Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Michael Collinson]

On 28/09/2023 11:18, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 28/9/23 08:21, cleary wrote:

Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in 
OSM but neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a 
hotel, small primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a 
coffee in either place last time I visited. 


That is the general problem, most people want to inflate the 
importance of a place so that it renders. Windorah has a population of 
76 and Ivanhoe 202. If it's lucky Ivanhoe might rate a village but 
Windorah is most firmly in the hamlet class.



Perhaps this apocryphal Ireland solution should be used? :-)

A house - building

A house and a church - hamlet

A house, a church and a pub - village

A house, a church and two pubs - town


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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Michael Collinson]

On 28/09/2023 10:19, Warin wrote:


On 28/9/23 17:04, Michael Collinson wrote:


TL;DR: We need to get a systematic measure of population density into 
OSM to act as a guideline for mapping software to vary what goes at 
what zoom level.



Off topic:

On a global scale that does not work due to the population densities 
changing over the world. When adjusted for Europe to have a 'good map' 
then using the same software rules the map goes blank in various 
places like central Australia.


Yes, agreed, it has to be regional/local. That is thrust of the essay, 
so I'd reword the summary as:


TL;DR: We need to get systematic measures of regional/local population 
density into OSM to act as a guideline for mapping software to vary what 
goes at what zoom level.


That can be done in the existing db by attaching a tag to admin boundary 
relations. The drawback is that it needs to be done at at least a 
sub-state level to accommodate, say, Western Australia minus Perth 
economic envelope. I personally feel the long-term solution is to be 
able to define more arbitrary polygons as they can be used for many 
other metadata use cases.




My thinking is the map generating software should fill the map at a 
zoom with data until the map density reaches a certain level and then 
stop. This way the map would not be blank nor over crowed, but what is 
displayed adjusts to suit the data available. There could be limits on 
what detail could be displayed in both directions - minimum data and 
maximum data but what it uses is simply between the two limits and 
adjusted for data/map density ... Of course there is a lot more to 
this .. like the tiles being sized to suit the data density rather 
than an arbitrary lat/long size.
Yes, another good idea. Potentially practical at "big iron" level, such 
as commercial server solutions like Mapbox or the OSM server itself 
where you have processing power and memory.



___
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 towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Michael Collinson]

TL;DR: We need to get a systematic measure of population density into 
OSM to act as a guideline for mapping software to vary what goes at what 
zoom level. This can be done either by adding the appropriately 
calculated/derived density measure to admin boundary relations or, more 
radically, as part of a separate Metabase where more arbitrary polygons 
are allowed.


And now a bit of an essay:

For me, population size is the only meaningful indicator of relative 
importance as it is quantitative albeit fuzzy (to me it doesn't really 
matter whether it is for an admin area, urban envelope, metropolitan 
area, whatever - if anything more rigorous is desired, use specialist 
tagging).


But the rub is the word "relative". Relative to what? When I mapped 
Dalby, Queensland in 2006/2007 the ABS population was below 10,000 which 
in the then Brit-centric guidelines made it a village, which is 
ridiculous given the importance of the town within the area.


So, I think some sort agreed national level hierarchy of populated place 
is important in order to jive with cultural, legal, cultural and broad 
population density criteria. But to vary it locally or regionally is 
dangerous and I agree with cleary (if I am reading the quote levels right).


Graeme then says:

> ... but it would be good to do something that fixes the vast empty 
when you cross the Great Dividing Range.


Yes. I think this is a map presentation issue not a map data issue.  I 
have a series of Android hobby apps published for specific areas and the 
way I resolved it was to simply have a "low zoom" flag in some of them 
which tells the map style sheet to show farms, hamlets and villages at 
much lower zoom levels and with greater prominence at higher levels. 
place=locality can also be a good one to pick out as can landuse or even 
buildings. For Australia, specifically, my tip would be to 
systematically tag main farm building(s) as place=farm or derive it from 
named landuse=farmyard.


But that raises another question. Is there a generic way to generate a 
"low zoom" flag? There are at least two possible solutions.


The first is to use the existing OSM data structure. Calculate or derive 
(ABS??) population density for administrative areas and put it on 
boundary relations, national, state and "local". It is then up to the 
mapping software to see what is available and make zoom-level detailing 
decision based on it. This is doable but makes things hard for the small 
mapmaker like me to implement.


More democratic is to use a notion proposed by Sarah Houseman for 
geocoding and I believe has much wider implication and is an important 
step forward for OSM. I floated this at 2020 or 2021 SOTM.  This is to 
have a separate "metadata" database of polygons with, following OSM 
practice, whatever you like attached to them.


The point of the polygons is that you can attach rules and hints to 
them. They can follow legal jurisdiction boundaries or can be more 
general. As an example "All of Western Australia except the Perth 
metropolitan envelope".  Or, outside this discussion, "the area where 
 is the main spoken language". Here are the three main areas that I 
propose. (3) is relevant to this discussion.


(1) Rules. In the NSW polygon, bicycle=no where footpath=sidewalk except 
for children under 16. In the Australia polygon, driving is to the left.


(2) Default hints.  In the YYY polygon, surface=unpaved/paved where 
highway=primary and surface tag not defined.


(3) Hints. Population density. Main spoken language(s). How addresses 
are structured.  ... and anything else that could be useful for mapping, 
searching or routing in this area.


[Having such an open data, systematically structured database removes a 
danger that map making moves back into the realm of companies with deep 
pockets because only they have the resources to 1) collate the data, 2) 
be able utilise it on the fly when presenting maps, routing, searching 
based on OSM data.]


Mike



On 28/09/2023 04:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 11:25, cleary  wrote:

All valid arguments, thanks.

If everything is exaggerated so that villages are described as
towns and towns as cities etc., then I think it just devalues the
whole database on which the map is based.


I certainly see where you're coming from, but it would be good to do 
something that fixes the vast empty when you cross the Great Dividing 
Range: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/-27.163/145.569


I'll be interested to read comments from other mappers.


So would I, but so far there's apparently not too many interested in it?

Thanks

Graeme






On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, at 9:08 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> Yes, it probably shouldn't be a one size fits all equation.
>
> Against what you said, Rathdowney in SEQ, with ~1800 people,
only has a
> cafe / takeaway / store with a few grocery items, pub, currently
closed

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tracks from Strava heatmap

[Michael Collinson]

I use Strava heatmaps only as a "referential" source, i.e. seeing 
potentially missing or badly misaligned paths and then taking a walk 
that way. In addition to other comments about using them directly, I'd 
also wonder whether Strava copyright allows it but have not explicitly 
analysed.


In Sweden, I have found them a great referential source, but then we 
have "all man's right" and off-path walking is not generally an issue so 
there are many useful informal paths.


Mike

On 2023-02-26 22:10, Adam Horan wrote:
My view is also that Strava heatmaps are insufficient on their own to 
prove a track. They do show that a reasonable number of people have 
passed along a particular route in recent times. They don't prove a 
path or track, and they give no indication of permissions.


However I did look for details of way 963735356 in the Strava heatmap, 
and there's very little in Strava in that area. It's possible the user 
did have the heatmap open in iD but didn't trace all the routes from 
there. Some might be 'local knowledge'.


I do make use of the strava heatmaps frequently to refine the route of 
known tracks, especially if there's lots of tree cover and you can't 
see the tracks too well in imagery.
10s or 100s of averaged GPS tracks is better than a single GPS track 
which you might record yourself.


Adam



On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 18:24, Tom Brennan  wrote:

Do people have a view on the armchair mapping of tracks from Strava
heatmaps?

I can see a bunch of tracks in Kanangra-Boyd NP that have been
mapped by
an overseas mapper off Strava heatmap.

They almost certainly don't exist on the ground. They are known
bushwalking routes (off track), but would be very unlikely to have a
track even in good times, let along after the fires and 3 years of
La Nina!

Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

___
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-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne - Suburban Rail Loop - Too early to mark as under construction?

[Michael Collinson]

Being a grand cynic or at least just jaundiced,  'proposed' can be 
translated to "I'll be lucky to see this in my life time", so any actual 
work at all is a major, major change in significance so I'd go for 
'under construction' in at least Graeme's example. Utility works also 
have an impact on the visible landscape (visual navigation) and may 
affect formal/informal right of way, particular to foot traffic.


Mike

On 2022-11-01 23:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Similar question here on the GC with the latest stage of the Light Rail.

They've now started "utility works" - relocating power poles & 
conduits, sewer & water manholes, removing some trees etc.


When should the "proposed" line get updated to "under construction"? 
Now, or only when they actually start digging the roads up & laying track?


Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 07:43, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 8:37 PM Dian Ågesson  wrote:
> Just seeking views from others here: is this a bit premature?
Should only a section of the loop be marked as under construction,
or any parts of it at all?

Normally I would have said that construction would only apply to the
bits that were actually under construction. However, in this case it's
underground, so we won't be able to tell.

___
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] Cycle permissions by a user

[Michael Collinson]

I suggest a good consensus basically following the rest of the world 
would be:


1) If a path is clearly marked for use by bicycles then use 
bicycle=designated.  I.e.  "there ARE signs present to indicate bikes 
are expressily permitted".


2) If a path has no signage barring cycling and no clear law or bylaw 
preventing it, such as for unsigned sidewalks in most (all?) Australian 
states and it is practical to use by bicycle, then use bicycle=yes. In 
the real world we cannot expect every legal usage of everything to be 
explicitly signed, it does not make sense.


BTW, the way mentioned is a grass strip used mainly for pedestrian 
access. It was tagged by me and I use it regularly by bicycle when 
working in that area. There is no earthly reason for removing. I think 
the user is  basically mixing "yes" and "designated". I should also add 
that other types of edits by him are completely in order and I continue 
to welcome him in our OSM community.


Mike


On 2022-10-07 11:22, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi
I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared 
paths to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are 
permitted" in Victoria Australia.


Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be 
serious consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this 
case for my Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said 
nothing.


I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where 
bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were 
"no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"


There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the 
sidewalk sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I 
request a clear community consensus again on whether "no signs present 
to indicated bikes are permitted" is of itself sufficient evidence 
that bicycles are disallowed.


Sorry to bother you all
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] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA

[Michael Collinson]

Graeme,
You are one with Steve Coast on seeing that as a major focus.

Yes, use and of use.  Anecdotally, I have a peripheral connection with a 
small commercial app map/routing library and have hobby-business apps 
Android apps based on it. Yes, definitely of use particularly on longer 
roads ... which bit do I want to aim for? Either by visual indication or 
by searching then routing.


Mike

On 2022-08-26 04:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
One thing that I'd love feedback on if possible is street numbers, 
particularly for rural areas?


Does anybody use them & are they of any use?

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 11:37, Alex Sims  wrote:

Hi,

I’m at the EMSINA (Emergency Management Spatial Information
Network Australia) PDP day as part of AFAC (Australasian Fire and
Emergency Service Authorities Council) 2022 Conference in Adelaide
and finding a few “OpenStreetMap used here”.

Feedback from participants I’ve spoken to:

  * The price is right, free!
  * Good coverage of health facilities

Uses of OpenStreetMap I’ve not noticed before, mainly background maps

  * Find a police station (SA Police)
https://www.police.sa.gov.au/about-us/find-your-local-police-station
(via ESRI)

And oddly an attribution where OpenStreetMap is credited but its
SA government mapping

  * Bus Stop location map
https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/stops?id=16490

My own observation and I suppose the reason I’m here is there are
plenty of users of our mapping but not much feedback from users as
to what they want, which we are probably willing to map.

Alex

___
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] Cycle tags on motorways

[Michael Collinson]

Purely as a question: Is there a case for actually mapping the whole 
cycleway separately as a cycleway? As a cyclist, I like to see what I 
have in store. Argument for: Well, that is what it is, a dual use 
cycleway and hard shoulder. And I guess main argument against: Ah, but 
it is not physically separated and, slightly repurposing Andrew's 
comment, "you are mapping paint".


