Re: [talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:54 AM, John Smith wrote: > > name=* should be the bridge name, not the road name Not necessarily, according to the wiki. It seems that this is still ambiguous. > ... at the very least I would do bridge:ref=* since you > are referring to some kind of reference number for that bridge. This sounds right to me. But if you propose bridge:ref=* then you should probably also use bridge:name=* rather than the already proposed bridge_name=*. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How to tag a church without its own building
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Mark Pulley wrote: > > Should I place a node as usual over the building (place_of_worship= (etc)) > with a note that it meets in the school hall? IMHO, No - I don't like the idea of using separate/duplicate features (e.g. an extra node) to describe something at the same physical location. Ideally, you would tag the building as simultaneously: amenity=school (or townhall) AND amenity=place_of_worship ...but this isn't possible because we require a 1-to-1 key-value mapping (not really sure why, but that's the way it is). So right now, I see four remaining options, IMHO all pretty crappy and unsupported: 1) mash it into: amenity=school;place_of_worship 2) mash it into: amenity:school=yes amenity:place_of_worship=yes 3) use two separate relations (one amenity=school and one amenity=place_of_worship) that both have the building as the sole member. John might have further thoughts on this [IMHO very hacky] use of relations. 4) tag the primary function (so at least one well-established amenity=* tag remains), then tag supplementary functions: amenity=school place_of_worship=yes (plus maybe place_of_worship:opening_hours=sunday, etc.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM, James Livingston wrote: > > Here's what I've currently got, any more comments? > ... Is it worth using an additional classification:qld=national_park|conservation_park|state_forest, etc. (or similar), just to make things extra clear? That is, when you use a rule like "Conservation Parks get boundary=protected_area", I think it would be nice to also record that they are a conservation_park. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Attributing points and/or areas
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:20 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 19 June 2010 07:12, Roy Wallace wrote: >>> With my GPS hat on I'd say attribute the polygon as amenity=fuel but leave >>> the point and all its attributes so it shows up on the GPS as a POI. >> >> IMHO that's mapping for the GPS, i.e. bad. > > If a point is needed, the same thing could be achieved by making a > point from the centre location of the area. Within the GPS software - yes. Within the OSM database - no. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Attributing points and/or areas
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Craig Feuerherdt wrote: > > Thinking from an OSM perspective I'd say move all the attributes from the > point to the polygon and delete the point. That's what I do. > With my GPS hat on I'd say attribute the polygon as amenity=fuel but leave > the point and all its attributes so it shows up on the GPS as a POI. IMHO that's mapping for the GPS, i.e. bad. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, James Livingston wrote: > > In particular, anything of class 4 and above can vary a lot. There are tracks > which probably aren't rated but if they were would be Class 6 that I'd be > happy to go on for an afternoon walk by myself, and there are Class 4 tracks > that I would never consider going on without preparation and other people. This is the problem with using broad, subjective tags. I personally don't think it's worth spending time trying to come up with a better way to describe these concepts than the Australian Standard... :P But you're right, for un-rated tracks it would be nice to be able to tag something - I would suggest either: class:as2156=unrated (if unrated tracks are always more difficult), and/or class:as2156:equivalent=[1-6], or class:as2156=[1-6] + source:class:as2156=estimate. > I was fixing some of the tracks in the Noosa Headlands park recently, and > have a photo of the map board showing their classes. Does anyone have tagging > suggestions? I'm thinking something like track:as2156=* or class:as2156=* or > something would be good. I think class:as2156=[1-6]. It should not be "track", because we are not saying, e.g. "the track is 3", but rather "the class is 3". ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Residential landuse
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:11 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 17 June 2010 14:09, Craig Feuerherdt wrote: >> I don't disagree Roy. >> I still argue that the land use isn't wholly residential and that these >> peri-urban areas are a distinct land use. >> >> The other alternative is another tag to help (those who want to) distinguish >> between types of landuse? > > You could always sub-type instead of a new type... > > landuse=residential > residential=semi-rural +1. Although I don't really see that much information is added by "residential=semi-rural", at least it stays out of the way :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Residential landuse
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:07 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 17 June 2010 10:39, Craig Feuerherdt wrote: >> I am facing the same issue in Bendigo. I have been considering suggesting a >> landuse=rural_residential tag. AS you state, these blocks are too small for > > Aren't they commonly known as hobby farms if you have a few animals > for tax purposes? IMHO landuse=* shouldn't map discrete "things" (like hobby farms, or A rural residential block of land), it's meant to map "use". What is the land *used* for? Stephen said himself that the land is "used only as residences", so landuse=residential. If Stephen said the land was "used for hobby farming", then landuse=hobby_farming -- But that's not what Stephen said. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:30 AM, John Smith wrote: > >> - ideally there needs to be more granularity of track difficulty >> - track_visibility=* is probably useful >> - sac_scale=* is less useful as it is too specific to alpine areas >> - however, something indicating difficulty/exposure would be useful > > This came up on IRC the other day, there the suggestion with sac scale > was it should be limited to things SAC has actually evaluated, and > there is no equivalent body in Australia so there probably needs a > new/different tag for difficulty ratings in Australia difficulty:au=* ? Try Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 (Walking tracks - Classification and signage) http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store2/Details.aspx?ProductID=260163 (not free, but try e.g. the following page for some details: http://hikingbackpacking.suite101.com/article.cfm/australian_bushwalking_track_classifications) P.S. In Queensland, the EPA (www.epa.qld.gov.au) website used to tell you which walking tracks fell into which "class", but it seems this site has recently been re-developed into http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/, which seems to have lost some of this info... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Residential landuse
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Stephen Hope wrote: > > These are used only as residences Therefore, landuse=residential. The size of the property is irrelevant, and self-evident. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hikers on this list?
