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

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Please don’t use Strava as your reference as to whether access is permitted on 
a specific way as a lot of people do the wrong thing. 




> On 23 Apr 2024, at 4:25 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Quoting Ben Ritter :
> 
> ...
>> *Which publications are distributing maps of the areas in question that are
>> encouraging use of paths tagged with `access=no`?* I am interested in
>> collecting any and all examples.
> 
> Hi Ben
> Strava seems to be not respecting private.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413772229
> Edited 5 months ago by DM9
> 
> It is private but shows the same colour as public use tracks. I expect the 
> private tag is correct because its not national park between Lanes and Ryans 
> Rd and there are no open gates. I expect its private land belonging to Lanes.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

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

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Use Strava heat maps with caution as they are a record of where people have ridden but doesn’t reflect the correct permissions of a way. regards,Sebastian On 27 Feb 2023, at 9:09 am, Adam Horan  wrote:According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strava and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions/Strava there is permission to trace from the Strava heatmap.(Which is fair enough given the extensive use they make of OSM maps for display and routing)AdamOn Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 08:42, Michael Collinson  wrote:
  

  
  
I use Strava heatmaps only as a "referential" source, i.e. seeing
  potentially missing or badly misaligned paths and then taking a
  walk that way. In addition to other comments about using them
  directly, I'd also wonder whether Strava copyright allows it but
  have not explicitly analysed.
In Sweden, I have found them a great referential source, but then
  we have "all man's right" and off-path walking is not generally an
  issue so there are many useful informal paths.
Mike

On 2023-02-26 22:10, Adam Horan wrote:


  
  

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

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



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


Adam




  

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

Do
  people have a view on the armchair mapping of tracks from
  Strava 
  heatmaps?
  
  I can see a bunch of tracks in Kanangra-Boyd NP that have been
  mapped by 
  an overseas mapper off Strava heatmap.
  
  They almost certainly don't exist on the ground. They are
  known 
  bushwalking routes (off track), but would be very unlikely to
  have a 
  track even in good times, let along after the fires and 3
  years of La Nina!
  
  Example:
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376
  
  cheers
  Tom
  
  Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
  Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
  
  ___
  Talk-au mailing list
  Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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


  

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

___Talk-au mailing listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

The example below under 3b is misleading, as the location or proximity to 
residential properties or freeway/arterial road has no bearing on the allowed 
permissions of that way. Assume NSW is similar in their approach and relies on 
sign posts being present to confirm permissions.

If you track a little further west along that street level imagery where it 
crosses Chapel Rd you will notice it is actually signed posted as being a 
shared way. 
There is explicit signage that is required to indicate that cyclist are 
permitted. 

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.997275&lng=145.1624139&z=16.86798684701922&pKey=1933421956805153&x=0.47345176124885663&y=0.627570043705694&zoom=0&focus=photo
 


I’ve seen motorbikes and council vehicles drive how that path, does that mean 
that both motor bikes and cars are permitted ?


I think the question should be reversed as to why you believe cyclists are 
permitted to use a way in the absence to signage as stated under the law.

For the purposes of this conversation I think that bicycle=“undefined/not 
specified” is a better option that bicycle=no where no signage is present as 
suggested by Graeme. Thoughts ?


regards,

Sebastian



> On 8 Oct 2022, at 6:08 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> Hi Sebastian Azagra,
> 
> Thank you for joining in the discussions. Michael Collinson wrote "I continue 
> to welcome him (Sebastian) in our OSM community". I second that. Though I 
> have some problems with your bicycle edits, I am very appreciative of the 
> hard work you do to support OSM.
> 
> I have feedback from Ewen Hill, Michael Collinson, Graeme Fitzpatrick, Ian 
> Steer and Warin which appear to support my position. Only Ben Kelley might 
> support Sebastian's position, he writes "In NSW by default it is not allowed 
> (unless signpost as a shared path). I assume Victoria is the same".
> 
> Ben, I would like to ask you some additional questions to tease out your 
> opinions. You are more familiar with NSW law, I am happy for you to assume 
> Victorian and NSW law to be the same for the purposes of this discussion.
> 
> 1) Was Sebastian justified in removing bicycle=yes from way 1008258040 ?
> 2) Are no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted sufficient evidence 
> that bicycles are disallowed?
> 3) For the following 3 examples assume there is no signage, would addition of 
> bicycle=no or deletion of bicycle=yes be justified?
> 
> 3a) A typical footpath in the sidewalk sense:
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.89676470&lng=145.28943507&z=17&pKey=428476962255750&focus=photo
> 
> 3b) A path with almost no access to residental properties, parallel with a 
> freeway or arterial road:
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.9975583299&lng=145.1662444005&z=17&pKey=469416987632807&focus=photo
> 
> 3c) A path not associated with a road:
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.924151150055&lng=145.32763449&z=17&pKey=494613405004623&focus=photo
> 
> Thanks
> Tony
> 
> 

