Re: [talk-au] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Feb 11, 2023, 11:38 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

>
>
>
> On 10/2/23 12:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>> Hi legal-questions, 
>>
>> I'm forwarding this interesting question about the OSMF  Terms of 
>> Use preventing anyone from obtaining OSM data for  emergency 
>> services use. This is in direct conflict with the  ODBL terms which 
>> contain no such restriction, and also include  a limitation of 
>> liability clause. Surely other emergency  services organisations are 
>> using OSM data without issue.
>>
>
> I too think it is a legal cop out for liability.
>
>
> I think there are some emergency services in Europe using OSM  data 
> already .. so if I am correct then it is possible (as it  should be in a 
> reasonable world). 
>
>
It was (and maybe still is) in production use for emergency services in Poland.

Partially replacing official data, partially supplementing it.

Legal situation got better in Poland but at some point official mapping agency 
was
legally required to charge prohibitive fees, also from emergency services.

And - as far as I know - there is no government register of fire hydrants or 
AED in Poland.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Gravel roads surface tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

though this round is about surface=fine_gravel (previous was about 
surface=gravel)
while surface=gravel old page claimed that it is for track ballast-sized chunks,
current surface=fine_gravel page describes it as duplicate of surface=compacted


Jan 7, 2023, 03:03 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:

> Hi all
>
> Gravel was discussed on talk_au back in March 2021. For anybody interested 
> its back in discussion at 
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/surface-fine-gravel-is-it-for-loose-gravel-or-duplicate-of-surface-compacted/7533/3
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

Re: [talk-au] listing of objects wikipedia/wikidata/etc tags with some problems

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Processing this issues is welcome! And it will take some time, I started
cleaning data in Poland years ago, many other people helped and it
is still not completed :)

Updated process is run automatically, but with manual startup of it.

It runs on my laptop, so for example in case of going for holidays
or some other limitations updates may be paused.

I would expect updates about once a week, maybe once two weeks.
Though areas with more edits are boosted to update more often.
Also, adding new areas delays updates as initial scan takes far more
time than later ones. And is far more likely to fail due to encountering
data broken in new entertaining ways not seen before and not handled.

Note that after some part of country are fully processed I will enable
more - right now only part of Australia is being checked.
So look for number of cleared areas, not for error count.

30 lis 2022, 10:22 od daniel.ocon...@gmail.com:

> This seems useful. How often do your reports re-run? (manually?) Would be 
> good to chip away at issues and get a sense of progress.
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 4:44 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <> 
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> I have created >> 
>> https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/
>> which lists OSM objects that have some problems requiring review
>>
>> There is a report for number of areas, including for Australia:
>>
>> https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia.html
>> (merged report for Australia)
>>
>> Or more specifically for parts of Australia (links later).
>>
>> If anyone is interested: feel free to use this list to fix this bogus 
>> wikipedia/wikidata links.
>>
>> Please, let me know if anything is confusing, incorrect, invalid or broken.
>> Or if you want some specific area/country not listed so far.
>>
>> 
>>
>> There are also reports at 
>> https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia%20-%20obvious.html
>> which are about a bit different issues, but they depend on a local data
>> or community and some may need upgrade to human review and
>> some may need to be hidden:
>>
>> Is OSM data for wikipedia/wikidata tags good enough that
>> following wikipedia redirects (where wikidata matches) could be 
>> done automatically?
>> Or is it requiring human review (because someone added wikidata
>> of redirect targets with bot, for example)?
>> https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia%20-%20obvious.html#wikipedia%20wikidata%20mismatch%20-%20follow%20wikipedia%20redirect
>>
>> Would you expect wikipedia tags to link English language Wikipedia 
>> where possible? Or is linking any language version OK?
>>
>> Would you consider useful to add wikipedia tag where only wikidata tag
>> is present as useful (for increased human readability of tags)?
>>
>> Would you consider useful to add wikidata tag where only wikipedia tag
>> is present as useful (for increased stability of tags and to allow
>> fixing redirects if wikipedia article changes title in the future)?
>>
>> 
>>
>> specific areas (once this issues are fixed I will enable more areas,
>> until entire Australia is being checked)
>>
>> Tasmania - 25 reported issues
>> https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20Tasmania.html
>>
>> New South Wales - 29 issues
>> https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20New%20South%20Wales%20(Nowa%20Po%C5%82udniowa%20Walia).html
>>
>> Queensland (found 36 problems)
>> https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20Queensland.html
>>
>> And also following with 0 reported issues right now, thanks to
>> people who fixed them!
>> Australia Capital Territory
>> https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia%20Capital%20Territory.html
>>
>> Christmas Island
>> https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20Christmas%20Island%20(Wyspa%20Bo%C5%BCego%20Narodzenia).html
>>
>> Cocos Islands
>> https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20Cocos%20(Keeling)%20Islands%20(Wyspy%20Kokosowe).html
>>
>> Northern Territory
>> https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20Northern%20Territory%20(Terytorium%20P%C3%B3%C5%82nocne).html
>> ___
>>  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] listing of objects wikipedia/wikidata/etc tags with some problems

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

I have created https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/
which lists OSM objects that have some problems requiring review

There is a report for number of areas, including for Australia:

https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia.html
(merged report for Australia)

Or more specifically for parts of Australia (links later).

If anyone is interested: feel free to use this list to fix this bogus 
wikipedia/wikidata links.

Please, let me know if anything is confusing, incorrect, invalid or broken.
Or if you want some specific area/country not listed so far.



There are also reports at 
https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia%20-%20obvious.html
which are about a bit different issues, but they depend on a local data
or community and some may need upgrade to human review and
some may need to be hidden:

Is OSM data for wikipedia/wikidata tags good enough that
following wikipedia redirects (where wikidata matches) could be 
done automatically?
Or is it requiring human review (because someone added wikidata
of redirect targets with bot, for example)?
https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia%20-%20obvious.html#wikipedia%20wikidata%20mismatch%20-%20follow%20wikipedia%20redirect

Would you expect wikipedia tags to link English language Wikipedia 
where possible? Or is linking any language version OK?

Would you consider useful to add wikipedia tag where only wikidata tag
is present as useful (for increased human readability of tags)?

Would you consider useful to add wikidata tag where only wikipedia tag
is present as useful (for increased stability of tags and to allow
fixing redirects if wikipedia article changes title in the future)?



specific areas (once this issues are fixed I will enable more areas,
until entire Australia is being checked)

Tasmania - 25 reported issues
https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20Tasmania.html

New South Wales - 29 issues
https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20New%20South%20Wales%20(Nowa%20Po%C5%82udniowa%20Walia).html

Queensland (found 36 problems)
https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20Queensland.html

And also following with 0 reported issues right now, thanks to
people who fixed them!
Australia Capital Territory
https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia%20Capital%20Territory.html

Christmas Island
https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20Christmas%20Island%20(Wyspa%20Bo%C5%BCego%20Narodzenia).html

Cocos Islands
https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20Cocos%20(Keeling)%20Islands%20(Wyspy%20Kokosowe).html

Northern Territory
https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Australia:%20Northern%20Territory%20(Terytorium%20P%C3%B3%C5%82nocne).html
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] suspicious edits in Victoria need reverting?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

It seems that edit were reverted in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124325240


Aug 1, 2022, 00:52 by nwas...@gmail.com:

> Hi
> there is some recent mapping around southern Victoria and the greater 
> Melbourne area that seem to be incorrect and need reverting but I am not 
> familiar enough with the area to be sure.
> The new roads seem fictitious but could be proposed approximate new routes I 
> suppose.
> Could mappers more familiar with the area have a look at these edits.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/eggsbenedict/history#map=8/-37.981/146.195
> The two with road comments are of most concern.
>
> https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=124295896
> https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=124296506
>
> Thanks, Nev
>  
>
>  
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jul 27, 2022, 10:40 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

> On Jul 27, 2022, at 1:02 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27/7/22 17:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>>
>>> is it clearly signposted as cannabis factory farm at its location?
>>>
>
> I sincerely doubt this would ever happen, but if it did, you can bet their 
> security is much, much better than any bad intentions you might have.  BTW, 
> “mapping” (per se, as we do in OSM), is not a “bad intention.”  (I’d say it’s 
> a GOOD intention).
>

Mapping secret location of  shelter for women / men who are victims of spousal
abuse or Christian place of worship in Saudi Arabia would be almost
certainly a bad idea.

Though if this cannabis growers publish aerial view of own locations then 
this "secret" is likely more of branding and promotion.

(though maybe someone may want to let them know about
this inconsistency)


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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

is it clearly signposted as cannabis factory farm at its location?

If yes, then mapping it likely would be fine.

If it is clearly signposted but it is not verifiable by survey then some
more generic tagging should be fine.