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, John Smith wrote: > > Some of us were discussing making a custom hiking map styles on IRC > earlier so we can print out such maps or use them in presentations to > show bush walkers the potential of what they can get back out of OSM. In case you need some more examples/inspiration, see e.g.: http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p02885aa.pdf I personally think it'd be good to create a style that is similar to those already established and in common use. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway classifications
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Do we have any objective way of deciding what is a "major through > route within a local area" vs a "minor through route within a local > area"? By definition, the definition will be dependent on the context. From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway: "description of the importance of the highway for the road grid." To get any useful feedback from us, I suspect you will need to give us some context, in terms of the "road grid" in the location you're talking about. Unfortunately, I think it boils down to this: make it secondary if it's more important than nearby tertiary roads, and make it tertiary if it's less important than nearby secondary roads. Iterate. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] tagging giveway signs
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:46 PM, John Smith wrote: > > XAPI reports only 7 or 8 highway=giveway tags and I was wondering if > there was something used more often. No idea, but FWIW wouldn't highway=give_way be more consistent with other OSM tags? i.e. separating words with an underscore... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Community Notification- Services Relocation
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:03 PM, John Smith wrote: > > On 10 June 2010 14:26, David Dean wrote: > > Looks like NearMap or us need to talk to BrisConnections about attribution. > > It might have been better to contact them privately about this before > resorting to making a fuss publicly talk-au is hardly "public" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap support for OSM editing
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:35 AM, John Smith wrote: > > ... I've been in a similar situation about > people not wanting to create an account to use a POI mapping app I > created for mobile phones, in that case I didn't take the easy way out > and have a single account for all edits, but it's very temping to do > things that way. So what did you do? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap support for OSM editing
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ben Last wrote: > > Our first release will support just those tasks mentioned above, using as > simple a UI as we can build; add or correct a street name, and add or correct > a house number (or a set of them). Sounds great! > We do have our own registration system, and we're going to require that a > user be registered with us before we allow them to make edits. Does OSMF have a policy regarding this? In particular, how will you ensure that contributors via Nearmap agree to the OSM/OSMF contributing terms/license? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bridges and Tunnels
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:47 AM, John Smith wrote: > > If you can run a script over data it could also be pre-processed in a > similar manner without needing explicit tags on the objects. This is true. i.e. Rather than automatically adding layer=whatever to the DB where it's missing, leave that out of the DB and assume corresponding defaults in the client app, when the data is read from the DB. Or in other words, you're not adding any useful *information* to the database. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Styled Maps for the Google Maps API v3
Google: "This new styling feature gives you full control to display and customize the parts of the map that lets your data on the map shine." http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2010/05/styled-maps-and-wrapping-up-io-in-style.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] General Observations.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Brendan Morley wrote: > > Yes, I would be *recording* what I *saw* in the field. FWIW, I think Brendan's got a good point. It comes down to what's verifiable. I disagree with Ross that an abbreviation mapping can only work one way. It is possible to search for a Street and find a St just as it is possible to search for a St and find a Street. However, I don't think it's worth trying to change the convention at this point. Spell "Street" in full, even if you only see "St" - only because it's a convention that would be hard to change. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Broadcast tower locations
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:41 AM, John Smith wrote: > > I'm still after > suggestions on how to tag multiple transponders for the same node, I > don't think tagging multiple nodes on the same spot is a good idea, > using a single node + multiple relations might work I suppose, but > that doesn't seem optimal either. Relations should only be used for "groups of objects in which each object may take on a specific role". I think the problem arises because it's ambiguous as to what you are actually mapping. If mapping the *tower* (it seems you are, given ""), then I think *transponder* information should not be shoehorned into the same element. I'm not sure though... Alternatively, if you think the *transponder* information really is a characteristic of the *tower*, another option is to use communications_transponder:frequency=0.729;0.891. Or, you could instead do something like communications_transponder=0.729_5W_AM_vertical_omni;... etc. A few options for you there. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Broadcast tower locations
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:13 PM, John Smith wrote: > > I'm leaning towards producing metro and non-metro data sets and bulk > importing the non-metro data sets and then offering the metro data > sets on a request basis, or is there a better way to handle this and > other similar data sets? Splitting up the data seems reasonable. As for access, I'd suggest supplying it via a central location on the wiki. In general, IMHO the easier it is for people to access it and import it, the better. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nominatim gives wrong suburb?
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:17 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 13 May 2010 23:40, Roy Wallace wrote: >> Actually, I think I know what might be going on. The property is >> clearly within the suburb of Annerley, however, the property's >> associatedStreet *is itself a suburb boundary*. > > If that's the case, is the street numbered? Not sure what you mean by that. This is the example properly: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/45822724 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nominatim gives wrong suburb?
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:09 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> Either the ABS boundaries might be wrong, or the boundary has moved >> since 2006, or where you think the boundary is, isn't where the ABS >> thinks it is, it's borderlineish though... > > http://maps.bigtincan.com/?z=16&ll=-27.517,153.028&layer=000B000TT Actually, I think I know what might be going on. The property is clearly within the suburb of Annerley, however, the property's associatedStreet *is itself a suburb boundary*. Maybe Nominatim is unable to deduce the suburb of such properties - maybe it flips a coin, and in this case it got it wrong. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nominatim gives wrong suburb?
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:37 AM, John Smith wrote: > > What's the lat/lon? > > http://maps.bigtincan.com/?z=7&ll=-27.119,152.794&layer=000B000TT http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.517456&lon=153.027702&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Nominatim gives wrong suburb?