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Ian

I see what you are are saying but it does not appear that you are reading the 
law as it is written as people under the age of 13 are an exception to the 
rule. 

The law essentially says you cannot ride on a footpath etc, expect if you are 
under the age of 13. 
Noting that this law of exclusion applies to the majority of the population and 
only a small minority are granted permissions under a specific exemption. 

On that basis as the majority are excluded from using it any default tagging 
should follow bicycle=no



regards,

Sebastian 

> On 8 Oct 2022, at 12:54 pm, Ian Steer  wrote:
> 
> I see that cyclists up to the age of 13 are permitted on footpaths in
> Victoria, so technically, "bicycle=yes" is true, but to be pedantic, some
> age restriction should be added.  I would have thought the default position
> should be that bicycles are permitted.
> 
> My guess is that the other user does not ride a bike and does not like
> bicycles sharing his/her path, and is on a bit of a crusade and no reasoning
> or logic will be adequate to stop their mapping activities.
> 
> Ian
> 
>> Hi
>> I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared paths
> to
>> footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted" in
> Victoria
>> Australia.
>> 
>> Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be
> serious
>> consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this case for my
>> Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said nothing.
>> 
>> I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where
>> bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were
>> "no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"
>> 
>> There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the sidewalk
> sense.
>> It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I request a clear
>> community consensus again on whether "no signs present to indicated bikes
>> are permitted" is of itself  sufficient evidence that bicycles are
> disallowed.
>> 
>> Sorry to bother you all
>> Tony
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Mike

I generally agree with your logic expect that for your second point the 
Victorian law Barrs riding on footpaths and the like unless it specifically 
signed. In which case the any footpath, path etc would have bicycle=no unless 
specific signage is present to indicate that cycling is permitted. 

I think the query needed to be phrased specifically around victorian rules and 
regulations. 

On your third point, mapping needs to consider what is the “lawful” permission 
of the way. Just because you could use a way via a specific mode of transport 
does not mean it is lawful e.g riding a bike or drive a tractor on a motorway/ 
freeway. 

regards,

Sebastian 

> On 8 Oct 2022, at 1:33 am, Michael Collinson  wrote:
> 
> I suggest a good consensus basically following the rest of the world would 
> be:
> 
> 1) If a path is clearly marked for use by bicycles then use 
> bicycle=designated.  I.e.  "there ARE signs present to indicate bikes are 
> expressily permitted".
> 
> 2) If a path has no signage barring cycling and no clear law or bylaw 
> preventing it, such as for unsigned sidewalks in most (all?) Australian 
> states and it is practical to use by bicycle, then use bicycle=yes. In the 
> real world we cannot expect every legal usage of everything to be explicitly 
> signed, it does not make sense.
> 
> BTW, the way mentioned is a grass strip used mainly for pedestrian access. It 
> was tagged by me and I use it regularly by bicycle when working in that area. 
> There is no earthly reason for removing. I think the user is  basically 
> mixing "yes" and "designated". I should also add that other types of edits by 
> him are completely in order and I continue to welcome him in our OSM 
> community.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>> On 2022-10-07 11:22, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>> Hi
>> I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared paths 
>> to footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted" in 
>> Victoria Australia.
>> 
>> Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be serious 
>> consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this case for my 
>> Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said nothing.
>> 
>> I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where bicycle=yes 
>> by the previous editor has been removed because there were "no signs present 
>> to indicated bikes are permitted"
>> 
>> There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the sidewalk 
>> sense. It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I request a clear 
>> community consensus again on whether "no signs present to indicated bikes 
>> are permitted" is of itself sufficient evidence that bicycles are disallowed.
>> 
>> Sorry to bother you all
>> Tony
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Using the tag the tag highway = cycleway indicates that the route is designated 
for bicycles only. 
In Victoria, this is hardly the case as most paths are generally signed as 
shared paths. I’ve yet to come across a dedicated cycle path during my riding. 