If something is not really verifiable at location (anonymous note may be lying!)
then it is not really mappable (there are rare exceptions, for example for 
borders
but they do not apply here)

Jul 27, 2022, 02:31 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> Have just spotted a Note where an anonymous user has given company name & 
> address details for a Medicinal Cannabis plant.
>
> Checking to confirm details & found a news article that said, yes, the plant 
> is near Mildura, but "Due to the nature of its business, however, it has a 
> secret location and isn’t open to the public." 
>
> The company involved doesn't have the plant address listed on it's website.
>
> Should we map it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

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

[talk-au] Is addr:housenumber=2/20 likely to be valid?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

I want to confirm report from
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/4196

"In my area (and throughout built-up parts of Australian cities in general)
it is not uncommon to encounter blocks of townhouses which share a
primary address number but have distinct sub-address numbers.

The complete address numbers of such houses are written in the format 
/, eg "1/50", "2/50", "3/50" for the first three houses 
sharing the primary address site "50 Example St"."

Is it accurate? Is addr:housenumber=1/50 the standard and preferred
solution in such cases?

(I am asking as I know nothing about Australia addressing)

(BTW, if for some reason you want to comment on something
that is Australia and StreetComplete-specific - I will be on this mailing list
for some time, but as usual problem are better reported at the issue tracker)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 15, 2021, 12:14 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

> What I'd like to hear is from those who do split, is why? Is it just because 
> you're trying to follow the documented rules, or is there a reason for 
> splitting being better? Ideally we'd document the community preferred 
> approach along with the reasons for.
>

>From Poland:

Splitting may result in more clear maps, especially in vehicle navigation 
software

Some people like mapping everything, with extreme detail

Such mapping is required when one is using area:highway=* mapping


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

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Oct 29, 2021, 12:42 by p...@wyatt-family.com:

> In most cases you are allowed to legally travel ANYWHERE, including off 
> track, within a national park (with minimal exceptions), however we do not 
> mark on the map every possibility between all known destinations. That would 
> make the map look like a spiders web. This would also not help search and 
> rescue efforts.
>
using highway=path/footway for "walking here is legal, as you can legally 
travel 
anywhere" is also clearly invalid and noone is really proposing it

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

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

In such case it would be worth to report this as a clear bug.

(have not verified that it actually happens)


Oct 29, 2021, 13:23 by p...@wyatt-family.com:

> I think OSMAND only works to exclude access=private, not access=no
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
> Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 10:05 PM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang 
> National Park)
>
>
> Some renders can show the difference. OSMand has a setting to show access... 
> and it works.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

29 Oct 2021, 09:08 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:

> You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you don't 
> have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't have to map 
> every informal trail.
>
Note that "do not map women's refuges" applies to ones which are kept secret,
what is already covered by verifiability requirements.

There are also ones advertising their locations which want to be known, so
people who would need to get there know about it.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Breaking a beach?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

1) I think it is fine to consider differently named sections
of shoreline beach as separate objects 
(it gets trickier when areas overlap)

2) it is likely much easier to edit it in JOSM


Sep 15, 2021, 02:22 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> Have had a look at this several times & can't figure out how to fix it?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17960956>  has been mapped as one beach for 
> the entire northern part of the Gold Coast, which is fair enough as it is an 
> unbroken length of sand the whole way.
>
> However, at some stage, several years ago, the entire length was named as  
> "Main Beach", which is actually only one relatively short section. A few 
> years later, the name was then changed to "Surfers Paradise Beach", which, 
> while more famous (?), is even shorter! In actual fact, this stretch of sand 
> covers 9 separate named beaches / areas.
>
> Is there any way of breaking this one area into multiple beaches? (& I only 
> use iD, which probably makes things harder?)
>
> To make matters worse, there are a host of relations involved in the same 
> line/s: suburb (multiple), City, Qld & Australian boundaries; Mainland 
> Australia relation; Coastline; watershed & undoubtedly more, of which 
> breaking any one will mean the end of civilisation!
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=-28.05921=153.44282#map=19/-28.05899/153.44394
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Friend requests from 'Porn Bots'

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

>> but I was wondering if anybody else has seen dodgy friend  requests
>>
>
> There were a few last month: > 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-August/014922.html>  
> and they just seem to have kicked off again.  I've seen reports  
> elsewhere and have had a couple myself.
>
>
> The best thing to do is to click the "report user" button in the  user 
> profile and report it as spam. The admins tend to delete them  fairly 
> quickly.
>
>
See also https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/3310
for some possible systematic solutions

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

Re: [talk-au] Strange friend request?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

If user is not existing then its spam profile was likely deleted.

Is this possibility mentioned at page of deleted user?

If not - can  you link it? Maybe it can be improved and 
mention that deleting user is common reason for spam accounts.

In general, in such case I would go to an user profile (if still existing),
press report user and as reason put "unexplained friend request, likely
spam/scam".

It may be a repeat of this private message spam, that was advertising porn 
sites.


Aug 29, 2021, 03:12 by nwas...@gmail.com:

>
> I have also been added as a friend by user ‘Debra_Devries’ but on going to 
> the link which seems legitimate, the user does not exist.
> Maybe my new friend has to do some edits before coming in to existence for 
> the link?
> Thanks,
> nevw
>
> On 29 Aug 2021, at 9:51 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick <> graemefi...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> Bit of a weird thing to ask about ...
>>
>> Open up the e-mail this morning & there's an OSM message (which certainly 
>> appears legit?) to say that "this person" has added me as a friend.
>>
>> That's nice, but it appears to be a real name that I don't know, & when I go 
>> to look at their user page, it says that that user doesn't exist?
>>
>> Anybody seen this before?
>>
>> & if it possibly is a scam of some sort (?) who should I report it to? 
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>

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

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Aug 23, 2021, 06:24 by talk-au@openstreetmap.org:

> On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 5:39 PM, Little Maps wrote:
>
>> I have a different take, but I think you'd be happy with my ideal router. It 
>> would give me 2 options: (1) use all available tracks (public + unknown) vs 
>> (2) only use known public tracks. Given how few tracks have an access tag, 
>> most users would default to "show me all of them", but they'd have a choice. 
>> Globally, only 3.8% of tracks have an access tag: 20.7 million of 21.5 
>> million tracks don't. Any app that only used known public tracks would be 
>> viewed as crippled by users and would go broke. The market would force 
>> developers to show all tracks, regardless of their personal intentions.
>>
>
> I don't think there is any perfect solution until all tracks have an access 
> tag, only compromises. You could decide to route on tracks including without 
> an access tag set, with a warning or just accept there will be some bad 
> routes and encourage users to report or fix those in OSM. 
>
Other options (theoretical)
1) apply some penalty to tracks with unknown access so a bit longer route will 
be 
preferred if known to be accessible
2) find route in both modes - "assume yes" and "assume no" and present both to 
the user

>> By analogy, until recently the Aus community took the view that there was no 
>> need to add paved surface tags on roads and only unpaved tags needed to be 
>> added. Paved was taken as the default value. As lots of roads had no tags it 
>> was impossible to know which were actually paved and which just hadn't been 
>> tagged. Same problem to here. Fortunately, heaps of mappers added paved tags 
>> anyway, which enabled us to get to the stage this year where virtually every 
>> road down to tertiary level across the whole country now has a surface tag 
>> (except in Melb and Perth). Soon every unclassified road in Vic will have 
>> one as well. Keep chipping away at the job is my suggestion.
>>
>
> Exactly, and overall I think OSM data is in a much better place because of 
> this.
>
See also maxweight:signed, opening_hours:signed, cycleway:both=no 
and explicit access tagging on playgrounds (this ones promoted by SC)

> I've tried to get StreetComplete to ask about access but it was rejected > 
> https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2930
>
note that it was rejected because
1) access is at least sometimes unsigned and not clear - is it different in 
Australia?
Is it possible to have a simple question where someone with zero experience 
would reliably answer?

Are there also tracks open to public entry on foot/bicycle and not in other 
vehicle?
It also would need to be handled - or request user to leave notes for tracks 
not fully
open and not fully closed if that is rare

(In Poland it would be unlikely due to tricky situation with 
vehicle/foot/bicycle access
that is very hard to survey and interpret)

2) Problem of spammy quest is real (in some areas many, many, many will be 
public)
but there are some spammy quests already and given high usefulness it seems 
survivable

3) no community was known to want explicit access tagging on all highway=track
(from this discussion I see that it can change)
In such case posting comment in that issue to outcome of discussion (probably 
documentation on OSM Wiki) that explicit access tagging is desired on every
single highway=track in entire country would defuse that argument

(Or maybe it could be asked on access=unknown tracks?)

No promises that it would be implemented but "Australian community clearly
agrees that explicit access tagging on all tracks is desired" would defuse
one of blockers.

