grand Cliff Top Walk’ ways, I 
left the other ways as they were without changing names (apart from splitting 
some ways to allow for the relation to work).

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Track route names used to name paths

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve just uploaded a changeset deleting the overlapping ways for the Grand 
Clifftop Walk.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151456052

Mark P.

> On 17 May 2024, at 6:37 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/5/24 00:11, Mark Pulley wrote:
>>> On 16 May 2024, at 6:15 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In the Blue Mountains some paths have more than one OSM way - each with 
>>> different 'name', at least some of these are routes that may, I repeat may, 
>>> not be the true path name.
>>> Example
>>> Way 1199677262 - 'Grand Clifftop Walk'
>>> Way 22761613 - 'Overcliff Track' Note NPWS route 'Overcliff-Undercliff 
>>> track' .. the over cliff track is mapped separately in OSM. A route 
>>> relation could be made with both these tracks and a website link..
>> Just had a look at this one - YUK! The new 'Grand Clifftop Walk' way 
>> overlapping the existing way should go. New relation should be made for the 
>> route. There are some sections that would keep the name - the section from 
>> Golf Links Lookout to near Carleton Road was given that name back in the 
>> ?1990s? (I remember seeing the name in the mid 90s) - the track was meant to 
>> be extended further to Sublime Point but this never happened.
>> 
> The error message I got from JOSM was some 50 overlayed ways .. that may not 
> be all of them.
> 
> ___
> 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] Track route names used to name paths

[Mark Pulley]

> On 16 May 2024, at 6:15 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the Blue Mountains some paths have more than one OSM way - each with 
> different 'name', at least some of these are routes that may, I repeat may, 
> not be the true path name.
> Example
> Way 1199677262 - 'Grand Clifftop Walk'
> Way 22761613 - 'Overcliff Track' Note NPWS route 'Overcliff-Undercliff track' 
> .. the over cliff track is mapped separately in OSM. A route relation could 
> be made with both these tracks and a website link..

Just had a look at this one - YUK! The new 'Grand Clifftop Walk' way 
overlapping the existing way should go. New relation should be made for the 
route. There are some sections that would keep the name - the section from Golf 
Links Lookout to near Carleton Road was given that name back in the ?1990s? (I 
remember seeing the name in the mid 90s) - the track was meant to be extended 
further to Sublime Point but this never happened.

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

Re: [talk-au] Track route names used to name paths

[Mark Pulley]

Using the analogy of highways, the local name would take priority (e.g. name of 
fire trail), other otherwise-unnamed sections would take the route name.

Doesn’t necessarily apply to tracks of course. When I surveyed the Great North 
Walk 4 years ago from Cowan to Epping Road 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88292947 I applied the name to some of 
the paths. I recall there being wooden signs with the Great North Walk name 
present, so I took this to be the name of the path.

Mark P.

> On 16 May 2024, at 9:11 PM, cleary  wrote:
> A response to Tony's comment  (but not necessarily relevant to the names of 
> tracks)
> 
> The "higher" name is not necessarily the street name.
> 
> In New South Wales, the local government is the naming authority for street 
> names.  Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is the authority for designating 
> highways but not the street names.  For example, in the Sydney suburb of 
> Ashfield, the Hume Highway includes Liverpool Road but the official name of 
> the road is Liverpool Road and premises will have Liverpool Road as their 
> address.  The RMS can designate the road as a highway and can signpost the 
> name/number of the highway but the local government posts the formal street 
> name.  In the particular example I have given, the primary name is Liverpool 
> Road.  This principle applies in all the similar instances of which I am 
> aware.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

There’s probably going to be other examples of NPWS deleting paths. I’ve just 
had a look at the Jungle Circuit in Blackheath. This was deleted by NPWS 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144648041 - at least most of it was, a 
small bridge was left behind near the creek, and the first part from Rodriguez 
Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently closed, I’m not able to 
check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with some indistinct sections, so 
it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022 floods have finished it off. I’ve 
asked a clarifying question on the changeset.

Mark P.

> On 27 Feb 2024, at 8:53 pm, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> I haven't followed this thread and I don't know if this is relevant to the 
> discussion but I have just reverted the deletion of a bunch of paths in Tweed 
> Shire, NSW here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147956474 - the 
> deleter claims to have ties to NPS.
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix (mainly to 
keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the recommendation seems to be to 
keep the tags as they are now (access=discouraged, informal=yes).

Mark P.

> On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan  wrote:
> 
> Given this thread is still going, the US has a useful collaboration resource 
> between mappers and land managers
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project
> 
> cheers
> Tom

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

Re: [talk-au] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve got some further info on how this user has been editing (see comment on 
changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117791362 )

In short, Harsimranjit works for an un-named company. Unspecified people can 
report an incorrect speed limit on a road segment, it is verified (?how?) by 
someone else in the company, then goes to Harsimranjit who checks the claimed 
speed limit change with NSW Speed Zone Data, then if the NSW Speed Zone Data 
matches the proposed change, the edit is made. This process has obviously not 
worked in at least a few of these changesets (the ones I found had been changed 
incorrectly).

Mark P.

> On 19 Feb 2024, at 8:19 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> 
> I haven’t done any reversions yet. I was planning to start from the oldest 
> changeset and work forwards, however the oldest changesets don’s specify a 
> source. I’ve asked about a couple of these including:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117791362 - first changeset - on 
> outskirts of Wilcannia
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117831384 - outskirts of Old Junee
> 
> Both of these are claimed to be from information provided by ’someone’ who 
> had travelled on those roads. I’ve just asked for more info regarding the 
> source of this information.
> 
> I also queried a couple of recent edits from 'local information and NSW Speed 
> Data’:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147432769 - western edge of Kempsey 
> from 'local information and NSW Speed Data’ - also from ’someone’ who had 
> travelled on those roads.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146881278 - private driveway near 
> Brooms Head from 'local information’ - I had previously surveyed this 
> maxspeed, and recent Google imagery showed the same limit. No reply regarding 
> this one.
> 
> How should I (or we) approach this? Will I need to check available imagery 
> for every changeset? Should I go ahead and revert the NSW Speed Data ones?
> 
> Mark P.
> 
>> On 12 Feb 2024, at 2:45 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>> 
>> No objections from me. They haven't responded yet, and from everything we 
>> can tell they imported the data without any other cross checks and didn't 
>> follow the import guidelines.
>> 
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 at 22:00, Mark Pulley > <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
>>> I’ve got some spare time (having caught up with the surveys from my last 
>>> holidays), so I can go through these and revert them. Any objections?
>>> 
>>> Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve just had another private message from Stephen Stenberg:

I had replied privately:

Prior to reversion, we had been discussing this for several months at the 
talk-au mailing list. I had delayed the reversion as I was of the understanding 
that someone from NPWS was about to join the discussion, but that did not 
eventuate.
For reasons discussed on some of the previous changesets, and on the mailing 
list, there should be something present. I’ve added a comment to my changeset 
regarding a couple of suitable changes, and have sent a note back to the 
mailing list for further discussion.

I had also added a comment to the most recent changeset.

He has replied to me:

I hope this message finds you well. Several months ago, you were informed about 
the decision to exclude certain paths near Apsley Falls Campground from 
OpenStreetMap. Despite clear communication from the NSW National Parks and 
Wildlife Service (NPWS) stating that these tracks, at their request, have been 
removed, it appears there is a persistent effort to reintroduce them.
It is important to emphasize that these paths are situated on NPWS land, and as 
part of their management strategy, NPWS no longer wishes for these paths to be 
displayed. Reinstating these pathways not only contradicts NPWS wishes but also 
requires additional work hours from their end to rectify the situation.
It is crucial to understand that NPWS has already dedicated resources to remove 
these paths, and by reapplying them, it creates unnecessary challenges. I urge 
you to respect NPWS’s decision and refrain from adding these paths back onto 
OpenStreetMap.
Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated and will contribute to 
the effective management of the area.
Thank you for your understanding.

I have replied back, requesting that he either make comments on the changeset, 
or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private messages, as I don’t 
want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks to tonyf1 who has made the 
same suggestion on the changeset.)

Mark P.

> On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> 
> I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had deleted 
> these last time):
> 
> Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service has 
> officially closed the track.
> “Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by 
> myself 30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”
> Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate its 
> removal once again by NPWS.
> 
> So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.
> I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been 
> officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per our 
> request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."
> It’s a shame that NPWS hadn’t bothered to join the discussion on here.
> I’ve added a comment to my reversion changeset, suggesting access=no (rather 
> than deleting outright). Any relevant comments there are welcome!
> 
> Mark P.
> 
>> On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>> 
>> Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
>> 
>> Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve just received a private message from Stephen Stenberg (who had deleted 
these last time):

Contrary to your statement, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service has 
officially closed the track.
“Reasons for reversion: This is still visible on the ground (checked by myself 
30 November 2023) The track is not formally closed.”
Kindly refrain from reinstating this track, as doing so will necessitate its 
removal once again by NPWS.

So far the track hasn’t been deleted again.
I had asked on one of the older changesets about whether this had been 
officially closed - didn’t get an answer to that, only "These tracks per our 
request have been removed. Please do not add them back on."
It’s a shame that NPWS hadn’t bothered to join the discussion on here.
I’ve added a comment to my reversion changeset, suggesting access=no (rather 
than deleting outright). Any relevant comments there are welcome!

Mark P.

> On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> 
> Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
> 
> Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

[Mark Pulley]

I haven’t done any reversions yet. I was planning to start from the oldest 
changeset and work forwards, however the oldest changesets don’s specify a 
source. I’ve asked about a couple of these including:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117791362 - first changeset - on 
outskirts of Wilcannia
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117831384 - outskirts of Old Junee

Both of these are claimed to be from information provided by ’someone’ who had 
travelled on those roads. I’ve just asked for more info regarding the source of 
this information.

I also queried a couple of recent edits from 'local information and NSW Speed 
Data’:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147432769 - western edge of Kempsey 
from 'local information and NSW Speed Data’ - also from ’someone’ who had 
travelled on those roads.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146881278 - private driveway near 
Brooms Head from 'local information’ - I had previously surveyed this maxspeed, 
and recent Google imagery showed the same limit. No reply regarding this one.

How should I (or we) approach this? Will I need to check available imagery for 
every changeset? Should I go ahead and revert the NSW Speed Data ones?

Mark P.