On 2022-08-18 08:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 13:17, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:



We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no
because some motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them.


& then you get situations like this:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.535651543577=153.53896264714=17=1164980277280563=photo=0.3457481526763355=0.5159430950498471=2.6582278481012658 



then 100m further:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.536232873317=153.53874804183=17=387825812412523=photo=0.4645538612648733=0.5690565818776447=1.5949367088607593 



which is tagged as: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115

Yes, it works, I guess, but to my mind it looks ridiculous, & also 
errors in Osmose etc as an unconnected cycleway!


 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] Industrial area or not?

[Michael Collinson]

I crafted the original wording for Map Features landuse tags and was 
careful to use the word "predominantly", so for me just 'industrial'. I 
think the answer is in your description wording 'produce stockfeed', 
i.e. there is a manufacturing process beyond just storing an 
agricultural product - I often find mentally or physically writing down 
a one-line description very helpful when trying decide on 
marginal/multiple-activity cases like this.


Mike

On 2022-08-10 01:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Then across the road, there's this place: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/-26.54862/151.82848 



One complex run by the same group: https://kewpiestockfeeds.com.au/ 



They produce stockfeed, have a public shop for all things farm / 
animal related, commercial stock supply agency, steelworks over the 
back where they make loading ramps & all sorts of other farm 
metal-work, public weighbridge around the side. I've marked it as 
industrial + agriculture but not real happy with that - thoughts?


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] Queensland railway stations

[Michael Collinson]

On 2022-04-18 13:08, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 9/4/22 10:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Thanks Richard, we'll check them out.

Thanks

Graeme



Well that proved to be a very tedious job. After reviewing hundreds of 
these about 240 of them have been converted to "no longer a station". 
Which leaves about 300 active stations in QLD.


It seems that a guy in the UK has made it their life's work to list 
every railway stop that ever existed...and another's to add them to OSM.


This is what guys in the UK do!  Thanks for sorting it out.  /Mike 
(speaking as a Brit)BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Funding for OpenStreetMap initiatives

[Michael Collinson]

On 2022-04-18 10:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 03:23, Edoardo Neerhut  wrote:

OpenStreetMap merch could be a good thing to fund yeah. Would
business cards be helpful for people? Personally I have never had
much trouble, although contributing to Mapillary has prompted the
odd question here or there.

From practical experience, no. I certainly thought business cards were 
a great idea and had them when more active as OSMF board member and 
working group member, carried them assiduously ... and probably gave 
away about 3 outside SOTM and only one in a field mapping situation.  
Stickers with the OSM website printed would probably substitute - it 
backs up your story and gives folks something to look up if they are 
inclined.


Mike
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

[Michael Collinson]

As the original mapper of the cycleway in changeset 11862794 and having 
viewed Tony's photos [1] to refresh my memory, I concur with Tony's 
proposal that the way should be split in two. The western part being a 
parkland cycleway and therefore satisfying routing. But the eastern 
part, the "cycleway" - perhaps better described as "cycle route" - 
follows the St. Andrews Court residential motor road not the narrow 
asphalt path that winds around trees, that should be an ordinary 
footway=sidewalk as editted by Sebastian. My general observation is that 
there should be a balance between rigorously only mapping what is 120% 
properly signed cycleway, (this is sadly not true in many parts of the 
world and particularly not true in suburban Melbourne), and having a map 
that can route cyclists along safe routes that are used on a practical 
basis (may or may not be clearly de jure) everyday.


I thank both Sebastian and Tony for the effort put in collaboratively 
improving the map. I'm currently on my annual 4 month Melbourne stint - 
living this time in Seaford this time and cycle commuting daily through 
to Cheltenham.  If either of you are in that area and want to meet up 
for a social coffee, I'd be delighted. Email me privately. Sadly, only 
two more weeks to go this time but will be back in Nov.


Mike

[1] 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/tonyf1?lat=-37.962247513974=145.01882162969002=18.085357379143982=158986949844367=photo 



On 2022-03-27 19:33, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Sebastian and list,

2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: 
118627943


I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at 
Changeset: 118627943


I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part 
appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a footpath, 
the bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the 
footpath


The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22 and 23 
show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what used to 
be in the circle before it faded.


Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked.

18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of Tricks 
Reserve


18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay
51 shows this sign more clearly

Tony



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Any ID-edtor savvy mapper who could help with a Young Engineers Australia mapathon?

[Michael Collinson]

Hi all,

Is there anyone who could help me co-host a Young Engineers Australia 
mapathon in the March-ish time-frame? I happy to do most of the talking 
about OpenStreetMap and HOT but I am most definitely not ID-editor 
savvy. The basic task would be to run through using ID for a specific 
to-be-selected HOT task, for example mapping building outlines, and then 
being on hand to answer any newbie questions. This will be video online 
only.  The plan is to do a familiarisation dry-run with select committee 
members first and then do the real thing - so a chance to practise if 
you have not done this before. If you are diffident about doing the 
initial demo, I could handle that with your help.


Background:

The global engineering firm WSP have had an annual mapathon for a number 
of years and I've helped out with the onsite Melbourne office 
participation. It has been fun and introduced a number of folks to 
OpenStreetMap contributing.


This year they need to be online only and the Melbourne office felt it 
would have more social impact if they initiated a broader Young 
Engineers Australia event.


Do email me publicly or privately if you can help!


Mike


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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[Michael Collinson]

Seems to have it in for Perth cyclists:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116655265#map=12/-32.0362/115.8349

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117224600

Not from Perth so can't judge correctness but it doesn't look right.


On 2022-02-10 18:13, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:


Probably

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aaronsta


 Who is Aaronsta?







Is it anyone participating in this mailing list?



Have any of these changes been discussed somewhere?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guidelines 
 
=revision=2262794=2250661 (ignore the street cabinet 
stuff at the bottom, that’s from someone else)




Cheers,

Thorsten



From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Thursday, 10 February 2022 08:41
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging  
Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta













On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:35, OpenStreetMap Wiki 
 > wrote:



The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been
changed on 9 February 2022 by Aaronsta, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for
the current revision.

Editor's summary: Fix undiscussed changes



Sorry but that's a bit ironic, or did I miss the discussion about  
these changes?




One I noticed is that you've taken it upon yourself to include:

"Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW, QLD, or Vic."



Would you like to share this with Qld Transport?

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/bicycle


Riding on a footpath or shared path


On footpaths and shared paths, you share the space with pedestrians.

You must:

*    keep left and give way to all pedestrians
*    always ride to the left of bicycle riders coming toward you.

Looks like we may need a major reversion done here?



Thanks



Graeme










___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Bad" directions on Outback roads

[Michael Collinson]

We have a reasonable if not perfect tagging system for a router to 
assess (and make assumptions) about the quality of a road for various 
types of vehicle in BEST CASE  conditions. motorway versus track, 
tracktype, asphalt versus gravel being the main ones.


From a router point of view it would be nice to dynamically place 
routing penalties on roads or stretches of road according to 
temperature, snow, rain, side wind (and ?). Simplistically, input "snow" 
and pick up from OSM tags advising "often impassable in snow" or "snow 
chains advised in winter" and then the router can decide how much 
penalty to apply given projected conditions and vehicle type.


Sounds reasonably simple to devise and implement. I've played mentally 
with the same idea for suggesting footpath routes that vary depending on 
the weather.


More esoterically and more real time would be a community project to 
develop an open overlay database of transient data where the public 
and/or authorities can label osm ways with advisories quantitative 
enough for routers to again assess a routing penalty. The obvious 
starting point would be a simply "closed".



Mike

On 9/2/22 1:17 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Reading this article earlier:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-08/google-maps-to-fix-routes-trapped-travellers-queensland/100805884

So what's the best way to avoid the same issues?

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] Tagging a house name

[Michael Collinson]

> If I go to Officeworks and get a sign printed with the name "Bob" and 
put it on my letterbox, does that become the name of my house?


An interesting question which begs another question, what is an address? 
(warning: a bit of a philosophical ramble on a Friday night).


My global analysis so far suggests that there are basically three: 
POSTAL (so the postal service is usually involved), CADESTRAL (the 
building plot as defined by the local government and/or land 
registration body) and "HABITUAL" which is actually very powerful: if 
your Officeworks sign remains for long enough, the postman will find it 
even if not formally sanctioned by the postal service. Interestingly, in 
Ireland a "descriptive" address "The blue house called Bob, on the other 
side of the stream in the village of Inverkeith" is also formally 
acceptable - this is rare globally though.


Following a similar thread in the UK, it is evident that we don't have a 
clear definition in OSM for the addr: namespace and that makes things 
like tagging a house name a matter of debate and localisation. In Sweden 
where I usually live, properties have two completely different 
addresses: a formal postal address (always just road, house number, 
formal postal area (i.e. a city/town/village), post code) and a title 
deed "cadestral" address (unique block name, block number, block number 
subdivision number) which is used by the local council and the tax 
office. We use the postal format in the addr: namespace and again there 
is recent debate on whether addr:name is relevant.


From that perspective it looks like Australia is similar with the 
postal service and your local council being separate authorative sources 
but, unlike Sweden, they use overlapping nomenclature. The following is 
not a primary source so I would be more than curious to know if anyone 
has a more formal answer:


https://www.houzz.com.au/magazine/how-to-name-your-house-stsetivw-vs~50717452

*"Make it legal*
You can call your home any name you want, but if you want to register it 
as its official address, contact your local council and postal service. 
They will ascertain if the name is already taken in the area or if there 
are restrictions on removing an existing name. They’ll even disallow 
rude names! You’ll still require a street or road number attached to 
your address, though."


Mike

On 2022-02-04 19:48, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Genuine question:

If I go to Officeworks and get a sign printed with the name "Bob" and 
put it on my letterbox, does that become the name of my house?



On 2022-02-04 06:31, Warin wrote:



On 4/2/22 17:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

I've always listed the name of units & so on just as name=*.



+1

No longer used as the address, used 2 centuries ago.



Thanks
Graeme

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 16:14, Mat Attlee > wrote:


Whilst I was out surveying today I stumbled upon a building that
had a street number but also a house name, as just above the
entrance and door number it said Rivenhall. Now the question is
should this be tagged as the name or addr:housename? I know the
latter is common in the UK though I couldn't find anything about
best practice in Australia.



___
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-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Sydney bus stops

[Michael Collinson]

local_ref has been used it at least the UK and Sweden to tag the stand 
number. It doesn't (yet) render on the OSM map main layer but does on 
the transport layers.    /Mike



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:local_ref

Swedish example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/59.39035/18.04367

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/59.39035/18.04299=T

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/59.39035/18.04299=O



On 2/2/22 2:24 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1128912626 is an okay example, with 
ref being the Stop ID, and name being the stop name with the stand 
number appended to the end.


So in your case,

ref=20
name=Kings Cross Station Darlinghurst Rd, Stand A

I don't think this is perfect but probably the best compromise 
currently. We could consider something like ref:stand=A.


On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 11:49, Mat Attlee  wrote:

What is the convention for tagging Sydney bus stops? I stumbled
upon one but not sure how to tag the stop number and the stand
letter so put those details in the note field

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9465614221
___
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] Consistent addr:state format?

[Michael Collinson]

It is safer putting in the street name. Nominatim fills in street from 
the street physically closest to the addr tag, which is not always 
correct. Sarah is aware and looking at measures to improve that - for 
example by looking at nearby street numbers for sequentiallity - but I 
doubt it could be 100% reliable.


