Re: [talk-au] OSM Attribution Q

[Paul Norman via Talk-au]

On 2022-08-14 3:23 a.m., Bob Cameron wrote:

I likely have this wrong, but worth a question.

Looking at petrolspy.com.au website for Theodore Qld and note that the 
sport and rec ground shows a remarkable similarity to the 
changes/updates I did 10 months ago, right down to the service road 
loop around the RV dump. In addition the petrolspy map has copied the 
campsite rather than the reserve name.


There is no attribution I can see, but the site does have Google ads. 
The contact domain (email) is MX'd to Google.



They are using a map from maptiler, which uses OpenStreetMap data. I 
would contact them at the email on their site, explaining that they're 
using a Map based on OpenStreetMap data, and they are required to 
attribute, which is generally done in one of the bottom corners of the map.



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

Re: [talk-au] Multiple web sites linked to car yard

[Paul Norman via Talk-au]

On 2022-07-28 4:22 p.m., Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

I saw something similar a little while back when clearing Notes.

Same physical premises had 2 businesses operating out of it, one as 
general scrap metal & the other a car wrecker, but two different 
names, phone numbers & websites.


OK or not?



I could see it for something like that where they're doing somewhat 
different things. I'd say that one is marginal, while in the case linked 
earlier, they were all offering the same service of picking up old vehicles.



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

Re: [talk-au] Multiple web sites linked to car yard

[Paul Norman via Talk-au]

On 2022-07-28 12:29 a.m., nwastra wrote:
This mapper has added about a dozen similar businesses to the same car 
wrecker yard.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/freecarpickup/history#map=19/-33.93048/150.99878
I assume this is ok as they are linked to the same physical location.


It's not okay - judging by the imagery and online results, there's only 
one company physically there that does business under multiple names. 
OSM is a map of the world, not a general business directory. There's 
clearly a scrap_yard there, so I've cleaned up the duplicates and left 
the one that was originally mapped. I'll leave a changeset comment on 
one of the mapper's changesets.




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

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

[Paul Norman via Talk-au]

On 2021-10-28 8:05 p.m., osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
If it exists on the ground, it gets mapped. If there is no legal 
access, that's access=no or access=private. If it's a path that has 
been created by traffic where it's not officially meant to go, it's 
informal=yes.



Yep, this is how it is supposed to be handled. Removing paths that exist 
on the ground is vandalism, and counter-productive because the paths 
will be remapped
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Ways to map boundaries that won't go into OSM

[Paul Norman via Talk-au]

On 2019-06-16 10:26 p.m., Ben Kelley wrote:

Hi.

A project I have been thinking about for a while is creating a map of 
Anglican (church) parish boundaries in Australia.


In some sense these are like admin boundaries, but the source of the 
boundary is not easily verifiable. While the resulting map would be 
based on OSM, the data itself probably does not belong in OSM.


Any thoughts on a tool set for how to do this?



I've used uMap (http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/) where I want to create 
a map on top of OSM data.



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

Re: [talk-au] CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

[Paul Norman]

On 7/12/2016 1:50 AM, Simon Poole wrote:

- the additional requirement to adhere to the AUS privacy regulations
was not addressed in the response, which in itself would be a killer.


It depends if it's part of the license or a reminder that in Australia 
there are other laws that may effect what you can do with the data.


If it's the former, the data is not available under CC BY 4.0 or an open 
license and they're falsely advertising that the data is available under 
an open license. If it's a reminder then it doesn't add any new 
requirements.


If they want it to be a reminder, I'd suggest wording like

Users are reminded that the Australian Privacy Principles under the 
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) may impose additional restrictions on how they 
use the data.


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

Re: [talk-au] CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

[Paul Norman]

On 7/15/2016 7:15 PM, cleary wrote:

In regard to the Australian Privacy Principles, I think they have
responded to our concern. On this issue, the earlier response stated
very clearly that "We can also confirm that OpenStreetMap is not
responsible for the actions of your downstream users."