> On 12 Feb 2024, at 2:45 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> No objections from me. They haven't responded yet, and from everything we can 
> tell they imported the data without any other cross checks and didn't follow 
> the import guidelines.
> 
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 at 22:00, Mark Pulley  <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
>> I’ve got some spare time (having caught up with the surveys from my last 
>> holidays), so I can go through these and revert them. Any objections?
>> 
>> Mark P.
>> 
>>> On 9 Feb 2024, at 9:57 am, Andrew Harvey >> <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> We do have permissions to use this data it's listed in 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_South_Wales,
>>>  however from looking at their changeset history, it looks like
>>> 
>>> 1. They are conducting an import by en-mass blindly adding and replacing 
>>> existing data with the imported data
>>> 2. They may be engaging in directed mapping (being employed to make these 
>>> changes), since their changesets are all the same, importing speed limits, 
>>> except for one Local Knowledge changeset 
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131210459 in India.
>>> 
>>> If they want to conduct an import like this, they need to go through the 
>>> proper process, so based on and the issues you've rased it should be fine 
>>> to revert all their affected changes and then ask going forward to go 
>>> through the import guidelines 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import_guidelines.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 21:32, Mark Pulley >> <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
>>>> Does the NSW Government Speed Zone data have a licence suitable for 
>>>> importing into OSM? Also, is it generally accurate?
>>>> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones
>>>> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/road-segment-data-from-datansw
>>>> 
>>>> The reason I ask is that I recently came across a few roads with speed 
>>>> zones updated based on this data. The biggest problem is that the changes 
>>>> made in these three changesets were incorrect (i.e. the previously 
>>>> surveyed maxspeeds were updated from this data, but on survey in December 
>>>> 2023 the original surveyed maxspeed was the correct one). 
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129760120
>>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759614
>>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759603
>>>> 
>>>> Other changesets have been made based on this data, but I haven’t checked 
>>>> the accuracy of them.
>>>> 
>>>> Mark P.
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
>>>> 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
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352

Mark P.

> On 12 Feb 2024, at 7:05 am, forster  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Its OK by me. The park ranger who appears to be most connected to this has 
> been contacted and invited into our discussion. What more can we do? Its 
> unfortunatee that a slow motion edit war will be the likely outcome.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> In that case, should I go ahead now with the revert?
>> Mark P.
>>> On 9 Feb 2024, at 6:23 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>>> No, nothing that I have heard.
>>> Tony
>>> Just following up on this - has there been any further input from
>>> National Parks regarding these paths?
>>> Mark P.
>>> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified
>>> himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I
>>> would share off list.
>>> He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street
>>> Map. But that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails
>>> that Mark is reverting.
>>> He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on
>>> the ground, not  just that they were unauthorised or social or
>>> illegal.
>>> I encouraged him to join the discussion here.
>>> Tony
>>> I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.
>>> (Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern  non-visible
>>> trail deleted)
>>> Any objections / changes before I go ahead?
>>> Mark P.
>> ___
>> 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

In that case, should I go ahead now with the revert?

Mark P.

> On 9 Feb 2024, at 6:23 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> No, nothing that I have heard.
> Tony
> 
> 
>> Just following up on this - has there been any further input from  National 
>> Parks regarding these paths?
>> 
>> Mark P.
>> 
>>> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified  
>>> himself as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I  would share 
>>> off list.
>>> 
>>> He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street  Map. But 
>>> that does not necessarily mean they are the same trails  that Mark is 
>>> reverting.
>>> 
>>> He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on  the 
>>> ground, not  just that they were unauthorised or social or  illegal.
>>> 
>>> I encouraged him to join the discussion here.
>>> 
>>> Tony
>>> 
 I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.   
 (Keeping the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern  non-visible  trail 
 deleted)
 
 Any objections / changes before I go ahead?
 
 Mark P.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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 using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve got some spare time (having caught up with the surveys from my last 
holidays), so I can go through these and revert them. Any objections?

Mark P.

> On 9 Feb 2024, at 9:57 am, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> We do have permissions to use this data it's listed in 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_South_Wales, 
> however from looking at their changeset history, it looks like
> 
> 1. They are conducting an import by en-mass blindly adding and replacing 
> existing data with the imported data
> 2. They may be engaging in directed mapping (being employed to make these 
> changes), since their changesets are all the same, importing speed limits, 
> except for one Local Knowledge changeset 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131210459 in India.
> 
> If they want to conduct an import like this, they need to go through the 
> proper process, so based on and the issues you've rased it should be fine to 
> revert all their affected changes and then ask going forward to go through 
> the import guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import_guidelines.
> 
> 
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 21:32, Mark Pulley  <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
>> Does the NSW Government Speed Zone data have a licence suitable for 
>> importing into OSM? Also, is it generally accurate?
>> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones
>> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/road-segment-data-from-datansw
>> 
>> The reason I ask is that I recently came across a few roads with speed zones 
>> updated based on this data. The biggest problem is that the changes made in 
>> these three changesets were incorrect (i.e. the previously surveyed 
>> maxspeeds were updated from this data, but on survey in December 2023 the 
>> original surveyed maxspeed was the correct one). 
>> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129760120
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759614
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759603
>> 
>> Other changesets have been made based on this data, but I haven’t checked 
>> the accuracy of them.
>> 
>> Mark P.
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

Just following up on this - has there been any further input from National 
Parks regarding these paths?

Mark P.

> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified himself 
> as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I would share off list.
> 
> He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street Map. But that 
> does not necessarily mean they are the same trails that Mark is reverting.
> 
> He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on the ground, 
> not  just that they were unauthorised or social or illegal.
> 
> I encouraged him to join the discussion here.
> 
> Tony
> 
>> I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.  (Keeping 
>> the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible  trail deleted)
>> 
>> Any objections / changes before I go ahead?
>> 
>> Mark P.

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

[talk-au] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

[Mark Pulley]

Does the NSW Government Speed Zone data have a licence suitable for importing 
into OSM? Also, is it generally accurate?
https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones
https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/road-segment-data-from-datansw

The reason I ask is that I recently came across a few roads with speed zones 
updated based on this data. The biggest problem is that the changes made in 
these three changesets were incorrect (i.e. the previously surveyed maxspeeds 
were updated from this data, but on survey in December 2023 the original 
surveyed maxspeed was the correct one). 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129760120
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759614
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759603

Other changesets have been made based on this data, but I haven’t checked the 
accuracy of them.

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

I’ll wait a bit for him to join the discussion before I upload.

Mark P.

> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified himself 
> as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which I would share off list.
> 
> He identified himself as having deleted trails from Open Street Map. But that 
> does not necessarily mean they are the same trails that Mark is reverting.
> 
> He was definite that the trails that he deleted did not exist on the ground, 
> not  just that they were unauthorised or social or illegal.
> 
> I encouraged him to join the discussion here.
> 
> Tony
> 
>> I?ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload.  (Keeping 
>> the trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible  trail deleted)
>> 
>> The tags would return to what they were before NPWS deleted them.
>> highway=path
>> foot=yes
>> informal=yes
>> trail_visibilty=intermediate
>> surface=dirt
>> 
>> With additional tags:
>> hazard=cliff (not listed on the wiki, but there are 36 uses in Taginfo)
>> access=discouraged
>> note=access discouraged by NPWS
>> 
>> with a link in the changeset notes to  
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F +  
>> mention of this discussion.
>> 
>> Any objections / changes before I go ahead?
>> 
>> Mark P.
>> 
>>> On 18 Dec 2023, at 8:22?am, Graeme Fitzpatrick   
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together  with a 
>>> hazard= tag?
>>> 
>>> Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to  set-up 
>>> an OSM liasion contact.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Graeme
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley >> <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
>>>> I?m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked  tracks only. 
>>>> The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn?t  mention any 
>>>> restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn?t  mention any 
>>>> restrictions.
>>>> 
>>>> Mark P.
>>>> 
>>>>> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32?pm, Andrew Harvey  >>>> <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only"  combined 
>>>>> with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to  imply you can't 
>>>>> continue further and therefore access=no.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me  that 
>>>>> just means it's the end of foot=designated, and further  tracks would be 
>>>>> foot=yes and informal=yes, without any access=no.
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve prepared a partial revert for Apsley Falls, ready for upload. (Keeping the 
trail near the cliff, leaving the eastern non-visible trail deleted)

The tags would return to what they were before NPWS deleted them.
highway=path
foot=yes
informal=yes
trail_visibilty=intermediate
surface=dirt

With additional tags:
hazard=cliff (not listed on the wiki, but there are 36 uses in Taginfo)
access=discouraged
note=access discouraged by NPWS

with a link in the changeset notes to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F + 
mention of this discussion.

Any objections / changes before I go ahead?

Mark P.

> On 18 Dec 2023, at 8:22 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together with a 
> hazard= tag?
> 
> Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to set-up an 
> OSM liasion contact.
>  
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> 
> 
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 20:02, Mark Pulley  <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
>> I’m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked tracks only. 
>> The map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn’t mention any 
>> restriction, and the National Parks web site doesn’t mention any 
>> restrictions.
>> 
>> Mark P.
>> 
>>> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32 pm, Andrew Harvey >> <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined 
>>> with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't 
>>> continue further and therefore access=no.
>>> 
>>> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just 
>>> means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be foot=yes 
>>> and informal=yes, without any access=no.
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

I’m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked tracks only. The 
map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn’t mention any restriction, and 
the National Parks web site doesn’t mention any restrictions.

Mark P.

> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined with 
> the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't continue 
> further and therefore access=no.
> 
> Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just 
> means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be foot=yes 
> and informal=yes, without any access=no.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

On my last holiday I took a detour to re-check the Apsley Gorge track.

The asphalt path ends at a lookout https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/324186826

The ‘controversial’ path is still present south of here - I followed it some of 
the way (about 350m), but didn’t follow it all the way to the end.

There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows the 
sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6

On the left side of the sign, there’s a warning icon (exclamation mark), then 
“No safety rail”, another warning icon (man falling off edge of crumbling 
cliff), then “Unstable edges”

On the right side of the sign is the text “End of track, no safety rail beyond 
this point”

The sign is there to discourage walkers venturing further south, but it’s not 
technically a “do not enter” sign.

Does that help with what to do with this particular example?

Mark P.

> 
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  <mailto:mrpul...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
>> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this 
>> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>> 
>> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
>> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
>> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>> 
>> For this particular example, the results would be:
>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively 
>> abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>> 3. No reversion
> 
> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle 
> prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=* or rehabilitated:highway=*.
> 
> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should capture 
> the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present that reason 
> for the closure to users, whether that be via rehabilitated:highway=* or 
> something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
> 

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this 
particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):

1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
3. Leave the deletion as it is.

For this particular example, the results would be:
1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or alternatively abandoned:highway=* 
or disused:highway=*
3. No reversion

So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I wasn’t 
sure about the third!)

Here’s my proposal:
Partial revert of ways
Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my 
survey in early 2022)
Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of 
access=no (as NWPS don’t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to 
describe the reason for the access tag
(Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will 
prevent it appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don’t have a new survey of 
this area. The NPWS ranger doesn’t appear to want this showing on the map, but 
hasn’t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it officially 
closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations have previously 
been marked access=no e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the 
mailing list discussion).

It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn’t planning to go back to this 
location any time soon to do one.

Mark P.