Personally, and I stress personally, I also favour putting in the 
suburb. Theoretically redundant, particularly in Australia where 
addressing rules are well-cut and consistent. But more democratic to the 
small app creator by giving them an alternative to having to import and 
deal with boundary relations, especially on offline mobile apps, I speak 
from experience and so perhaps also bias. Perhaps another 5-10 years of 
useful life in the db.


Even I do not systematically add state during ground surveys, it much 
more likely to be searching for a pub in or near Seaford than Victoria.


Mike

On 31/1/22 2:17 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:16, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:


Check out Nominatim,

https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=6496603926=place


it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, postcode, state.


& by the look at it, in built-up areas at least, it will even ID the 
street name!


So we only have to list the street number? :-)

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] Strange e-mail address?

[Michael Collinson]

Thanks Alex, Ben.  Looks specific to talk-au so talk-au admin (CC'd) 
needs to login and unsubscribe gmane. Not sure who that is.


Tom says:

Nothing to do with me - there's no global link to gmane or
any other archiving site.

As far as I know they just operate by subscribing to the list
like any other user so the list owner should be able to manage
the subscription.

Specifically I think gmane is long dead so they should likely
be unsubscribed, though if they're bouncing that will happen
automatically at some point.

On 31/1/22 11:21 am, Ben Kelley wrote:


The list processor sorts out bounces.

On 31/1/22 11:05, Alex Sims wrote:


Hi Michael,

Gname.org moved to gmane.io almost a year ago. So the subscription to 
x...@gname.org will never work again and should be deleted. A new link 
needs to be set to gmane.io so that the NNTP feed via news.gmane.io 
can work (if desired)


https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/category/gmane/ summary of the move

Alex

*From: *Michael Collinson 
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 10:18 am
*To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

I just create lists so I have forwarded this to Tom Hughes in case he 
can help or elucidate.  /Mike


On 31/1/22 10:24 am, Alex Sims wrote:

HI Graeme,

When you send an email to the list, it then sends a copy to
subscribers which includes a mirror at gmane.org. For some reason
the copy at gname.org is bouncing back and you get the bounce.

So the link between the mailing list and gmane needs fixing, a
job for the administrator of all the openstreetmap.org lists

I’ll have a poke and raise the issue with someone.

Alex

*From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 
<mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
*To: *OSM-Au 
<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
*Subject: *[talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a
reply all, but got an undelivered message bounce back to me.

Says that message was sent to

OSM-Au  & OSM-Au
, but
public.gmane.org <http://public.gmane.org> couldn't be found.

The response was:

DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of public.gmane.org
<http://public.gmane.org> responded with code NXDOMAIN Domain
name not found: public.gmane.org <http://public.gmane.org>

Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

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

--
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
Sent from my Psion

___
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] Strange e-mail address?

[Michael Collinson]

I just create lists so I have forwarded this to Tom Hughes in case he 
can help or elucidate.  /Mike


On 31/1/22 10:24 am, Alex Sims wrote:


HI Graeme,

When you send an email to the list, it then sends a copy to 
subscribers which includes a mirror at gmane.org. For some reason the 
copy at gname.org is bouncing back and you get the bounce.


So the link between the mailing list and gmane needs fixing, a job for 
the administrator of all the openstreetmap.org lists


I’ll have a poke and raise the issue with someone.

Alex

*From: *Graeme Fitzpatrick 
*Date: *Monday, 31 January 2022 at 9:20 am
*To: *OSM-Au 
*Subject: *[talk-au] Strange e-mail address?

Just replied to the "Consistent addr:state format" thread as a reply 
all, but got an undelivered message bounce back to me.


Says that message was sent to

OSM-Au  & OSM-Au 
, but 
public.gmane.org  couldn't be found.


The response was:

DNS Error: 4023212 DNS type 'mx' lookup of public.gmane.org 
 responded with code NXDOMAIN Domain name not 
found: public.gmane.org 


Does this mean anything at all to anybody?

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] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Michael Collinson]

Ian,

+1.  The AWTGS looks excellent as it works from an international 
perspective. I've also struggled with the SAC scale in the UK and 
Sweden, also both countries where the bulk of rural footpaths are barely 
"alpine" and also came to the conclusion that what matters is the type 
of people wanting to use the path rather than specific physical 
attributes of the path. And particularly at the less hardcore end.  If 
one substitutes "hiking" for "bushwalking", it works in those countries 
as well, IMHO.


The categories I've played with conceptually are:

- I could take my very elderly mother

- Suitable for inexperienced walkers in everyday footwear (which could 
include high heels). Less charitably: City folks stroll.


- Could I get a push-chair/stroller down here? (and by extension 
assisted wheel-chair)


- I'm fine with walking but don't want to be using my arms, (balance, 
holding-on, hauling myself up).


- I'm fine with scrambling but don't take me anywhere where I'll be 
nervous about falling off.


- Bring it on


I think the system satisfies the above in a nice linear fashion without 
too many categories. I'd be interested to know what the mysterious AS 
2156.1-2001 6th one is. Copied from the URL provided:


 * Grade One is suitable for people with a disability with assistance
 * Grade Two is suitable for families with young children
 * Grade Three is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience
 * Grade Four is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
 * Grade Five is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers

Mike

On 2022-01-28 16:41, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote:


I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading 
System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire 
Management - 
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system). 
The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.


It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, 
QLD and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.


I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a 
“Class”) as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted 
those tags without reference to me!)


Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1: 
Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to 
read the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the 
AWTGS.  Other documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as 
having 6 levels


Ian


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auBEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz
EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au
FN:Michael Collinson
N:Collinson;Michael;;;
TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207
TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19
X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE
UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431
END:VCARD
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] The ACT Place Names Advisory Committee has a sense of humour

[Michael Collinson]

Phew, Coombs must have been a ruthless place previously.



... Sorry. Mike

On 2021-11-30 20:27, Andrew Davidson wrote:
So we have a new park in Coombs that needs a name. A name based on the 
suburb's theme of notable public service:


https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/di/2021-260/current/html/2021-260.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

Re: [talk-au] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Dian,

I have an interested in mapping what I call, for want of better 
terminology, fuzzy names or sense-of-place and comment in that specific 
regard.


In summary: if the suburb has a defined boundary, use an area, if it 
doesn't use a node. I would certainly NOT however use both to represent 
the same suburb. From experience with Russian cities, that makes if very 
difficult to make maps without pre-processing OSM data to remove 
duplicates. For things like airports and islands where this often 
happens accidentality due to the evolution of the map or simple 
misunderstanding, I can and do remove the node and merge any extra info 
onto the area.


I would comment that from my understanding, Australian suburbs are 
somewhat unusual in often having defined admin/postal boundaries. A more 
common situation is a "sense of place" that can really only be mapped 
with a node. As an example, my UK home town has an area mapped as a 
suburb called the Weston Estate. In the 1930s(!) it was a defined new 
housing development. Everyone know where it is, north of the river and 
to the west of the road out of the valley. But does it include later 
development? Does it include the older houses and a couple of farms? 
Hard to say and who you talk to gets a slightly different answer. So 
dangerous to map an area because then the map is making the landscape. 
Perhaps this is the case with Gruyere? (I genuinely don't know).


If anyone has an interest in sense-of-place mapping, I've experimented 
with is_in:* tags to map physiological regions, often historic but still 
relevant or loosely geographic. The idea being to end up with a point 
cloud that can then be processed according to need.  I find that if you 
ask someone who lives there, "Are in X?", they can give a straight and 
usually consistent yes/no answer. But if you ask "And where does it 
end?", you'll get either a very vague answer or a look of panic. But I 
am wandering off topic, so will leave it there.


Mike

On 2021-11-05 04:15, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hey all,

I would appreciate the thoughts of the community with regards to 
suburb representations.


In a recent change set 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113355648) a node was 
introduced for Gruyere. Gruyere is on the urban boundary, but is 
technically in Metropolitan Melbourne. As such, it straddles the 
border between what could be considered a bona fide suburb, and an 
independent town.


Mick has correctly pointed out that many of the other localities in 
the area are represented by both an area and a node.


Is this the way all suburbs should be represented? Or is it an 
urban/rural distinction?



Dian


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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Michael Collinson]

A bit late to the party on this one. But a couple of observations follow 
up Graeme's 2012-10-03 point about the myriad of "You can ride on a 
footpath if" exceptions and how to deal with them.


1) I suggest rigorously using and making synonymous footway=sidewalk [1] 
with what are clearly and unambivalently "road-related" areas in VIC [2] 
and NSW, i.e. generally urban footways that clearly (mostly) parallel a 
vehicular road with/without a nature strip and don't have any cycle 
signage. That throws the problem of exceptions on to router software, 
which I think is the right approach.


Perhaps emphasise this relationship in:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Footpaths_and_Cycleways

2) However, this does create an un-level router playing field favouring 
the big boys. Sarah Hoffman raised the general issue at SOTM in her talk:


2021: Boundaries, Places and the Future of Tagging
Sarah Hoffman (keeper of Nominatum)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAzljx1ewZ0=PLQNy8KsDknCoq3AkVd5Nlgtwp1fnAWOcn=16

While she is talking about geocoding and all its local variations, her 
general point is that there is a layer of cultural and regulatory 
metadata which is missing from OpenStreetMap. This allows larger 
corporations to provide this and potentially "take over" OpenStreetMap 
by simply being able to offer a much better use-experience than the rest 
of us can by refining their software to take into account local needs. I 
am currently tasked along with Andy Allan of look at take over risks to 
the OpenStreetMap Foundation and will be adding this.


What I personally think we need is a completely separate open data-set 
that sets out to capture all this information basically on the premise 
"If you are in this polygon, then these rules apply" for language, 
access, addressing, whatever. It currently remains an I'd like to do 
this if I had time project, but if anyone is interested in working with 
me on it, let me know.


Mike

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk


[2] Matthew Seale 2021-10-03:
"

The full version of the Victorian Road rules can be found here (or via 
the link from the VicRoads website)


https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/014H 



As noted in an earlier comment on this forum the Vic road rules apply in 
roads and road related areas – see rules 11-13.  Footpaths and nature 
strips adjacent to roads are considered a road related areas and are 
 subject to the footpath cycling restrictions in those areas.


However there does not appear to be any provision in the Victorian Road 
Rules that I can find to extend Victorian road rules to all unmarked 
(I.e. the vast majority) off-road and unsealed paths in Victoria away 
from roads. "




On 2021-10-03 07:08, Thorsten Engler via Talk-au wrote:


Ah, I now see there are subtle differences in the definition of “road 
related area” in Victoria and NSW…


While the NSW rules, as written, expand the definition of “road 
related area” to any public space which has as it’s primary purpose 
use by pedestrians, the Victoria rules do not seem to do that.


Though the Victoria version of the road rules includes this:

a place that is a road by virtue of a declaration under section 
3(2)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986


and if you follow that rabbit hole all the way down, you get to:

(2) The Governor in Council may by Order published in the Government 
Gazette-


  (a) declare any place or class of places, whether open to vehicles 
or not, to be or not to be a road or roads or a road related area or 
road related areas for the purposes of this Act;


Which means that to actually figure out what is a road or road related 
area in Victoria, someone will have to do an exhaustive search of the 
Government Gazette.


*From:*Matthew Seale 
*Sent:* Sunday, 3 October 2021 14:18
*To:* Sebastian Azagra ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

The full version of the Victorian Road rules can be found here (or via 
the link from the VicRoads website)


https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/road-safety-road-rules-2017/014H 



As noted in an earlier comment on this forum the Vic road rules apply 
in roads and road related areas – see rules 11-13.  Footpaths and 
nature strips adjacent to roads are considered a road related areas 
and are  subject to the footpath cycling restrictions in those areas.


However there does not appear to be any provision in the Victorian 
Road Rules that I can find to extend Victorian road rules to all 
unmarked (I.e. the vast majority) off-road and unsealed paths in 
Victoria away from roads.