Especially if there are good reasons to do it this way it would encourage doing 
this.

---

(as one of contributors to StreetComplete I strongly prefer avoiding  going 
"hereby I declare tagging decision, rest of OSM community now should
change their mapping, change other presets and update wiki, the king of tagging
has spoken"

it is tricky to distinguish sometimes "this is my pet tagging style that noone 
likes" vs
"this is an accepted tagging style, with tiny loud minority complaining" or
"this is new accepted mapping style" vs "this is a bad idea not supported by 
community"

and in case of highway=track I was unaware about any real support for access 
tagging on 
every single one - and none was linked in the discussion)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Aug 17, 2021, 00:24 by bjceravo...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 21:19, Andrew Harvey <> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>>> And this one definitely should be inverted:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.85421/151.06761
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. Surprise no one fixed this already, I've done so now.
>>  
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <>> 
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Are you allowed as a cyclist to leave sidewalk using them?
>>>
>>
>> Well in NSW you can't cycle on the sidewalk...
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> Is it OK to use them for u-turn?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> But you don't need the routing engine to tell you that. So being private is 
> fine.
>
For initial/final segment? no so important, though I have seen cases where
router took nearest public way (footway) instead of highway=residential
and driveway mapping helped it to produce reasonable routing.

But sometimes entering footway, pushing small section
and leaving footway via driveway is useful in the middle

Or leaving cycleway via driveway.
See 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-31.99292=115.91624#map=19/-31.99292/115.91624

Without mapping public driveways routing would direct cyclists all the way
to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-31.99326=115.92041#map=18/-31.99326/115.92041
- possibly ignoring this route and proposing an inferior alternative.


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

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Aug 16, 2021, 13:14 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <> 
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Are you allowed as a cyclist to leave sidewalk using them?
>>
>
> Well in NSW you can't cycle on the sidewalk...
>  
>
I was also thinking about treating it as a good places for transition from
pushing bicycle on sidewalk to cycling on road (actually used this way
by for example brouter)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Aug 15, 2021, 02:06 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 08:55, Tom Brennan <> webs...@ozultimate.com> > wrote:
>
>
>> I agree with your comment about only the section inside the property 
>> actually being 
>>  private, but that distinction really only becomes important once 
>>  footpaths are more frequently mapped as highway=footway + footway=sidewalk
>>
>
> Personally, I don't bother splitting them. Strictly speaking, nobody is 
> allowed to turn into your household driveway & park there, so I consider that 
> the whole thing would be private?
>
Are you allowed as a cyclist to leave sidewalk using them?

Is it OK to use them for u-turn?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Audible fences

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Aug 1, 2021, 09:48 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:

>>
>> What physically is this 'screeching fence'?
>>
>>
>> Is it in the middle of the road like a cattle grid, or along the edge
>> of the road?
>>
>> A single pole with the device on it?
>>
>> Or is it 2 poles on opposite sides of the road with devices mounted one them?
>>
>> Or is it a series of poles along both sides of the road with devices on them?
>>
>
> Hi Warin
> There is more than one way to implement virtual fencing
> The one near me https://www.wildlifesafetysolutions.com.au/
> Is a series of poles along both sides of the road with devices on them, 
> though it could be one side
>
> Tony
>

Then barrier=fence is really unsuitable - as it is not a barrier at all for 
human and
is unlike other barrier=fence despite using similar name

I would advise against using barrier=fence for them
Even barrier=audible_fence would be better.

Maybe  something completely different
barrier=audible or barrier=sensoric (???)
(AFAIK also light is sometimes used)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jul 28, 2021, 07:29 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

>> You can check your throttle status on the standard server here >> 
>> https://overpass-api.de/api/status
>>
>
> Which came back with
> Rate limit: 22 slots available now.
> which I assume means it should be OK?
>
Yes, this reported that 2 out of 2 slots are available.

If you run query recently there could be listing of how long you need
to wait for query to become available again (for small queries 
done rarely it could be seconds, for large repeated ones you can
get hours before you are allowed to query again)

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

Re: [talk-au] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jul 28, 2021, 07:23 by aho...@gmail.com:

>
> Industrial on one side, residential on the other? 
> Personally I don't mind leaving this as residential as you suggest, so just 
> mark it as not an issue.
>
Often residential will be valid there, so I would skip it.

> If you get blocked on the standard one then you can change the overpass api 
> server that you're working with. In overpass-turbo setting you can switch to 
> > https://overpass.kumi.systems/api>  which is a different instance hosted by 
> some people who don't have a limit > https://overpass.kumi.systems/
> In my tests the data is recent.
>
Note that it has repeated problems with corrupted data (both queries simply 
failing 
- especially for attic data) and with queries returning outdated/corrupted data 
silently.

> Speaking as a programmer, I'm not sure that I've ever encountered a language 
> as poorly explained and documented as overpass QL. 
>
I just always start from existing examples.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_API_by_Example
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Advanced_examples

I almost never write such code, I rather find the closest example and modify it.
In my experience that almost always works well.

I started also writing introduction at
https://mapsaregreat.com/geographic-data-mining-and-visualisation-for-beginners/overpass-turbo-tutorial.html
(right now and for long time it is just starter, but maybe may be useful and 
maybe one
day I will continue writing it)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Street Lamps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter should have an 
explanation
(if something is unclear, confusing or insufficient then it should be fixed)


Jun 14, 2021, 09:47 by dazzilitc...@gmail.com:

> I'm not sure how to revert but here are the changesets. I'd really appreciate 
> it if someone could explain how to revert changesets or do it for me.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106183760
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106183680
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106183490
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106180821
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106140541
>
> I'll try to get around to sending the waiver request at some point in the 
> week.
>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 12:23, Phil Wyatt <> p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Hopefully someone on the list will be able to give a bit more background on 
>> the waiver request from Jan 2019, if not, it might pay to send another 
>> request using the waiver template.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> I would halt your work until the waiver has been signed off
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> From:>>  Andrew Munday <>> dazzilitc...@gmail.com>> > 
>> Sent:>>  Monday, 14 June 2021 10:17 AM
>> To:>>  Sebastian S. <>> mapp...@consebt.de>> >
>> Cc:>>  OSM Australian Talk List <>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> >
>> Subject:>>  Re: [talk-au] Street Lamps
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> At the moment I'm a little concerned about how at >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue#Australian_Capital_Territory>>
>>   it says that the government hasn't given permission for anyone to use the 
>> dataset just yet. Would it be better to just revert my edits for now until 
>> we have a waiver. I don't want to be doing anything illegal. 
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 at 12:10, Sebastian S. <>> mapp...@consebt.de>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> Great that you reach out to the community.
>>>
>>> For osm imports planning and community buy in are important steps prior to 
>>> the actual import.
>>>
>>> This is to ensure high quality imports, avoiding reverts and can also get 
>>> you additional hands doing the work.
>>>
>>> There are different ways of doing this. >>> 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines>>>  will give you 
>>> some guidance.
>>>
>>> Essentially you should be writing down what you want to do and how you want 
>>> to do it.
>>>
>>> The how should cover preparation of the data, tags you want to use, how to 
>>> deal with existing osm nodes and objects.
>>> For large imports it's also suggested to use a separate account. 
>>>
>>> As I see it there are two ways of going about it. One is to sketch the idea 
>>> and work through the details with the community, then write the import page 
>>> on the wiki as a summary.
>>> The other approach would be to start the import page first then seek 
>>> feedback from the community.
>>>
>>> In either case please don't feel discouraged by any of this. 
>>>
>>> Thanks for your contributions.
>>> Seb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 June 2021 11:02:31 am AEST, Andrew Munday <>>> 
>>> dazzilitc...@gmail.com>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>

 I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "how I'm mapping into the OSM tag 
 schema" but for street lamps I was placing nodes and using the tag 
 "highway"="street_lamp" which is how the wiki says to tag them.


 As for dealing with conflicts, I used overpass turbo to query all the 
 existing street lamps and made sure to do my test uploads in suburbs that 
 didn't already have any street lamps in them. I'm not really sure how I'd 
 merge with any existing street lamps at the moment.


 Hopefully this goes to the mailing list. I don't really know what I'm 
 doing.


  


 On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 at 20:42, Andrew Harvey < 
 andrew.harv...@gmail.com > wrote:


>
> See > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
>
>
>  
>
>
> For starters I'd like to see how you're mapping into the OSM tag schema, 
> how you plan to deal with conflicts (if any are already mapped in the 
> ACT).
>
>
>  
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2021, 10:03 am Andrew Munday, <> 
> dazzilitc...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Hello everyone. I'm not sure what I'm doing with this mailing list thing 
>> so bear with me. I'm building an augmented reality game ala Pokemon Go 
>> and one of the objects in the game are street lamps. I've been adding a 
>> lot of changes around my house in Canberra for around a year and the 
>> other day I found out about automated edits and figured I could use the 
>> street lamps dataset at >> 
>> 

Re: [talk-au] Street Lamps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

If there is no permission then edits sould be reverted.