> On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter  wrote:
> 
> (I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I agree 
> with Tom's take and have commented below:
> 
> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan,  > wrote:
>> Tricky one.
>> 
>> I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they 
>> don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks on a 
>> map which might encourage it.
>> 
>> But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go about 
>> it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never 
>> real tracks in the first place.
>> 
>> As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be 
>> added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the ground.
>> 
>> Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure (announcement on 
>> the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so that it 
>> shouldn't appear on downstream maps.
> 
> 
> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something should 
> exist in OSM.
> 
> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think it 
> should be represented with:
> highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
> informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
> access=no because the relevant authority says so
> It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly justified, but any signage 
> at the site is justification enough, even if it is poorly maintained or 
> vandalised: the access tag is describing policy, not practical use. I would 
> encourage the managers to ensure signage is maintained, because many people 
> won't be using OSM as their source of truth!
> 
> I think the OSM edits and email discussions also serve as justification for 
> the access=no tag. A publicly posted notice would be ideal, so that it can be 
> referenced as a source.
> 
> If there are downstream maps that are not representing the access 
> restriction, then we should put pressure on them to make use of the access 
> tag. It is a very established tag, and it is the correct solution for many 
> sensitive situations like this, including private property, etc.
> 
> Finally, it would be somewhat helpful to mention in the description=* tag 
> that use of the track is discouraged/banned for rehabilitation. Justification 
> for reinstating the OSM features could also be documented in the notes=* tag 
> to minimise the risk of this discussion coming up again.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben
> ___
> 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Mark Pulley]

I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has deleted 
some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National Park).

These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were 
reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a different 
NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)

I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as 
informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case access=no 
can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a policy to the 
wiki for similar situations?

Summary of the edits to this area:
31/12/08 macAlba https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/694496
ways initially added by survey

3/10/18 mrpulley https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63140199
I split ways (separating the official path from the unofficial path). I don't 
see the informal paths at that survey (but I hadn't been looking for them)

24/1/22 Guy Hodgson https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116519029
(see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116520175 - similar situation 
in Macquarie Pass National Park)
Ways deleted (Guy is employee of NPWS, tasked by NPWS ranger to delete the ways)

25/1/22 aharvey https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116568934
Reversion of previous changeset following discussion

18/4/22 mrpulley https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119854924
I visit and resurvey the paths. One path difficult to find (way 29415025), 
others are visible

26/6/23 Stephen Stenberg https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/137773356
(Stephen is employee of NPWS, tasked by NPWS staff to remove the ways)
Addition of access = no
foot=yes changed to foot=no
informal=yes changed to informal=no (this tag change is incorrect)
note=These tracks no longer exist. Edit from New South Wales National Parks and 
Wildlife Services.

1/9/23 Stephen Stenberg https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140660737
Addition of width=0
note=These tracks no longer exist. Based on NSW Spatial Data.
source=survey;local knowledge;NSW Spatial Services

18/9/23 Firefishy https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141445146
Ways are deleted. (Not sure how Firefishy became involved - he's part of the 
OpenStreetMap Sysadmin team)

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] NSW Bridle Track

[Mark Pulley]

One question I forgot to ask yesterday - what do I call the track?

When I did my original survey in 2009, I called it ‘Bridle Track’. At some 
stage it was changed to “The Bridle Track” as that is the name used on the DCS 
NSW Base Map.

All the road name signs I saw on this trip have “Bridle Track” (without the 
“The”)

The signs on the camp areas had “Bridle Track” at the top near the reserve 
name, but “The Bridle Track” on the map on the signs.

Should I remove the “The” from the name? 

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

Re: [talk-au] NSW Bridle Track

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve just uploaded my edits from yesterday’s Bridle Track trip. I got as far as 
Monaghans Bluff in my 2WD. I then walked the old road, then returned to my car 
via the new road. Road looks good, but there is bulldust present on some 
sections, particularly the ascent from the Bathurst side. I saw a 4WD lose 
traction on this, and I had the same problem when I tried (only did the first 
rise from the creek to where the old road turned off) so I turned back. I 
didn’t see signs of any further work on the other parts of the Bridle Track 
that I saw, but online I did see references to grading work on the Hill End to 
Turon River section.

There is a sign (at Hodges Road) advising the road is 4WD only, so I’ve marked 
the road past there as 4wd_only=yes. I’ve left the road classifications as they 
were.

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

Re: [talk-au] NSW Bridle Track

[Mark Pulley]

> On 21 Feb 2023, at 2:42 pm, Josh Marshall  wrote:
> 
> Australian road tagging guidelines at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads 
>  
> arguably override the general OSM guidelines, and they read:
> 
> highway=track: "Service and access roads that aren't part of the general road 
> network. Generally not paved, often not public access for vehicles."... in 
> rural "Fire trails, forest drives, 4WD tracks, and similar roads.
> 
> highway=unclassified is: "Minor roads that are neither tertiary or 
> residential roads. Not generally through routes."
> 
> Given that, I'd argue =track is the right option.


When I surveyed the Bridle Track back in 2009 (I think this was the year before 
the landslide) I picked highway=track as it was very rough. I don’t remember if 
it was signposted four-wheel-drive only, but I can still remember the look of 
shock on the face of the tourist information lady at Hill End when I mentioned 
I had arrived via the Bridle Track in my two-wheel-drive vehicle!

The new section bypassing the landslide at Monaghans Bluff looks good in the 
photos I’ve seen of the construction, but whether it remains good is another 
question. There was no work on the remainder of the track.

If the classification was changed to highway=unclassified, it will definitely 
need the addition of 4wd_only=recommended

highway=tertiary is wrong. I would not use the DCS NSW Base Map as a source for 
the highway classification. I’ve seen too many errors in this map to trust 
this. (As an example, in Armidale NSW, Boorolong Road comes in from the west as 
a tertiary road. As it enters Armidale, the main road then follows Handel 
Street / Queen Elizabeth Drive, but the Base Map takes the road classification 
across the train line and along Shambrook Avenue, a minor and narrow road.)

I’ll have a look at the new road when I can (if not this weekend, then the 
weekend after), as I live close by.

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

[Mark Pulley]

I did some work on some of the relations prior to going on holidays. I can take 
over where I left off, but it won’t be for another week.

Maybe a good starting point for anyone would be to go through the relations 
I’ve already done on and change the tags on those ways.

See the appropriate changesets at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mrpulley/history

Mark P.

> On 1 Oct 2022, at 8:48 pm, Dian Ågesson  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> 
> Just an update regarding this piece of work.
> 
> I was able to complete a bulk edit in Western Australia, however I found that 
> it took a significant amount of effort. WA is the "easiest" of the states to 
> convert, as it has less numbered routes and no alphanumeric routes to worry 
> about.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't believe a bulk edit for the other states is practical. 
> Relations are much easier to update, but segments of highways that are shared 
> by multiple routes are inherently manual tasks.
> 
> I will continue updating relations where I can, but any help would be greatly 
> appreciated tagging highway segments. 
> 
> Dian
> 
> On 2022-09-20 20:13, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> 
>> Hello list,
>> 
>> You may recall earlier this month the road route tagging guidelines were 
>> updated to adopt the "AU:" country prefix in the network field. 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-September/016533.html 
>> 
>> In order to make the transition as quick and seamless as possible, I'd like 
>> to propose a bulk edit to adjust the network tabs across Australia.
>> 
>> The edit would:
>> 
>> Change all road network tags to use the AU prefix in alignment with the new 
>> tagging guidelines 
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes
>>  
>> )
>> If there is support for this effort, I will make the change in one weeks 
>> time.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Would appreciate your thoughts and concerns.
>> 
>> Dian
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
>> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

[Mark Pulley]

Sounds OK to me.

I’ve been doing some work on the relations - I’ve been arranging the ways in 
order, to make it easier to see where any gaps are, and adding missing ways 
back in. (I’m assuming that when some editors have split ways, the relations 
haven’t been copied to both ways, e.g. a new bridge is missing from the 
relation)

I’ll upload what I’ve done later today or tomorrow (with the new network tags), 
prior to the bulk edit. There’s still some relations I haven’t done (mainly 
A/B/C routes, and routes without numbers) - I won’t be able to look at these 
for the next few weeks.

For the ‘Alternative’ routes I’ve used AU:VIC:ALT_NR, AU:WA:ALT_NR, 
AU:WA:ALT_S, and tor the Alt-A2 in QLD I’ve used AU:QLD:ALT.

Mark P.

> On 20 Sep 2022, at 8:13 pm, Dian Ågesson  wrote:
> 
> Hello list,
> 
> You may recall earlier this month the road route tagging guidelines were 
> updated to adopt the "AU:" country prefix in the network field. 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-September/016533.html 
> 
> In order to make the transition as quick and seamless as possible, I'd like 
> to propose a bulk edit to adjust the network tabs across Australia.
> 
> The edit would:
> 
> Change all road network tags to use the AU prefix in alignment with the new 
> tagging guidelines 
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes
>  
> )
> If there is support for this effort, I will make the change in one weeks time.
> 
> 
> 
> Would appreciate your thoughts and concerns.
> 
> 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] Adopting AU prefix in route network

[Mark Pulley]

Just a question about when (if) we do this. In the past I’ve placed the 
network/ref tags on both the relation and on the individual ways. Do we need 
the route number details on the ways as well, or can these be deleted from the 
ways?

Also, do we still need the old_ref tags (e.g. old route numbers prior to 
conversion to alphanumeric routes)?

If we go ahead with this change, I’ve got some time in the next few weeks, so 
am willing to volunteer to work on this.

Mark P.

> On 26 Aug 2022, at 8:00 pm, Dian Ågesson  wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> 
> 
> Following on from a previous discussion on the mailing list 
> , 
> I've put together guidelines that would allow us to implement AU: prefixes in 
> our route network tags.
> 
> The content is here: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Proposed_Australian_Routes 
> 
> I am looking for affirmation that this change is a good idea and should be 
> implemented in Australia.
> 
> 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] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mark Pulley]

There is flood_prone=yes that can be used for these roads - but only where 
signposted.

Mark P.

> On 27 Nov 2020, at 8:19 pm, cleary  wrote:
> 
> In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that is a 
> separate issue.  Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as floodways and 
> I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for that. If so, it 
> should be only where signposted and we should not assume that every place 
> where a road crosses a stream is necessarily subject to flooding. 

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

Re: [talk-au] Links with name

[Mark Pulley]

That third example is part of the residential street 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172830002 so that name should be kept. 
(Should it be reclassified as residential?)

Mark P.

> On 12 Feb 2019, at 6:22 pm, Petra Rajka - (p)  wrote:
> links (or other way categories) between dual carriageways take the name from 
> one of the adjacent roads
> ex. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172829556 
> 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Our work in last two weeks

[Mark Pulley]

I generally split these ways. A couple of reasons:

1. Traffic is generally not meant to make U-turns here. Occasionally there is 
an explicit no-U-turn sign, but most of the time there is a double white line 
extending from the end of the median strip preventing turning.