regards,

Sebastian 

> On 17 May 2022, at 6:15 pm, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> 
> On 16/5/22 23:38, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:
> 
>>> Can I please clarify "using highway=cycleway should only be used where 
>>> there are signs allowing"?
>> That is how I've always used it in urban areas.
> 
> This would only apply in NSW/VIC. In other jurisdictions putting up signs has 
> become pointless because you can ride anywhere. In Canberra almost none of 
> the shared path system has explicit signage. I use cycleway to tag "primary" 
> routes and footway for "secondary" routes.
> 
> So this would be a cycleway:
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Bike_path_in_Dickson%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg/576px-Bike_path_in_Dickson%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg
> 
> and this is a footway:
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Footpath_in_Hackett%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg/576px-Footpath_in_Hackett%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria Was: Re: HighRouleur edits

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Thanks Andrew. It does appear we are both looking at the same thing through 
different lenses. 

The re-tagging of ways I have been undertaking aligns with the Australian 
Tagging guidelines, hence I’m not exactly clear on the objection as the 
guidelines say that highway=footway should generally be used,  which i agree 
with as it is the correct legal interpretation. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines



Trying to get a consensus on something that is wrong does not make it fact or 
legal. 
Hypothetically, if we all agreed that we could tag one-way roads as 
bi-directional it does not change the permission status of the road. 

I visited a friend across town this passed weekend and came across numerous 
instances where footpaths were tagged as shared paths without any signs or line 
marking. I made comments on the previous change set and the Mapper had agreed 
that the paths should be reverted to footway. 

There seems to be varied use of shared paths and footways across the 
metropolitan melbourne which is all over the place and really needs to be 
looked at and corrected. 


regards,

Sebastian 

> On 7 Apr 2022, at 5:21 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> I should have done this for my last message, but let's not and make this 
> directed against any particular mapper, I've updated the thread subject 
> accordingly.
> 
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 17:14, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>> Hi Tony and Sebastian,
>> 
>> There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care deeply 
>> about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best intentions to 
>> make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible. You're both engaging in 
>> discussion of the actual changes so to me everything I see is happening in 
>> good faith. From a DWG perspective it doesn't appear there is any malice 
>> here.
>> 
>> Though there is clearly some disagreement about how certain things should be 
>> mapped even when you both have a common agreement of what's on the ground.
>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions provides 
>> some useful definitions of bicycle access tags, personally in my view we 
>> should be using
>> bicycle=designated where clearly signposted for bicycles weather that is by 
>> paint or signage
>> bicycle=no where there is clear no bicycles signage
>> 
>> In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671174716 it does appear to 
>> me to be ambiguous, so perhaps the best is exactly how it's currently mapped 
>> without a bicycle tag at all? That said, if there is a signposted bicycle 
>> route which takes you through that way I think that should be enough to give 
>> it implied bicycle access, therefore bicycle=yes.
>> 
>> Is there a wider community view about this?
>> 
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 16:20,  wrote:
>>> Hi Sebastian
>>> 
>>> Thanks for participating in this discussion.
>>> 
>>> You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly  
>>> permitted without signage".
>>> 
>>> This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step  
>>> with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly  
>>> permitted without signage.
>>> 
>>> I believe that your retagging, just on the absence of signage is  
>>> unjustified. The DWG position is that the result could be right or  
>>> wrong because of other indications which one would need a site  
>>> inspection to find.
>>> 
>>> You say "Your approach doesn't  follow the on the ground rule, as you  
>>> insist on disputing map updates that are based what's on the ground or  
>>> lack there of. Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no  
>>> signage and SHOULD come to the same conclusion".
>>> 
>>> Again, we disagree and I believe my position is the consensus view, if  
>>> there is no signage other mappers might come to the same conclusion or  
>>> to the opposite.
>>> I disagree with your reasoning. I think it is a misinterpretation of  
>>> what is on the ground, that doesn't mean that my approach doesn't  
>>> follow the on the ground rule.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Tony
>>> 
>>> > Tony
>>> >
>>> > I don?t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to   
>>> > verify other edits.
>>> >
>>> > OSM data relies on being verifiable.
>>> > You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a   
>>> > correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary   
>>> > data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive   
>>> > evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of   
>>> > signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren?t explicitly   
>>> > permitted without signage.
>>> > Your approach doesn?t  follow the on the ground rule, as you insist   
>>> > on disputing map updates  that are based what?s on the ground or   
>>> > lack there of.
>>> > Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and   
>>> > SHOULD come to the you f same conclusion.
>>> >
>>> > It not

Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Tony

I don’t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to verify other 
edits. 

OSM data relies on being verifiable. 
You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a correction to 
incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary data you provided as part 
of the visit did not provide conclusive evidence that the way is a cycle/shared 
path due to a lack of signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren’t 
explicitly permitted without signage. 
Your approach doesn’t  follow the on the ground rule, as you insist on 
disputing map updates  that are based what’s on the ground or lack there of. 
Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and SHOULD come 
to the you f same conclusion. 

It not clear why existing data in OSM hasn’t be verified for accuracy? 
When I’m out riding I use it an opportunity to check and verify data. There are 
a lot of footways with bicycle=yes and/or ways assigned as sharedpaths however 
upon visiting the area it is apparent that bike are not permitted. 




regards,

Sebastian 

> On 6 Apr 2022, at 10:29 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> Hi Sebastian and list
> 
> I went out to Changeset: 118627943 and took photos. It is my belief that a 
> short section of bike route through park should be cycleway. Sebastian 
> disagrees, his changeset comment follows.
> 
> Comment from HighRouleur about 5 hours ago
> From the Mapillary info provided, there doesn’t appear to be any signage 
> permitting bicycles on said road.
> Given it forms part of a designated bike route perhaps bicycle = dismount 
> might be the most appropriate.
> 
> Sebastian was previously blocked by the DWG with an estimated 14,731 bicycle 
> paths changed to bicycle=no  in 636 changesets. He no longer adds bicycle=no 
> but still changes paths to footways.
> 
> Sebastian continues to change shared paths and cycleways to footpaths and 
> removes bicycle=yes solely on the basis of there not being explicit signage 
> that bicycles are allowed. He has done 9 such edits in the last 4 days.
> 
> The DWG declines to act on the logic that without a site visit to check, the 
> path might or might not be better described as a footway. I do not have the 
> time to individually visit each of Sebastian's edits. I have had enough.
> 
> So mapping community, its your choice, do nothing and Sebastian will continue 
> to change cycleways and shared paths into footways OR let Sebastian and the 
> DWG know that this retagging is not acceptable to the community. Please let 
> them both know in clear and unambiguous terms what you think, don't expect 
> others to speak for you.
> 
> Thanks
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> Sun, 27 Mar 2022 Quoting fors...@ozonline.com.au:
> 
>> Hi Sebastian and list,
>> 
>> 2) are cycle routes cycleways or footways, specifically Changeset: 118627943
>> 
>> I have provided a link to my photos and labeled the main ones at
>> Changeset: 118627943
>> 
>> I believe that way 671174716 should be split in 2, the eastern part
>> appears to be the footpath, there is only one side with a footpath, the
>> bicycle route is intended for the road, St Andrews Ct, not the footpath
>> 
>> The west section through the parkland is a cycleway, photos 22 and 23
>> show a bicycle route with green circle below. Its unclear what used to
>> be in the circle before it faded.
>> 
>> Photo 21 end of McKay shows no signage. I looked.
>> 
>> 18 and 19 are a bit confusing, they show a route coming out of Tricks Reserve
>> 
>> 18 partly obscured shows a route east along McKay
>> 51 shows this sign more clearly
>> 
>> Tony

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

Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

In using the tag access=permissive, how does one verify that access has not 
been revoked by the owner?
In one of the changesets in question, the site clearly private property (as it 
is a retirement village)
I would have thought that access=private would have been a better tag to use in 
lieu of destination. 




regards,

Sebastian 

> On 21 Mar 2022, at 1:44 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22,  wrote:
>> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit  
>> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the  
>> access=destination tag.
>> 
>> Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not 
>> conform?
> 
> See also 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only
>  and the linked discussion thread.
> 
> Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the local 
> knowledge. Private property open to the public is more "access=permissive". 
> access=destination really should only be for something signed as not allowing 
> through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset comment to invite them here 
> to discuss further, if you don't hear back then I think it's reasonable to 
> revert.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Thanks Steve,

This is the error I get from Finder. I’m running the latest BigSur MacOSX.