Users *must* be able to do anything permitted by the ODbL. If there is 
anything that a downstream user could do under the ODbL which would 
violates their license, we cannot include the data. Phrased differently, 
the downstream user only needs to follow the ODbL, not CC BY.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Explicit Permission to use NSW Land and Property Information data

[Paul Norman]

On 12/5/2015 11:17 PM, cleary wrote:
1. The requested acknowledgement, as specified by LPI, applies only to 
the information in the "Contributors" page of the wiki, not to the 
tags of each data item.  I think the source tag for each data item 
should be shorter but accurate e.g "NSW Base Map, LPI" or "NSW Points 
of Interest, LPI" etc.
2. Like one other mapper, I am also a little uncertain about including 
the date, however that is what has been requested and it is a small 
price to pay for access to such rich data. Where a whole dataset is 
imported on a particular date, it clearly makes sense but would seem 
less practical where data is extracted on an ongoing basis. Unless any 
clarification of this is received and since the stated intent of LPI 
was to indicate to users where data may be not the most recent, I 
suggest we use the earliest date on which data is taken from a dataset 
but then add an amended date if, at any time, an update of the entire 
dataset is imported into OSM. For example the current local government 
boundaries are to be extensively re-drawn in the next 6-9 months and 
it would be important to show whether any local government boundaries 
imported from LPI are the soon-to-be-obsolete 2015 version or a 
subsequent version.


When we're talking about source tags, we should use whatever is useful 
for mappers. In theory source date tags can be useful, but in practice 
I've not seen them worth the bother.


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

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

[Paul Norman]

On 11/11/2015 9:04 PM, Leith Bade wrote:
We hope in the future to also make use of route relations, however the 
key piece of software (osm2pgsql) we use to work with OSM does not 
support them.


osm2pgsql does support route relations, and will in fact import them 
with the default style.


Where it's a bit more work is if you want to interpret tags from both 
relations and the ways that make them. I expected to do that soon, and 
it's not going to involve any SQL.


What is hard is if you want the style of your shield to depend on the 
highway (e.g. different shields for tertiary, secondary, etc) and to 
render shields from refs on ways if no relations are present and to 
override refs on ways.


If someone from Mapbox wants to work with me to clear up any 
documentation on how to do this, and to provide examples, they should 
get in touch with me. Rewriting osm2pgsql is not to be taken on by the 
feint of heart, or at the end, by the sane, and making full use of 
community supported existing tools is generally preferred to writing new 
ones.


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

Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks

[Paul Norman]

On 7/29/2015 6:52 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
Possibly tag it access=no and rename it to "Track closed" depending on 
how widely the name "Ant Track" is known. It may be known as Ant Track 
by a very small group of riders. 


The name might not be Ant Track, but it's almost certainly not "Track 
closed". The name tag is for names. access=no already indicates that it 
is closed (or more precisely that you aren't allowed to access it).


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

Re: [talk-au] National Park unclosed poly, want advice

[Paul Norman]

On 4/18/2015 11:35 PM, Nathanael Coyne wrote:
I'd appreciate if someone could have a look at it and tell me if it is 
valid or invalid and if invalid then where I should start with fixing 
it up, given it covers such a large area.


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204064026#map=10/-35.8657/150.1611
The way itself isn't a polygon, but is part of the multipolygon 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1388357


It is valid, but an area this large is a problem to deal with for a 
number of reasons

- You're more likely to conflict with people editing it
- Checking validity is hard, as you need the entire  polygon
- It poses problems for rendering toolchains

Coming from an area with many areas of trees, I have a few techniques. 
One is to end up splitting on an arbitrary line. While this fixes the 
problems, it's not ideal. A better route is to find an appropriate break 
in the trees.


Typically along roads, rivers, power lines, and oil and gas lines there 
is a break in the trees. I try to find one and trace this break. This 
also tends to find clearings 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-35.8707/149.9854), unmapped 
roads branching off, and other features of interest.


Don't feel you need to be perfect, particularly in a case like this 
where the original tracing is from landsat.


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

Re: [talk-au] Use of mapconnect data in OSM [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Paul Norman]

On 4/15/2015 6:01 AM, Ross wrote:

Hi Simon,

The issue is not with the licence.  The current terms and conditions 
require permission to add data not owned by the contributor. 
This is incorrect. An appropriate license is sufficient. Some obviously 
appropriate licenses are CC0, PDDL, ODC-BY and the ODbL itself.


The issue is that CC BY (and BY-SA) 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 require a form of 
attribution that is not practical for most map uses, so we need 
permission. This would have been true even without the license change, 
as we were never meeting the requirements of those versions of CC BY.


We have permission for many Australian sources, and I believe for all CC 
BY Australian sources that were in use at the time of the license change.