Gday, On osm.org, search for "Annerville Place". The Nominatim results suggest the address is in "Yeronga", however, this should be "Annerley". Can someone please check the relevant admin boundaries and let me know why this happens? I realise this is an unusual request about a specific example, but I'm using this as an opportunity to learn more about how to fix these kinds of errors. Cheers, Roy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wikifiddling
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Emilie Laffray wrote: > > I believe that a separate wiki can be useful at cases, if not only for the > case that it can be potentially be easier to search and to work from it. In my opinion, this kind of "fragmentation" is something to be avoided - lest we likewise end up with a separate Australian OSM database... Liz, are you inferring that the problem is vandalism of Australian content on the OSM wiki? Or something more subtle? I would like to think that these problems can be handled (somehow??) without the last resort of starting an entirely separate wiki. That said, without knowing the details of the problems you're actually talking about, it's hard to comment further. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wikifiddling
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Liz wrote: > > I think that we need to put our stuff on our own wiki. I don't see how you reached that conclusion. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Lonely Planet
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Liz wrote: > I bought a Lonely Planet book of Oz today. I thought that I would use it for > POIs - to try and put things on the map that are in the guidebook, as this > would make OSM more attractive to tourists. > I'm not starting at A and continuing to Z - just the places which I visit as I > travel around (preferably paid). Sorry to be a party pooper, but do you think Lonely Planet would be okay with this kind of use of their publication? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap now have OSM opaque maps as well as overlays
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Ben Last wrote: > > It doesn't look like the actual style files that the OSM site uses are > available (or if they are, they're not easy to find). I'm guessing it's this one (?): http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/rendering/mapnik/osm.xml As described on the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapnik): "The version we use on the live slippy map is probably the osm.xml file in the SVN head:applications/rendering/mapnik/osm.xml" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging Outback Australia
> I am leaving for a 5 month trip through parts of outback Australia in a few > weeks and I want to add to OSM as much additional detail as I reasonably can. Sounds great :) > should the elements be shown as separate nodes and individually tagged or as > multiple tags to a single node. In my opinion, if these "elements" (be they tent sites, fuel pumps, cabins, or whatever) occupy different space on the surface of the globe, it's much better to add them each as separate nodes/areas. This is more accurate (and it also looks better when rendered). The only time you actually *need* to use "multiple tags on a single node" is when you're describing multiple "aspects" of a single physical feature (e.g. that a restaurant sells food of a certain cuisine=* and has certain opening_hours=*). Of course, if you don't have the time or energy to map everything separately, whacking them all in as tags on a single feature is better than nothing... > Also some highways and major roads are tagged but the names are not rendering > so are not appearing on the map download that I have in MapSource or that I > load into my GPS. The tagging looks different to that shown in Potlatch > examples in the Wiki so I wonder if that is the reason. I am reluctant to > change them until I understand the system a bit better, but bringing highway > information up to date is one thing that I want to achieve during this trip. Perhaps you could give an example of a particular highway or road that seems to have this problem? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Traffic Signals
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > ... So far, I haven't seen > much evidence that we have ways of aggregating excess information into > more manageable chunks. As others have already suggested: we need relations. There's already proposals semi-underway here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations They need more work, though, so... go for it! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Incorrectly expanding abbreviations
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM, John Smith wrote: > > Does anyone have any thoughts about what to do about this? Contact those that made the incorrect changes. Other than that...Is there a particular wiki page that recommends names be spelt out in full? If so, you could add a warning there against indiscriminate "corrections" made in this regard. Not much more you can do... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] CC-BY-A data released for Victoria
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: > > Another possibility is that we just say - OSM is just a repository for this > data and we don't modify it in any way, or add to it, > and then just do a complete bulk import every time a new version becomes > available. Another possibility (that I *much* prefer) is that the available data is used in the same was as, say, aerial imagery - i.e. not bulk imported, but used directly and interactively by mappers. This is why I think John is wrong to be "protective" of data that could be useful - I see it as analogous to being "protective" of, say, aerial imagery. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] CC-BY-A data released for Victoria
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:47 AM, John Smith wrote: > > I think making OSM > files available to anyone and everyone is a bad idea simply because it > only takes a couple of overly zealous mappers or people with malice > and we really will have a problem on our hands. I disagree! Be careful not to be condescending to other mappers, and please don't be "protective" of the data that you could otherwise make available. We're all just as sensible as you. It's good to discuss when and how imports should be made, but not good to discuss who should be allowed or denied access to that data on the basis of how "zealous" they may or may not be. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] CC-BY-A data released for Victoria
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 1:26 PM, John Smith wrote: > > ... having bad data is > better than no data John I agree with your overall position, but this isn't the best way to phrase it. Thanks for making the data *available for import*. The method of importing it will of course be undertaken according to the best judgement of each mapper. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] CC-BY-A data released for Victoria
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:19 AM, John Smith wrote: > I've moved the previous files and all the rest of the files Mike converted > here: > > http://map-data.bigtincan.com/data/data.vic.gov.au/ Can you please explain if/how you would suggest regular mappers help with the importing of this data? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Overmapping?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Michael wrote: > > The footways along Duoro Road and Harbour Street (but not the one > between them!) do not carry any information IMHO I disagree. They indicate that there is a footway there. If it's a verifiable fact, IMHO it rightly belongs in the OSM database. > but clutter the map > display, especially on GPS units. With three times as much nodes per > meter of the street(the actual road + 2 footways), data processing and > editing is getting ever more resource hungry. This, on the other hand, may well be true. But IMHO this is NOT a reason to limit what gets entered into the OSM database, but simply to *pre-process* the OSM data (filtering out unwanted details as desired) prior to loading onto the GPS unit. > For pedestrian routing, the same information can be represented by > adding pavement=left/right/both (I think there was a proposed tag, but I > can't find it on the map features page) to the highway and > highway=crossing at the crossing nodes (where currently there are > mapping errors, because the footways and highways are not connected). > What is lost, is precision of the map display at the meter-scale, i.e. > at the scale of GPS accuracy. This argument comes up now and then. The conclusion is always: each to their own. But please don't remove explicitly mapped ways and replace them with tags if the ways are already correct. > I don't think there is any tag that currently renders. One might imagine > having a wider border of the road on the side of the pavement, in the > correct color (footway/cycleway/path). This even has the advantage that > the pavement remains visible on smaller zoom levels, where in 1:1 > mapping, the overwide drawing of the roads usually hides it. > IIRC there was a proposed implementation for osmarender doing sth. along > these lines a while ago. This is a separate issue. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Opening hours
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith wrote: > > Third sunday of the month, from 9 until 12 can be tagged as: > opening_hours=Su[3] 09:00-12:00 > > Sunday markets on the 1st, 3rd and 5th Sundays of the month: > opening_hours=Su[1,3,5] 06:00-12:00 These are good. > Last Wednesday in July: opening_hours=Aug We[-1] 09:00-17:00 That's a little strange. I would have thought instead opening_hours=Jul We[-1] 09:00-17:00. But as long as it's described clearly on the wiki, it's fine. > The following could be used to describe hours of operation of a school zone: > > opening_hours=Mo-Fr 08:00-09:00,14:00-15:00; SH off > opening_hours:maxspeed=40 > > Or something to that effect. A school zone has "opening_hours"? Also, opening_hours:maxspeed seems a little unintuitive, but I don't have a better solution. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] tennis court land