 



regards,

Sebastian



> On 13 Oct 2021, at 1:39 pm, stevea  wrote:
> 
> Sebastian, I'd be willing to help you off-list get your (alas, Intel-based 
> only) macOS running JOSM.  It starts with downloading a JRE (Java Runtime 
> Environment) from here:
> 
> https://java.com/en/download/apple.jsp
> 
> After success with that, please send me an email and we can go from there 
> (California and Australian time zone differences notwithstanding!)  It's not 
> that difficult at all.
> 
> Steve
> 
>> On Oct 12, 2021, at 7:09 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Sebastian wants to assist with correction of his tagging errors, I 
>> recommended the JOSM reverter plugin. However at 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 he writes: "I tried to 
>> install JOSM but it’s not signed for the latest Mac OSX so won’t let me 
>> install it"
>> 
>> Can a Mac user please assist him?
>> 
>> Tony
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

I was referring to working within OSM and seeing brown dotted vs blue dotted 
lines for a path. 
If you see a blue shared paths in OSM then you know that that bikes are allowed 
by default , however if a footpath allows bicycles then you would need to see 
the tags associated with it to know the permissions. 
Hope that makes sense. 


> On 5 Oct 2021, at 2:37 pm, Adam Horan  wrote:
> 
> 
> Ah well I don't see much difference between =yes and =designated, but to 
> others there's a clear difference. 😊
> Given the other responses it seems that =designated is the preference for 
> shared paths.
> 
> As for "Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review 
> the tags for permissions. "
> This is 'tagging for the renderer' which is discouraged. As mappers our aim 
> is to accurately map what's on the ground using legitimate sources of data, 
> and following agreed OSM conventions as much as possible. 
> 
> Getting the right coloured dashed or dotted line on the map is someone else's 
> problem.
> People produce special purpose maps with this in mind eg.
> 
> OSM default: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193
> CycleOSM:   
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=Y (Bicycle 
> routes emphasised)
> Cycle Map:   
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=C  (Bicycle 
> routes emphasised)
> Transport Map: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-38.07459/145.12193&layers=T (Public 
> transport emphasised)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:26, Sebastian Azagra Flores  wrote:
>> Hi Adam
>> 
>> Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria. 
>> 
>> My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used 
>> signed as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?
>> 
>> In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags 
>> highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below
>> or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?
>> 
>> Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the 
>> tags for permissions. 
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> Sebastian 
>> 
 On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> Hi Kim,
>>> highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
>>> footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
>>> highway=footway.
>>> bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're 
>>> discussing here.
>>> 
>>> I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
>>> highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a 
>>> sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no
>>> 
>>> Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
>>> either
>>> highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
>>> or
>>> highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this 
>>> one, but it's a mild preference)
>>> 
>>> This is mostly with a VIC perspective.
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
 On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
  wrote:
 Hi Andrew and list,
 
 How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, 
 or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any 
 consensus we reach on this list?
 
 We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
 duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per 
 Andrew's email below).
 
 We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for 
 various highway= values at 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
  and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." 
 Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
 
 highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
 highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about 
 bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
 highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up 
 by state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In 
 Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the 
 other states?
 These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations 
 with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
 
 On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, 
> Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal 
> footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can 
> still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed 
> out cases where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but 
> Mapillary shows bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've 
> actually surveyed in person and 

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Hi Adam

Interesting to see your thoughts below in relation to Victoria. 

My point all along has been bikes are not permitted on footy paths used signed 
as allowed or should it be a shared path instead?

In which case is there a preference in using footpath with the tags 
highway=footway  + bicycles=yes as you have indicated below
or a should be be shared path where bikes=designated ?