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

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Australian Government Department of Communications - Geocoded addressing survey [DLM=For-Official-Use-Only]

[Paul Norman]

On 2/10/2015 4:32 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:


I've completed their survey from a individual level, however will OSMF 
be submitting an OSMF response? I'm not 100% across what exact 
licensing conditions the data would need to be released under to leave 
open the possibility of incorporating it into OSM. Hence I've omitted 
that from my response, but it would be great if we could submit a 
response with that information.


As an organization, I'm not sure we will be submitting a response. It's 
not obvious who would - perhaps the LWG. I'm also not sure how much it 
impacts the OSMF as an organization. It undoubtedly impacts 
OpenStreetMap as a project, but those issues are best raised by the 
community. For myself, I am busy preparing for the OSMF board meeting 
next week and probably will not have time to submit anything.


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

[talk-au] Fwd: Australian Government Department of Communications - Geocoded addressing survey [DLM=For-Official-Use-Only]

[Paul Norman]

The OSMF board received a survey request from the Australian Government 
Department of Communications. With their permission, I'm forwarding it 
to the talk-au@ and geocoding@ mailing lists. It is open until the 19th, 
but don't wait until the last minute because timezones may screw up a 
submission.


It is fairly short.

 Forwarded Message 
Subject: 	Australian Government Department of Communications - Geocoded 
addressing survey [DLM=For-Official-Use-Only]

Date:   Thu, 5 Feb 2015 00:43:55 +
From:   Datapolicy 
To: bo...@osmfoundation.org 



Dear OpenStreetMap Foundation Board Members,

The Australian Government Department of Communications is seeking views 
from industry, developers and the community on a proposed simple 
geocoded national address file product that might potentially be made 
openly available at no cost to the end user.


We have prepared a short 5 – 10 minute survey and would appreciate your 
views and comments.


This survey is available for completion until close of business on19 
February 2015 and is accessible through the following link: 
http://www.communications.gov.au/digital_economy/Survey_on_geocoded_addressing 



Responses will not be published and will only be used to inform the 
Australian Government’s consideration of the proposed product.


If you have any questions, please reply email to the Data Policy Section 
at the Australian Government Department of Communications 
(datapol...@communications.gov.au 
).


Kind regards,

Data Policy Section

*Data Policy Section
**Data Policy Branch | Digital Productivity Division*
datapol...@communications.gov.au 

www.communications.gov.au 

*
Australian Government***

*Department of Communications
*GPO Box 2154 Canberra ACT 2601


*---*
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy 
all

copies of the original message.

This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate.

*---*



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

Re: [talk-au] City of Melbourne data imports

[Paul Norman]

On 8/19/2014 3:42 PM, Daniel Sobey wrote:

Hi Steve,

There is a lot of open data that could potentially be used from 
data.gov  and state portals.

http://www.data.gov.au/
https://www.data.vic.gov.au/
http://data.sa.gov.au/

Much of this was released for the govhack competition last month.
No idea about the process of importing data but try and ensure that 
you add tags to say where the data came from, what licence it was 
released under etc.
You need to consult with the imports@ list for any imports you want to 
do, but there's no need for tags. Attribution is provided in accordance 
with 4.2c or 4.3 of the ODbL, currently done by means of the wiki page 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors.


It *may* be useful to add a source tag, but that's for mapper 
convenience, not any legal requirements. You can also indicate source 
with a changeset tag.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Paul Norman]

On 2014-07-05 5:03 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:

As the title says agri.openstreetmap.org does not appear to be working.

Cheers
Ross


A number of servers are being moved to a new data center at UCL. See 
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/ for more info. I believe the move is 
complete, and everything should now be working.


See the announcement for the full list of servers, but in short, no 
primary services had outages planned and the only secondary services 
with outages were Nominatim* and a reduced rendering capacity.


* Searches through openstreetmap.org were redirected to another 
Nominatim instance


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

Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

[Paul Norman]

> From: Will Rouesnel [mailto:w.roues...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:34 AM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?
> 
> A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential
> buildings be tagged?
> 
> The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific
> buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be
> tagged "house".
> 
> Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get
> my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can
> provide navigation to specific locations.
> 
> Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them
> with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be
> likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my
> area)?