Can you link affected ones?


Jun 14, 2021, 02:16 by dazzilitc...@gmail.com:

> At the moment I'm a little concerned about how at > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue#Australian_Capital_Territory>
>   it says that the government hasn't given permission for anyone to use the 
> dataset just yet. Would it be better to just revert my edits for now until we 
> have a waiver. I don't want to be doing anything illegal.
>
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 at 12:10, Sebastian S. <> mapp...@consebt.de> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>> Great that you reach out to the community.
>>
>> For osm imports planning and community buy in are important steps prior to 
>> the actual import.
>>
>> This is to ensure high quality imports, avoiding reverts and can also get 
>> you additional hands doing the work.
>>
>> There are different ways of doing this. >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines>>  will give you some 
>> guidance.
>>
>> Essentially you should be writing down what you want to do and how you want 
>> to do it.
>>
>> The how should cover preparation of the data, tags you want to use, how to 
>> deal with existing osm nodes and objects.
>> For large imports it's also suggested to use a separate account. 
>>
>> As I see it there are two ways of going about it. One is to sketch the idea 
>> and work through the details with the community, then write the import page 
>> on the wiki as a summary.
>> The other approach would be to start the import page first then seek 
>> feedback from the community.
>>
>> In either case please don't feel discouraged by any of this. 
>>
>> Thanks for your contributions.
>> Seb
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 June 2021 11:02:31 am AEST, Andrew Munday <>> dazzilitc...@gmail.com>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "how I'm mapping into the OSM tag 
>>> schema" but for street lamps I was placing nodes and using the tag 
>>> "highway"="street_lamp" which is how the wiki says to tag them.
>>> As for dealing with conflicts, I used overpass turbo to query all the 
>>> existing street lamps and made sure to do my test uploads in suburbs that 
>>> didn't already have any street lamps in them. I'm not really sure how I'd 
>>> merge with any existing street lamps at the moment.
>>> Hopefully this goes to the mailing list. I don't really know what I'm doing.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 at 20:42, Andrew Harvey <>>> 
>>> andrew.harv...@gmail.com>>> > wrote:
>>>
 See  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines

 For starters I'd like to see how you're mapping into the OSM tag schema, 
 how you plan to deal with conflicts (if any are already mapped in the ACT).


 On Sat, 12 Jun 2021, 10:03 am Andrew Munday, < 
 dazzilitc...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Hello everyone. I'm not sure what I'm doing with this mailing list thing 
> so bear with me. I'm building an augmented reality game ala Pokemon Go 
> and one of the objects in the game are street lamps. I've been adding a 
> lot of changes around my house in Canberra for around a year and the 
> other day I found out about automated edits and figured I could use the 
> street lamps dataset at > 
> https://www.data.act.gov.au/Infrastructure-and-Utilities/ACT-Streetlights/cfpr-4tpw>
>   to speed up the process. I did look at the automatic edits code of 
> conduct page and I couldn't figure out who I should contact about my 
> plans to do it so I submitted a few changesets and ticked the box saying 
> I wanted someone to review my edits which got someone to tell me to 
> message here. I'm happy to undo the changesets if needed but I'd like 
> some guidance on how to do this sort of thing.
> ___
>  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] How to map around blocked roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

What is the legal situation? Can you legally use that bypass and continue on 
the blocked road?


Dec 4, 2020, 03:19 by bob3b...@skymesh.com.au:

> I don't do a lot of mapping, so thought I'd better check.
>
> Where a road has been closed by a barrier, but people have driven around it, 
> making their own road.
>
> Example - Far left of this frame, intersection of Eyre Highway and (unsealed) 
> Cows Head Corner Rd, SA - south side of Eyre.
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/bob3bob3?lat=-33.20304604612525=136.1608876148938=17=44LIDXGpBljYGVWNj26uIw=photo=0.2439527070079778=0.6356433099503748=2.001460004581609
>
> Reflective barrier warning sign in place, two mounds of dirt.
>
> Have looked at the tagging guidelines for regional "not there" roads. I am 
> guessing that I should cut the minor road short of the highway, then add in a 
> short section with a allowed access tag for something?
>
> Advice please.
>
> Cheers Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Dec 2, 2020, 05:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 2/12/20 3:54 am, Mateusz Konieczny      via Talk-au wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by >>>> 61sundow...@gmail.com>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This subject has a long-running chequered past that  
>>>>>> hasn't reached a conclusion >>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the  
>>>>>> water course (i.e. river/stream/creek) as  
>>>>>> tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water  
>>>>>> traverses man made structures and I can see it helping  
>>>>>> many scenarios. However, it doesn't help with road  
>>>>>> usage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the  road 
>>>>>> infrastructure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would a node that connects both road and water way be  
>>>>> sufficient? 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That would break current tagging methods that do notmerge in 
>>>> one node vertically separated
>>>> objects like culvert pipe under road or river underbridge or 
>>>> road under road on a viaduct.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to  footways at 
>>> a singular shared node. 
>>>
>>>
>> In this case you can transition/move between this features.
>>
>>>
>>> Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert  
>>> indication separate from the waterway culvert indication?
>>>
>>>
>> No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anythingon a 
>> road.
>>
>> And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they canprocess 
>> OSM data,
>> there is no need at all to tag it manually for over onemillion of 
>> culverts.
>>
>
>
>
>
> And the OP wants to tag weight and width limits for the road as  it 
> crosses a culvert...
>
>
maxweight maxwidth tags on road are well known solution for that

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny      via Talk-au wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>>> This subject has a long-running chequered past that  hasn't 
>>>> reached a conclusion >>>> 
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
>>>>
>>>> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the  water 
>>>> course (i.e. river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert.  It's 
>>>> great as it models where water traverses man made  structures 
>>>> and I can see it helping many scenarios.  However, it doesn't 
>>>> help with road usage.
>>>>
>>>> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road  
>>>> infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Would a node that connects both road and water way be  sufficient? 
>>>
>>>
>> That would break current tagging methods that do not merge inone 
>> node vertically separated
>> objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge orroad 
>> under road on a viaduct.
>>
>
>
>
>
> OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to footways  at a 
> singular shared node. 
>
>
In this case you can transition/move between this features.

>
> Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert  indication 
> separate from the waterway culvert indication?
>
>
No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anything on a road.

And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they can process OSM data,
there is no need at all to tag it manually for over one million of culverts.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't  reached 
>> a conclusion >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
>>
>> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water  course 
>> (i.e. river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great  as it 
>> models where water traverses man made structures and I  can see it 
>> helping many scenarios. However, it doesn't help  with road usage.
>>
>> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road  infrastructure.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Would a node that connects both road and water way be sufficient? 
>
>
That would break current tagging methods that do not merge in one node 
vertically separated
objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge or road under road 
on a viaduct.

node shared by waterway and road is for fords
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 30, 2020, 04:21 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

>> Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and 
>> that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road.
>>
>
> Currently, at least, tunnel=culvert doesn't render on the road, it only shows 
> as a faint dotted line for the stream / drain passing under the road, so 
> won't be very visible (at least that's how they show in OSMand+ - other nav 
> programs may be different?)
>
And OSM is open data, so if someone is interested in culverts they can make 
their own rendering!


>> Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal 
>> structure/identification numbers. We would like to see OpenStreetMap cater 
>> for both spatial and a-spatial relationships to external systems - typically 
>> those in local and state government. Many of these 'external' systems do not 
>> have a spatial component and would compliment each other nicely.
>>
>
> That's likely to be the biggest problem. Where are you getting the weight 
> restriction limits? I've driven over quite a few bridges & culverts, in both 
> built-up & country areas, & very few of them have weight limits posted. If 
> you're accessing external (Govt?) data-bases that have these details listed, 
> do we have permission to use their data in OSM?
>
see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines for more info


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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 30, 2020, 03:24 by ahhug...@gmail.com:

> Hi All,
>
> Thanks everyone for your feedback.
>
> We would like the culvert to be an  'isolated' segment of road for a number 
> of reasons. General (light vehicle) limits are typically signed however 
> anything that is 'really heavy' such as a mobile crane, concrete pump or 
> heavy freight are assessed individually. So for us, it's important that the 
> culvert is identifiable
>
It is already identifiable as location where line representing culvert and line 
representing road crosses (skipping cases of road tagged as bridge or tunnel 
would
be needed to avoid rare false positive).

This requires some processing, but it is far less work overall than mapping 
this manually.

In general mapping manually something that may be handled automatically in data 
processing
is a very bad idea.