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > ... I don't think it should render on the > default mapnik. If for no other reason than we want *public* tennis > courts to be visible, and all those private ones just create a lot of > noise. Just add access=private (or access=unknown, if unknown) as applicable. A similar issue arises for amenity=parking - the blue "P" is hidden on mapnik if access is specified to be something other than public. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] tennis court land
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Personally I don't think it's reasonable to map anything on a > residential property I wonder if any lawyer/privacy expert/etc. has written on this subject before... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] tennis court land
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:45 PM, John Smith wrote: > > How are there any privacy issues when you can see those same pools on > aerial imagery? I'm not sure but being traced and annotated makes it much *easier* for people to retrieve information about your private property (e.g. through an API call). You could thus argue that making it *easier* for someone to access your information constitutes an erosion of privacy. Interesting... makes me wonder if I'd be ok with someone mapping the vehicles I have parked in my driveway, etc. etc. I can imagine an API call for car=porsche + alarm=no OR windows=down, etc... :P (maybe just need a *little* more nearmap res for that...) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tram stops and routes for Melbourne
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Andy Botting wrote: > > "The Director would however approve the release of the data provided > the usual terms of our licence agreement were in place. " They clearly just don't get it hey... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Liz wrote: > >> Perhaps admin boundaries need to be "locked" from editing until people >> have a certain amount of mapping under their belt and/or ask for the >> ability to add/edit/delete admin boundaries, this might prevent or at >> least reduce some of the accidents and new accounts being created to >> shift borders for the wrong reasons. I hope you mean that *editors* should be improved to help prevent these accidents? (which I think is an excellent idea) ...as opposed to the suggestion of appointing an authority to hand out various levels of editing authorisation (which I think is crazy). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra - last white spot on the map
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:01 PM, wrote: > > Can we document on the wiki which is Operator and which is Name > (for Australia) because I never found it to make sense +1. e.g. for Woolworths Caltex petrol, is it Woolworths or Caltex? For those with a discount voucher they're probably more interested in looking for "Woolworths" stations than "Caltex" stations... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra - last white spot on the map
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:29 AM, John Henderson wrote: > > > I use name=Woolworths for Woolworths petrol stations. Have never used > > the operator=* tag - should I? > > I haven't seen any difference to the rendering with or without the > operator tag. Thanks for the response, but I'm not talking about rendering. > What I do find useful is the inclusion of a place name when looking at > the list of outlets on a GPS. This makes it so much simpler to ignore > those away from my intended direction of travel. So I use names like > "Woolworths Renmark". Is the name actually "Woolworths Renmark", though? If not, it shouldn't be in the name tag...(right?) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra - last white spot on the map
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:37 PM, John Smith wrote: > > It might be useful to clarify things when it comes to Coles Express > and Woolworths locations as to what the operator/naming should be I use name=Woolworths for Woolworths petrol stations. Have never used the operator=* tag - should I? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] google maps criticised for unreliable toll road routing
@ http://apcmag.com/google-maps-bug-forces-melburnians-down-toll-roads.htm "A bug in Google Maps Australia is forcing people down costly toll roads whether they like it or not." Just a thought - might be a nice reminder to check how we are doing on this front in OSM? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Stephen Hope wrote: > > A "Local Traffic" sign is a recommendation, not a law. As such, it is > sort of the opposite of access=designated, which is designed to show > places we would prefer certain vehicles to go, this is designed to > show places we would prefer them not to. We don't actually have a tag > for this at the moment, maybe we need one. Yeah good point. Or alternatively, for motor vehicles, the way is "designated" for local traffic? Some potential tags: * motor_vehicle:local_traffic=designated * motor_vehicle:destination=designated ...or... * motor_vehicle:through_traffic=not_intended > Maybe we need to do a data extract and look at how many such tags > exist - ie how big a problem it is. There may be few enough that we > can do some sort of check before we do any automated changing. FWIW, I believe access=destination ways are rendered in OSM mapnik with a dotted blue fill, e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.46151&lon=153.09406&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Liz wrote: > > Great work Roy Cheers :) > (not providing any suggestions) Alright how's this > > It is an advisory sign to all road users advising the street is not > > intended to be used by through traffic, however vehicles are the > > primary target (bicycles and pedestrians are generally not an issue)." Unfortunately, this response is still a little unclear. But I would read that "generally not an issue" here means "excluded". Please let me know if you disagree (in which case, you in fact aren't allowed to *walk* through a "Local Traffic Only" sign, and access=destination is the correct tag to use). So, if everyone agrees that response means bicycles/pedestrians are excluded, then from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access we could use: vehicle=destination (which - perhaps wrongly - includes bicycles), or motor_vehicle=destination (which - perhaps wrongly - excludes a horse and carriage). motor_vehicle=destination seems best to me. I'd propose, for tags in Queensland (and possibly elsewhere in AU): 1) a bulk change of access=destination to motor_vehicle=destination + FIXME="does access=destination really apply to bicycles/pedestrians here?" 2) an update to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines recommending the use of motor_vehicle=destination + motor_vehicle:source="Local Traffic Only sign" in these cases. I propose a bulk update because a) I can't think of any other reason why access=destination would be applied to ways in Queensland, other than due to the observance of "Local Traffic Only" sign, and b) this reportedly adversely affects foot routing, so it should be fixed. > > "The 'Local Traffic Only' sign is an advisory sign only and is not > > regulatory. I don't think this is important, but this could be specified using motor_vehicle:regulatory=no (or inferred from motor_vehicle:source="Local Traffic Only sign") Thoughts? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > > ... I've emailed QLD gov and Brisbane CC about what the signs mean, > though I'm not holding my breath for a response... An email response from the "Road Safety & System Management Division, Department of Transport and Main Roads" (QLD): --- "The 'Local Traffic Only' sign is an advisory sign only and is not regulatory. An extract from the MUTCD is produced below. "20.3.3 Local traffic only (G9-40-1) The LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY sign may be used at the entrance to a local area to advise road users that the street is not intended for through traffic." This sign may be installed by either The Department of Transport and Main Roads or Local Government with the appropriate delegation. It is an advisory sign to all road users advising the street is not intended to be used by through traffic, however vehicles are the primary target (bicycles and pedestrians are generally not an issue)." --- Suggestions for tagging, then? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Boat ramp
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > I would suggest tagging the way "leisure=slipway". If you need to > break the current specification to do so, then make a note on the wiki > page. Yeah, how strange that a slipWAY can supposedly only apply to a NODE. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > For the time being, it might be best to tag them with a specific > "local_traffic_only=yes" or something, so we know exactly what is > being encoded. +1. I've emailed QLD gov and Brisbane CC about what the signs mean, though I'm not holding my breath for a response... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Haitian Earthquake Emphasizes Danger of a Split Geo Community
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:43 PM, John Smith wrote: > > If we can get people making editors to add tags to changesets based on > your license preference then any PD data, even if it's changed later > to become ODBL, can be collected. ... > the changeset might be good enough, as long as > the code collecting only PD data figures out what is new, or only what > is edited from existing PD data. Interesting. But the catch is, as you say, "only what is edited from existing PD data". And if you have different mappers using different licenses, wouldn't that make it harder for companies like nearmap to say "we give OSM license to trace from our stuff"? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Haitian Earthquake Emphasizes Danger of a Split Geo Community