Visually it’s much easier to see a shared path rather than to review the tags 
for permissions. 

regards,

Sebastian 

> On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:28 am, Adam Horan  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Kim,
> highway = pedestrian is for pedestrianised roads/areas rather then 
> footpaths/sidewalks/pavements for those I think the current tag is 
> highway=footway.
> bridleway isn't in use in Australia much for the path types we're discussing 
> here.
> 
> I'd prefer a normal footpath to be
> highway=footway - and no additional bicycle= or foot= tag, unless there's a 
> sign specifically barring cycling in which case bicycle=no
> 
> Shared paths (the most common ones after a walking only path)
> either
> highway=footway + bicycle=yes (I prefer this one)
> or
> highway=cycleway and a foot=yes tag to make it clear (I don't prefer this 
> one, but it's a mild preference)
> 
> This is mostly with a VIC perspective.
> 
> Adam
> 
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
>>  wrote:
>> Hi Andrew and list,
>> 
>> How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, or 
>> does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any consensus 
>> we reach on this list?
>> 
>> We should document in the wiki when to add bicycle= and foot= tags which 
>> duplicate the default values for highway=footway/cycleway? (As per Andrew's 
>> email below).
>> 
>> We should also decide on, and document the default access rules for various 
>> highway= values at 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
>>  and remove the "Not endorsed by the Australian OSM community (yet)." 
>> Currently these are mostly the same as "Wordwide", except:
>> 
>> highway=pedestrian - bicycle=yes. Sounds reasonable.
>> highway=bridleway - bicycle=yes, foot=yes. I don't know enough about 
>> bridleways in Australia to have an opinion on this.
>> highway=footway - currently bicycle=yes. This I think should be broken up by 
>> state to reflect the state laws for adults riding on the footway. In 
>> Victoria and NSW:  bicycle=no. Is Queensland bicycle=yes? What about the 
>> other states?
>> These decisions should be replicated in the Australia or state relations 
>> with def:... tags so they can be found and used by routing engines.
>> 
>> On 4/10/21 10:14 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>> With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim 
>>> all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath 
>>> (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be 
>>> tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases 
>>> where Sebastian / HighRouleur has added bicycle=no but Mapillary shows 
>>> bicycle markings. Sebastian, unless all of this you've actually surveyed in 
>>> person and confirmed that the situation has change recently (happy to be 
>>> proven if this is the case, though I think it unlikely) then we should 
>>> proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the 
>>> community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors.
>>> 
>>> Sebastian, thanks for joining our mailing list and engaging with this 
>>> discussion, but due to the consensus indicated here would you be willing to 
>>> work through and revert these changes you've made?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Hi Philip,

Tagging footpaths with bicycle=blank/unspecified would work as the OSM default 
doesn’t allow bicycles and this fixes the issue of routing software thinking 
that bicycles are permitted. 

The question is when is a foothpath with bicycles=yes considered a shared path?
Should a shared paths be used over footpath=yes ?