___
Talk-au mailing list

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Michael Collinson]

Picking just Adam's question about mapping after a fire. [I also very 
much support the idea that OSM ways should ideally have only one primary 
tag and so agree that natural and boundary does not go together.]


I went through a similar self-dialogue where I am now in Sweden as to 
what to with clear-cut areas. My conclusion was just ignore them and 
still map as wood/forest. I think the same applies here.


It remains woodland, just in a special state. And it opens a two cans of 
worms: When does it stop? (Natural regeneration, replanting). Highly 
impractical given the wildly different dates on imagery commonly 
available to us.


That said, cutting and fires have a huge impact on navigation markers, 
aesthetic enjoyment of the countryside and more so it would be "nice" to 
see some sort of mapping.  I follow an OSM doctrine of the "the more, 
the merrier" and see nothing wrong with experimenting by adding separate 
polygons of burnt areas. Adding a burn year would throw the question of 
"when does it stop being burnt?"  from the data to the renderer. Of 
course, the counter argument is that it won't show on maps. But I remain 
hopeful that we will see a federation of national level OSM maps 
rendered to suit local tastes and requirements. Just musing.


Mike

On 2021-10-08 04:28, EON4wd wrote:


Another part of the question is how many trees before it can be 
classified as such?


I have been to the Grampians within the last 12 months and I did not 
find any scorched area left. All trees had growth.


If I look at the satellite picture from the OSM id editor, large areas 
look burnt. Look around Lake Wartook. All this area is definitely not 
burnt now and I think should classify as covered in trees. Other 
satellite images show this area better.


I would agree that ‘natural’ areas should be separated from ‘boundary’ 
layers.


*From:*Adam Horan 
*Sent:* Friday, 8 October 2021 12:59 PM
*To:* EON4wd 
*Cc:* OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

There is another aspect to your question, which is how to map 
woods/trees after a fire?


You're right it looks like someone has mapped the wooded areas as a 
relation with holes for non-wooded areas


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history 



Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't 
know if they should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire 
severity then it's possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, 
or not for a long time. I assume there's some precedent & 
convention based on the large fires in the east a couple of years back.


Adam

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:33, Adam Horan > wrote:


I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you
possibly have different viewpoints or opinions on it.

I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and
accurate as time progresses. In the beginning the map was blank,
and people added large areas of landcover just to get something
down. Mappers took conveniences like marking a national park as
all desert or all trees.

However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding
more detailed, accurate information and using more
sophisticated tagging schemes.

I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If
there's a 20m gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire
break, or there's been clearing, then people should map that in
detail if they have time and inclination.

Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's
almost like they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends
beyond the National Parks in a continuous run, and similarly there
are clearings, lakes, meadows, moorlands within the parks.

However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the
blanket landcover from the admin boundary.

Adam

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au>> wrote:

Hi,

Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.

I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create
my own maps from the data.

My interest is in 4wd tracks.

The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed
which in my opinion is now not correct.

See

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867


The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.

There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually)
and a few lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries,
but generally speaking it is completely covered in trees,
everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.

I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they
could see via a satellite image 

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

[Michael Collinson]

Just a thought and I hope not too imperialist sounding:  in UK England 
and Wales law, a distinction evolved between a "footway" and a 
"footpath", just possibly pre-1900 (unclear):


https://pedestrianliberation.org/the-law-2/
"'footway' is the modern legal term for ‘that part of the highway set 
aside for pedestrians’, commonly referred to as the pavement, and 
‘footpath’ is the modern legal term for other pedestrian thoroughfares"


I wonder if the same distinction made its way into Victorian state law??

Mike



On 2021-09-19 13:39, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
In regards to your changeset comment: "I doubt that means that all  
paths are footpaths unless otherwise signed."

Generally speaking, yes, they are. In the absence of one of these signs


Hi all
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2017208/s250.html 


ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 250
says "Footpath is defined in the dictionary" but it doesn't say which 
dictionary.


Apparently the word "footpath" is used differently in different 
countries. In Australia it means a US "sidewalk".
"A sidewalk (North American English), pavement (British English), 
footpath (Oceanian English), or footway, is a path along the side of a 
road."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk

This is what my understanding of the footpath rule is in Victoria 
Australia, don't ride on the path that runs between the property line 
and the kerb.


That's not we are talking about here
ways 157071087 and 304507133 intersection
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.92361389015=145.329104=17=941113219764485=photo 



So I disagree with the suggestion that all paths are, for legal 
purposes, footpaths unless otherwise signed.


Tony



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



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

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[Michael Collinson]

I've added my comments below Andrew's. Hope that is not too messy. /Mike

On 2021-08-14 03:59, Andrew Harvey wrote:



On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 at 09:12, Tom Brennan > wrote:


Like my previous post on sidewalks, this one is also from walking and
cycling all of the streets of my LGA (Willoughby). The other area
where
tagging seems to me to be a bit messy is:

highway=service

This messiness may be more of a general OSM issue than
specifically an
Australian one!

Where possible I've been trying to add a service=? tag to define
these
better, in line with the relevant pages on the wiki. In my area, the
majority of these seem to be:

1. laneways between houses -> service=alley
For me these are part of the official road network, but in Willoughby
they are normally narrow, and lead to/past people's garages. This one
seems relatively clear cut - and also appears to be the only
service tag
that does relate to the official road network(?)


Yeah I'd agree, but these are part of the public road network, they 
are just lesser importance roads because they are mostly for access to 
the rear of houses.
+1.  And in the US and northern UK may be poorly maintained, cobbled, 
temporarily obstructed etc, a good flag to routers.



2. driveways (private property) -> service=driveway + access=private
This seems pretty clear cut in residential areas. It also seems
fairly
clear for small business/industrial property that are for
employees/business vehicles only.

Where it gets a bit confusing is if the driveway is to something
else.
For example, in the Willoughby area, there are many industrial
complexes
which have "driveways". But if it leads to parking
(amenity=parking?),
is it still a driveway, or is it just highway=service without
service=*.
The access=* issues also interplays with this - because in larger
industrial complexes there may be a mix of access=private and
access=customers.


Can you post examples? In my opinion, a good rule of thumb for 
driveway is where you need to turn off the road and cross the 
footpath. I realise it's not always clear though.
Technically only the section inside the front fence is private, the 
section between the footpath and road is public but I've never mapped 
to this level of detail.


Personally, I ONLY use driveway for residential driveways. I feel using 
it for anything else is confusing and adds no value - despite what Map 
Features says. Like Andrew, I rarely split the sections into private and 
public sections but it IS useful for foot and wheelchair routing.



3. parking areas
This one can also be a bit confusing - following the wiki, some of
these
end up being service=parking_aisle, but others are without
service=* eg:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.80928/151.20897

I imagine you can do in theory do an area query to establish
highway=service within amenity=parking, but this does seem clunky!
And not that we should be mapping for the renderer, but the rendering
also seems inconsistent:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.80939/151.20923



If you can turn from the way directly into a parking spot, then it 
should be parking aisle, so that one I think should be parking aisle.


Slightly different view here. I find that most car parks have "arterial" 
ways for ingress/exit, navigation within larger parks, and sometimes 
very local through "destination" traffic; obvious from design or width. 
I don't put a parking_aisle on these. I think leads to better map 
presentation and routing. In Melbourne, I find that many car park 
service roads double up as useful bicycle connectors.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping driveways under awnings.

[Michael Collinson]

Simon,

Without knowing the nature of the challenge, I assume the apparent 
anomaly is a road apparently bulldozing through a building.


Me, I'd either leave it as it is or to be squeaky clean (if I know from 
on-the-ground) I'd map the two sticky out bits as building=roof. I don't 
know if there is any consensus on whether a simple canvas awning counts 
as a "roof" or a temporary accoutrement not worthy of mapping at all - 
others may comment.


This could also be an opportunity to introduce simple 3d buildings. Here 
leave the building as is but within it draw 3 building part areas:  
building:part=roof, building:part=roof,  building:part=yes


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings

Here is what Swan Hill currently looks like: 
https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=-35.3427895=143.5619395=18


Mike


On 2021-08-11 08:23, Simon Slater wrote:

G'day all,
From a Maproulette challenge ( https://maproulette.org/browse/
challenges/19168 ) which had a couple of things in our area marked as VIC -
BuildingRoadIntersectionCheck , one of which is a KFC drive-through with
awnings, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-35.34316/143.56033

Is this something to leave as-is, or should a change be made to either the way
or building or both?  If a change is needed, what type?



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

Re: [talk-au] highway=track update

[Michael Collinson]

I don't map much in the US but do in Australia and Sweden. In both 
countries, I have rarely come across what I consider to be gravel roads, 
instead consider most unpaved roads and tracks to be 'dirt' or 'compacted':


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface%3Dcompacted

Apropos the current discussion, I wonder what other mappers think? 
Especially if you have any road engineering background in Australia. I'd 
like to fall in with a consensus.


Background: I mostly look at tracks/roads as a cyclist. If my tyre is 
mostly resting on small stones of various sizes, then it is gravel and 
riding is generally tough with tendency to skitter. If my tyre is 
resting mostly on (often rollered) dirt with usually embedded very small 
stones  for cohesion and traction, then I am on a compacted surface and 
riding is much easier. Here in Sweden, almost all unpaved public and 
residential roads are the latter as are many logging and farm tracks. A 
half-decent compacted surface can often be car driven at 70 kmph, not 
something I'd fancy on a gravel road.


I could have sworn there was a good Wikipedia page on compacted road 
surfaces but I cannot find it now or anything similar, perhaps called 
something else. It is a deliberate technique that goes back to Roman 
times, (perhaps there are some in Waga Waga :-) ).


Mike

On 2021-02-23 07:22, Josh Marshall wrote:


The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel
 refers to
railway ballast, not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that
usually occurs on unpaved roads in Australia. However we call the
fine unpaved surface "gravel" in common parlance, and many unpaved
roads that don't constitute gravel as described in the OSM wiki
have been tagged as gravel here, erroneously depending on your
point of view.


This is a matter of interest to me too. I spend a substantial amount 
of time running+riding on fire trails in NSW (all highway=track), and 
the surface type is useful and indeed used in a number of the route 
planners I use. I have changed a few roads back to 'unpaved' from 
'gravel' due to the rule of following the description in the surface= 
guidelines rather than the name.


My question then however, is exactly what to tag the tracks beyond 
"unpaved".


There are definitely sections that are somewhat regularly graded and 
appear to have extra aggregate/fine gravel added. From the surface= 
wiki, these most closely align with surface=compacted. But fine_gravel 
is potentially an option too. Many of these are 2wd accessible when it 
is dry. (Typically smoothness=bad.)


There are also others, usually less travelled, which are bare rock, 
clay, dirt, sand, whatever was there. Is it best just to leave these 
as surface=unpaved, and add a smoothness=very_bad or horrible tag? 
None of the surface= tags really seem to apply.



On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 16:45, Little Maps > wrote:


Hi Brian and co, in Victoria and southern NSW where I've edited a
lot of roads, highway=track is nearly totally confined to dirt
roads in forested areas, as described in the Aus tagging
guidelines, viz: " highway=track Gravel fire trails, forest
drives, 4WD trails and similar roads. Gravel roads connecting
towns etc. should be tagged as appropriate (secondary, tertiary or
unclassified), along with the surface=unpaved or more specific
surface=* tag."

In your US-chat someone wrote, "...in the USA, "most" roads that
"most" people encounter (around here, in my experience, YMMV...)
are surface=paved. Gravel or dirt roads are certainly found, but
they are less and less common." By contrast, in regional
Australia, most small roads are unpaved/dirt/gravel.