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:16 PM, James Livingston wrote: > > It's all a matter of tradeoffs and what is most important to you - being able > to use it for whatever you want, or getting the most data in OSM. Well said. Funny thing is, they're not independent - i.e. making OSM data more usable for whatever anyone wants leads to more users, which (arguably) leads to more mappers... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:41 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2010/1/16 Roy Wallace : >> Interesting. So this potentially means all access=destination tags >> should be changed to motor_vehicle=destination + motorcycle=yes. Would >> be better to first get confirmation from government on the sign's >> meaning though... > > Does this mean we should tag bus lanes in NSW as motorcycle=yes? > > Personally I don't think we should do either, we're tagging what's on > the ground, not what's on the legal books. That doesn't mean we can't > make a note about this on the wiki. The main issue that access=destination (i.e. applying to all traffic modes) is wrong - it isn't on the ground, and (quite probably...) isn't even in the legal books. How should "Local Traffic Only" signs be encoded in the database, given that we want to tag the meaning of the sign, rather than the sign itself? access=local_traffic_only? I'd prefer [something]=destination. Or are you saying we should ignore these signs altogether? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:56 PM, John Smith wrote: > > Motorbike riders are exempt from a number of things cars aren't, ... > So doesn't entirely surprise me. Interesting. So this potentially means all access=destination tags should be changed to motor_vehicle=destination + motorcycle=yes. Would be better to first get confirmation from government on the sign's meaning though... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > > Can you legally ride a bike > through a Local Traffic Only area? The closest I could find, for Queensland is from: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf "97 (1) Road access signs: A driver must not drive on a length of road to which a road access sign applies if information on or with the sign indicates that the driver or the driver's vehicle is not permitted beyond the sign." However, there's no explicit mention or definition of Local Traffic Only signs. Interestingly, the above clause applies to "A driver". This is defined as: "16 Who is a driver: (1) A driver is the person who is driving a vehicle (except a motorbike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle). (2) However, a driver does not include a person pushing a motorised wheelchair." So this would seem to infer that motorbike riders don't have to obey Local Traffic Only signs. Strange (and/or incorrect). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > I would have thought so, because afaik these rules are to reduce > traffic noise. Bicycles not being noisy, I would have thought they > weren't included. Maybe, but it's unclear... Anyone good at chasing down legal definitions of road signs? > ... I'd say "access=destination" is just less specific No, access=* applies to "ALL transport modes" (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access). If this isn't the case in reality, it shouldn't be used, or it should be used in conjunction with foot=*, bicycle=* as appropriate. > It does get messy...partially because the > real world is messy. Say there was a business park with a boom gate > preventing access to unauthorised cars. You might still walk through > it. Or you might not. There's two issues: 1) understanding an ambiguous situation on the ground. In this case, we need to find out who the signs apply to. 2) tagging the situation according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access. In this case, I suspect access=destination is wrong, because I suspect the signs don't apply to pedestrians (and maybe bicycles). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Logically, "access=destination" would apply to all forms of traffic. > So you should tag it "motor_vehicle=destination", right? I don't know. What are you basing that on? Can you legally ride a bike through a Local Traffic Only area? No idea, but I suspect not... The bigger issue is that (I assume) these roads are almost universally tagged with access=destination, which is (it appears) clearly wrong. > Equally logically, a program doing foot routing should probably ignore > "access=destination" anyway. That's pretty arbitrary. Should foot routing also ignore access=private? It gets messy. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] access=destination
For roads with e.g. "Local Traffic Only" or "Through Traffic Keep Right" signs, should these be tagged with: access=destination (as is, I understand, common practice), OR vehicle=destination, OR something else? Apparently (says DavidDean), Gosmore excludes roads tagged with access=destination when doing FOOT routing... Do the above mentioned signs apply to all traffic (access=*) or just to vehicles (vehicle=*)? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Naming bridge on a road
>From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge: "For the name of the bridge itself there are two proposals: bridge_name [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_Name] and one using relations [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels#Tags]"; Take your pick :) On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:01 AM, Craig Feuerherdt wrote: > I know I have seen a thread on this but I can't find it again. > I am wanting to name a bridge on a road. Current keys for the road are; > highway=unclassified > name=River Road > layer=1 > > For the bridge section I have added; > bridge=yes > layer=1 > > How do I capture the bridge name "Noel Tuohen Bridge"? Do I add a > "loc_name=Noel..." to the bridge portion? That doesn't seem right to me > because it is not a local name. > > Thanks, > > Craig > > ___ > 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] Incorrect entry to BP service station
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:59 AM, John Smith wrote: > >> On a related issue re: 2), in the case of multiple businesses >> sharing a building (e.g. a typical AU shopping centre with entrances >> on the outside of the building), is it advisable to place a POI node > > This is micro mapping But it's relevant to anyone who is placing POI's. Where should they be placed - floating inside the building or on the building outline (at the entrance)? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Incorrect entry to BP service station
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:27 AM, John Smith wrote: > > If we're mapping what's on the ground most POIs won't physically be > connected to the road way, servos are an obvious exception. > > If there is a problem with other POIs, where is the problem? > > * OSM's data > * the pre-processor > * the device/software that does routing Good question. I'm not sure. OSM's data should at least include 1) service roads (to decrease the distance between the POI and the nearest road, which should decrease ambiguity), and 2) entrances (to resolve ambiguity in the case of more than one very close roads). On a related issue re: 2), in the case of multiple businesses sharing a building (e.g. a typical AU shopping centre with entrances on the outside of the building), is it advisable to place a POI node *on* the building outline, rather than floating in the middle of the building? This seems sensible to me, as this is equivalent to tagging the location of the sign with the shop's name and/or the location of the entrance to the shop. Another advantage is that if the building is connected to the road grid, or a footway, etc., this may make it easier to route directly to the POI. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Incorrect entry to BP service station
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Sam Couter wrote: > > Trying to drive or route to disconnected nodes is > nonsensical. A question, then: what proportion of OSM POI's are disconnected? Should we be taking steps (in terms of mapping guidelines) to ensure POI nodes and buildings (and anything else likely to be a routing target) are connected to the road grid? Presumably this has come up before - but this question seems to be the key issue here. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping interchanges levels or turn restrictions
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:17 PM, John Smith wrote: > > In this case you have to assume the turn restictions are completely > ignored, which if that is the case is there really any point in > putting them in in the first place to tell stupid things how to do > their jobs better when the programming should be improved? "Improved" how? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Incorrect entry to BP service station
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Richard Colless wrote: > > Has anyone else encountered this situation? Isn't this a problem with the router? I.e. if the target node is *unconnected* to the road network, then routing along the road network in order to arrive at the target node is technically *impossible*, right? So the routing software has to approximate the target node with some other node that *is* connected... and if the router does this approximation sub-optimally, this is a problem with the router, right? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping interchanges levels or turn restrictions
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:57 PM, wrote: > > Would anyone else like to comment? Yes, but as John asked can you point us to the example? Would make it easier to follow... As for "2> The ways cross without a common node but are on different layers. (Although physically using the same pavement where they cross).". This doesn't sound like a good idea. IMHO they should only be on different layers if one way physically crosses over/under the other (i.e. at different "altitudes"). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Default access restrictions
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:25 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2010/1/7 Roy Wallace :
>> No.