My practice is

- Add the buidings from imagery, generally with building=house and 
  building=shed

- Add address info from a survey, either with field papers + pen or 
  geotagged photos

- Add other interesting features from the survey (paths, mailboxes, etc)

- Trace out the landuse, generally as larger than single blocks, but 
  using separate polygons for areas split on major roads

This generally involves an initial imagery-based mapping for buildings, 
trees, paths, and other stuff visible from imagery, a survey, then a 
final mapping using survey notes + imagery.

It helps having buildings mapped already when collecting addresses.


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

Re: [talk-au] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps

[Paul Norman]

> From: Andrew Harvey [mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps
> 
> > We'd have to get confirmation that data source was happy with
> > attribution in accordance with ODbL sections 4.2 and 4.3 which are
> > "keep intact any copyright or Database Right notices" or "a notice
> > associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any
> > Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise
> > exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the
> [the datasource]"
> 
> That is a pity. The fact that OSM can't accept CC BY licensed works is
> reminding me why I stopped contributing to OSM many months ago...

If taken literally CC BY's attribution requirements are very onerous. 
Creative Commons themselves appears to recognize this and the 4.0 drafts
have much more reasonable attribution language, more in line with the ODbL.

Even under CC BY-SA there were some data providers who felt that the 
conventional attribution methods for web maps were insufficient and we 
still couldn't use CC BY data without confirmation. 

I believe when CC 4.0 comes out its attribution will be compatible with ODC
attribution, so we'll finally stop having to deal with the CC attribution 
flaws. 


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

Re: [talk-au] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps

[Paul Norman]

> From: David Bannon [mailto:dban...@internode.on.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Geoscience NATMAP 250K Topo Maps
> 
> Then the license holder withdrew the ecw plugin for GDAL...

There's still an ECW plugin for GDAL. It requires the third-party
SDK and you'll have to compile gdal yourself, which is annoying. Creating
ECW files is what takes purchasing a license. If there's ECW files
where it would be beneficial to host them, I could do or someone else 
could.

We'd have to get confirmation that data source was happy with attribution 
in accordance with ODbL sections 4.2 and 4.3 which are "keep intact any 
copyright or Database Right notices" or "a notice associated with the 
Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, 
accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work 
aware that Content was obtained from the [the datasource]"


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

Re: [talk-au] Vandalism in Sydney OSM data ?

[Paul Norman]

Yes, I had to revert a second changeset to get it  working. It'd be useful
if a local could double-check the area.

 

OWL is a useful site for this kind of thing, you can use it's beta at
http://owl.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-33.8761/151.2131 by clicking
on the history tab.

 

From: Leon Kernan [mailto:lker...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 4:04 PM
To: Paul Norman
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Vandalism in Sydney OSM data ?

 

And it looks like you beat me to it :-)

 

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Leon Kernan  wrote:

I've done a little more investigation, turns out potlatch 1 still exists and
can still show deleted ways.

He certainly did delete the Eastern Distributor at least according to the
inspector, the changeset was 18208802 (description: wrong links).

 

Hopefully it was just a misunderstanding, i'm more interesting in figuring
out how to restore the missing data at the moment, 

 

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:

He had imported some grid squares into OSM, as well as some earlier stuff
that I reverted. That particular changeset and the revert aren't related to
the missing stuff.

 

I'm inviting him to come to the lists to discuss their edits.

 

From: Leon Kernan [mailto:lker...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 2:54 PM
To: Peter Watson
Cc: Open Street Map au Forum
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Vandalism in Sydney OSM data ?

 

That is so frustrating, i spent a bit of time a few months back smoothing
out a lot of the issues there, making curves a sensible radius, etc.

Like you, i'm not sure how to go about reverting.  

 

I did notice user nadeem41 has made a mess of the cross city tunnel as well,
i'm wondering if it's related. If anyone can tell me what he means by the
comment in changeset 18489150:  "city divided into equal area grid for data
updation. cleaning project"

 

 

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Vandalism in Sydney OSM data ?

[Paul Norman]

He had imported some grid squares into OSM, as well as some earlier stuff
that I reverted. That particular changeset and the revert aren't related to
the missing stuff.

 

I'm inviting him to come to the lists to discuss their edits.

 

From: Leon Kernan [mailto:lker...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 2:54 PM
To: Peter Watson
Cc: Open Street Map au Forum
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Vandalism in Sydney OSM data ?