In SE Australia, public roads in agricultural areas that are
unpaved/dirt/gravel/etc are usually tagged as highway=unclassified
(or tertiary etc), not highway=track. There are some exceptions in
some small regions (for example in the Rutherglen area in NE
Victoria) where really poor, rough 'double track' tracks on public
road easements have systematically been tagged with highway=track
rather than highway=unclassified. See here for example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-36.1424/146.3683
.
However, this is not the norm in SE Australia and across the
border in southern NSW, this type of road is nearly always tagged
as unclassified, as it is elsewhere in Victoria. In SE Australia,
my experience is that tracks are tagged in the more traditional
way, and not as has been done in the USA.

If I could ask you a related question, what do you US mappers call
"gravel"? The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel
 refers to
railway ballast, not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that
usually occurs on 

Re: [talk-au] What do you prefer for Barmah-Millewa: swamp or wood?

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Ian,

Summary: For me wood is physical tree-cover and wetland is the condition 
of the ground and they are complimentary rather than exclusive.


In Sweden, I map both natural=wood and natural=wetland as separate 
polygons, with a common border or overlap as appropriate. There is is 
very easy from aerial imagery as the trees show distinctive colour and 
texture, spot checked in more easily accessible locations from field 
observation of the ground below (a very important thing to do IMHO). 
Here is a random example: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/59.5708/18.3099


In Australia, I am interested indirectly through work in refining the 
Murray River as it flows north of Rutherglen (VIC). I have found that 
much harder so haven't yet started any systematic tree/wetland mapping, 
instead focusing on the fascinating network of ox box lakes and 
channels. That's partly because of the much greater cyclicity in wetness 
that you allude to making wetland harder to spot and demarcate on aerial 
imagery. And partly that I don't have a local field eye, (I am a 
city-slicker based in Melbourne when in Australia). I am therefore 
tempted to focus on wood mapping from the arm chair and leave the 
wetland mapping as a more long term issue needing a reasonable degree of 
local observation/knowledge.


Hope that helps, these are just my personal thoughts and I look forward 
to hearing from others.


Mike


On 2020-05-12 09:37, Little Maps wrote:
Hello everyone, I don’t know if there is any right / wrong answer to 
this question, hence I’m keen to know your preferences...


I’m mapping wetlands and vegetation along the Murray River upstream of 
Yarrawonga, and am now mapping in Millewa forest. Millewa (in NSW) and 
Barmah forest (in Vic) support large red gum forests which flood 
regularly. Some areas flood annually, others less frequently. It 
depends on how much water flows down the Murray and which stream 
regulators in the forests are opened or closed.


My question is: would it be better to map this as a forest (i.e. 
natural=wood) or as a ‘swamp’, which OSM defines as ‘an area of 
waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation’, tagged as natural=wetland, 
wetland=swamp, seasonal=yes. I’ve read the OSM wiki pages on both options.


I’ve made a first stab at the area
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-35.8026/145.1484
and have mapped all but the extremes as swamp as this indicates that 
the area floods regularly, which natural:wood does not show. However 
most other areas on the river I’ve come across are mapped as 
natural:wood with relatively small inliers for treeless wetlands and 
some treed swamps.


It’s a quick job to change from wetland:swamp to natural:wood and vice 
versa and I don’t hold any strong preferences myself. If the general 
consensus is that the area would be better called a wood (i.e. forest) 
rather than a seasonal wetland I’ll change it immediately.
(I haven’t mapped Barmah forest in Vic, as that was already mapped as 
natural:wood but much of Barmah actually floods even more frequently 
than Millewa).


Thanks very much for your advice. Best wishes Ian

___
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] Melbourne Missing Maps/OSM rep?

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Vitva,

If you don't get any other volunteers, I'll be happy to come along and 
answer questions/talk ad hoc but not prepare a talk. I'm not familiar 
with Missing Maps but have previously served on the OSM Foundation board.


Cheers,

Mike

Michael Collinson

On 2019-11-08 13:13, Vilppola, Ritva wrote:


Hi Team,

WSP is holding a Missing Maps Mapathon next Thursday 5-8pm and we’re 
just wondering if there is anyone in Melbourne available to rep for 
OSM/Missing Maps for the evening?


We will also be getting in a speaker from MSF to attend so it would be 
great to have someone from OSM promote what it’s all about and ways 
people can get involved locally!


Cheers,

*Ritva**Vilppola*
Sustainability Consultant


<http://www.wsp.com/>

T: +7 3535 1518

ritva.vilpp...@wsp.com

WSP Australia Pty Limited
900 Ann Street, Level 12
Fortitude Valley
4006  Australia

*wsp.com <http://www.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
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Residential Poolside Building

[Michael Collinson]

I usually mark all residential buildings, including the main house or 
strata building, as building=residential.  I feel it useful but safe. I 
usually map in Sweden where planning regulations encourage a plethora of 
out-buildings whose use is difficult to judge from imagery: garages, 
spare rooms, wood-sheds, saunas, children's play rooms, yada yada. When 
I am unsure if a building is actually part of a residential plot, then I 
go for building=yes and can check them out on visits.


Mike

On 2019-08-12 11:46, Benjamin Ceravolo wrote:

Hi all,

I've been tracing in residential swimming pools and I have not as yet 
found an appropriate tagging for the small poolside buildings that 
(from my experience); may have an area to get changed and to store 
pool-toys, chemicals and other pool care items.


My current guess is just to mark it as: building=yes

If there are any other tags I have missed or if I'm just being blind 
and missing something obvious, I would like to hear your option/response.


Thanks, Ben.

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

Re: [talk-au] Copying address from business website?

[Michael Collinson]

A simple test is: Am I helping their business? If it is the venue 
business itself, then yes you are. If you take from a listing site - 
where their value is the list itself, then no you are not, you are 
potentially acting to its detriment.


FYI, your till receipts are another good source.

Mike

On 2019-07-22 07:19, Andrew Harvey wrote:
This has come up a few times on the mailing lists, and the advise 
usually given is it's okay to source a few facts here and there like 
the address or contact number, but just don't start taking a whole 
database of venues and copy that database.


On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 13:06, Kim Oldfield > wrote:


Is it acceptable to copy a street address (and other contact details)
from a business's webpage?

For example in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72452124 (what
changed is easier to see at
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/705884944 ) I
added the
street address as listed on their website.

If this isn't acceptable, what is an acceptable way of getting an
address if it is not obvious during a site survey?

Regards,
Kim

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


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

Re: [talk-au] Question on how to fix this intersection

[Michael Collinson]

+1 to that. Looking at the eastern side imagery again, I'd make a 
general comment that will help elsewhere: There really should be a node 
about where the pedestrian crossing is and pushing the road slightly 
north. This would bring it closer the traffic engineer's intention, 
which is that the Liverpool Road meets the Burwood Road at right angles. 
And in this case, lessen the angle with with the western extension.


Digressing but when playing around with routing software, I noticed that 
a lot of us map in slight oblique side roads and tracks meeting the main 
road at the same angle, whereas if we look closely the actual junction 
is actually at or a closer to a right angle. This has quite an impact 
for the routing algo to work out what instruction to give.


Mike


On 2019-01-31 10:02, Ian Sergeant wrote:

I agree there should be a better way, but I would solve this problem
by bring the road split to the east of the the intersection in this
case.  The road divides on the eastern side of the intersection
anyway.

Then there will be no option but to continue straight.

Ian.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 09:55, Dion Moult  wrote:

G'day all!

In the intersection of Liverpool road and Burwood road in Burwood, Sydney (see 
attached), if I am travelling in the direction shown by the red arrow, then my 
GPS device should tell me to continue and drive straight at the intersection. 
However, because at that junction, the map splits up Liverpool Road into two 
roads, OSMAnd tells me to turn left there, which is quite confusing.

What is the appropriate way to fix this mapping? Or is it a problem with OSMAnd?


Dion Moult


___
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] Question on how to fix this intersection

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Dion,

I'd say a bit of both.

The junction is topologically correct but looking at the aerial imagery 
and the node that you circled, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1691043684 , then it could be moved 
very slightly north and a bit more aggressively west to lessen the 
change of direction and better fit the actual physical situation. You 
could also map in the pedestrian crossing and close the gap further.


OSMAnd may also need some tweaking. I helped test a commercial routing 
product and know that these situations are difficult to get right. At 
the most simple, OSMAnd should measure the deviation from directly 
straight on (0 degrees) and assign anything up to, say 8 as "straight 
on", to around 45 degrees as "bear left" and anything more as "turn 
left". The may still not get it right. There are a couple more 
sophisticated things it could do: 1) Note that you are going from/to the 
same road name/classification and dynamically broaden the "straight on" 
angle test or even drop the navigation instruction entirely; 2) look 
ahead to the next node or two and create some kind of smoothed average 
angle, which will again help push the instruction to "straight on".


Mike

On 2019-01-31 09:54, Dion Moult wrote:

G'day all!

In the intersection of Liverpool road and Burwood road in Burwood, Sydney (see 
attached), if I am travelling in the direction shown by the red arrow, then my 
GPS device should tell me to continue and drive straight at the intersection. 
However, because at that junction, the map splits up Liverpool Road into two 
roads, OSMAnd tells me to turn left there, which is quite confusing.

What is the appropriate way to fix this mapping? Or is it a problem with OSMAnd?


Dion Moult



___
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] Naming Bus Stops for interchanges in Sydney

[Michael Collinson]

In Sweden, I have seen the "F" going into the ref tag. Just a thought, I 
don't recall how it affects rendering in common schemes. Con: Clash with 
a more rigorous ref num giving by the transport authority, "40459" or 
such. Another (complementary) practice is to put just "F" as the name - 
which has the secondary benefit of being more likely to render out in a 
crowded space. The other detail perhaps being better suited to the 
corresponding bus_station node/area/relation.


Else, +1 from me, the proposal seems useful to me as a smart refinement 
of local practice.


Mike

On 2019-01-22 10:26, Warin wrote:

Are there anydissenters?
I'll give it a week.
Any feed back from other places In Australia?
On 21/01/19 20:00, cleary wrote:

As a regular user of public transport, I agree.


On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, at 4:39 PM, Warin wrote:

Hi,


At present the names of bus stops goes something like

name=Strathfield Station, Albert Rd (Stand F).


The web transport trip planers direct you to Stand F, yet this is not
very visiblein OSM renderings as that information is last.


Would it not be best to have the name put the more detailed information
first and the generalproximity information last, much like an address?

Such as

name=Stand F, Albert Rd, Strathfield Station


Thoughts?





___
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] State names

[Michael Collinson]

I assume we are specifically talking about addr:state 
 ? If so the 
connotation is on the state as part of a postal address rather than as a 
place per se. Therefore I suggest using capitalised abbreviation and 
that the document Warin quotes is authoritative. The wiki page also 
notes that US states are similarly treated.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr

https://auspost.com.au/content/dam/auspost_corp/media/documents/australia-post-addressing-standards-1999.pdf 



Randomly looking at Queensland as place=state, I see that ref=QLD is 
already set as well as short_name, so there is a link that can be used 
in computational processing.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316595

And thinking on it, perhaps there are no other active uses? I used to 
use is_in a lot, but I don't think it is in widespread use any more.


Mike



On 2018-06-24 08:43, Warin wrote:

On 24/06/18 16:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

G'day

The latest (?) upgrade to iD reformatted the address fields to suit 
Oz addresses & also introduced a State field to be entered.


Question & policy decision needed here please :-)

Queensland / Qld / QLD?

How should we be entering our State names?


Well the 'rules' for names say no abbreviations.

Much as we commonly use the abbreviations... for me the abbreviation 
is Qld.
But Australia Post wants capitals .. I suppose they are easier for the 
machines to read them?
See page 24 (26 on the PDF reader) on 
https://auspost.com.au/content/dam/auspost_corp/media/documents/australia-post-addressing-standards-1999.pdf


There you  go, an 'all ways' bet. :)
 I'd go no abbreviation.