> Additionally, culverts can be quite wide (depending on the water body) so a 
> point/node is not an accurate representation - they should be ways.
>
I once or twice split natural=water area of river (or waterway=riverbank area) 
and tagged it with
covered=yes. Something similar for culverts may be also done.

>  This will also allow spatial relationships to be used with far greater 
> accuracy & application.
>
Can you give examples of well mapped road and waterway geometry where tagging
tunnel=culvert on waterway is not sufficient and tagging culvert on road is 
needed to
achieve this "far greater accuracy & application"?
> Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and 
> that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road.
>
This should be handled well by existing tagging.

> Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal 
> structure/identification numbers.
>
Adding reference numbers to a culvert is possible already.

>  Placing this data into OpenStreetMap would be a great way to show what is 
> possible.
>
What kind of data would require tagging culvert also on road?

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 27, 2020, 01:15 by ahhug...@gmail.com:

> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.
>
Why?


> Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?
> Way > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677>  :
> Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing? 
> 
> Way > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480
> Way needs to be split
> Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with tunnel > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
> Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?
>
Hard to say without photo of a location.

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

Re: [talk-au] Abbreviations in bus stop names (Was Re: Mapping Transport for NSW transit stop numbers)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Note that we have short_name alt_name and other name tags.


Nov 14, 2020, 01:24 by s...@samwilson.id.au:

>
> I'm not sure it applies everywhere, but one reason to keep the  original 
> abbreviations is that some transit apps aren't smart  enough to search 
> for the unabbreviated names. For example, on the  Transperth app (but 
> not, it seems, their > website > )  
> searching for "hampton road" gives one result of "Hampton Road,  Perth" 
> whereas searching for "hampton rd" gives lots of results  that are actual 
> bus stop names.
>
>
> That said, I actually don't often map these names because they're  not 
> written on the signs in Perth. The stop ref numbers are more  verifiable 
> and can be typed into the app without too much trouble  (I usually look 
> up a bus stop on OsmAnd and then copy its ref to  the transit app).
>
> On 14/11/20 6:12 am, cleary wrote:
>
>> When I have added bus stop names in the past, using signposts or local 
>> knowledge, I have avoided abbreviations as I have understood that to be 
>> usual OSM practice. I am familiar with abbreviations so I am comfortable 
>> with them, especially "St" instead of "Street" and "Dr" instead of "Drive".  
>>  Both methods convey the necessary information to users so I have no strong 
>> view.   My particular request is to avoid capitalising words other than 
>> street or place names so that "Opp" would be "opposite" or "opp" and "After" 
>> would be "after" without capital letter. I don't think these intermediary 
>> words are usually capitalised and it was this unfamiliar capitalisation that 
>> jarred with me as I read the names of the bus stops.  Whichever way it is 
>> done, this data will be a welcome addition to OSM. Thanks.On Fri, 13 Nov 
>> 2020, at 4:17 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2020 9:08 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>>
 There was some work going on at  
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfNSW_Data_Imports  which I don't 
 think made it to the list. So this is the perfect opportunity to raise it 
 on the list and if there are any concerns or discussions for that import, 
 let's work that out here.

>>> What are people's views on abbreviations in bus stop names?When I was 
>>> working on bus stops in Canberra I converted names such as:River St Opp 
>>> Morpeth StYamba Dr 2nd After Wisdom SttoRiver Street Opposite Morpeth 
>>> StreetYamba Drive Second After Wisdom StreetIs it worthwhile doing this for 
>>> the TfNSW data or are people happy if the abbreviated versions get 
>>> imported?___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] Port Phillip Steer Clear Areas Proposed Import

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Thanks for posting 
https://gist.github.com/andrewharvey/12e5753086585279d398f48035368876
allowing easy review of data.

Just to confirm: it is not tagged already, right?


Oct 28, 2020, 06:27 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

> The Victorian Ports Corporation (Melbourne) contacted me about adding their 
> Steer Clear Areas into OpenStreetMap/OpenSeaMap.
>
> I worked through with them to get this dataset as open data > 
> https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/steer-clear-areas-in-port-phillip>  
> and to get the waiver in place > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:VPCM_OpenStreetMap_Approval.pdf> .
>
> I've prepared this data for import at > 
> https://gist.github.com/andrewharvey/12e5753086585279d398f48035368876> .
>
> These are areas where it is illegal to anchor and identified by VicPorts as 
> Steer Clear areas > 
> https://www.vicports.vic.gov.au/community-and-bay-users/recreational-boating/Pages/boating-on-the-bay.aspx>
>  .
>
> I'm proposing we apply the 
> seamark:precautionary_area:restriction=no_anchoring tag per > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects> . This is also 
> what VicPorts have requested to use for tags.
>
> Are there any objections, questions, concerns, suggestions about importing 
> this into OpenStreetMap?
>
> If I don't hear back I'll go ahead in a week.
>

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Important thing to note is that
while nothing makes you obligated
to map tracks in some area,
recommendations/guidelines like this
are not allowing you to delete existing objects
mapped by someone else.

25 Oct 2020, 07:31 by mapslit...@gmail.com:

> Hi Phil, thanks for drafting this, it’s great to have a concrete statement to 
> discuss. I agree with the broad sentiment but suggest two changes, one minor 
> and the other more substantive, as follows (deletions in strike through 
> and additions in all caps)
>
>
> 4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
> pads’ in > remote>  CONSERVATION reserves, as they may well be covered by 
> management plans, standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. 
> Such regulations or standards (> AS2156 <>> )  may request that the location 
> of such ‘tracks’ are not publicised on maps. > You should seek clarification 
> from the managing authority prior to adding such tracks. > MAPPERS ARE 
> ENCOURAGED TO PERUSE RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLANS ON THE WEB OR TO DISCUSS EDITS 
> WITH AGENCY STAFF WHEN CONSIDERING ADDING TRACKS IN CONSERVATION RESERVES.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rationale for changes... (1) not all sensitive areas are remote, and many 
> issues arise in reserves close to major cities. (2). Understanding the 
> broader context surrounding a potential mapping change may well be a hallmark 
> of good mapping, but mappers bear no responsibility to await a decision from 
> a management agency *before* they add or edit tracks.
>
>
>
>
>
> A likely response from an under-staffed government agency to an unknown 
> mapper is something like, “Thank you for your message. Your call is important 
> to us. We will endeavour to respond to you at the earliest opportunity.” 
> Repeatedly. I would suggest that a less declarative statement is far more 
> appropriate in this instance.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Thanks once again, I appreciate everyone’s input on the issue. Best wishes 
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 25 Oct 2020, at 10:59 am, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as 
>> point 4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> 4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
>> pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management plans, 
>> standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such regulations 
>> or standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such ‘tracks’ are 
>> not publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the managing 
>> authority prior to adding such tracks.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

24 Oct 2020, 00:34 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be 
> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and 
> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we 
> authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install signage 
> to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park operators, 
> it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might not have 
> intentionally created.
>
If protected area has rule "access is illegal
unless
signed otherwise" or "access allowed only on 
signposted trails" then such way-specific signage
is not necessary to use access tags.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

23 Oct 2020, 11:59 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
> Don'tRender tag
> 'That is fortunately impossible' why is it impossible?
>
Technically it is possible but it would require licensechange that would be 
problematic
both from legal viewpoint (making such rule effective
would be tricky at best)and unlikely to be accepted by osm community.

It is not impossible as in "can be established
with math proof to be illogically and therefore impossible"
but impossible as in "I will stop conflict in
Middle East by posting on Twitter'.
>
> 'Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not 
> an acceptable edit'
> I don't think anybody suggested it was.
>
This "solution" regularly appears in such
topics about illegal or unwanted paths.
> 'Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped 
> and rendered in OSM.'
> Nobody said that Russia should should be able to
>
It was just proposed that owners or operator 
of an area would be able to suppress 
rendering of objects there.
>  
> Its a point for discussion. What do you think should happen?
>
Paths existing but illegal to use should
be marked and tagged with access tags.

Path destroyed should be deleted from OSM.

Paths but existing should not be mapped in OSM.