2. If a route relation uses the road, then it is required to split the road, as 
traffic following the relation doesn’t do a U-turn. As an example, have a look 
at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1284045 
 - ways 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/175260353 
 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/175260354 
 are the respective forward 
members for each direction of travel. (Probably easier to see in the relation 
editor in JOSM) 

Mark P.

> On 22 Jan 2019, at 8:23 am, Nemanja Bračko  wrote:
> 
> @Warin,
> 
> I personally do not see why is it wrong if you split? It is just two segments 
> merged in one node. Geometry and data are exactly the same just it is 
> represented as two, instead of one line.
> 
> If we go deeper in this issue, it is actually wrong, because you have 
> marked/mapped 2 physical segments with just one line. Angle is not natural 
> for any road. However, it doesn't make any difference in routing so it is 
> acceptable to be mapped as one line in cases like this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nemanja

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

Re: [talk-au] Roadside rest areas tagged as camp sites

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:


_Truck Parking_
Some places have had the name 'Truck Parking' applied to them (service
roads, parking areas and rest areas too). Not good.
My confusion here is does this mean truck only? I think other users may
have the same issue.
And some rest areas have a real name, so leading to this data being removed.
The tag hgv=yes could be applied to the roads and rest areas to
indicate this, and it does not mean motor_vehicle=no.


Some roadside parking areas are explicitly signposted as truck parking  
(rather than rest area) - I have often marked these as parking areas  
with name=Truck Parking (or similar - if it isn't otherwise named). I  
have no idea if cars are banned (there is no explicit sign saying they  
are, and I have stopped in these in a car at times).


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Roadside rest areas tagged as camp sites

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Nick Hocking :

tents=yes/no amd caravans=yes/no can be used. I can't find any  
specific tags for campervans (taginfo only has 3 instances worldwide  
of campervan/campervans) - presumably caravans=yes/no will cover this.



I think that if they are signed on the highway as "Rest Area" then OSM
should do the same.

Camping or caravan or HV (etc.) tags could be added as appropriate.


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Roadside rest areas tagged as camp sites

[Mark Pulley]

I've changed a few of these 'camp sites' to 'rest areas' when I've  
come across them. Many of them were added prior to the existence of  
the rest area tag. I've got no issues with these being re-tagged.


Quoting Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

I think the tag 'highway=rest_area' should replace those 'rest areas'
now tagged as 'camp sites', this would be closer to the truth.


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Legal access to Public land ...

[Mark Pulley]

On 2 Jul 2016, at 3:30 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/2/2016 9:26 AM, Frank wrote:
>> OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been
>> changed on 1 July 2016 by Swanilli to say that the public has a legal right 
>> to access public land ...
>> 
>> No!
>> 
>> The NSW NPSW do legally exclude the public from certain areas and at least 
>> vehicles from certain tracks.
>> 
>> The NSW, WA, SA and Victorian State Forests legally exclude the public too 
>> .. think about the car rallies held from time to time.
>> 
>> Even 'public roads' get closed to the public from time to time... how else 
>> would the Bathurst Road Race be held?
>> 
>> I have remove the offending statement from the wiki. I did attempt to 
>> contact the user .. but the wiki page has no send a message' type thiny ...  
>> hence this message.
> 
> Found the contact ... made comments on 2 changesets.
> Confusion may have arisen over plain English understanding of
> access=no
> 
> But the tags are
> access=no
> foot=yes
> 
> meaning you can access by foot but nothing else... in the OSM data base.


I have been using

motor_vehicle=no (or motorcar=no / motorcycle=no)
foot=yes (or foot=designated)

and depending on other tags

bicycle=no (or bicycle=designated if specifically signposted)

Mark P.


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

Re: [talk-au] LPI Base Map road names

[Mark Pulley]

Someone (thanks) has sent me a couple of links including Google  
streetview - looks like the name spelling is correct.


I've been trying to think what the other examples I have seen were. I  
think in one case the word 'Crescent' was misspelt on LPI.



On 21 Feb 2016 23:20, Mark Pulley  wrote:


Just to clarify - I was referring to the spelling on the LPI base   
map, which looked wrong in a couple of places.


Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/392061382

LPI Base Map has ‘Loriket Close’
It is probably meant to be ‘Lorikeet Close'

I’ve added the name as it is on LPI with a fix me tag to check the spelling.


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] LPI Base Map road names

[Mark Pulley]

On 21 Feb 2016, at 10:03 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21/02/2016 8:49 PM, Mark Pulley wrote:
>> I’ve been adding some names from the LPI base map. I was wondering how 
>> ‘accurate’ the names are. Most of the time the names look OK but I’ve 
>> noticed a couple of issues.
>> 
>> 1. Occasionally the name of the street is mis-spelt. Sometimes it is an 
>> obvious misspelling, but I’ve put a fixme tag on at least one way for a 
>> survey check.
> 
> With my spelling it is probably me.:-)
> In fact I usually have to pick up my spelling errors before they go in to OSM.
> So no help there.

Just to clarify - I was referring to the spelling on the LPI base map, which 
looked wrong in a couple of places.

Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/392061382

LPI Base Map has ‘Loriket Close’
It is probably meant to be ‘Lorikeet Close'

I’ve added the name as it is on LPI with a fix me tag to check the spelling.

Mark P.

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

[talk-au] LPI Base Map road names

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve been adding some names from the LPI base map. I was wondering how 
‘accurate’ the names are. Most of the time the names look OK but I’ve noticed a 
couple of issues.

1. Occasionally the name of the street is mis-spelt. Sometimes it is an obvious 
misspelling, but I’ve put a fixme tag on at least one way for a survey check.

2. Sometimes the name of the way on LPI is different to the existing name in 
OSM. Most of the time this simply involves splitting the way where a road name 
changes. I’ve noticed a few times when the road name on OSM is very different 
to the name on LPI. Does anyone have any guidelines on when to use the name on 
LPI and when to use the name in OSM?

Mark P.


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

Re: [talk-au] Northern NSW again

[Mark Pulley]

I’ve now been past this area to check the access on this section of the Great 
Western Highway. Between Lithgow and the Mudgee turn-off, there are several 
properties with access from the highway - this includes houses just next to the 
road (with the front yard facing the highway), and a service station. I’m 
inclined to return this section of highway from motorway to trunk. What does 
everyone else think?

On 20 Dec 2015, at 9:11 am, Mark Pulley  wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2015, at 1:20 pm, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>> Just for info, I've suggested that a relatively new mapper in Northern NSW 
>> might want to contact other mappers here in a comment on 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35480438 
>> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332351666 is clearly unjoined, but there 
>> may be other issues).
> 
> I’ve just noticed that the same user has ‘corrected' the road type for a 
> section of the Great Western Highway to motorway (between Lithgow and 
> Wallerawang).
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35571830
> Maxspeed is 110 for some of this, 100 for the rest, road is divided - however 
> there is only one ‘interchange’ (part of this is an at-grade junction). other 
> road junctions are at-grade intersections (not interchanges).
> It also isn’t technically limited access - there is a motel and a service 
> station beside the road, and I recall at least one driveway. (I’ll be driving 
> on this road in a few days so I can check if needed.)
> I’m in two minds about whether to revert this change or not. What does 
> everyone else think?


Mark P.


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

Re: [talk-au] Northern NSW again

[Mark Pulley]

On 19 Dec 2015, at 1:20 pm, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Just for info, I've suggested that a relatively new mapper in Northern NSW 
> might want to contact other mappers here in a comment on 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35480438 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332351666 is clearly unjoined, but there 
> may be other issues).


I’ve just noticed that the same user has ‘corrected' the road type for a 
section of the Great Western Highway to motorway (between Lithgow and 
Wallerawang).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35571830

Maxspeed is 110 for some of this, 100 for the rest, road is divided - however 
there is only one ‘interchange’ (part of this is an at-grade junction). other 
road junctions are at-grade intersections (not interchanges).

It also isn’t technically limited access - there is a motel and a service 
station beside the road, and I recall at least one driveway. (I’ll be driving 
on this road in a few days so I can check if needed.)

I’m in two minds about whether to revert this change or not. What does everyone 
else think?

Mark P.


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

Re: [talk-au] Highway route number prefixes for QLD and NT

[Mark Pulley]

On 10 Nov 2015, at 8:51 pm, Leith Bade  wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> That was what I originally going to implement.
> 
> However we will need to keep a list of individual routes for QLD NT and WA 
> since there is no way to separate national and state routes in those states 
> to give white or blue shield respectively.
> 
> The engineers pushed back against this as we much prefer leveraging OSMs rich 
> data model to do this sort of thing automatically.
> 
> To understand the reason, say a state one day changes the designation. If we 
> hard code the list of routes some one has to remember to go and update the 
> list. If we just rely on OSM tags then this will be picked up automatically 
> when a local user updates the ways
> 
Many highway routes include a network tag, e.g. a state route would have 
network=S, ref=xx - would using the network tag work to get the correct shield?

Mark P.

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

[talk-au] Question - restricted turning restrictions

[Mark Pulley]

Can anyone give a suggestion for how to tag a turning restriction that only 
applies to long vehicles?

The basic tags I understand:
restriction = no_left_turn
type = restriction

I have added this exception from the turn restrictions plugin:
except = bicycle;motorcar
however, this doesn’t really encode what I want - vehicles over 19 metres 
prevented from turning.

would this (not really suitable) tag work? 
minlength = 19 (it’s not on the page 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction

I have considered
except = maxlength=19
however it’s not a standard format, and routers would probably have trouble 
interpreting the tag

I could use:
restriction:hgv = no_left_turn
however there are heavy goods vehicles shorter than 19 metres who are allowed 
to make the turn.

Mark P.


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

Re: [talk-au] AGRI.openstreetmap.org not working

[Mark Pulley]

On 21 May 2015, at 10:23 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> On 21 May 2015 at 22:02, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>> Just a gentle reminder! Is AGRI likely to be coming back? I recently did 
>> some edits at Old Bar (NSW), and Bing imagery here shows a very large cloud 
>> over the town.
> 
> Did you try out Mapbox Satellite in the area? I would still like to
> see AGRI back too though.


I hadn’t - I’ve just had a quick look and the Mapbox imagery is cloud-free, so 
once I’ve finished my current edits I’ll go back to the Old Bar edits with 
Mapbox.

Mark P.


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

Re: [talk-au] AGRI.openstreetmap.org not working

[Mark Pulley]

Just a gentle reminder! Is AGRI likely to be coming back? I recently did some 
edits at Old Bar (NSW), and Bing imagery here shows a very large cloud over the 
town.