>> bicycle=yes means it's legal for bicycles ("The public has an
>> official, legally-enshrined right of access").
>> bicycle=designated means it's designated for bicycles ("The way is a
>> preferred/designated route", "has been specially designated (typically
>> by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of
>> transport") - I usually interpret "designated" as "signed", which is
>> an attractive interpretation because it's verifiable.
>
> To avoid confusion perhaps it should have been bicycle=signed? :)
Maybe. But using designated allows for:
bicycle=designated + source:bicycle=survey, or alternatively
bicycle=designated + source:bicycle=local_council_documentation
(if you know what I mean). I think this is ok.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Default access restrictions
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Stephen Hope wrote:
>
> 2010/1/7 David Murn :
> > On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 10:49 +1000, Stephen Hope wrote:
> > >From a quick skim of the wiki, it seems that 'bicycle=yes' means that
> > bicycles are allowed on the way, where 'bicycle=designated' means the
> > bike has right of way. Bikes have right of way on designated cycle
> > paths, but while theyre allowed on (most) roads, they dont have right of
> > way.
>
> This was my basic understanding as well, which is why I get confused
> when I see people talking about marking paths with stuff like
> bicycle=designated and foot=designated. They can't both have right of
> way.
No.
bicycle=yes means it's legal for bicycles ("The public has an
official, legally-enshrined right of access").
bicycle=designated means it's designated for bicycles ("The way is a
preferred/designated route", "has been specially designated (typically
by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of
transport") - I usually interpret "designated" as "signed", which is
an attractive interpretation because it's verifiable.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Default access restrictions
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > ===Cycleway=== > I would say shared use paths vastly outnumber bike-only paths, so I propose > "bicycle=designated foot=designated". Horse...no? Paths that allow horses, > like rail trails, aren't too rare, but can be catered for easily enough. Shared use paths do outnumber bike-only paths, so your suggestion probably makes sense. HOWEVER, I would strongly prefer that these are tagged as highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated, as it is much more explicit (and this kind of approach avoids the need altogether for http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions). I'm not sure if this suggestion is within the scope of this thread, though. > ===Footway== > Now, bicycles aren't allowed on *footpaths* - ie, the path that runs along > the side of the road. But they're generally allowed on most other paths, > like into or through parks, around sports grounds etc. So I propose > "foot=designated bicycle=yes". I would prefer foot=designated + bicycle=no. If an Australian tags highway=footway, I think it would be reasonably expected that bikes aren't allowed by default. Again, as in the case of cycleway, I would prefer, though, that these are tagged as highway=path + foot=* + bicycle=*, as a NSWelshman might use highway=footway differently to, say, a QLDer. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Mapping progress in Victoria
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Craig Feuerherdt wrote: > > They include all ways, not just vehicular roads. > Essentially the State Government layer also contains some non-vehicular ways > as well, so it is difficult to compare apples with apples. Is the State Government criteria any more specific than "[vehicular ways and] some non-vehicular ways"? It would be useful to put any details you have on that page (providing it's permitted), so that the numbers are actually meaningful. This would also make it easier to compare "apples with apples", by selecting only the matching kinds of ways from OSM. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How to tag winery cellar doors.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > More likely no use cases: can you really imagine driving along and thinking > "you know, I really need a place that manufactures large copper pipes right > now". Or "take me to the nearest steelworks!" OSM isn't just about routing for drivers. Capture the world in a database, and the use cases will follow. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping progress in Victoria
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Craig Feuerherdt wrote: > I have created a table summarising the length of roads by postcode. The > table compares the State Government data with OSM data (from cloudmade). This is great. May I ask where it is? (I thought you may have added it to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Victoria,_Australia) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victorian routes
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:22 AM, John Smith wrote: > > The reason I ask is someone mentioned the info was from an internal > document... No, the Vic stuff is from the web. > Maybe it's wrong of me to assume that most of the major ways in > Brisbane would have been done to death I personally wouldn't assume that. Anyway, the Main Roads map covers all of QLD. > Not sure that CSV would be the best format for this kind of thing, > considering how complex the information could be. Really? Creating a table of routes is easiest from CSV... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Relations, road names and numbers
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > ... I think it would probably be a > good thing if renderers distinguished as little as possible between > properties on ways and properties on relations. +1. Tagging the way should override the tag on the relation, where applicable (which should address James' concern). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How to tag winery cellar doors.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > ... Maybe propose tourism=winery somewhere. And > tourism=brewery while at it. And if you think these new tags describe the feature well, propose them AND just start using them as well as the established tags. Maybe tourism=attraction + attraction=winery? (you could add attraction=winery to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:attraction) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victorian routes
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:56 PM, John Smith wrote: > > Any idea if/how/where to get this info for other states? For QLD, a quick search suggests perhaps these sites, as a start: http://www.mainroads.qld.gov.au/en/Driving-in-Queensland.aspx (includes "Guide to Queensland Roads" and "Points of interest files") http://www.qldmotorways.com.au/ontheroad/ournetwork/maps.aspx (links to maps of Brisbane motorways with labelled on/offramps, and a map of the "Australian Toll Road Network") Note: A quick search didn't turn up nice csv files (but they may be in there somewhere), and I'm not sure about licensing. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cul-de-sac
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: >> >> IMHO they justify an extra way, as there is clearly a physical >> separation and two separate areas of bitumen. (Go ahead and add a >> "whole extra" node + way - HDD storage is cheap! :P) > > HDD storage is the least of my considerations in questions like this. I > think it's a valid question where to draw the line between a road and a > driveway etc. Well, if there's a physical road sitting there, add a way. As for what value of highway=* to use, that's a little fuzzier sometimes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victorian routes
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Craig Feuerherdt wrote: > Happy New Year OSMers! > Have created a page listing all the Victorian routes (M, A, B & C roads) - > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Victoria%2C_Australia/Routes. Woah this is a great idea. Have you checked it's legally ok that the list was derived from "VicRoads Drivers Guide and Main Roads Victoria"? If so, and if the necessary further sources exist, it would be great to extend this to the other states. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Invisible POI's