> Why single out Russia?
>
AFAIK they have laws forbidding mapping
locations of military bases.
>
> PS thanks Steve for your second email.
> thanks Phil for your clarification on 'illegal'
>
> Tony
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
>>
>>> I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a  women's 
>>> refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the  process. And it 
>>> doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard  at the door because I 
>>> have mapped a refuge.
>>>
>> Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not  mapping 
>> private info.
>>
>> See  
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
>> for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.
>>
>>> Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM,  only 
>>> slightly more red.
>>>
>> This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)
>>
>>>
>>> You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as  Osmand 
>>> and Strava.
>>>
>> Any decent router will not route over them.
>>
>>> Graeme
>>> Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought  and 
>>> don't have any really good answers. Please think of a better  scheme.
>>>
>>> I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too  complicated for 
>>> the benefit that results but here goes:
>>>
>>> a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
>>> OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode
>>>
>> This is a bad idea.
>>
>>> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public  policy for 
>>> the Don'tRender tag
>>>
>> That is fortunately impossible.
>>
>>>
>>> By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of  
>>> addition and deletion and edit wars.
>>>
>> You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.
>>
>> Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered"  is not 
>> an acceptable edit.
>>
>>> Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land  owner or 
>>> manager is credible, if two organisations have credible  claim to that then 
>>> Don'tRender=disputed
>>>
>> Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be  mapped 
>> and rendered in OSM.
>>
>> I knowingly and deliberately violated
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China
>> by mapping objects in China.
>>
>> _
>> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
>> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
>>___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:

> I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a women's 
> refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the process. And it 
> doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard at the door because I 
> have mapped a refuge.
>
Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not mapping 
private info.

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.

>  Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM, only 
> slightly more red.
>
This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)

>
>  You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand 
> and Strava.
>
Any decent router will not route over them.

> Graeme
> Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought and don't 
> have any really good answers. Please think of a better scheme.
>
> I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too complicated for the 
> benefit that results but here goes:
>
> a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
> OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode
>
This is a bad idea.

> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
> Don'tRender tag
>
That is fortunately impossible.

>
> By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of addition 
> and deletion and edit wars.
>
You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.

Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not an 
acceptable edit.

> Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land owner or 
> manager is credible, if two organisations have credible claim to that then 
> Don'tRender=disputed
>
Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped and 
rendered in OSM.

I knowingly and deliberately violated 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China 
by mapping objects in China.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Sufficient permission?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Oct 6, 2020, 23:10 by daviewa...@disroot.org: 

>  "You may use any names I have applied to tracks as my main intentionis 
> to get people walking."
>  
>
I am not a lawyer but it sounds like something that is at least intended to be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-domain-equivalent_license like say
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

note that there is also special mailing list (legal-talk).

I am more worried about 

>  You will find names in the guide that are not accepted geographical names,
> but by becoming common usage names they will eventually be adopted.
> I amfitting (nailing) laminated signs with map to trees.
>
part - are this names already used by people except author of the guide?

(I just added place=locality with name used by people from a single camping 
spot[1], so
my standards are not high - but some actual use should be present)

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7973988988#map=16/49.4727/21.3801 

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

Re: [talk-au] Admin levels for LGAs / suburbs etc changed (Was "Suburbs & admin boundaries stopping streets being found?)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

12 Sep 2020, 03:41 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 20:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <> 
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sep 2, 2020, 06:06 by >> thesw...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> On 2/09/2020 10:38 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did a bit of searching & it appears it was only changed on 15/7/20, but 
>>>> no, I certainly don't remember any discussion?
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Admin_level_10=prev=2012028
>>>>
>>>> Makes reference to "Australian Tagging Review (2012 / 2016)", but that 
>>>> doesn't help me much either?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sigh.
>>>
>>> He is a serial offender:
>>>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013009.html
>>>
>>> There was no discussion. I'd suggest that the changes to the wiki page 
>>> should be reverted.
>>>
>> I posted on their talk page on Wiki with request to explain what is the 
>> source of change +
>> mailing list links.
>>
>> See >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaronsta=2028532=1185639
>>
>> BTW, if he is serial offender why noone ever commented on their talk page?
>> Maybe it would help and they have some good point?
>>
>
> So are we in agreement that this change should be reverted?
>
> & if so, how is it done? Is it just a matter of clicking the "undo" button on 
> that edit, leaving a comment & that's it?
>
Yes - at least if no conflicting edits were
done later.

Otherwise it may be necessary to copy
earlier text.

(Exactly like with OSM reverts of OSM
map data)___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Are Health Centres, hospitals

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Sep 4, 2020, 07:09 by o...@97k.com:

>
> some would not satisfy the definition of "clinic" depending on whether the 10 
> staff (as specified in the OSM wiki)
>
This sounds like wikifiddling to me. I reduced its weight in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dclinic=2029091=1996391

>  I reckon the locals would regard the Burketown facility as their hospital 
> even if it is not so named and even if it does not satisfy OSM criteria.
>
Note that OSM maps reality and official government/local referring to something 
under an unusual
 term is not changing type of feature. Prisons should be tagged as prisons, 
even if government
calls them "vocation centers".

If something is clearly not a hospital it should not be tagged as one even if 
official
or local name includes "hospital". Even if locals are referring to them as 
"hospital".
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Admin levels for LGAs / suburbs etc changed (Was "Suburbs & admin boundaries stopping streets being found?)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Sep 2, 2020, 06:06 by thesw...@gmail.com:

> On 2/09/2020 10:38 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>>
>> Did a bit of searching & it appears it was only changed on 15/7/20, but no, 
>> I certainly don't remember any discussion?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Admin_level_10=prev=2012028
>>
>> Makes reference to "Australian Tagging Review (2012 / 2016)", but that 
>> doesn't help me much either?
>>
>
> Sigh.
>
> He is a serial offender:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013009.html
>
> There was no discussion. I'd suggest that the changes to the wiki page should 
> be reverted.
>
I posted on their talk page on Wiki with request to explain what is the source 
of change +
mailing list links.

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaronsta=2028532=1185639

BTW, if he is serial offender why noone ever commented on their talk page?
Maybe it would help and they have some good point?

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

Re: [talk-au] OSM down?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Sounds like reocurence of https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/426

So yes, something got broken on OSM servers.

Not sure whatever creating issues on openstreetmap/operations is helpful.

Sep 1, 2020, 08:02 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> Has something crashed?
>
> Was getting a weird error message when trying to save changes earlier, & when 
> I now try to open OSM, I get:
> We're sorry, but something went wrong.
>
> The issue has been logged for investigation. Please try again later.
>
> Technical details for the administrator of this website 
> 
> This website is powered by > Phusion Passenger 
> > ®, the smart 
> application server built by > Phusion> ®. 
>
> OSM problem or mine?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Suburbs & admin boundaries stopping streets being found?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

30 Aug 2020, 07:40 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
> In addition, the overall Gold Coast LGA boundary hasn't been mapped.
>
Is it something with a clear boundary?
Then it is a data issue. I am unable to
promise fix in specific programs but it
is an OSM data issue (if an exact boundary 
is well defined)
> Would mapping the Gold Coast LGA as admin_level=8 resolve it?
>
I would rather ask is it a good way to
resolve OSM data issue.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Contributions to Road Geometry in Perth, Australia

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Just to confirm:

All edits will be made by human
without any fully automated edits, right?

15 Aug 2020, 04:17 by o...@nextbillion.ai:

>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
>
>
> We’re a small team based out of Hyderabad, India. We would be doing minimal 
> edits in Perth and contribute to OSM in the next couple of weeks, in-line 
> with OSM and Australia specific tagging guidelines [> Link 
> > ].
>
>
>
> Please refer our > Wiki 
> >  and > Github 
> >  project pages for more 
> information.
>
>
> Looking forward to suggestions, if any ☺
>
> Thanking you in advance,
> Team NextBillion
>___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Working with local government

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

I think that it is a good summary (disclaimer - I am doing it an extremely tiny 
scale, with extremely
small dataset of points).

Exact implementation details depends on what you exactly need - detect deletion 
in OSM?
detect missing data in OSM dataset/foreign dataset? Detect differences that 
will appear?
Produce dataset containing both OSM data and data from foreign dataset (may be 
necessary if
for some reason that data is not importable into OSM and it is OK to produce 
ODBL dataset).