On 1 Dec 2014, at 9:39 am, Ross Scanlon  wrote:

> Still not available.
> 
> Any update on when it's likely to be back.
> 
> Cheers
> Ross
> 
> 
> On 17/10/14 08:40, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>> Any update on when this will be fixed?
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Ross
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/08/14 23:54, Grant Slater wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> Sorry... Not yet been able to get access to the broken machine. It will
>>> remain high on my task list to get it up and running again.
>>> 
>>> Longer term the rest of the sysadmin team are planning to replace faffy
>>> with a better more reliable imagery server.
>>> 
>>> / Grant
>>> 
>>> On 10 Aug 2014 12:25, "Andrew Harvey" >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>>On 6 July 2014 15:30, Grant Slater >>> wrote:
>>> > We had a problem with the server (faffy) which runs
>>> > agri.openstreetmap.org , it no
>>>longer starts up, we were limited on
>>> > time and were not able to get it up and running again.
>>> >
>>> > I will visit the data centre in a week to fix or replace the
>>>hardware.
>>> 
>>>I do find the AGRI imagery useful and it would be great if we could
>>>access it again.
>>> 
>>>Many thanks for all your effort Grant, hopefully you are able to fix
>>>the remaining issues.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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 Lizzy Internet
> see http://www.lizzy.com.au/mailscanning


Mark P.


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

[talk-au] Edits by Harry Drewer

[Mark Pulley]

Someone may need to have a look at recent edits by this user:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Harry%20Drewer

I have just discovered he has changed some roads from proposed to complete 
(including asphalt surfaces, lane numbers), despite these being still proposed.

Pacific Motorway at Hexham:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/307994672
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/307994668

Newcastle Inner City Bypass:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262202104

I have reverted these back, but haven’t had time to look at his other edits.  
I’ve sent him a message about the reverts via OSM.

Mark P.


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

[talk-au] Route number for Cross City Tunnel, Sydney

[Mark Pulley]

Does anyone here know the official route of NSW route A4 in central Sydney?

When I recently used the Cross City Tunnel, there were signs marked ‘A4’ 
westbound (the first one I was was at the exit to Sir John Young Crescent). 
However, on my return trip eastbound I didn’t see any route numbers (apart from 
the M1 exit). Does A4 officially follow the tunnel? (If so, is it only to the 
Eastern Distributor?) (OSM currently has it ending on the western side of the 
CBD.)

Thanks.

Mark P.


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

[talk-au] Question - names of motorways leaving Sydney

[Mark Pulley]

When the new alphanumeric route numbers in NSW were unveiled, some of the 
motorways were renamed (e.g. Sydney-Newcastle Freeway became Pacific Motorway, 
South-Western Motorway became Hume Motorway).

In OSM these all have the new route number included in the road name (e.g. 
name=M4 Western Motorway, rather than name=Western Motorway).

The signs on these roads don’t include the route number as part of the name.

Does anyone object if I rename these roads without the route number (route 
number will remain in the ref=* tag)? Or is there a good reason for the route 
number to remain in the name tag?

Mark P.


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

Re: [talk-au] Where to use sat image rather than GPS input?

[Mark Pulley]

On 4 Apr 2014, at 11:22 am, Frank  wrote:
> Context: Jenolan Caves, there is a tunnel that connects two valleys. The GPS 
> information contains errors that is enlarged by the reduced view of GPS 
> satellites and by multipath reflections caused by the valley and the steep 
> hillside that the tunnel passes through. 
> 
> In some places I contend that the sat imagery is to be preferred as more 
> precise/detailed compared to collected GPS data. 

I’d agree that sat imagery is preferred - just be aware that the imagery will 
need to be aligned with GPS traces in less problematic areas (e.g. on top of 
hills). There may be some previously-submitted GPS traces in the area to 
compare with yours.

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] path undre overhanging cliff?

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Frank :


Here is a nice puzzel?

How would you tag a path that lies under an overhanging cliff?

So it is not a tunnel, nor under a bridge...


What about covered=yes (similar to roads under buildings)?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered

Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Motorway edits in NSW / Vic

[Mark Pulley]

On 19 Feb 2014, at 6:15 pm, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> Quoting Jason Ward :
> 
>> Sorry for the double post / email,
>> 
>> This [1] looks like the reversion has been done for AU.  If a mrpulley is
>> on the talk-au list could you update Serge and talk-au?
>> 
>> [1]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20634749
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Jason
> 
> That would be me. Over the last cople of days I have gone through robbief14's 
> changesets and reverted several of them (some had already been reverted, so 
> I've left those alone, also I've left most of the UK ones alone as some of 
> these edits have been fixed (not sure if they was a full reversion or not)). 
> I've got a bit of tidying up to do once I get home from work tonight (e.g. 
> the Hornsby end of the Pacific Motorway now has duplicate ways with different 
> maxspeeds, as robbief14 had merged some ways and changed some maxspeeds).


I’ve finished my tidying up - hopefully everything’s been reverted. The 
maxspeeds at the southern end of the Pacific Motorway will need to be checked 
by someone (as it may change maxspeed near where it goes under the Pacific 
Highway). (I won’t be near there for some time.) Any volunteers?

Mark P.


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

Re: [talk-au] Motorway edits in NSW / Vic

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Jason Ward :


Sorry for the double post / email,

This [1] looks like the reversion has been done for AU.  If a mrpulley is
on the talk-au list could you update Serge and talk-au?

[1]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20634749

Cheers,

Jason


That would be me. Over the last cople of days I have gone through  
robbief14's changesets and reverted several of them (some had already  
been reverted, so I've left those alone, also I've left most of the UK  
ones alone as some of these edits have been fixed (not sure if they  
was a full reversion or not)). I've got a bit of tidying up to do once  
I get home from work tonight (e.g. the Hornsby end of the Pacific  
Motorway now has duplicate ways with different maxspeeds, as robbief14  
had merged some ways and changed some maxspeeds).


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Motorway edits in NSW / Vic

[Mark Pulley]

On 11 Feb 2014, at 2:03 am, SomeoneElse  wrote:

> Just for a info, the people on the talk-gb list have noticed a number of 
> edits upgrading unfinished motorways to "constructed" status.  The same user 
> has made similar edits in Australia, the most recent of which is:


Here’s another one, done about half an hour ago. I haven’t reverted it at this 
stage.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20497896

‘North South Motorway’ in Adelaide.

Mark P.


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

Re: [talk-au] Damage to Maps

[Mark Pulley]

OK. I've just run the reverter plugin on this changeset. Here's my changeset:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/19758081

On 02/01/2014, at 5:05 PM, Jason Ward wrote:
> My understanding is that the whole changeset must be reverted.
> 
> No response from the user yet but if this is a clear mistake then the 
> changeset should be rolled back.
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Jason
> On 2 Jan 2014 16:02, "Mark Pulley"  wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Jason Ward :
> >
> >> This appears to be the changeset (done in the Web interface).  I have
> >> messages the person and let them know that a rollback of that will soon
> >> occur.
> >>
> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/19743866
> >>
> >> Please go ahead and do that Peter.
> >
> >
> > Do we need to revert the entire changeset, or just undelete the ways for 
> > the national park and Hawkesbury River? A brief glance at the other ways in 
> > the changeset look OK.
> >
> > Mark P.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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


Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Damage to Maps

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Jason Ward :


This appears to be the changeset (done in the Web interface).  I have
messages the person and let them know that a rollback of that will soon
occur.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/19743866

Please go ahead and do that Peter.


Do we need to revert the entire changeset, or just undelete the ways  
for the national park and Hawkesbury River? A brief glance at the  
other ways in the changeset look OK.


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] M31 at Holbrook

[Mark Pulley]

I've just submitted the edit for the Holbrook bypass and associated roads. I 
haven't yet submitted the GPS traces (homework for me).

The old Hume Hwy north of where Pinnabar Road used to join is still present, 
but blocked off by temporary road closure barriers (yellow and black striped 
signs on metal stands) - I've added barrier=yes here (I'm not sure if this is a 
permanent closure at that point), but have left the road north of there, as it 
is still present (up to the closure near the current highway). I have also 
surveyed Pinnabar Road, Millswood Road and Tip Road, plus a couple of new 
access roads at the southern end of the bypass.

If you happen to go near Albury, you could check where the Riverina Hwy (B58) 
stops. I had thought the new route number was going to terminate at the Hume 
Hwy, but signs at the ramps off the Hume Hwy at the junction indicate B58 
continues to the east, and I did see another B58 on a sign (I think at 
Elizabeth Mitchell Drive - I turned off here to head north), but the road 
distance sign I saw on that section of road didn't have a road name or number.

On 15/11/2013, at 10:23 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
> Hi Arthur, mark,
> 
> About four weeks ago I went down to Melbourne, for a bike ride and did have 
> my GPS on through Holbrook. I saw someone had put the bypass in so I didn't 
> think to check it.  I've just uploaded my GPS and it matches the other one 
> very well and is substantially different to the "construction " ways.
> 
> Last Year I wen down to Nagambie lakes ( for a bike ride) and surveyed most 
> of Holbrook (pre bypass) on the way back. A lot of this is now wrong, because 
> of the bypass.
> 
> Mark,  I'll be going back down to Nagambie Lakes for the same ride this year 
> (in two weeks), so If you run out of time or miss any roads, I will be able 
> to finish them off.
> 

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] M31 at Holbrook

[Mark Pulley]

On 15/11/2013, at 11:14 AM, Arthur Geeson wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Yesterday I drove down the M31 and left the GPS running and this morning I 
> uploaded the gpx 'Parramatta to Lancefield'.  I get extremely good 
> correlation all the way with the exception of the new Holbrook by-pass.  I 
> was wondering if we should get some local confirmation before making the 
> changes to the map as some other local streets are affected?
> 
> Thanks Arthur (geesona)


It so happens that I did some traces of the bypass almost 2 weeks ago (at the 
start of my holidays) including ramps, and will be going back through Holbrook 
tomorrow morning (on the way home from holidays) to get details of some of the 
other local street closures. (I was going to stay in Holbrook tonight, but only 
got as far as Albury before I decided to stop for the night.)

I had originally added the bypass as highway=construction, source=extrapolation 
(or something similar), once the bypass was opened no-one bothered to check the 
route when it was changed to highway=motorway - including adding non-existent 
bridges over roads (they have either been closed, or the road actually doesn't 
cross it).

I was also going to ask about the route numbers for the Hume Hwy/Freeway. In 
NSW it is M31 all the way (the older A31 signs between Albury and Gundagai have 
been replaced by M31.) In Victoria, most of the signs have M31 in the National 
Highway shield, but some newer signs have just M31 (no shield). Some newer 
signs on M39 have also had the shield removed. Is it safe to remove the 
network=NH tags from these routes?

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Duplicate nodes

[Mark Pulley]

Running Validator shows up a list of duplicate nodes. Once the validation 
window is open, clicking on the Validation tab runs through a series of tests. 
(Validation also runs prior to uploading, but only checks the data to be 
uploaded, not all the previously downloaded data.)