 

That is so frustrating, i spent a bit of time a few months back smoothing
out a lot of the issues there, making curves a sensible radius, etc.

Like you, i'm not sure how to go about reverting.  

 

I did notice user nadeem41 has made a mess of the cross city tunnel as well,
i'm wondering if it's related. If anyone can tell me what he means by the
comment in changeset 18489150:  "city divided into equal area grid for data
updation. cleaning project"

 

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

Re: [talk-au] South Australia Suburb Boundries

[Paul Norman]

There are numerous tools for converting from shapefiles to .osm. Both
shp-to-osm and ogr2osm work and you can find more info on the wiki. The hard
part is converting tags, which requires knowledge of OSM tagging.
Additionally make sure to follow
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines, which includes
consulting with the imports@ mailing list.

 

From: Daniel O'Connor [mailto:daniel.ocon...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 10:45 PM
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] South Australia Suburb Boundries

 

In order to make this a little bit easier, I've published a job on elance to
convert the shp files to kml, osm. This should allow various folks from
around here to load in data via JOSM. That'll let us check data as well
prior to loading.

Assuming someone picks it up; I'll publish the resutls, conversion scripts
on github.

 

https://www.elance.com/job/47684250/proposals?eventId=194330764

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 74, Issue 7

[Paul Norman]

Source tags don't provide any kind of attribution because they can be (and
are) removed at any time by any user of the database. Attribution is
provided by listing on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors

 

From: Li Xia [mailto:lisxia1...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 5:50 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 74, Issue 7

 

Is marking source:GeoScience Australia considered attribution?

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Vicmap data released on data.gov.au

[Paul Norman]

> From: Nyall Dawson [mailto:nyall.daw...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 4:27 PM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [talk-au] Vicmap data released on data.gov.au
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm not sure if this has been raised yet, but in the last week the
> entire VicMap dataset was released on data.vic.gov.au under a CC-
> Attribution 3.0 license. This includes the entire address [1], roads
> [2], parcel boundaries [3], and administration boundaries [4] for
> Victoria. I gather by
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_perm
> ission
> that we're OK to use data from data.gov.au for OSM.
> 
> Does anyone know if this is still the case, and if so, how we could go
> about getting this data into osm? I'm willing to do any hard work
> required, but don't want to duplicate effort and first want to see if
> there's already any ongoing discussion about this data release.

All we need from them is a statement that "a notice associated with the
Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views,
accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware
that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the
Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under
this License" (ODbL 4.3) meets the requirements of a notice "reasonable to
the medium".

Basically, that the attribution required by the ODbL is enough. Some cities
have viewed CC BY's " reasonable to the medium" to mean every data source
needs to be credited directly on a web map.


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

Re: [talk-au] park vs nature reserve

[Paul Norman]

> From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:47 AM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] park vs nature reserve
> 
> Paul Norman wrote:
> > It's important to remember that leisure=park doesn't apply to all
> parks.
> 
> I'm guessing that the second "park" in that sentence is used in the
> North American "national/state park" sense whereas the one in the
> original question usage sounded closer to British English usage*.
> 
> However one example, Kings Park in Perth, has it's entire area as a
> "leisure=park", even the "maintained bushland" part:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4850399

I've not been to Perth, so I can't comment, but based on the paths, I could
see it being either way.

> This does make some sense to me as the maintenance of the bushlands part
> is surely just as artificial as the manicured lawns to the east.  The
> first English stateley home parks were very much "highly engineered to
> look natural" too.

The examples I was thinking of were places like Yellowstone National Park
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1453306) which is about 9
thousand square kilometers, or closer to me, the North Cascades, which is
notable for its rugged mountain peaks.

A comparable Australian example would be if someone tagged Litchfield
National Park as leisure=park


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

Re: [talk-au] park vs nature reserve

[Paul Norman]

> From: Andrew Elwell [mailto:andrew.elw...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:43 AM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [talk-au] park vs nature reserve
> 
> Can someone point me to guidelines for where the .au distinction between
> the two lies?
> 
> I'm trying to map piney lakes (see
> http://www.melvillecity.com.au/environment/piney-lakes/copy_of_piney-
> lakes-bushlands
> ) which has a park-like southern area and a bushlands reserve to the
> north. Do I split the area into two? define some relation?

My guess is there is a leisure=park inside the nature reserve.