___
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] Morton Bay National Park should have it's ID numbers under ref=

[Michael Collinson]

I also agree. Putting other info into a name is not good practice. 
Separation allows map renderer and search functionality to decide what 
to do rather than being forced into something.


I personally like to tag in a generic way as possible and therefore 
would use the "ref" tag as my choice. However other folks around the 
world like to preserve/present info about who/what is actually doing the 
reference index so you might want to consider something like (I am 
making this up):


npsr_qld:ref = MNP05

Mike


On 2018-05-03 06:01, Joel H. wrote:

Hello, I'm just noticing around Moreton Bay Marine Park. Many
nature_reserves are currently formatted as follows:

name= Honeymoon Bay (MNP05)

Shouldn't this be:

name= Honeymoon Bay

ref= MNP05

?


-Joel



___
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] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Michael Collinson]

I am the Michael Collinson mentioned by Simon, (hello Simon, it has been 
a while!). I still lurk on this list and after a long gap will be 
spending time in Australia each year. I am in Melbourne at the moment 
and look forward to meeting mappers here on my hopefully less busy visit 
later this year.



On 2018-03-12 22:57, Simon Poole wrote:

Am 12.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. 
I just wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future 
after thinking I was doing the right thing, and no one else has done 
this each time this has come up in the past.
Jonathon the effort is clearly appreciated. At the time the issue was 
rather hotly debated and (as I wasn't really involved at the time) we 
would likely need to ask Michael Collinson for the historic information. 


I have hesitated to get involved in this discussion as my knowledge is 
now several years out of date, particularly as regards CC 4.0. However, 
I can make some comments from a historical perspective ...


In summary, I 100% agree with Simon that while there may be issues with 
CC 4.0, earlier dataset incorporation is a "done deal" and history. We 
can clearly show with a paper trail that we have acted properly and in 
good faith. The only thing that I would suggest: Various Australian 
government organisations have been very helpful to us, and much earlier 
than most. As a courtesy, I feel we should add a line to our high-level 
page https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, (Simon?)


In more detail ...

I pinpointed a number of datasets published on the data.gov.au website 
under a CC-BY 2.5 license that had already been or could be incorporated 
into OSM, (not CC-SA-BY and not CC 4.0, CC 4.0 did not exist then). 
CC-BY 2.5 is completely compatible with our license except the 
completely impractical provision, (for multi-sourced open data), that 
all contributors be attributed equally - imagine attributing 4m 
contributors on each map made from our data.


I made successful contact with the good folks at data.gov.au with the 
form that I have copied below. The upshot was a series of about 20 
emails between Sept and Nov 2011. They were very helpful and said, yep, 
fine to keep the data and attribute them at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution (now 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#data.gov.au). They 
requested a number of changes to the exact wording and I have verified 
that it is still there.


Since paper trail is very important, I am happy to forward the whole set 
of emails to anyone who requests them - if you want to put them in a 
public place, great.


The most relevant email is this one from 2011-09-21:

 Start -
Hi Michael,

Thank you for contacting us.

We are happy to provide you with permission that end users of 
OpenStreetMap do not have to attribute all contributors equally, however 
within your wiki we would need links directly to each dataset you are 
using from data.gov.au.  Data.gov.au provides datasets from all three 
tiers of government which involved a number of different legal 
entities.  Providing a link to the record enables correct attribution of 
the data.  This also helps us to demonstrate to agencies how their 
information is being used positively and, hopefully, will encourage more 
open data with can be beneficial to services such as yours.


Please let us know when this alteration is made so we can promote it 
within Australian Government.


Could we also get you to change the reference to our catalogue from 
data.australia.gov.au to data.gov.au.


Thank you and please contact us if you require any further clarification.

Regards,
data.gov.au team.
 End -

Hope that helps,
Michael


Your Name (optional)    

Michael Collinson

Email (optional)



mich...@osmfoundation.org

Topic (required)



Request to continue using geographic datasets

Message (required)



Hi,

Thank you for making geographic data available under an open license.

As chairman of the OpenStreetMap Foundation's License Working Group, I 
am writing to ask specific permission to continue incorporating a small 
number of your geographic coordinate datasets in our OpenStreetMap 
global geo-dataset. I previously wrote to Commonwealth Copyright 
Administration, Attorney General’s Department as per earlier 
instructions on your website, but did not receive an answer.


The datasets in question are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 
Australia (CC-BY). We changing our own license away from CC-BY-SA 2.0 
license since we were advised by Creative Commons that such a license is 
not suitable for highly factual data. We respect the IP rights of others 
and are concerned that with a different license we may not meet your 
needs. We feel that without specific permission to continue, we should 
remove your data.


In summary, we comply with all your

Re: [talk-au] Mapping Gallipoli

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Warin,

First,  wonderful idea,  my grandad fought there with the 2nd AIF and being 
able to relate dry names in books to actual places is very satisfying ... 
whether just looking at the map or making an actual visit.

I think it well worth approaching Australian War Memorial. As OpenStreetMap can 
be used by commercial entities we cannot use NC licensed data. But as we 
ourselves are non-commercial and you are trying to do something for common good 
without reward, you may well get a sympathetic response. In a similar vein, I 
was able to get permission from the Smithsonian to add volcanos from their 
global index. 

I also agree that asking the Turkish community shows tact and courtesy and will 
perpetuate the regard that the fighting men of both sides had for each other. I 
suggest using name:en so that Turkish names can be used as default.

Best wishes for 2014 to all Australian mappers,
Mike

 Original message 
From Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com 
Date: 2014/01/02  21:29  (GMT-05:00) 
To talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject [talk-au] Mapping Gallipoli 
 
Hi,

I've taken the trouble of mapping the present memorials (and their associated 
roads, paths .. in some cases adjacent paths so people don't take the wrong 
ones) at Gallipoli, Turkey. A few were maped in the south (mainly British, 
about 4), one road was GPS sourced. I've tried to get them all (OZ, NZ and 
Turkish mainly), there maybe a few left (at least 2 I think) but I've not found 
them with bing. 

The Question? 
Should I now map the named ridges, gullies etc that were used by 'us' (and/or 
named by 'us') in the action? I'd be using info from the official Australian 
history (avalible as pdfs ... and that has copyright exclusions under Creative 
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Australia (CC BY-NC 3.0 AU) license. Oh 
... rats ... no it doesn't - on another page  The Australian War Memorial 
holds copyright for the text, maps and photographs contained in the Official 
Histories. Reproduction is allowed for private use only. For commercial 
reproduction, the permission of the Memorial must be obtained. 
So that is 2 questions .. or 3 


 Should it be mapped?  (I'm looking at chapter 24 page 546/7 if your intrested. 
link http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/ think you'd want volume 
2) 
Would the turks object? I should ask them .. 
 Getting permission from the Australian War Memorial? 


PS ..
I'm now dowloading the 'Gallipoli Mission'.. I've had the WW1 history for some 
time .. and yes I've read it .. 

http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/AWMOHWW1/Supplementary/GallipoliMission/
 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Australia Postcodes - using AusPost database

[Michael Collinson]

:-(

I just looked at the license you referenced and it is very, very restrictive. 
So no.

Both the old and new OSM licenses allow commercial usage, (otherwise it would 
not be an open license).  Some publishers if specifically and courteously asked 
*may* make an exception as OpenStreetMap itself is not a commercial venture. 
However ...

Amongst other thins, the license is also limited and revocable so they could 
ask you at any time to stop using it without reason. The killer though is the 
first bullet in the read more link, no use in public databases; effectively an 
anti-OSM clause.

Mike
OSMF licensing working group


On 20 Dec 2012, at 23:08, Darren Burt burt.dar...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi again
 
 I've been mapping around the West Pymble area and noticed that the postcode 
 was wrong. Looking around some of the streets, they were associated with 
 Macquarie Park which is the other side of Lane Cove River! In short, there 
 are serious and obvious errors.
 
 So, I followed some of the links on the wiki, and found that AusPost provides 
 post code data[1]. But one of the key aspects of the license is that it can 
 only be provided free for non-commercial activities.
 
 Now, my basic understanding of the 'new' OSM license is that the OSM database 
 may be used for commercial activities, which would put it in direct conflict 
 with the Auspost database usage requirements.
 
 Can anyone confirm that this is the case? Or at least pass it on/up to some 
 legal expertise?
 
 Regards
 Darren
 
 [1] https://auspost.com.au/devcentre/postcodedata/register.asp
 
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] suburb boundaries

[Michael Collinson]

FYI, Franc was kind enough to let me have a copy of his original Perl 
import script.  Email me if you want a copy.  However, and I think Franc 
would agree, I understand it has really been superceded by the 
capabilities of ogr2osm.  Emilie Laffray said to me in email, If it is 
done properly (and data is good), ogr2osm would remove duplicate nodes, 
merges ways etc... A little inspection of data should provide us this.


On the discussion of whether it is actually a good idea, my mild 
suggestion, (I am no longer based in Australia), is that OpenStreetMap 
schema and so on is becoming stable enough to think about having 
separate layers outside the main database.  This might well suit the 
suburbs boundary case. Perhaps one as an as is official layer and one 
as a community-edited version.



Mike


On 19/09/2012 11:17, Andrew Harvey wrote:

Hi Ken,

On 19/09/12 11:57, Ken Self wrote:
   

In doing a manual load I am ensuring the boundaries share common
   

boundaries
   

with one another and the multipolygons close off properly. Those are pretty
much impossible to do with an automated load. Even a few manual errors creep
in but they are easily fixed.

As I understand it from the ABS website
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/a9421cdfb258e4a4ca2570ad00818509?o
pendocument they are supposed to be the gazetted boundaries
 

... that document is for the 2006 census boundaries.

For the 2011 ASGS, the Non-ABS structures data is at
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/1270.0.55.003July%202011?OpenDocument

With the documentation at
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/subscriber.nsf/log?openagent1270055003_oct%202011.pdf1270.0.55.003Publication469CDA45CE2B94CCCA257937000D966FJuly%20201131.10.2011Previous

it states that the LGA boundaries which form part of the ASGS 2011, are
an ABS approximation of officially gazetted LGAs as defined by each
State and Territory (S/T) Local Government Department.

Which is good enough for most purposes, and a good starting point for
later corrections.

I suppose that raises an interesting point, that in true OSM spirit if
on the ground data indicates an area is LGA X (eg. street sign
branding), but the official gazetted boundaries say otherwise, OSM
should primarily contain what's on the ground, rather than the
official one.

Again quoting from that document, the suburb boundaries which form part
of the ASGS 2011, are an ABS approximation of localities gazetted by
the Geographical Place Name authority in each State and Territory (S/T).
Since 1996 these boundaries have been formalised for most areas of
Australia through a program coordinated by the Committee for
Geographical Names in Australasia (CGNA) under the umbrella of the
Intergovernmental Committee On Surveying and Mapping (ISCM). SSCs are
built from Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1) that, singly or in
combination, form an approximation of Gazetted Localities.

   

The question is what to use as a definitive source for corrections that is
ODBL compliant. I've found some maps on
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/publications/publications-maps.html#5 but not sure
if we can use them to make corrections in OSM to the ABS boundaries.
 

No you cannot gather information from those maps and transfer it into OSM.

Those maps are Copyright All rights reserved. And the golden OSM rule is
don't copy from other maps unless they are released under a compatible
license.
   


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

Re: [talk-au] Getting is right

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Brett,

Your email prompted me to create something I have been meaning to do for 
a while: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission


Hope it helps. Else, if you think meeting Vogon poetry [1] with Vogon 
poetry would be better, the License Working Group can help if you can 
get contact details and links to what the data is and how it is licensed.