If you only want to check for duplicate nodes (without checking for other 
errors), open the preferences, select the 'Data Validation' tab, and deselect 
the tests you don't want done.

Hope this helps.

On 13/08/2013, at 1:56 PM, Brett Russell wrote:

> Is there a way in JOSM to identify duplicate nodes. Before I put in the 1999 
> upload limit in JOSM it would fall over with multiple uploads.  It would be 
> great to identify such issues and fix them. 


Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Electric grid - how to tag

[Mark Pulley]

On 29/06/2013, at 10:35 AM, David Bannon wrote:

> Mark, 99% of the times electrification=yes is used, it has railway= there as 
> well. Can we assume any rendering would look for the railway= tag first ?  I 
> mean to say that no one 'should' assume electrification= applies only to 
> railways ?
> 
> So, 
> barrier=cattle_grid
> electrification=yes
> 
> would seem good to me.

Sounds OK to me.

> By the way, never seen a grid like you describe, it goes across the road ? 
> And you drive over it ?


Yes to both questions. It's at the entrance to the national park, but as the 
track is in an intermittent river bed a normal grid or a gate won't work.

Mark P.

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

[talk-au] Electric grid - how to tag

[Mark Pulley]

I'm tagging an 'electric grid' on the way into Finke Gorge National Park 
(Northern Territory). It has the same function as a normal grid, but rather 
than being made of metal bars, it has several electrified wires (same wires as 
used in electric fences), placed across the track, raised a couple of 
centimetres above the track by insulating material on both sides of the track.

I was thinking:

barrier=cattle_grid
electric=yes

Any suggestions for alternate tags? There is a tag "electrified=yes", but on 
the wiki this is used to mark electrified railways.

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Alphanumerics in Northern Territory?

[Mark Pulley]

On 12/06/2013, at 2:46 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:

> http://www.ozroads.com.au/NT/routenumbering/alpha/alphas.htm

From this site, it looks like it will take a long time for NT to fully convert 
to alphanumerics, so I think it's probably best to leave the national route 
numbers for now.

> I'm sure he'd appreciate your updated observations too.

Done!

> Ben
> PS - thanks for fixing up those Hume Highway issues around Casual I mentioned 
> the other day! :-)

Do you mean Casula?!!

> On 11/06/2013, at 10:59 PM, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>> I'm just about to start my OSM edits from my recent Central Australian trip. 
>> I noticed a few signs on the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs airport 
>> and Alice Springs that had the route number "A87" (and a brief glimpse of 
>> one that looked like "A1"!), yet all the other route numbers I saw on the 
>> Stuart Highway (between the Lasseter Highway at Erldunda and Churchills Head 
>> north of Tennant Creek) were national highway 87.
>> Does anyone know if these are mistakes, or if this route is going to be 
>> converted to alphanumeric soon? (i.e. is it too soon to change the route 
>> numbers?)


Mark P.

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

[talk-au] Alphanumerics in Northern Territory?

[Mark Pulley]

I'm just about to start my OSM edits from my recent Central Australian trip. I 
noticed a few signs on the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs airport and 
Alice Springs that had the route number "A87" (and a brief glimpse of one that 
looked like "A1"!), yet all the other route numbers I saw on the Stuart Highway 
(between the Lasseter Highway at Erldunda and Churchills Head north of Tennant 
Creek) were national highway 87.

Does anyone know if these are mistakes, or if this route is going to be 
converted to alphanumeric soon? (i.e. is it too soon to change the route 
numbers?)

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Help checking out huts on the Overland Track

[Mark Pulley]

On 01/06/2013, at 4:44 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote:

> Last I looked the osm Australia download was months old. 

I used OSM Australia for my recent trip to the Northern Territory, and all my 
recent edits from Bing Imagery were present.

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycle routes and MTB routes

[Mark Pulley]

On 13/02/2013, at 9:15 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> I haven't done it, but I understood the Mawson Trail to be dirt roads
> rather than mountain biking, so would be a better candidate for an RCN
> tag.

I've only seen small bits of the Mawson Trail (while doing walks in the 
Flinders Ranges a couple of years ago). Of the bits I saw, some parts are on 
dirt roads, some are on vehicular tracks or fire trails.

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] cities changed to towns

[Mark Pulley]

On 11/12/2012, at 9:17 AM, Chris Barham wrote:

> Hi,
> some Australian places have changed from cities to towns on;
> changeset was: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14217241

The ones on the changeset that I think should be cities are:

NSW: Albury, Bathurst, Broken Hill, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Goulburn, Orange, 
Port Macquarie, Tamworth, Wagga Wagga

Victoria: Mildura

There are some that could be classed as cities e.g. Armidale (NSW) is 
officially a city. 

(There are probably others that should be cities, that I'm not familiar with.)

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] NSW Alphanumeric routes

[Mark Pulley]

On 04/11/2012, at 10:13 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote:

> I also noticed on the RTA site a while back, they were saying that
> they were trying to work with map and data providers to provide timely
> and accurate updates.  It certainly may be worthwhile sending them an
> email to see if we can take advantage of that, especially if we can
> get a timetable for the coverplate removal.


Has anyone else contacted the RTA about this yet? If not, I've just got back 
from my far-north Queensland trip so I now have time to do this (in between 
mapping from the trip!).

Mark P.

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

[talk-au] NSW Alphanumeric routes

[Mark Pulley]

The NSW RTA has a web site up on the new alphanumeric routes, including maps of 
the new routes.

www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/alpha_numeric/index.html

I was wondering when we should update the route numbers to the new routes.

Some have already been done, e.g. A41 (Bathurst to Albury via Mid Western and 
Olympic Highways) - the road signs for this went up several years ago (although 
some have since been coverplated).

I am thinking that some would definitely be OK to do now (e.g. convert NR 32 
(Great Western/Mitchell/Barrier Highways) to A32, as the number is similar)

I'm not so sure about updating some other routes (e.g. Oxley Highway NR 34 
becomes B56, Snowy Mountains Highway NR 18 becomes B72) - as the numbers are 
different, are these best left until the route number signs change on the 
ground?

(Also, are we allowed to use the RTA web site as a source for an ODBL database 
like OSM?)

Mark P.

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

[talk-au] Northern Queensland - any requests?

[Mark Pulley]

I'm going up to northern Queensland soon (flying to Townsville, driving from 
there via Undara to the Atherton tablelands, up to Mossman and Cape 
Tribulation, then back to Townsville via Cairns. I'll be doing some mapping on 
the way, but does anyone have anything that particularly needs checking via 
survey?

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] dirt roads - a summary

[Mark Pulley]

On 23/10/2012, at 11:09 AM, David Bannon wrote:

> 1. Nathan sees all cases of highway=track implying 4x4 required. I don't 
> really agree, the dynamic range in this space is just too tight, we need to 
> use 'track' on roads that are both 4x4 and not 4x4. Thats what 4x4_only tag 
> is for. Whats the feeling here folks ?

Over the last few years I have added many tracks that are definitely drivable 
with a 2-wheel drive (the vast majority added using the GPS trace from my 
2-wheel drive car). 4x4 required should definitely not be implied by 
highway=track.

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] FW: OSM Australia Garmin downloads have gone bung ?

[Mark Pulley]

I've just sent an email to another address I have for him about this.

On 04/10/2012, at 11:05 PM, Brett Russell wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Yes this is crept in.  I too have had no reply to an email sent to the 
> contact address.  Be great to get this very valuable resource back in action. 
>  Does any one know how to contact the site owner?
> 
> Cheers Brett


Mark P.

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

[talk-au] ABS suburb boundary relations

[Mark Pulley]

I have noticed some suburb boundaries are still in OSM. Most of these  
are post-redaction fragments of the boundaries (presumably the only  
nodes remaining are from subsequent edits). I had removed some of  
these while editing prior to redaction, and I was thinking that it is  
better to remove any more that I come across if I find any, however I  
have seen in some places that some suburb boundaries have been  
recreated since redaction.


I have a question: If I see a boundary from the previous ABS import  
(e.g. source tag is listed as ABS2006), is it fair game to be deleted,  
or should I leave them alone? (Any more recent boundaries of course  
should be left alone.)


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Missing data

[Mark Pulley]

If Diego initially mapped the area, then it should be reverted to his edits. 
More likely:
> 1 Someone else maps the area initially
> 2 You later remap it
> 3 License change announced
> 4 Initial mapper does not agree to new CTs
> 5 remapped data deleted by redaction bot
> 
Some of your information may remain, but not visible on the map. While 
remapping, I have seen some fragments of ways with no tags, or few tags (e.g. 
surface = asphalt, no other tags) - these won't show on the map. Also, some 
ways have been deleted but some of the nodes remain. (E.g. when I remapped the 
Tasman Highway, large sections were missing from the map, but the nodes still 
remained, along with a few short ways with no tags - I just had to play 
join-the-dots.)

On 21/08/2012, at 12:49 PM, Ben Kelley wrote:
> It sounds like the redaction bot then.
> 
> E.g.
> 
> 1 You map the area initially
> 2 someone else later remaps it
> 3 License change announced
> 4 remapper does not agree to new CTs
> 5 remapped data deleted by redaction bot
> 
> Hopefully now you are seeing
> 
> 6 someone else remaps streets deleted by the redaction bot
> 
>   - Ben Kelley.


Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Fixing relations in Canberra

[Mark Pulley]

On 14/08/2012, at 10:27 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
> Ok - I've just driven 23 and 52 and Alt 23  (well not the entire lengths of 
> course).
> 
Thanks. I've just updated the relations in this section.
> Another puzzle (tagging wise) is that travelling eastwards on 23 at Fyshwick, 
> Ipswich Street is signed as ALT 23 although you don't really get onto to the 
> real Alt 23 until you turn left into Newcastle Street and finally right, on 
> to Monaro Highway
> 
I've left this off the relation for now.

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] maxspeed - best practice?

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Ben Johnson :

On the subject of tagging "site unseen"... you brought up a   
perfectly legit point about routers and efforts made in the past to   
assist routing engines. I'm just trying to get a sense where our   
community stands in relation to maxspeed tagging "site unseen", for   
residential streets, and how we identify such tagging.


Im thinking one of these might serve that purpose...

source:maxspeed=default
source:maxspeed=unconfirmed
source:maxspeed=fixme
source:maxspeed=presumed


rather than using source:maxspeed=fixme I'd prefer fixme=check  
maxspeed - maybe in combination with source:maxspeed=default or  
something similar.


Mark P.



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

[talk-au] Fixing relations in Canberra

[Mark Pulley]

I've been updating some relations (and fixing gaps in highways)  
recently. Can someone help with a couple of these in the ACT?


http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/540723
This one is Kings Highway NR52 from Queanbeyan to Batemans Bay. What  
is the route once it reaches the ACT border at  
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-35.346008&lon=149.206553&zoom=18&layers=M ?  
(Or does the route stop at the border?) I've stopped the relation at  
the NSW/ACT border for now.


http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/540704
NR23 from Canberra to NSW border. What is the route through the centre  
of Canberra?  
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-35.30793&lon=149.12522&zoom=16&layers=M  
Last night I placed it over State Circle, but looking at the relation  
now there are a couple of sections in the relation on Capital Circle -  
should the southbound section go on Capital Circle? Alternatively,  
should the relation bypass this section completely? (I recall seeing  
some maps in the past that show NR23 on Parkes Way / Morshead Drive,  
but haven't been there for several years to check.)