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM, John Smith wrote: > > Speed cameras are a bit of a mess tagging wise, some add a node others > add a relation, but I don't think any method renders on OSM... > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Speed_trap > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:enforcement > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Traffic_enforcement > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_Signs > > etc... For the record, being "a bit of a mess tagging wise" is not true. This relation (approved) should be used: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement > The other very useful thing is to tag maxspeed=* limits, although I > noticed a couple of speed_camera tags tagged with the speed limit > also... This is incorporated in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cul-de-sac
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> On inspection, these blobs are labelled 'turning circle'... which >> seems a bit at the extreme end of the definition in these cases. highway=turning_circle is right. Can be useful especially for those in large cars/small trucks, to know that they can easily get back out of the dead-end street.. > One pattern I'm seeing a lot of is a kind of Y or T shape at the end of the > street, where each end of the Y provides room for maybe one car to park in > front of a house. I'm mostly sort of ignoring them, not sure if they justify > a whole extra way or not. A node tag would be nice, but I don't know what to > call it. IMHO they justify an extra way, as there is clearly a physical separation and two separate areas of bitumen. (Go ahead and add a "whole extra" node + way - HDD storage is cheap! :P) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping road closures...
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Jim Croft wrote: > think it might have to be derived, e.g. > http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/vb-date2.htm#Month > http://code.google.com/p/datejs/ That's a shame. But iso 8601 is probably still a good starting point. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping road closures...
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM, John Smith wrote: > > The only problem with this scheme is you can't do, first sunday of the > month for example. Surely someone in some field has already come across this problem before - i.e. surely someone's already developed a formal language for specification of time/date info? Don't have time to search right now, but if it has been done it would be good to not reinvent the wheel... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] MapOSMatic will now do any where...
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Can't help but wonder > if Australian cities will ever have that level of detail... Hell yeah they will. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Alcohol Free Zones
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Craig Feuerherdt wrote: > I know Bendigo has an 'alcohol free zone' which would be useful to capture. > Initial thoughts are that it is best represented as a relation, made up of > the ways (roads etc) that form the outer boundary. "Relations are basically groups of objects in which each object may take on a specific role" (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations) Isn't an 'alcohol free zone' conceptually just an area? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap PhotoMap imagery for OSM
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:44 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/29 Roy Wallace : >> Actually, in addition to this, it would be great if you could allow >> the date to be specified in the path, i.e. allow us to make requests >> in the form of http://www.nearmap.com/maps.jpg >> (where is the date) > > Doesn't need to be part of the path, just part of the URL, eg: > > http://www.nearmap.com/maps/z/x/y.jpg?nmd=mmdd But John, it has to precede the last "/" to work as a slippymap.custom_tile_source_1, right? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap PhotoMap imagery for OSM
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Ben Last wrote: >> >>> Ok, I tried this myself and it doesn't work, seemingly because the >>> slippymap plugin attempts to fetch tiles from /*/*/*.jpg, rather >>> than &z=&x=&y=&nml=Vert. >> >> What is the URL format? If it's possible to change the hostname so that it >> points at our servers, and to set at least the first part of the path, I >> could see whether we can implement a custom URL parser for it (like we have >> for Potlatch). > > This is (it seems) detailed here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slippy_map_tilenames > > In short, as described on that page: "Filename(url) format is > /zoom/x/y.png", where "each zoom level is a directory, each column is > a subdirectory, and each tile in that column is a file." Actually, in addition to this, it would be great if you could allow the date to be specified in the path, i.e. allow us to make requests in the form of http://www.nearmap.com/maps.jpg (where is the date) The following related example of an "apache mod_rewrite instance" is from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nearmap#SlippyMap_Plugin_.28Method_2.2C_Using_hosted_URL_rewriting.29: # Allows JOSM slippymap to browse the NearMap Aerial coverage 20091015 RewriteRule nearmap.aerial.slippymap.20091015/(.+)/(.+)/(.+).jpg http://www.nearmap.com/maps/nmd=20091015&nml=Vert&x=$2&y=$3&z=$1 [L,R=permanent] ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap PhotoMap imagery for OSM
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Ben Last wrote: > >> Ok, I tried this myself and it doesn't work, seemingly because the >> slippymap plugin attempts to fetch tiles from /*/*/*.jpg, rather >> than &z=&x=&y=&nml=Vert. > > What is the URL format? If it's possible to change the hostname so that it > points at our servers, and to set at least the first part of the path, I > could see whether we can implement a custom URL parser for it (like we have > for Potlatch). This is (it seems) detailed here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slippy_map_tilenames In short, as described on that page: "Filename(url) format is /zoom/x/y.png", where "each zoom level is a directory, each column is a subdirectory, and each tile in that column is a file." Thanks! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wrong way round the roundabout
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> My 2 cents: anything that is less important than tertiary is: >> >> 1) if it is a named/public road: >> * residential if lined primarily with people's homes and used >> primarily by people accessing those homes >> * unclassified otherwise >> 2) service otherwise (unnamed or restricted access) > > What about service roads? They're lined with houses, and used primarily by > people accessing those homes. Surely highway=service. That depends what you mean by "service road". Following the scheme given by 1) and 2) above: If it's named/public, highway=residential. Otherwise, highway=service. > Also, what about weird dinky little strets you sometimes get in suburbia that > are paved with red bricks or something equally creative, but are also the > primary means of access to houses? Residential or service? Again, if named/public, highway=residential, otherwise highway=service. That's what I do, anyway. If not fantastic, at least it's simple. But this is now off-topic. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wrong way round the roundabout
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > highway=unclassified is a truly awful tag. I believe it made sense in the > UK, where that's an actual category of road, but it's very hard to apply > here, and it's really not clear what the difference between unclassified, > residential, and service is. I see people using unclassified for roads > within business parks, factories, airports etc but I don't think it's right. My 2 cents: anything that is less important than tertiary is: 1) if it is a named/public road: * residential if lined primarily with people's homes and used primarily by people accessing those homes * unclassified otherwise 2) service otherwise (unnamed or restricted access) When I say "named/public" I mean it has a normal street sign and is accessible to the general public. I'm not suggesting this is a nice tagging scheme, but it's what I use, and at least it isn't "very hard to apply" here, IMHO. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] amenity=parking in the middle of a field?