Jul 21, 2020, 06:02 by ahhug...@gmail.com:

> Hi All,
>
> We expect to encounter the same problem at the NHVR if we begin to use OSM.
>
> My (possibly unfounded) initial thoughts are based around linking the OSM & 
> Source feature outside OSM in something similar to a "join" table. The join 
> might be on attribution (id), geometry or both. Then, you have to accept that 
> the link/join will break and a process is needed to detect breakages when 
> they happen so they can be repaired (a mix of automated & manual).
>
> Someone else might be able to comment on this with more clarity.
>
> The way I see it, you can't stop the breakage. You have to accept it and deal 
> with change.
>
> A Hughes
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 23:10, Sebastian Spiess <> mapp...@consebt.de> > wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/20 7:52 pm, Mateusz Konieczny  via Talk-au wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jul 9, 2020, 06:50 by >>> greg.dutkow...@gmail.com>>> :
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Bicycle Network Tasmania are trying to improve thequality of 
>>>> cycling infrastructure information in OSM.
>>>> Much has been done by volunteers in variousjurisdictions, and 
>>>> we have done lots locally, but thetagging is quite complex for 
>>>> cycle paths and not alwayscorrect.
>>>> Local councils are responsible for much of theinfrastructure, 
>>>> but they usually have little interactionwith OSM.
>>>> It would be most efficient if the councils GIS dataworked in 
>>>> tandem with OSM data so that they kept each otherup to date, 
>>>> each storing the info that is most useful forthem. For 
>>>> instance, for bike parking, there is littleutility in OSM 
>>>> storing the asset numbers and other info thatthe councils use 
>>>> to maintain their assets (although the reftag could be used as 
>>>> a foreign key to help keep the two insych).
>>>> The Hobart councils we work with are concerned with thequality 
>>>> of the data in OSM and the ability of anyone tochange it.
>>>> Does anyone know of any examples we could learn from oflocal 
>>>> government itself working to keep OSM data up to date?
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>> One of the easiest things that local government may do is to
>>>
>>> 1) publish their datasets on an open license allowing to useit by 
>>> mappers
>>> 2) react to reports of mistakes in their data
>>>
>>> Both work relatively well in Poland for address data - with
>>> publishing required by 
>>> national law (though still ignored be many local governments)
>>>
>>> Note that (1) is useful for mappers even if data quality is
>>> unsufficient to import it
>>> into OSM. I am using a bit noisy bicycle parking in locating
>>> unmapped ones
>>> (often location, description and real location mismatches
>>> significantly, but
>>> almost always it allows me to find something that was missingin OSM)
>>>
>>> ___Talk-au mailing list>>> 
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>> 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>
>> Hi, indeed great to see you reach out.
>>
>>
>> Yes I agree that a good approach is to make the data open.  However, I 
>> understand Greg is asking if there are working concepts  on how to 
>> maintain a link between local government GIS (which  might have 
>> additional information) and OSM data.
>>
>>
>> Once the relevant information has been entered into OSM, how is  the 
>> council to track the data? e.g. to see if tags get modified,  nodes 
>> moved, added. 
>>
>>
>> e.g. worst case is that a nicely mapped and tagged area gets  re-done by 
>> someone. This results in new node and way numbers.
>>
>>
>> A good example would be a single node gets expanded by OSM users.
>>
>>
>> In both cases the data is diverging from another. How to keep  track? 
>> Are there concepts/solutions?
>>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> ___
>>  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] Working with local government

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

(1) pollution of tags by such keys is irritating
(2) people may split, move, delete, edit or copy such tag

wikidata key is slightly better - but requires wikidata entries

Jul 20, 2020, 04:33 by daviewa...@disroot.org:

> Is there any reason against using a custom tag as a linking key?
>
> e.g. some_import_object_id=123456
>
> Then when you need to update the data, you can match the key in OSM with the 
> key in the source data.
>
> On 19 July 2020 11:21:04 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 22:28, Greg Dutkowski <>> greg.dutkow...@gmail.com>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Thanks for everyone's input.
>>> Sebastien best understood what I am trying to do.
>>> It seems inefficient for local government to make their data open and then 
>>> hope the OSM community translates it to OSM tagging. 
>>>
>>> Better for local government to put their data directly into OSM and 
>>> maintain a two way link to their data.
>>>
>>
>> While that is certainly welcome, I would never have an expectation of it. I 
>> expectat that all public funded works are made open without restrictions on 
>> use (of course subject to privacy concerns or other special considerations) 
>> so at least the OSM community can use it if we like, anything above and 
>> beyond this is a welcome contribution.
>>
>> If a local government is thinking about this, I'd just say engage with us so 
>> we can all work together.
>>  
>>
>>> Examples and tools from anyone who is trying to keep external data in sync 
>>> with OSM will be most useful.
>>>
>>
>> There are some conflation tools at >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Conflation>>  but they appear 
>> to all need a lot of coding to get up and running.
>>

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

Re: [talk-au] Working with local government

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jul 9, 2020, 06:50 by greg.dutkow...@gmail.com:

> Hi,
> Bicycle Network Tasmania are trying to improve the quality of cycling 
> infrastructure information in OSM.
> Much has been done by volunteers in various jurisdictions, and we have done 
> lots locally, but the tagging is quite complex for cycle paths and not always 
> correct.
> Local councils are responsible for much of the infrastructure, but they 
> usually have little interaction with OSM.
> It would be most efficient if the councils GIS data worked in tandem with OSM 
> data so that they kept each other up to date, each storing the info that is 
> most useful for them. For instance, for bike parking, there is little utility 
> in OSM storing the asset numbers and other info that the councils use to 
> maintain their assets (although the ref tag could be used as a foreign key to 
> help keep the two in sych).
> The Hobart councils we work with are concerned with the quality of the data 
> in OSM and the ability of anyone to change it.
> Does anyone know of any examples we could learn from of local government 
> itself working to keep OSM data up to date?
> Thanks.
>
One of the easiest things that local government may do is to

1) publish their datasets on an open license allowing to use it by mappers
2) react to reports of mistakes in their data

Both work relatively well in Poland for address data - with publishing required 
by 
national law (though still ignored be many local governments)

Note that (1) is useful for mappers even if data quality is unsufficient to 
import it
into OSM. I am using a bit noisy bicycle parking in locating unmapped ones
(often location, description and real location mismatches significantly, but
almost always it allows me to find something that was missing in OSM)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Non-Contributed Information Related to Ways?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jul 9, 2020, 03:00 by ahhug...@gmail.com:

> Hi Again All,
>
> We would like to investigate how we should store information which is related 
> to ways given the following:
>
> + Some specific information we are looking to store is to meet our needs. We 
> do have every intention to offer and promote the data through open source. 
> However, they're fit for our purposes and won't be a popular item. So, I 
> don't see us contributing these back directly...
>
If you can then listing specifically what kind of things are documented then it 
may turn out
that it actually is in scope.

Mapped things (depending on location) may include bicycle parkings, fire 
hydrants,
individual traffic signs, colour of buildings and so one.

So maybe it actually is useful data.

> But what if that mid segment is only needed as a segment for our purposes..
>
Such edits are not a good idea as 
1) it is not improving OSM
2) anyone may merge this segments back and it would be correct edit

In general you should not assume that OSM way ids are stable.
Way with specific id may become shorter (because it was split) or become gone
(because someone deleted it).

For extreme case see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1/history - note how
its location changed as it was deleted and restored

You can for example store your data as locations (or ways) and match it to OSM
somehow.

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

Re: [talk-au] OSM Way & Govt Street (centerline) Correlation, how?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jul 7, 2020, 15:37 by ahhug...@gmail.com:

> When I say "correlation", we really like to know that a satisfactory amount 
> of (Govt) gazetted roads exist is OSM. If we could identify missing roads 
> that would be ideal.
>
For the first step maybe comparing names with mostly ignoring geometry would be 
useful?
(depends on whatever naming schemes are compatible).


> Expecting OSM to align with Gazetted roads would be an exercise in 
> dramatically downgrading OSM data.
>
Still, if you want to find what is missing in OSM it may works.

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

Re: [talk-au] OSM Way & Govt Street (centerline) Correlation, how?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Also, in nearly any dataset some errors will appear.

If error is in OSM then fixing is relatively easy, just edit OSM.

But what if centerline in government data is wrong?

Malformed geometry, mapping of nonexisting road etc

"what we might expect when looking to achieve the correlation we need"

Mapping correct both in dataset but with diverging centerlines.
Finding multiple errors both in OSM data and other dataset.

Whatever you succeed depends in large part what kind of correlation is 
sufficient
for your needs and on whatever centerline mapping rules are significantly 
different
and quality of involved datasets.

"we are very enthusiastic to learn and contribute to OSM"

Good luck and welcome!

If anything is unclear or problematic it is the best to ask here (or 
potentially on
some other discussion channel if more applicable).

See also https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines -
also, feel free to ask for clarification/explanation if something is unclear

See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines if you plan
to import some external datasets into OSM.