Mike
Proud Vogon Bard

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon


On 11/09/2012 10:59, Brett Russell wrote:

Hi Ian

Um?  Writing to a bureaucracy and reading their response thrills 
almost as much an month long recital of Vogon poetry.  But will give 
the Minister a shot once I work out the approach.  Tempted by 
something along the lines of During the Second World War Britain made 
great attempts to keep place names secert.  Can you please tell 
(insert state naming registry authority) that the second world war is 
over.


Something tells me that Minister will not mind but the mapping 
authorities might come under pressure from the commercial mappers to 
hold this information back.  Stay tune but in the intervening ice age 
the lakes I have madly been mapping are like to have change.


Cheers


 From: inas66+...@gmail.com
 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:49:46 +1000
 Subject: Re: [talk-au] Getting is right
 To: brussell...@live.com.au
 CC: talk-au@openstreetmap.org

 On 11 September 2012 12:42, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au 
wrote:


  I have been looking at few commercial mapping products closely and 
it is interesting to see the errors.


 In the cities it seems not so bad, but google maps on minor roads
 outside of major urban centres is a work of fiction.

  But I am curious that using the List in Tassie to check names is 
wrong? It is a Government service and one that actually forces 
  name changes such as the removable of possessive names and even 
names it does not like. Russell Fallls for example was not
  correct but it subsequently decreed to be. The government surveyor 
stuffed that up many years ago.


 The Tasmanian Government clearly claims copyright.

 Why not write a nice letter to the General Manager, Information and
 Land Services. Set out that what OSM is, and ask for permission to
 check names against the LIST, and release the resulting data under a
 free and open licence. Say they will be attributed if they wish at
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors.

 If they say yes, we have explicit permission. If they say no, then
 you probably weren't allowed to begin with.

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

Re: [talk-au] Redaction recovery

[Michael Collinson]

FYI, I am working on the Cooks River Cycleway which I mapped over 
2005-2006 and can do the M7 cycleway if needed. I've been able to 
re-create a map of my efforts from a January 2007 planet dump so have 
1,000+ streets and paths over NSW and QLD that I can re-map using Bing 
imagery. Dalby, Port Macquarie, Laurieton and some coastal villages are 
done. Brisbane and Toowoomba look good so I am now working on Sydney. 
Mostly this is Ultimo, Pyrmont, CBD, The Rocks, Elizabeth Bay and cycle 
trips around the eastern suburbs coast down to Cronulla.


May I ask armchair mappers if they would not mind mapping in streets as 
highway=road instead of highway=residential? Otherwise they look done 
and I miss them. Putting source=Bing also helps me know that you have 
not ground-surveyed them and that my older data may still be good.


Good luck to everyone on the ground with the remapping, alas I no longer 
live in Australia,

Mike Collinson

On 27/07/2012 03:57, Ben Kelley wrote:


Hi.

BTW, in terms of cycle routes in Marrickville I managed to remap some 
in advance of the redaction, and I know where any missing ones go.


There is a page on the wiki for Sydney Cycle Routes (pre redaction). 
Most of the relations there should still exist, but I haven't had time 
to check them yet. I wondered about coordinating cycle route 
remapping. Maybe via the wiki page, and by LGA?


For remapping roads, Bing is very good in Sydney, although exercise is 
also good. :)


   - Ben.

On Jul 26, 2012 6:40 PM, Eric Rose er...@wamble.net 
mailto:er...@wamble.net wrote:


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 24/07/12 21:35, Leon Kernan wrote:
 I'm not too familiar with central Sydney but if a local could take a
 look, i'm not game to get too far into that mess.

I'm in Marrickville, but may be able to spend time cycling around and
collecting traces in surrounding areas. Given that I haven't been an
active mapper for a while, I'll have to re-familiarise myself with the
tools again, and work out how to easily convert data from my Edge 800
(FIT format) to GPX.

All my previous mapping was done around Mullumbimby, and my primary
focus is on recreating data from my old traces in that area.

Eric



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

[talk-au] BP service station import

[Michael Collinson]

Someone kindly updated the import catalogue page to suggest where the BP 
service station import came from. I have followed it up and have 
permission to use as copied below. I will also put a copy up for public 
record. This, or something similar, was imported by a declined user who 
refused to say where it came from, so all the stations will go as well 
as subsequent modifications.


If anyone wants a go,  the (small) files can be found at 
http://www.bp.com/iframe.do?categoryId=9026935contentId=7049357 and are 
in the format below.


Whether they *should* be imported again is another matter.  A couple of  
locations could be checked against known points for accuracy. There will 
also be duplication, though that is fairly easy to fix bit by local mappers.


Mike

-

Site GPS Data - All states file

NAME,X,Y
17 Mile Service Centre,131.02937000,-12.51528700
AA Bayswater,145.27024300,-37.83459700
AA Box Hill,145.11703800,-37.81705200
AA Box Hill South,145.12221200,-37.82860400

Site Locations - All states file

Name, LocationNo, Street, Town, State, Postcode, Phone, Unlead, 
PremiumUnlead, BPUltimate, E10, Diesel, Any_Autogas, Hours_24, Trailers, 
LPGBottle, Toilets, CarWash, CleanGo, SuperWash, Other, Pay, EFTPOS, 
GIFT_CARD, ATM, Restaurant, TruckStops, Express, BP_UltimateDiesel
17 Mile Service Centre,5354,Virginia Rd,Virginia,NT,0835,08 8983 
1511,N,Y,N,N,Y,N,N,N,N,Y,N,N,N,N,N,Y,N,N,N,N,N,N
AA Bayswater,3015,362 - 366 Bayswater Rd,Bayswater,VIC,3153,03 9729 
4574,Y,Y,Y,N,Y,Y,Y,N,Y,N,Y,Y,N,N,N,Y,Y,Y,N,N,N,N
AA Box Hill,3847,839 - 843 Whitehorse Rd,Box Hill,VIC,3128,03 9890 
2086,Y,Y,Y,N,Y,Y,Y,Y,Y,Y,Y,Y,N,N,N,Y,Y,Y,N,N,N,N
AA Box Hill South,3828,891 Canterbury Rd,Box Hill,VIC,3128,03 9899 
2152,Y,Y,Y,N,Y,Y,Y,N,Y,Y,N,N,N,N,N,Y,Y,Y,N,N,N,N


-
Subject: RE: Contact Us Form -  OpenStreetMap
From: Customer Service Centre, BP Australia custcare.bpa...@se1.bp.com

Hi Michael,

Thank you for taking the time to contact BP.

This information is available for public use and we have no objection to 
its use in OpenStreetMap.


Kind regards,


*Elena* |* Senior Customer Service Administrator - Enquiries*|* BP 
Customer Response

*Phone 1300 1300 27 | Fax +61 3 9667 7714
_www.bp.com.a__u_ http://www.bp.com.au/

P* Please consider the environment before printing this email *



-Original Message-
From: Contact Us
Posted At: Friday, 13 January 2012 8:31 PM
Posted To: Retail
Conversation: Contact Us Form
Subject: Contact Us Form
Importance: High


Query form for BP Australia
Subject: Contact Us Form

Dear Not To Be Sent,

UNIQUEREFERENCEID : 2398714
DATE : Fri Jan 13 09:22:42 
GMT 2012

TITLE: Mr.
FIRST NAME   : Michael
LAST NAME: Collinson
EMAIL ADDRESS: mich...@osmfoundation.org
ADDRESS  : ---
SUBURB   : ---
STATE: ---
POST CODE: ---
I ACCEPT : YES
CATEGORY : BP Service Stations
SUBCATEGORY  : Service Station Directory
CONTACT TELEPHONE (INCLUDING STATE PREFIX) LABEL : +46-735-812219
FAX LABEL: ---
ORGANISATION NAME LABEL  : OpenStreetMap Foundation
JOB TITLE LABEL  : Chair, License 
Working Group

CUSTOMER TYPE LABEL  : New
QUERY DETAILS LABEL  : Hi,

 On your website you kindly provide a list of service stations along 
with their latitudes and longitudes at this link:


http://www.bp.com/iframe.do?categoryId=9026935contentId=7049357 
http://www.bp.com/iframe.do?categoryId=9026935contentId=7049357


 There appears to be no restriction on use, but I would like to confirm 
that you have no objection to its use in OpenStreetMap 
http://www.openstreetmap.org. The OpenStreetMap respects the IP rights 
of others so we like to be careful.


 OpenStreetMap is a global project to create a unified set of freely 
available map making data. Our own version of the map can be seen at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org and shows fuel stations and their names, 
mostly added one by one by our contributors. We have over 500,000 
contributors worldwide. All our data is mandated to be available under a 
free and open license for anyone to use without fee, this includes both 
individual and commercial use.  Our current distribution license is the 
Open Database License, http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ .


 Regards,
 Michael Collinson


 Name  Registered Office:
 Openstreetmap Foundation
 132 Maney Hill Road
 Sutton Coldfield
 West Midlands
 B72 1JU

Re: [talk-au] BP service station import

[Michael Collinson]

On 16/01/2012 13:36, John Berkers wrote:

Michael,

There also appears to be some information related to the location of Coles
Express (Shell) service stations on their web site at:

http://www.colesexpress.com.au/store-locator/gps-poi.aspx

There are data sets specifically formatted for use by Garmin, Navman and
Tom Tom devices, however, there is a general statement that the data can
be converted to support other formats.

Is it worth investigating the possibility of confirming that Coles Express
fits within their own terms of acceptable use, and investigate importing
their data also?
   


Thanks John. Yes good idea, so I have just sent them a request and will 
report back if I get a result.


I've also found the corresponding CalTex .csv file, (bottom of 
http://www.caltex.com.au/HelpCentre/SiteLocator/Pages/FindAServiceStation.aspx 
) and am contacting them now. Like the BP, it is probably in OSM already 
but must be removed.


Mike



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

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

[Michael Collinson]

On 05/01/2012 12:36, David Findlay wrote:

...
One thing I didn't find, how do I add a gate
to a route? Several of these places have gates or fences that you can either
go through or over. Thanks,

   


barrier=gate works as a standalone node or part of a fence way

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier

Mike

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

Re: [talk-au] Brisbane bikeway data on data.gov.au

[Michael Collinson]

On 04/01/2012 04:43, Chris Barham wrote:

Just noticed this recent dataset  -  potentially useful...
Brisbane bikeways on data.gov.au (which is therefore licence compatible?)
http://data.gov.au/5472

   


Hi Chris,

Yes. It has a CC BY license.  If it is used, just be careful to add it 
to 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets 
as per data.gov.au request.


Mike


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

Re: [talk-au] Brisbane street names

[Michael Collinson]

On 04/01/2012 04:19, Chris Barham wrote:

Hi,

Just spotted a CC-by dataset of Brisbane, Qld, Aus streetnames...
Perhaps possible/useful for checking of spelling of existing street
names? (I'm *guessing* that wouldn't violate the licence)

http://data.brisbane.qld.gov.au/index.php/dataset/street-names/
   


I recommend clarification from the publisher (Brisbane City Council) as 
to whether they would consider attribution on our website to be 
sufficient or not, they have not been approached before as far as I 
know.  I can try and contact them if you wish, let me know.  It is also 
possible that you might find the same dataset on data.gov.au.


Mike

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

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Michael Collinson]

Thanks Mark and I appreciate your feedback. I very much hope you will be 
able to accept the new terms and get back to mapping and will help if I can.


The direct answer to your question is that if ABS data is available and 
downloaded  from data.gov.au [1], and has a CC-BY license, then yes. I 
checked a fairly large random sample and, indeed, all of them were 
CC-BY. If the dataset is only available from the ABS website [2] then it 
would be best to be cautious and courteous by asking them directly.  I 
have not done so as I believe everything (geographical) that the OSM 
community wants is at data.gov.au, but am happy to do so if asked.