> On 4 Oct 2021, at 3:54 pm, Philip Mallis  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> (not sure why my previous message didn’t come through).
>  
> I’m a mapper and a transport planner who deals a lot with this issue in my 
> work.
>  
> To clarify, VicPol are not the authority on what is or isn’t permitted on a 
> path. What is signed ‘on the ground’ and in the legislation (Victorian Road 
> Rules and Road Management Act) is what counts. Moreover, there are small 
> legal complexities as to what is or isn’t legally considered a ‘bicycle lane’ 
> or ‘shared user path’ that goes into detail beyond OSM mapping (e.g. the 
> placement and types of signs, linemarking types, etc.).
>  
> A blanket ‘bicycle=no’ tag on footpaths by default would not work for many of 
> the reasons already stated in this discussion. For one, there are several 
> exceptions to this rule as already outlined by others.
>  
> Moreover, it is often not immediately obvious that a ‘footpath’ is a 
> designated shared user or bicycle only path – especially from aerial or 
> streetside imagery. Signs designating shared paths are sometimes damaged and 
> forgotten to be replaced, linemarkings fade or any number of other reasons, 
> while that path may still be legally designated as use permitted by people on 
> bikes.
>  
> In almost all cases, it is the local council who determine what is or isn’t a 
> shared user or other off-road path. Under the Road Management Act, councils 
> are responsible for all pathways in road reserves, regardless of whether the 
> carriageway itself is a state arterial or local road. Most parks and reserves 
> are also under the jurisdiction of local councils.
>  
> As a result, I’d be inclined to leave the status quo of leaving ‘bicycle=*’ 
> as blank unless there is a specific (legal) sign or linemarking stating 
> otherwise (one way or the other).
>  
> One further complication is that sometimes shared paths are built in new 
> estates, outlined in masterplans and legally designated by local councils 
> when they take over care & management of the street network, but signage and 
> linemarking is sometimes just forgotten. In these cases, I’d be checking with 
> local councils and/or VicMap to confirm their status, regardless of what is 
> or isn’t signed or linemarked.
>  
> Hope this helps.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Philip
>  
> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Monday, 4 October 2021 12:07 PM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 172, Issue 8
>  
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>  
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>  
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>  
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>  
>  
> Today's Topics:
>  
>1. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Graeme Fitzpatrick)
>2. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Philip Mallis)
>3. Re: Cycling on Victorian paths (Andy Townsend)
>  
>  
> --
>  
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 07:52:02 +1000
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> To: Andy Townsend 
> Cc: OSM-Au 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> Message-ID:
> 
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>  
> Thanks for that, Andy.
>  
> In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /
> changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "Allowed
> Access" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowed
> according to signs or specific local laws".
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Graeme
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Graeme
>  
>  
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 at 19:40, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> > 
> > On 03/10/2021 04:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that signage & 
> > local laws would then apply?
> > 
> > (on the very narrow question of what "bicycle=designated" means in OSM)
> > 
> > "=designated" is a somewhat confusingly named tag - it 
> > sounds like it ought to mean what you say above, but in practice the 
> > definition at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated 
> > is actually:
> > 
> > "indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a 
> > government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport"
> > 
> > It's a w

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

I don’t think we should blame routing software, if there is fundamental issue 
in the data set it uses to undertake the routing.
In my experience, where paths are correctly tagged, the routing software will 
not venture onto paths where the permissions do not permit it. For the majority 
of instances, there aren’t any issues.

In some instances, the footpaths are set to bicycle=yes which is in correct. I 
have ventured out on the bike to verify that there was a sign to allow bicycles 
but to no avail.









> On 3 Oct 2021, at 6:07 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
> 
> This really is all already covered under:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability
> 
> and 
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_render
> er
> 
> (which should also apply to "don't map for the [broken] router").
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: fors...@ozonline.com.au  
> Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 16:34
> To: Kim Oldfield ; Kim Oldfield via Talk-au
> 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I am thinking that unless we pay a lawyer and get a legal opinion we will
> never be sure what the law is.
> 
> Given that uncertainty we have two principles to choose from, I'll call them
> the "precautionary principle" and the "somebody else's problem" principle.
> (Maybe better called the ground truth principle.)
> 
> I hope this does not misrepresent anybody's position but I think Sebastian
> Azagra would say that we have a moral responsibility to protect people from
> the risk of getting a large fine.
> 
> I and others have argued that we OSM should stop at recording what is on the
> ground and leave the difficult legal interpretation to map renderers.
> 
> Not sure how we arrive at a resolution.
> 
> Tony
> 
>> On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
>>> In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will  
>>> some times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The   
>>> majority of the time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified   
>>> (not defined)which I think is fine.
>>> The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by   
>>> cyclist takes information from OSM and then creates a route based   
>>> on the permission assigned to the road/path in OSM.
>> 
>> In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults).
>> The is defined in the wiki at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restri
>> ctions#Australia and more formally in OSM at 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741
>> 
>> As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as 
>> part of the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any 
>> software which ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We 
>> should not tag all footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which 
>> doesn't understand the defaults already configured in OSM.
>> 
>> It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.
>> 
>> [*] Is that the name of the person using 
>> osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au? You don't appear to have used a 
>> name in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as 
>> domains often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that 
>> I'm right.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Kim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Hi Kim,

Some of the feedback I have received relates to changing shared paths to 
footpaths. According to the access restrictions listed on 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
 
)
 this would by default not permit bicycles - I agree with this approach. 
However not all foot paths are correctly tagged as there are many instances 
where they have footpaths =yes, which is incorrect for Victoria.



In the other link you shared 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability 
) its clearly 
says " Do not enter incorrect data just because it will help a map renderer, a 
navigation system or some other data consumer which has problem with the 
correct data”. 
The problem I have raised relates to incorrect data in OSM that is causing to 
map renderers to work incorrectly, and as a result I have been fixing data 
accordingly. This is inline with the OSM guidelines.