Jul 7, 2020, 11:31 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> Just to add what others have said already,
>
> > OSM adoption is largely dependent on a minimum correlation between the OSM 
> > ways and the streets found in Government centerline/road datasets (States 
> > and/or LGAs)
>
> Could you elaborate on what exactly you mean by that or what specifically 
> you're aiming to achieve?
>
> For example could you use a map matching algorithm to match OSM data to other 
> road network data but since there will always be differences between multiple 
> datasets that's never going to be perfect.
>
> Graeme mentioned on/off ramps, but more generally there could be differences 
> in how the centerline is represented. For example, OSM splits ways where 
> there is a physical separation, so you might find other datasets just have 
> one centerline, but OSM would have two parallel ways for each direction. The 
> transition between these two modes is never ideal either. This isn't saying 
> one is necessarily wrong but rather have different guidelines on where the 
> line should be drawn.
>
> The other consideration is that most states we only have access to GPS or 
> satellite imagery to derive road geometries from so the geometry accuracy in 
> OSM isn't necessarily as great as survey grade data.
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:00, Andrew Hughes <> ahhug...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> First time poster and very new to OSM so please feel free to throw anything 
>> at me you think I should educate myself on.
>>
>> I'm currently the GIS Lead at the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (HNVR). 
>> We're very serious about adopting OSM for some of our needs. However, our 
>> OSM adoption is largely dependent on a minimum correlation between the OSM 
>> ways and the streets found in Government centerline/road datasets (States 
>> and/or LGAs).
>>
>> Q: Would anyone be able to provide me with some insight as to what we might 
>> expect when looking to achieve the correlation we need? Please be aware, our 
>> intent is to contribute and "close the gap" but we need to know if/how this 
>> can best be done in a cohesive way within the OSM community. >> I'm also 
>> aware there may be licensing issues, please overlook these for now.
>>
>> The NHVR are quite serious about what it hopes to achieve in the next 12 -24 
>> months through GIS and we are very enthusiastic to learn and contribute to 
>> OSM. I hope to be speaking with you a lot more in the near future.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Andrew Hughes
>>
>> ___
>>  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] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jun 19, 2020, 15:30 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <> 
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Can you consider using more specific surface? Like surface=asphalt?
>>
>
> The problem here is this way is the crossing, so will likely cover mulitple 
> surface types, usually asphalt on the road, concrete for the gutter, and 
> paving_stones or concrete for the pavement. So surface=paved I'd say is 
> better when it's not clearly any single surface type.
>
I sometimes split in parts, but I see why it could be an overkill.

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

Re: [talk-au] "All Bicycles" signage and the associated permissions

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jun 19, 2020, 14:58 by suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com:

> highway=cycleway
> oneway=yes
> surface=paved
>
Can you consider using more specific surface? Like surface=asphalt?

>  I'm curious to whether the road beyond should be tagged with bicycle=no up 
> until the next intersection. For instance, the first example would be tagged 
> bicycle=no from the ramp until Tumbi Road. Whilst bicycles are not explicitly 
> prohibited, the logical result from requiring cyclists to leave the 
> carriageway is that they aren't allowed on the road, and I'm wondering how to 
> replicate that properly in OSM so that routers can understand.
>
Is there any case where cyclist would be allowed to use the road (for example - 
cycling is some
specific direction requires using road as bikeway is not going there), but 
generally
sidepath should be used whenever possible?

In such case bicycle=use_sidepath would be better match.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath

If it is impossible for cyclist to legally enter road in any way then 
bicycle=no is correct.

Note that in some cases bicycle:forward / bicycle:backward may be needed
(if situation differs depending on a direction).
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to tag plantations?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jun 17, 2020, 13:35 by mapslit...@gmail.com:

> Perhaps then, landuse=forest and plantation=yes would be a better 
> combination, instead of natural=wood?
>
Yes - people that distinguish between this tags will be happy, people not 
distinguishing
between this two tags will be happy.

You can also use just landuse=forest but it will require local 
knowledge/context to be
recognizable as a plantation and it will work only in some regions.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to tag plantations?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jun 17, 2020, 12:35 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 20:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <> 
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jun 17, 2020, 11:48 by >> mapslit...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> source:geometry... etc.
>>>
>> source is better tagged in changeset tag itself (or in description of 
>> changeset
>> if you use iD)
>>
>
> Both are accepted and either are very helpful for future editors to 
> understand where information came from for future mapping.
>
Main problem with source:geometry as tag on object is that next mappers using a 
different source
and editing object significantly are often not updating it, making it 
misleading.

>  
>
>>
>>
>>> Thus, “plantation=yes” distinguishes plantations from natural forests
>>>
>> Good idea, there are some people trying to use landuse=forest vs natural=wood
>> for that distinction - but due to many people not caring about that at all 
>> the
>> supposed difference is lost
>>
>
> I can't see any documentation at > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:plantation> . It's my understanding 
> that it's common practice for landuse=forest and natural=wood to make that 
> distinction. At least around me everything is mapped pretty accurately that 
> way. 
>
It strongly depends on a location.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest is an attempt to describe the 
situation

>>> and leaf_type=broadleaved vs needleleaved distinguishes pine from euc 
>>> plantations.
>>>
>> You may want to add also >> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/species
>> or >> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/species%3Aen>>  if both able 
>> and 
>> interested
>>
>
> +1 if you know the species, however I think this only makes sense for 
> landuse=forest where you have a homogeneous type of tree, natural=wood would 
> almost always contain a diverse mixture of species.
>
Yes, it makes sense only where there is single tree type (what may happen also 
in natural or
semi-natural forests). You can try ;-delimited list but it will quickly become 
absurd.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to tag plantations?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jun 17, 2020, 11:48 by mapslit...@gmail.com:

> source:geometry... etc.
>
source is better tagged in changeset tag itself (or in description of changeset
if you use iD)

> Thus, “plantation=yes” distinguishes plantations from natural forests
>
Good idea, there are some people trying to use landuse=forest vs natural=wood
for that distinction - but due to many people not caring about that at all the
supposed difference is lost

>  and leaf_type=broadleaved vs needleleaved distinguishes pine from euc 
> plantations.
>
You may want to add also https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/species
or https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/species%3Aen if both able and 
interested

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

Re: [talk-au] OSM area measurement capabilities

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Not sure is there tool doing something like that (I am aware about counter of 
total
road distance of mapped roads), and presenting results online.

But standard way to do this would be running query on a pgsql database or using 
QGIS.

JOSM has area tool (as a plugin), but it would double count overlapping areas.


May 21, 2020, 09:44 by ritva.vilpp...@wsp.com:

>
> Hi Team,
>
>
>  
>
>
> I’m looking into mapping areas to determine the heat island effect and was 
> wondering if OSM measures the sqm of areas that are mapped on OSM as a 
> quantity e.g 100sqm of vegetation, 50sqm of building footprint, 200sqm of 
> park areas?
>
>
>  
>
>
> And if it does, can this be exported specifically?
>
>
>  
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>  
>
>
> Ritva>  > Vilppola
>  > Sustainability Consultant
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  T: +617 3535 1518
>  
>  ritva.vilpp...@wsp.com
>  
>  WSP Australia Pty Limited
>  900 Ann Street, Level 12
>  > Fortitude Valley
>  > 4006 >  Australia
>  
>  > wsp.com 
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain 
> information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise 
> subject to restricted disclosure under applicable law. This message is for 
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, 
> viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance 
> on, this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in 
> error, or you are not an authorized or intended recipient, please notify the 
> sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all 
> copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.
>  >  
>  
>  -LAEmHhHzdJzBlTWfa4Hgs7pbKl

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

Re: [talk-au] TfNSW Cycleways use in OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Is it possible that they are listing 
roads with minor traffic, connecting
parts of real bicycle infrastructure?

In my city (Kraków, Poland) municipality
was doing someting like that.

Partially it was reasonable, partially
desperate attempt to hide traffic state
of bicycle infrastructure.
(And something like that should not
be tagged in OSM)
23 Feb 2020, 00:02 by suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com:

> I'd agree - that's what I thought was going on? I understand shared_lane 
> as when they paint a bike in the leftmost lane of a road, or in the 
> middle of an alley/small residential road.
> With that said, TfNSW's definition - "On road facility type shared with 
> moving vehicles" - is a lot vaguer, so I wonder if they're tagging some 
> unmarked routes..
> I also agree with this; without any bicycle stencil, that should be classed 
> as no bicycle specific facilities. Considering they already have lane and 
> segregated lanes in separate classes, a stencil is about the only other class 
> I could think of that meets the TfNSW definition.
>___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Feb 17, 2020, 10:29 by thesw...@gmail.com:

> On 17/2/20 7:13 pm, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
>> What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...?
>>
>
> landuse=stockpile
> resource=aggregate ?
>
I would use landuse=industrial industrial=* as it is in form easier to actually 
use

industrial=warehouse?
industrial=stockpile?

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

Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

I used landuse=industrial industrial=warehouse for something similar.

Though I admit that I am now not sure whatever "warehouse" fits well for pile 
of coal,
even one that has specialized equipment supporting it.

I see also material= product = warehouse= tags used to tag what is stored there
( http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QMP )
Feb 17, 2020, 10:49 by j...@jonorossi.com:

> Do we have tags for big stockpiles of iron ore, coal, etc at mines or ports? 
> These tend to be pretty permanent and with heaps of loading equipment around 
> them.
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 7:30 PM Andrew Davidson <> thesw...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> On 17/2/20 7:13 pm, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>>  > What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...?
>>  > 
>>  
>>  landuse=stockpile
>>  resource=aggregate ?
>>  
>>  ___
>>  Talk-au mailing list
>>  >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Jono
>

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