It's important to remember that leisure=park doesn't apply to all parks.
There have been cases where people have misapplied to large rural parks,
which don't fit the definition of leisure=park. I'm not saying that's the
case here, just that it's happened.


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

Re: [talk-au] data.sa.gov.au

[Paul Norman]

The only issue with CC BY is that some data owners believe that attribution
"reasonable to the medium" is more than the ODbL guarantees which allows
"notices in a location . where users would be likely to look for it" such as
a wiki page linked from /copyright or in the case of produced works, a
"notice . reasonably calculated to make [anyone] aware that Content was
obtained from the Database" (The "Database" in that quote would be what was
provided under CC BY).

 

Some cities releasing data as CC BY insisted that only mention on any page
where the map was viewed was reasonable, which is clearly unreasonable when
there can be dozens of sources on one page, or even hundreds.

 

From: Ian Sergeant [mailto:inas66+...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:09 AM
To: Daniel O'Connor
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] data.sa.gov.au

 

Hi Daniel,

The first step should be to find out if they are willing to have their data
relicenced under our licence? 

CC-BY data is nice, and means that the data owner is likely only seeking
attribution (which we do provide) but my understanding is that it is still
insufficient for us to use without further permission from the data owner.
Pointers to our attribution page have worked in the past in gaining such
permission.

Ian.

On 24 May 2013 18:58, Daniel O'Connor  wrote:

The SA govt has joined many of the other state/local governments in
publishing open data. 

 

The current implementation is powered by CKAN, and though I haven't seen it
yet, appears to be leveraging openstreetmap / cloudmade in some fashion.

 

Anyway, the majority of the data sets are CC-A licensed, and in either CSV
or Shapefile format:

 

Some initial things that might be worth importing/using as a
reference/looking into:

http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/major-and-minor-roads

http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/library-locations

http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/parks-and-reserves

http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/sa-playgrounds

http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/stormwater-nodes

http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/surface-water-catchments

http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/suburb-boundaries

and of course:

http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/centrelink-office-locations

 

Not sure how much overlap with data.gov.au data sets (assume some).

 

Anyone want to have a look around and

1) Call out the things you think are missing

2) Call out the things you'd want to have imported or manually transcribed
into open street map


___
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] OpenStreetMap in Government

[Paul Norman]

> From: David [mailto:dban...@internode.on.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
> 
> Further, so much OSM data ends up in a psql database, one
> column per tag. Believe it or not, psql does not like having column
> names start with numerals. It can be worked around but I suspect that's
> one reason mapnik (or more correctly, its slippery map) won't show
> 4wd_only.

Column names beginning with numerals are fine in PostgreSQL. You have to
quote them, but that's not a big issue. You have to quote the "natural"
column too as natural is a reserved word in SQL.

The technical issues preventing styling based on 4wd_only on tile.osm.org,
the default osm.org layer, are threefold:

1. To add a column to the database on yevaud (the tile.osm.org rendering
server) would require a database reload. The hstore feature can now be used
to avoid this, but hstore is relatively new and not enabled on yevaud. It
could be enabled, but again this would require a database reload. I think
the last database reload was in 2011.

2. The mapnik stylesheet (osm.xml) used for tile.osm.org is horrendously
hard to edit and does not have a maintainer. I guess this isn't really a
technical issue, but it's tied up with the next one

3. The tile.osm.org stylesheet has been ported to carto, an easier language
to write stylesheets in. Unfortunately, it is slower and deploying this new
stylesheet is waiting on a hardware upgrade. This is also related to the
database reload. 

Two non-technical issues are

1. There is no cartographer maintaining the osm.org stylesheet. Deciding
what to include and what not to include takes a design skill that I know I
don't have.

2. Unlike other layers, the tile.osm.org layer has a strong influence on how
mappers tag. For this reason care needs to be used when adding new tags,
because what's rendered is much more likely to be tagged.

For what it's worth, if I was maintaining the tile.osm.org style and a patch
came in adding some kind of indication of 4wd status to it, I don't know if
I'd accept it. I've traveled the 4wd roads in Australia so I know how their
terrain matters, and I've also studied it at work, the problem is the style
already shows too much information. Thankfully, it's not up to me as I don't
have cartographic design skills. Of course if no one proposes a change to
the stylesheet with a patch, we'll never have that discussion and there's no
chance of adding it then.