Also, where does NH23 become NR23? The relations prior to my edits  
changed at the Commonwealth Avenue bridges  
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-35.291517&lon=149.127208&zoom=18&layers=M ,  
so I've left this the same for now.


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Charleville gone

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Gordon Smith :


somebody at some time has edited pieces and now, because they've not
"ticked the box", those edits appears as gaps along the route.  e.g.:

  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-30.4815&lon=152.9683&zoom=14&layers=M


I've just had a look here - even thought the road has gone, at least  
some of the nodes are still present, so this will help with re-adding  
the road. I've noticed in a couple of other places that a way still  
exists, just without tags, for example:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-30.46957&lon=152.96281&zoom=15&layers=null

A decliner added a street to Muswellbrook. I came along later,  
extending the street and adding the name. The bit I had extended is  
still present, along with the name, but it just needs the  
highway=residential tag added (and the missing section put back in).  
(I'll be doing this tonight, along with fixing the parts I had  
previously edited of other towns on the New England Highway between  
Muswellbrook and the NSW border.)


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Redaction progress

[Mark Pulley]

On 19/07/2012, at 7:29 PM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

> Wooh! Finally, with those little green boxes starting to appear over 
> Australia, we can start to see the light at the end of the license change 
> tunnel.
> 
> Show of hands - Who's going to 1) stick around and help fix the Australian 
> OSM map, and who's going to 2) jump ship and contribute to a fork (and if so, 
> which one)?


I'm planning to stick with OSM.

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] What's best to do with ways split by decliners?

[Mark Pulley]

On 01/07/2012, at 9:29 AM, John Henderson wrote:

> There's another side to this coin.
> 
> When fixing ways scheduled for deletion, it's often useful to split a
> very long way, delete the section to be fixed from a GPS trace, and
> recreate that section.
> 
> The problem is that whenever a split is made, one section of the two
> results maintains the attributes of the original.  But the second
> section becomes version 1, and with the accepter attributes of the
> person doing the splitting.  So it's (magically) fixed and no longer
> scheduled for deletion, despite the fact that no accepter has surveyed
> it.  This is a case in point, the result of a split by me recently:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/169517220/history


Presumably in that case, even though the way is (magically) fixed, the nodes 
haven't been, so the way will still disappear once the nodes have been deleted 
(as the Badmap view doesn't take into account the ODBL status of the nodes)

Mark P.

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

[talk-au] What's best to do with ways split by decliners?

[Mark Pulley]

I have noticed in my local area that there are some ways that I added (as 
version 1), that have subsequently been split by ODBL-decliners. The new ways 
created by them are currently showing up in the badmap view at 
http://cleanmap.poole.ch/ .

What is the best way to rescue this data (as the nodes are still my version 1 
nodes, apart from the additional nodes where the way is split). Is merging the 
new ways back into my version 1 way enough to save this data (removing the 
additional nodes)?

Example - shared footway/cycleway:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-33.405771&lon=149.604525&zoom=18&layers=M
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29702607- my original way
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38534914 - additional way containing my 
nodes (apart from one end of the bridge)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38534913 - additional way containing 
only decliner nodes (the two ends of the bridge)

Mark P.

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

[talk-au] Flooding in Mallacoota

[Mark Pulley]

When doing some editing today, I have noticed a large area of 'flooding' in 
some zoom levels in eastern Victoria from just past Cape Howe in NSW to east of 
Wingan Inlet. It's not in the close-up views. There has been some editing of 
the coastline recently (some ways replaced with tracings from Bing and AGRI), 
but the coastline appears intact. I'm assuming that there was a gap at some 
stage (now fixed), and it is taking time for the map to catch up, but I thought 
I'd better mention it in case there is a problem somewhere.

Western limit: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.7444&lon=149.4755&zoom=13&layers=M
Eastern limit: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.5301&lon=149.9026&zoom=13&layers=M

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] How to fix the coastlines?

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Steve Bennett :


  So given that large slabs of coastline are about to be deleted -
what exactly are we going to do about them? Are there any sources of
data we can use? Does anyone have the skills and tools to import them?


Is it too early to upload the replacement ABS boundaries? Once this is  
in, in areas where coastline has vanished we could use these  
boundaries for a coastline, pending better surveys or imports. We can  
also repair state borders with these boundaries.


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Effect of license change

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Ian Sergeant :


Australia will be completely flooded, as much of coastline is still
non-compliant.


A couple of thoughts about this:

1. Should we import the new ABS boundaries now (as the old ones will  
go), then use this data to create a new coastline? (This will also be  
useful in recreating rivers/creeks that currently use ABS data -  
although it looks like there won't be time before April 1st to do this.)


2. Should we undelete the previous ways that formed the coastline (as  
in some areas these were deleted when the ABS data was incorporated  
into the coastline)? (I don't know if the old coastline data is  
compliant or not.) (Should we also do this for the state boundaries?)


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] lake baroon missing

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Chris Barham :


Hi,
I'm away for a few months, but a friend just pointed out that Lake
Baroon has gone missing:
http://osm.org/go/ueSKIP02-
If anyone is inclined to fix please do
Chas


I've just fixed this - there was a gap in the relation in the  
north-east corner, probably happened when some of the ABS relations  
were deleted.
Some of the ways that form the lake are other ABS relations, so these  
will need to be replaced before the upcoming licence changeover.


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Boundary removal.

[Mark Pulley]

On 02/02/2012, at 9:41 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:

> Does anyone know if there are old (August 2008) Australian
> OSM extracts available otherwise I'll start the planet download
> (only 5 gig !!!)

I don't have an OSM extracts, but there might be another way: undeleting the 
old ways.

At http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=80370 is a list of all the ways 
for the South Australian border (replace the relation number for the other 
borders) including all the previously deleted borders. All(?!) you need to do 
is find at what date the borders were changed to the import borders, then 
undelete the ways that were deleted at this time.

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Boundary removal.

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Ian Sergeant :


I think doing a JOSM search for user:ABS2006 does everything we want here.

Because JOSM is only aware of the most recent user, this selects all V1
ABS2006 imported objects only.  Relations, nodes and ways.  These can then
be deleted with a single click.

If the relations, ways, and nodes are all unmodified this will delete them
all.  If anything has been modified, it leaves it.  If you are doing it
over a small area, it is possible to check any unselected boundary
relations as well, to check if the modifications are significant, and
manually tidy up around the edges.

Do you want me to try this on a small area (like Canberra :-) to see if it
gives the desired results?


Canberra has already been done using this method - I've currently got  
JOSM set to only show boundaries, all apart from author=ABS2006 greyed  
out, and certain other ways greyed out (highways, railways,  
coastlines, state/country borders). I've also been deleting relations  
once there are no longer any ways in them.


I haven't looked at all the state borders yet, but some of them at  
least are based on ABS data - prior to the ABS import, was there other  
data for state borders that can be undeleted, or will we need to add  
these in again?


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Boundary removal.

[Mark Pulley]

On 01/02/2012, at 9:09 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:

> So, should we clear out the doomed relations now or leave the
> broken ones for the DWG to remove for us in April?

I think leave in the broken ones for now. I've started work on removing the 
version 1 ways, but if someone with a faster internet connection can remove 
these en masse then feel free to go ahead! The next task I had in mind was to 
go through the remaining ones, trying to save what I can (e.g. imagery for 
waterways/roads, or removing boundaries while leaving new nodes intact (e.g. 
road crosses boundary, someone adds a ford to the way)).

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] remove nearmap and yahoo coverage polygons

[Mark Pulley]

On 13/01/2012, at 12:38 AM, Nick Hocking wrote:

> 20251421 brisbane
> 24504561 canberra - queanbeyan
> 24504700 sydney - newcastle
> 25408993 ulladulla
> 25409100 jervis bay
> 38009788  x  -gone
> 39171651 townsville - gone
> 39198906 cairns
> 39200348 darwin
> 39200730 perth
> 39208790 rotnest Island
> 39211995 hobart   - gone ___

I've just finished removing the nearmap ways and relations, as well as these 
Yahoo ways. (Not sure if there are any other Yahoo ways hiding anywhere.)


Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] remove nearmap and yahoo coverage polygons

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Mark Pulley :

Quoting Chris Barham :

Is anyone able to retrieve and delete the polygons defining the extent
of coverage of Nearmap and Yahoo imagery over Aus?

From memory the bing imagery is in a relation - no idea if Nearmap and
Yahoo are also


Nearmap boundaries are in a relation:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1187172

Yahoo will be tricker to remove as there appears to be no relation. I  
found one way near Sydney today:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/24504700

and saw one near Brisbane recently, but others will need to be found  
the old-fashioned way!


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] remove nearmap and yahoo coverage polygons

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Chris Barham :


Hi,
Is anyone able to retrieve and delete the polygons defining the extent
of coverage of Nearmap and Yahoo imagery over Aus?  These polygons are
irrelevant now.
I tried to come up with a way... but failed :-(


From memory the bing imagery is in a relation - no idea if Nearmap  
and Yahoo are also - if they are, once one way is added to JOSM, the  
others can be loaded as part of the relation, then deleted. (P.S.  
don't delete the bing boundaries!)


I was thinking about doing a similar thing for the old suburb  
boundaries - the only problem is if a node in the suburb boundary is  
also used by another way then the nodes will vanish (unless I load the  
entire country into JOSM - not practical on dial-up wireless  
internet!) This shouldn't be a problem for the imagery boundaries as  
they shouldn't share nodes with anything else. We could start by  
removing unedited suburb boundaries (i.e. no river or road names added  
to the way) - although I have noticed in the past that some rivers  
have used the same nodes with a different way.


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Finding missing streetnames

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Chris Barham :


On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 13:47, David Findlay
 wrote:
Is there a way to print out a map that shows all the streets   
missing names in

red or something?


Cloudmade has a noname map style:
http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=-26.758333&lng=152.854242&zoom=14&styleId=3&opened_tab=0


This used to be also available from the main OSM maps, but I've just  
noticed it has disappeared - anyone know why?



OSMAustralia creates a Garmin compatible img file with NoName streets
emphasised:
http://osmaustralia.org/garminnoname.php


The garmin noname map files are currently not functioning - current  
file sizes are 22 bytes!


Mark P.



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

[talk-au] Centenary Hwy / Cunningham Hwy Junction (the Ipswich one)

[Mark Pulley]

Is anyone here familiar with the junction of the Centenary and  
Cunningham Highways south of Ipswich? (Not the other junction at Darra.)