> On 3 Oct 2021, at 4:35 pm, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 3/10/21 9:13 am, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
>> In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will some 
>> times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The majority of the 
>> time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified (not defined)which I think 
>> is fine.
>> The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by cyclist takes 
>> information from OSM and then creates a route based on the permission 
>> assigned to the road/path in OSM.
> 
> In Victoria cycling is not allowed on most footpaths (for most adults). The 
> is defined in the wiki at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Australia
>  
> 
> and more formally in OSM at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741 
> 
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, routing software should be using these as part of 
> the decision on when to route bikes down footpaths. Any software which 
> ignores these should be have a bug report logged. We should not tag all 
> footpaths with bicycle=no just for software which doesn't understand the 
> defaults already configured in OSM.
> 
> It looks like Thosten Engler[*] has just said the same thing.
> 
> [*] Is that the name of the person using osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
> ? You don't appear to have used a 
> name in your email so I'm guessing based on your email domain, but as domains 
> often get used by multiple people there is no guarantee that I'm right.
> 
> Regards,
> Kim
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au]

Hi Tony

Advice from Vic Police has only been verbal. They won’t go into writing. 
I verified this with a friend of mine who is a cop. 

They referred me to the penalties listed on the Vic Roads websites that carries 
a $545 fine for riding on a footpath. 
This information is freely available. 



> On 3 Oct 2021, at 2:58 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> Hi Sebastian
> Welcome to talk-au
> 
> A NOTE FOR NON-AUSTRALIANS reading this
> a UK pavement or a US sidewalk is an Australian footpath
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Graeme Fitzpatrick's opinion that blanket bicycle=no on *all* 
> footpaths is wrong.
> 
> In addition there is Karl Cheng's opinion (Mon Sep 20 talk-au) that "this 
> whole "Road Rules" regulation only applies to "roads" and "road related 
> areas".
> Only footpaths adjacent to a "road", or any path explicitly designated for
> cyclists are considered to be "road related areas". See rules 11-13 of the 
> Road Rules for details."
> 
> Thirdly there is the issue of ground truth 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground
> "Don't map your local legislation, if not bound to objects in reality
> Things such as local traffic rules should only be mapped when there are 
> objects which represent these rules on the ground, e.g. a traffic sign, road 
> surface marking. Other rules that can not be seen in some way should not be 
> mapped, as they are not universally verifiable." I note that if they changed 
> the legislation, we would have to find and edit maybe a million ways.
> 
> Fourthly (as Graeme Fitzpatrick also notes) you say "Members of the community 
> have even sought confirmation of permissions from Vic police who have 
> confirmed to the affirmative that unless a path is specifically signed to be 
> used by a cyclist, then cyclists are not permitted to use it from a legal 
> perspective."
> You have been asked before but not answered the question, is this verbal or 
> written advice, if written, can you give a URL?
> 
> Thanks
> Tony
> 
>> Hi there,
>> 
>> I?m starting a new thread in relation to recent discussion regarding  access 
>> on footpaths which have bicycle=No
>> 
>> In the Melbourne Bikepath cycling community there has been vigorous  
>> discussion relating to the strict rules the cyclists must follow and  not 
>> ride on footpaths due to Victorian Road Rules. Victorian  cyclists know that 
>> we are not permitted to ride of footpaths.
>> Members of the community have even sought confirmation of  permissions from 
>> Vic police who have confirmed to the affirmative  that unless a path is 
>> specifically signed to be used by a cyclist,  then cyclists are not 
>> permitted to use it from a legal perspective.
>> 
>> In my view, some of the data in OSM is incorrect as a footpath will  some 
>> times have permission bicycle=yes which is incorrect. The  majority of the 
>> time allowed access will have bicycle=unspecified  (not defined)which I 
>> think is fine.
>> The issue is that cycling software, apps and gps units used by  cyclist 
>> takes information from OSM and then creates a route based on  the permission 
>> assigned to the road/path in OSM.
>> 
>> I?d be keen to hear from other Victorian cyclists in the OSM  community on 
>> the best way to tag paths so that they do not allow  cyclists.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> regards,
>> Sebastian

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