Anyone know what the deal is with this?: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/316607432 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap PhotoMap imagery for OSM
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM, John Smith wrote: >> >> The problem I'm really trying to solve is with the slippymap plugin, >> because it is compiled and the URL isn't easily setable/changeable by >> a user, there is no options to tweak the URL in the plugin >> interface/settings > > This isn't "easy", but you could try...going to the "Advanced > Settings" tab, and add a "slippymap.custom_tile_source_1" as described > at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/JOSM/Plugins/SlippyMap > > (note I haven't tested this myself) Ok, I tried this myself and it doesn't work, seemingly because the slippymap plugin attempts to fetch tiles from /*/*/*.jpg, rather than &z=&x=&y=&nml=Vert. Something like that. This problem seems to be the motivation for Morb_au's "hosted Apache mod_rewrite instance" (details: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nearmap#JOSM) This is still a bit yuck. Anyone made any progress? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/23 Roy Wallace : >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote: >>>> After that it might be wise to figure out some strategy to monitor >>>> changes to admin boundaries to limit the effect of mistakes in future. >>> >>> Easy fix. >>> >>> Don't join other ways to them. >> >> I don't get it. If I join another way to a boundary, you're saying the >> boundary disappears? What's going on? > > No, people are merging boundaries together breaking relations that > have grouped them. Could you give a detailed example? It's still not entirely clear to me. I'm only asking so that I don't accidentally do it myself. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote: >> After that it might be wise to figure out some strategy to monitor >> changes to admin boundaries to limit the effect of mistakes in future. > > Easy fix. > > Don't join other ways to them. I don't get it. If I join another way to a boundary, you're saying the boundary disappears? What's going on? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging fuel locations
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 3:43 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> I would still suggest atm=yes. The "amenity:" is redundant. > > And the other amenity:*=* tags? Not sure. My general thoughts, though, are: 1) Obviously, use what's already documented/in use where possible - e.g. atm=yes is established, so use it instead of amenity:atm=yes 2) If it can only reasonably be interpreted as an amenity, I don't think you need to use an "amenity:" prefix - it's redundant, right? Is there any consensus on how to tag when you want to tag X=Y + X=Z? Is using X:Y=yes + X:Z=yes best-practice, or just Y=yes + Z=yes? Maybe this is worth starting a new thread on... 3) Regardless though, as I said, make sure "it's documented and the tags are explicit in their meaning" - then you can't go wrong Sorry I don't have time right now to do a bunch of wiki searching to give you more specific answers. Maybe let me know if there's any particular tags you're not sure about? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging fuel locations
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:43 AM, John Smith > wrote: >> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:atm=yes >>> >>> this was Roy's point >>> amenity:atm=yes is not consistent with the page I just mentioned >> >> I didn't bother to check the wiki before doing this, but at the same >> time there was a number of other amenity things and I was trying to >> group them together essentially. >> >> If people think this should be changed I can do it fairly trivially. > > I would still suggest atm=yes. The "amenity:" is redundant. And on a slightly different issue, what source=* values are you planning on? For example, will source:atm=* be set also? It would be bad for someone to remove the fixme=not_reviewed without "reviewing" ALL details imported, including, for example, atm=yes... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging fuel locations
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:43 AM, John Smith wrote: > >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:atm=yes >> >> this was Roy's point >> amenity:atm=yes is not consistent with the page I just mentioned > > I didn't bother to check the wiki before doing this, but at the same > time there was a number of other amenity things and I was trying to > group them together essentially. > > If people think this should be changed I can do it fairly trivially. I would still suggest atm=yes. The "amenity:" is redundant. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging fuel locations
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> Specifically, though, I'm wondering why use amenity:atm=yes rather >> than atm=yes? Is there ever some "atm" that isn't an amenity? > > It's for when there are several amenities sharing one node. Not that any > renderers/editors actually support this notion, but there's not much choice. I don't understand. Why use amenity:atm=yes rather than atm=yes? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Victorian police locations...
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:46 AM, John Smith wrote: > > Feel free, but these locations are all tagged with fixme=not_reviewed > and show up in things like keepright etc, and as I said before I even > made a custom page for the bp locations to make it simpler again. IMHO it would still be useful to create a wiki page to make a record of these imports, and importantly, direct people to instructions for using "keepright etc", direct people to the e.g. BP custom page, and direct people to instructions to get the "Edit in JOSM" etc links working. (unless it's just me who doesn't know how to do this - but I doubt it...) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging fuel locations
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:42 PM, John Smith wrote: > I've just update a matilda location with information from their > website (types of fuel sold etc). > > Any way, they list services on their station locations like hot food, > groceries, dry cleaning etc: > > http://www.matildafuel.com.au/stationfeatures.asp > > This is on top of the amenity:*=* tags I used for BP locations, > amenity:atm=yes etc. > > I think it would be wise to add some documentation about these tags to > the wiki and I'm planning to do so, but I'm posting this to get some > thoughts from others before I spend a bunch of time only to re-do it > because someone had a better idea on how to tag service stations. As long as it's documented and the tags are explicit in their meaning (i.e. the meaning is directly inferable from the tags), it's easy to change later - i.e. I'd go ahead and do it :) This is assuming of course that the wiki hasn't already got other instructions on how to do it. Specifically, though, I'm wondering why use amenity:atm=yes rather than atm=yes? Is there ever some "atm" that isn't an amenity? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