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

Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines

[Paul Norman]

Actually, the slope is slippery. People have made it about old roads. There
are people who have mapped old roads where they have been completely
developed over and no trace remains.

 

Mapping the traces of an old rail line isn't historical mapping. If there
are currently traces there then it's mapping the present.

 

 

From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:02 PM
To: Matt White
Cc: talk-au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines

 

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Matt White  wrote:

Admin boundaries are a slightly different thing - they may be intangible on
the ground, but they are also current. We don't keep historical versions of
admin boundaries either

The problem with the historical thing is that to my mind, it is a slippery
slope. There's a park near me that is currently, well, a park. But I know
that it was previously a quarry, and then a rubbish tip/landfill, cos there
is a sign saying so. But I certainly wouldn't tag the parks as a quarry or
landfill, because it isn't. It's a park


IMHO this slope is not slippery. Every time the "do we map historical stuff"
debate comes up, it's always about train lines. That is, we're still at the
top of this supposedly slippery slope, waiting to slide down. Somehow, train
lines are different. They just are.

To reiterate what I said before in different words: we're not mapping "the
1890 route of a long forgotten train line". We're mapping the vestigial
traces of a former line. And I'm absolutely not proposing to record any
information about when lines opened or closed, or were re-routed or
whatever. 


Steve

 

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

Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines

[Paul Norman]

> From: Alex Sims [mailto:a...@softgrow.com]
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines
> 
> On 26/11/2012 10:38 AM, mick wrote:
> > I'm in two minds about removing 'historical' data.
> >
> > Yes, objects no longer visible on the ground shouldn't be rendered on
> the map.
> I've been following this discussion with interest. We do mark and should
> mark administrative boundaries which are not visible on the ground. Can
> the logic for these boundaries which be usefully extended to historical
> data?

The subject of historical rail lines and historical roads came up on the
talk-us@ mailing list relatively recently.

As always, there were multiple views. The result of the discussion was that
the general view is that historic information only belongs in OSM when there
is some trace on the ground.

As a practical matter, historic roads are not generally mapped in OSM.
Whenever a road is physically realigned and the new alignment mapped in OSM
the old alignment is not saved as a separate way. If I survey the area I
only look at how it looks now so I don't know if the old alignment in the
database is because it was aligned that way in the past or because the data
was inaccurate.


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

Re: [talk-au] [Imports] Importing locality names from GeoScience Australia dataset.

[Paul Norman]

Hello,

 

If you're considering importing you need to read
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines and make sure that
you've followed all of the steps before uploading anything else.

 

One of these is talking with the local community, which is why I've cc'ed
talk-au@ on this message.

 

I would suggest a different source tag. The source tag is for mappers, not
for attribution (which is done at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). There is some debate as to
if you should have source on both the changeset and the objects or just the
changeset. If you do decide to have source on the objects, I'd suggest just
source=GeoScience Australia DATASET_NAME, with an appropriate value of
DATASET_NAME.

 

It's worth documenting the data source and licensing. I think it's CC BY
which is okay, but it'd be good to have this documented on the wiki.

 

Are all of them place=locality or is it possible to get more detailed
tagging?

 

When it's time to upload JOSM can work if you split the uploads into smaller
regions, which is a good idea anyways.

 

From: Li Xia [mailto:lisxia1...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 9:49 PM
To: impo...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Imports] Importing locality names from GeoScience Australia
dataset.

 

Hey everyone, 

 

A quick intro, I'm Li, founder of   mud-maps.com 

 

We are currently working on a rendering engine that supports OSM for iOS and
after running some number os the Australian OSM data, i've noticed that it's
lacking a lot of place names. Comparing OSM data to GeoScience (GA) data,
here are some numbers.

 

. place:locality = around 1000 as of 23 Oct 2012.

. GeoScience locality = around 20,000.

 

I've extracted the place:locality, hamlet, suburb, violate, town, city data
nodes from OSM australia and GA data and ran a name string comparison to
eliminate duplicates and would like to upload the difference to OSM.

 

I have 2 questions:

 

1. Can anyone suggest tags other than the following?

name:

place:locality

source: C Commonwealth of Australia (GeoScience Australia) 2006. 

 

2. Using JOSM at the moment and uploads take a while, is there a better way
of bulk uploading data? 

 

Look forward to your suggestions.

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