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.66562&lon=152.74265&zoom=17

East of the junction, on approaching the junction the Cunningham  
Highway divides into two - I'd guess each branch is probably one way -  
but on the current map the westbound branch only goes to  
Ipswich-Boonah Road. There is a GPS trace  going from this branch  
(just after the Centenary Highway bridge) to the highway bridge over  
Ipswich-Boonah Road, but no way has been entered yet - is this part of  
the current highway? (There are also some traces from former  
alignments prior to the construction of the Centenary Highway.)


(When I passed this way in late November, I only went eastbound onto  
the Centenary Hwy, so didn't look at the westbound alignments.)


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Mass revert now??

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Ian Sergeant :


On 6 January 2012 04:42, Michael Collinson  wrote:


I looked at doing a revert for the street where I lived but found that
just one "Fixed Stuff" changeset was affecting 12,576 different  
ways! I guess

a lot of  other folk are in the same position.

Yes, they are...


The biggest culprit is probably the residential maxspeed=50  
maxspeed:source=default(etc) edit - should we start by removing this  
one (removing just this change while leaving other subsequent edits  
intact)?. This will probably need to be done in a few steps:


1. If the maxspeed and maxspeed:source tags have not been touched  
since, then just remove these tags from the culprit changeset.


2. If the maxspeed has been changed since, then remove the tags from  
the culprit changeset, making sure the new versions remain (e.g. some  
maxspeeds I have corrected to 60, correcting the source tag at the  
same time).


3. For some ways, the maxspeed is correct; for the ones I have come  
across I have changed the source tag (usually to source:maxspeed=sign,  
although some have been maxspeed:source=sign (or =voice)) - can we  
remove the tags from the culprit changeset, adding the maxspeed to the  
later changeset where the source tag was corrected (as it should be  
obvious that I reviewed the maxspeed when adding the source tag)?


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Back in editing - Tracks and 4wd areas

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting David Findlay :


I've recently recorded various bush walking, biking and 4wd trails, most of
which aren't easily visible from aerial imagery. Is this ok?


The more GPS tracks, the better. I recently added bushwalking tracks  
at Carnarvon Gorge, Queensland, and found I was having some problems  
with 'canyoning' in some sections, so having several traces was a big  
help when mapping this section.



How should I mark 4wd trails? Thanks,


highway=track; surface=unpaved; if 4wd only then also add 4wd_only=yes

Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Removing ABS data

[Mark Pulley]

Quoting Sam Wilson :


Is it necessary to remove that data now, before the big change-over date?

  1. Is there not still a chance that people who have declined the   
new licence will change their minds, and accept?


There is still that chance for some users. For the ABS data, that was  
added by a specific account, the owner of the account has declined,  
and it is unlikely he will change his mind.



  2. Surely there's some magic in the works, that is going to swiftly and
completely remove the non-compliant data for us?


I'm hoping for this too. I suggested this a couple of weeks ago here,  
and put the suggestion on the implementation plan talk page on the  
wiki a few days ago, but haven't heard anything since.


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Removing ABS data

[Mark Pulley]

On 27/12/2011, at 12:03 AM, Nick Hocking wrote:

> Since the ABS boundary data has to be removed anyway, does anyone see any 
> problem with doing it now (in bits and pieces).
>  
> Doing so would make the job of remapping the tainted data a lot easier.

I don't have an objection to the boundaries going - although I would remove the 
unedited ways first, leaving any ways subsequently edited for later deletion 
(e.g. waterway tag added). It would be nice to have a list of ways like this so 
they can be separated from the ABS data prior to deletion. (Any volunteers for 
this?)

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure

[Mark Pulley]

On 14/12/2011, at 4:56 PM, John Henderson wrote:

> Are others doing this?  Is there a better way of maintaining OSM's
> integrity given the situation we find ourselves in?


What we really need is to find out ASAP how the non-ODBL data will be deleted - 
will the minimum amount be lost (e.g. nodes moved by me get left alone as per 
my suggestion a couple of weeks ago) or will data with even a sniff of non-ODBL 
data be deleted. Then we'll know how much we need to re-map.

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure

[Mark Pulley]

Only if v1 is from a non-acceptor. I assumed from Ian's post that v1  
is from an acceptor. (Or have I read that wrong?)


Quoting Ross Scanlon :

Problem with this is that you are breaching copyright.
Cheers
Ross

On 15/12/11 12:34, Ian Sergeant wrote:

For a couple of objects, I've just copied the v1 object, deleted the
current object, and reloaded into OSM with an attribution tag for the v1
author.
Ian.

On 15 December 2011 15:12, Ben Kelley mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com>> wrote:
   I think it's clear we need an automated way to remove
   non-new-ct-accepting edits from ways where v1 was by an acceptor.
   - Ben Kelley.


Mark P.



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

Re: [talk-au] Where did the town go?

[Mark Pulley]

On 01/12/2011, at 10:34 PM, Mark Pulley wrote:
> On 01/12/2011, at 6:15 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>> Deleted by user: cc_cleaner in changeset
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9915617
> 
> 
> I've also just noticed that most of Cobar has gone. I did some edits on the 
> way through in May, some of these have been left alone, but some have 
> disappeared completely or been replaced by highway=road.

Now that I'm back from holidays (and uploaded all my new traces) I've had a 
chance to have a closer look at Cobar, and done as much as I can to repair the 
damage. I probably checked the names of some of the streets back in May, but as 
I no longer have my audio recordings I can't be sure of this, so I've had to 
leave most of the streets unnamed.

> As one example, here is Louth Road:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/119756523
> This is just a stub, this used to link on to the other roads. 

I've worked out what happened here - the one-way section of Louth Road splits 
into two at the Barrier Hwy, the stub was one of those branches, the other 
branch was deleted by cc_cleaner.

As Cobar is about 8 hours drive (one way) from home, I won't be going there 
anytime soon to do further surveys.

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

Re: [talk-au] Maxspeed bots

[Mark Pulley]

On 02/12/2011, at 2:13 PM, Ben Kelley wrote:

> The content of these edits is in the public domain (I.e. the default 
> residential speed limit in Australia) and these edits could be "re-edited" by 
> an actual bot. Given that these edits are easy to identify, and the large 
> number of ways, this might be a useful exercise. It would give us a clearer 
> in terms of knowing which ways are really in need of re-mapping.
> 
> Ben Kelley
> 

Just be aware that some of these have been re-edited - I have corrected some of 
these maxspeeds when they were wrong, and where they were correct I have 
changed the source tag.

It might not be possible, but for my changesets where I have updated the source 
tag to "source:maxspeed=voice (or sign or survey)" (or "maxspeed:source="), can 
the maxspeed tag be reassigned to my changesets?

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] A way to go

[Mark Pulley]

I've been thinking for a while about the best way to remove CC-BY-SA-only data 
when the time comes. As already noted, some people have started already by 
deleting large areas of data and re-adding from bing (losing all the tags) - 
which at best may be unnecessary, and at present (as no date has been given yet 
for the removal of this data) is just rude. As I mentioned last night, I had 
added some tags to ways when I travelled through Cobar which have now been lost 
(e.g. corrections to maxspeeds).

When the time comes, rather than just deleting all ways with even a hint of 
CC-BY-SA data, here's what I am thinking should happen - it will need a bot to 
do this.

1. NODES
The bot will need to go through the version list for every single node. It 
should start with version one of the node (or if this is by a decliner, then 
the first version by an ODBL-acceptor), then for each subsequent version it 
should compare the new data with the previous version and overwrite it (this 
includes the position of the node as well as tags) - unless the owner of the 
version has not agreed to the new licence, in which case the information should 
be unchanged. At the end of this process we will have a collection of nodes 
with ODBL-only data. Some of these nodes will have only been edited by 
ODBL-decliners - these will have no information (no tags, no positions) and 
will be deleted. Other nodes who have been edited by decliners and acceptors 
will have as much information as possible preserved. (e.g. decliner adds nodes 
on a way, I subsequently move some nodes when adding new ways - the nodes I 
have moved will have their positions preserved, although they would lose any 
tags added by decliners.)

2. WAYS
In the same way, the bot goes through the version list for each way, for each 
version making a note of which nodes are included and in what order, and any 
changes in tags by ODBL-acceptors. At the end of this process, any ways by 
ODBL-decliners will have no tags (and no nodes as these will have been deleted 
already in step 1). Ways partly edited by acceptors will have at least some 
nodes left intact, and some information. (It might need someone to go back 
later to re-add nodes to the ways, and re-add some tags, but at least some tags 
will be left behind.)

3. RELATIONS
In the same way, the bot goes through the version list for each relation, for 
each version making a note of which ways are included, and any changes in tags 
by ODBL-acceptors. At the end of this process, any relations by ODBL-decliners 
will have no ways (and no ways as these will have been deleted already in step 
1). Relations partly edited by acceptors will have at least some ways left 
intact, and some information. (It might need someone to go back later to re-add 
ways to the relations, and re-add some tags, but at least some tags will be 
left behind.)

As an example, this is what would happen to my Cobar edits:
Example 1:
Decliner adds a way
Decliner-bot adds maxspeed tag + source 'default maxspeed'
I correct maxspeed (if needed) + 'source:maxspeed=voice (or sign or survey)' + 
possibly add tags
The bot I have just described removes CC-BY-SA-only data
If any nodes remain, at least my tags get left behind.

Example 2:
I add a way
The bot I have just described removes CC-BY-SA-only data (there won't be any 
for this way)
All my edits remain intact.

I hope this all makes sense! This seems better then what has been happening so 
far.

Has a date been set for the removal of CC-BY-SA-only data yet?

Mark P.

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

Re: [talk-au] Where did the town go?

[Mark Pulley]

On 01/12/2011, at 6:15 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:58 PM, John Henderson  wrote:
>> Lake Cargelligo township shows mapped streets at this zoom level:
>> 
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-33.3081&lon=146.3792&zoom=12&layers=M
>> 
>> but disappears as you zoom in from there.  The detail is also missing in
>> JOSM.  I presume it used to be there.
>> What is going on?
> 
> Deleted by user: cc_cleaner in changeset
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9915617


User "cc-cleaner"? I've had a quick look at some of the changesets, and they 
all seem to be just deleting things. I have a suspicion that the things being 
deleted are by users who haven't agreed to the new license, but I didn't think 
we were up to this stage yet.

Should we get all of these changesets undone?

I've also just noticed that most of Cobar has gone. I did some edits on the way 
through in May, some of these have been left alone, but some have disappeared 
completely or been replaced by highway=road.

As one example, here is Louth Road:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/119756523

This is just a stub, this used to link on to the other roads. No idea why this 
has been done, as I *have* agreed to the new license, so my edits don't need to 
be done again. (This was done by Firefishy, who doesn't even live in Australia 
- I've just sent him a message to enquire about this particular way.)

Mark P.

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