Now, at a practical level, I believe this all boils down to one dataset 
of suburb boundaries [3]. I hope others will correct me if I am wrong 
here. There is also an interesting dataset of  post code areas, I 
believe that has never been imported, but could be done now.


The suburbs dataset in OSM is from 2006 data and was imported by Franc 
under the user account http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ABS2006.  I 
have confirmed that Franc does not wish to accept the new contributor 
terms on behalf of that account.  It will therefore have to be removed. 
It can be replaced with a newer 2011 dataset [4], so is probably a good 
thing anyway?  Franc has very kindly made the original Perl import 
script available, I can mail it anyone who wants it. Ogr2osm [5] has 
also been recommended to me as a very up-to-date tool.


I am steadily hijacking your original question but my suggestion is that 
this be done fairly soon after a bit of discussion so that folks know 
what is happening, checked that the details I am presenting are correct 
and can give some input.  One question: should all relevant boundaries 
be removed (easy, clean but will also blow away some local corrections 
made by contributors) or should just the ABS2006 user data be removed, 
(which will leave the corrections but be messier and require some manual 
merging when the new 2011 set is imported)?


Hope that helps,
Mike

[1] http://data.gov.au/data/?agency=Australian+Bureau+of+Statistics

[2] _http://www.abs.gov.au/geography_ and 
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/webpages/statistics?opendocument 
are good starting points.


[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/ABS_Data Franc's 
write up on the orginal import


[4] 
http://data.gov.au/dataset/state-suburbs-asgs-non-abs-structures-ed-2011/  
Latest suburb boundaries?


[5] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ogr2osm  Import tool



On 15/11/2011 23:40, Nilbog_aus_OSM wrote:


Thanks Michael. Actually seeing a full copy of an email including the 
OKing the use of gov.au data is what I was waiting for also. Getting 
an explicit email approving the use is going above and beyond for me 
and much appreciated.


I haven't been following OSM as much as I did now my uses for it have 
dropped. So please forgive me if the following question has been 
answered or has become inflammatory. Does the gov.au Ok also cover the 
ABS data?


As the ABS data is the only thing left stopping me accepting the new 
terms.


Thanks

Mark

*From:* Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz]
*Sent:* Wednesday, 16 November 2011 2:34 AM
*To:* OSM Australian Talk List
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

On 15/11/2011 11:58, 80n wrote:

Can you please publish the verbatim correspondence that you have had 
with your man at data.gov.au http://data.gov.au?  Your 
interpretation is fine, but others may see nuances that you have 
overlooked.


The statement on the wiki is not a statement from data.gov.au 
http://data.gov.au and counts for nothing unless you have a document 
from your man at data.gov.au http://data.gov.au that references it 
and says yes that's ok.  Do you have such a document?



Gosh, this is getting kakfaesque. Hope this puts this it to bed:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission 
and copied below in response to my request today, also copied below.


Mike
-

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your email.

The attribution statement

Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. 
The original datasets are available from the Australian government 
data website http://data.gov.au/ under Creative Commons - 
Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ and Creative Commons 
- Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY) 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/. We have also been 
given explicit permission to incorporate and publish such CC-BY 
licensed geographic coordinate datasets under a free and open license, 
including the Open Database License, provided that primary attribution 
is made here and that each dataset used is also listed here in the 
format /Dataset Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally 
retrieved from// //http://data.australia.gov.au/ 
http://data.australia.gov.au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Michael Collinson]

On 15/11/2011 22:38, Andrew Laughton wrote:


Yahoo granted permission for us to trace from their imagery.  yahoo
imagery was available in josm and potlatch for quite some time.  So
I'd expect that your tracing of yahoo imagery is fine unless I
misunderstand what you did.


I knew it was fine at the time, while it licensed by CC-by-SA or CC-by.
I did not know it was OK by them to also publish it under a ODbL license.

This is why I thought both government data and traced data needed to 
be removed because of this license change.


So just to be clear, Nearmap are OK with CC-by-SA, but not with ODbL 
after a certain date ?


Anything traced before 18th June 2011 is fine under both CC-by-SA and 
ODbL.  This remains true if you accept the new contributor terms.


Nearmap's commercial concerns are with the contributor terms rather than 
the licenses.  Ben Last's statement on behalf of Nearmap can be found here:


http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-June/008098.html


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

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Michael Collinson]

On 31/10/2011 17:51, 80n wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz 
mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:


Could you please, for about the fifth time of asking, publish a
verbatim

copy the permission that you have received.  If you have some
reason that
you can't then you need to explain yourself.

80n


??

A verbatim copy of the permission that we have received is here:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australian_government_public_information_datasets

You can see the drafting history using the View History button. It
was created using the input and review of data.gov.au
http://data.gov.au over a series of correspondence I had with
them. I believe it is clear, and by doing it as a public document,
transparent.  They have reviewed and are happy with the final
version, so earlier correspondence, as is usual in legal
discussion and as waldo00 points out, is now superseded.


Are you saying that you published the information on the wiki page and 
*then* asked someone at data.gov.au http://data.gov.au to review it 
and give their assent?  If so then please publish the email or letter 
that contains this affirmation.  I think that is what we are looking for.




And to touch upon other issues raised in this thread:

1) I generally take yes to mean yes rather than looking for
reasons why it should mean no. 



The lack of evidence to support the claim that OSM have explicit 
special permission... is cause enough in this case to not take yes 
at face value.


There is no claim of special permission.



2) No preferential treatment has been given, if anyone else wants
to do the right thing and ask for clarification for a specific use
of data.gov.au http://data.gov.au data for other projects, write
to them.


And indeed Andrew Harvey did just that as he wrote here: 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-September/008464.html


The reply contained the statement:
 We do not consider that what we are providing is “special permission”

As this directly contradicts the statement written on the wiki by 
yourself, and echoed in Grant's email, you can surely see why more 
information about this supposed arrangement would help to clarify matters.


I fail to see a contradiction. If you are not sure about something, you 
ask explicitly and get an explicit answer. That is what we got.  That is 
what is written on the wiki with the kind assistance of data.gov.au.


If it helps, me formally affirm and represent what I have said before: I 
have had a series of correspondance with data.gov.au where: 1) I have 
explictly pointed out we are moving to another license specifically 
written for open data, that it might not jive with CC-BY and so they may 
not be happy with the provisions for downstream attributions, and asked 
them if they could explictly give us permission to continue use or if we 
should remove it; 2) The conclusion being yes, we can incorporate and 
publish such CC-BY licensed geographic coordinate datasets under a free 
and open license, including the Open Database License, provided that 
primary attribution is made here 
[http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets] 
and that each dataset used is also listed here in the format /Dataset 
Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally retrieved from 
http://data.australia.gov.au/; 3) For public transparency, the 
operative version of the statement is not in the correspondance but 
directly drafted at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets 
and actively reviewed by data.gov.au to their satisfaction.


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

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Michael Collinson]

On 15/11/2011 11:58, 80n wrote:
Can you please publish the verbatim correspondence that you have had 
with your man at data.gov.au http://data.gov.au?  Your 
interpretation is fine, but others may see nuances that you have 
overlooked.


The statement on the wiki is not a statement from data.gov.au 
http://data.gov.au and counts for nothing unless you have a document 
from your man at data.gov.au http://data.gov.au that references it 
and says yes that's ok.  Do you have such a document?


Gosh, this is getting kakfaesque. Hope this puts this it to bed:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission 
and copied below in response to my request today, also copied below.


Mike
-

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your email.

The attribution statement

“Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. 
The original datasets are available from the Australian government data 
website http://data.gov.au/ under Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 
Australia (CC-BY) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ and 
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY) 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/. We have also been 
given explicit permission to incorporate and publish such CC-BY licensed 
geographic coordinate datasets under a free and open license, including 
the Open Database License, provided that primary attribution is made 
here and that each dataset used is also listed here in the format 
/Dataset Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally 
retrieved from// //http://data.australia.gov.au/ 
http://data.australia.gov.au/: “


accurately reflects what we have said.

Regards,

Data.gov.au team.

On 15/11/2011 11:35, Michael Collinson wrote:


Hi again,

Thanks for your email of 19th October.   I am rather embarrassed to do 
this but may I ask to you give a more formal assent to satisfy some of 
our map data contributors and that I can publish?


May be: The attribution statement

“Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. 
The original datasets are available from the Australian government 
data website http://data.gov.au/ under Creative Commons - 
Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ and Creative Commons 
- Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY) 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/. We have also been 
given explicit permission to incorporate and publish such CC-BY 
licensed geographic coordinate datasets under a free and open license, 
including the Open Database License, provided that primary attribution 
is made here and that each dataset used is also listed here in the 
format /Dataset Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally 
retrieved from// //http://data.australia.gov.au/ 
http://data.australia.gov.au/: “


accurately reflects what we have said.

Regards,
Michael Collinson
OpenStreetMap Foundation





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

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Michael Collinson]

On 15/11/2011 15:54, Andrew Laughton wrote:

This is different to what I thought is was.
Could someone please remind me why Nearmap and Google maps do not want 
us to trace their aerial views ?


Google just don't allow it in their basic terms of service. We have 
asked them to allow us and the informal answer was that the imagery 
comes from different suppliers under different agreements, so it would 
be just too difficult. We also provide a map from our own website as 
well as map data so are a potential competitor ... but that is me 
speculating.


Nearmap have a business model that requires them to claim copyright from 
their commercial customers of not only the imagery but anything that is 
traced from it.  Therefore they were very tightly constrained to make 
sure they did nothing that undermined their commercial business. Both 
they, and us, tried very hard but in the end I guess their lawyers were 
unable to sign off on it from a commercial risk point of view.


Bing make no claim on anything traced as long as it is put in the OSM 
database.  Me speculating again; this is a case where having a 
share-alike license is a good thing, Microsoft, like IBM and Novell with 
Linux, can make something available safe in the knowledge that it cannot 
be snaffled and improved by a competitor during at least a business 
cycle, help their customers with an OSM layer, and eventually spend less 
money on other commercial map providers. It will be great if they can 
extend their higher-resolution coverage of Australian non-city areas, 
something to work on.




Also if I agree to the new license, is there an easy way to delete all 
my Yahoo aerial tracing, or is this now allowed ?


I think I had a source tag on most, if not all of it, but at the 
moment I am locked out from viewing it.


Yahoo imagery is or or shortly will be longer available as they are 
winding up their own map unit, the imagery delivery has been on 
auto-pilot for some time. The permission to use it for past tracing 
remains unchanged and they make no copyright claim over the tracings 
made,  so I hope that solves the question?  If not or you or anyone else 
has other difficult data, let me know and we will try to help. We have 
one instance where a contributor can accept for data in one area of the 
world but not another area, and another instance where a contributor 
feels they cannot accept for contributions made during a certain time 
interval.


Mike

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

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Michael Collinson]

Could you please, for about the fifth time of asking, publish a verbatim

copy the permission that you have received.  If you have some reason that
you can't then you need to explain yourself.

80n


??

A verbatim copy of the permission that we have received is here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australian_government_public_information_datasets

You can see the drafting history using the View History button. It was 
created using the input and review of data.gov.au over a series of 
correspondence I had with them. I believe it is clear, and by doing it 
as a public document, transparent.  They have reviewed and are happy 
with the final version, so earlier correspondence, as is usual in legal 
discussion and as waldo00 points out, is now superseded.


And to touch upon other issues raised in this thread:

1) I generally take yes to mean yes rather than looking for reasons 
why it should mean no.


2) No preferential treatment has been given, if anyone else wants to do 
the right thing and ask for clarification for a specific use of 
data.gov.au data for other projects, write to them.


3) Having lived and worked some years in Australia, I do not recognise 
the description of government officials given. I have generally found 
them to be straight-forward and pragmatic. My dealings here were no 
exception.


Hope that helps,
Mike

Michael Collinson
Chair, LWG

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