Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail is not a dedicated bicycle route
Thank you for the comments. Makes a lot of sense. Just on the BNT being happy with the route being mapped on OSM. Given the route is sign posted to the public on the ground there shouldn’t be an issue providing accuracy is maintained. It is also mapped in other public mapping resources. The route shouldn’t be changed readily without signage change. To be a useful online resource OSM must be kept up to date in accordance with any route changes. From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 15 September 2014 8:47 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail is not a dedicated bicycle route On 14/09/2014 11:25 AM, Mark Rennick wrote: I note there has been mapping of the Bicentennial National Trail as a ‘bicycle route’ in the Victorian Alpine National Park area. I have two comments on this: 1. This trail is not a dedicated ‘bicycle route’. As stated on the http://www.bicentennialnationaltrail.com.au/about/ web site: ‘The Bicentennial National Trail is Australia’s premier long distance, multi-use recreational trekking route...The National Trail was originally conceived as a route for the long distance horse trekker but is now enjoyed by cyclists and hikers as well.’ I believe this trail should be mapped as a generic, not bicycle ‘route’, tagged with for example: horse trekking, mountain biking, hiking. It may however be desirable to have this trail additionally mapped as a ‘bicycle route’. For example, so that mountain bike route planning will see this route in applications such as ‘Openmtbmap’. It should be mapped as an additional relationship, to the generic Bicentennial National Trail route, without the name ‘Bicentennial National Trail’. A) Generic route? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route .. has bicycle, horse and walking ... how would you make it generic? Usually the particular activity (bicycle, horse or walking) make a map for that activity - that may not identify a 'generic' as being usable by that activity. So, as you point out it may be needed to map it for each activity. In which case the 'generic' loses its appeal. B) Name.. if it is the 'Bicentennial National Trail' (BNT) then it should carry that name. C) Copyright? Are the BNT happy with OSM mapping this data? I know they want to be able to change the route quickly (floods, fires etc.) but I have no idea as to their official attitude as to 'their' route being placed into OSM data. Similar thoughts on the 'alternate BNT routes'. - Words - dedicated .. as in 'exclusive'? Humm We have 'designated' bicycle routes - some of these are exclusive, most are shared. Think that is a poor choice of word .. maybe substitute designated for dedicated? -- I'm happy to map bits along the BNT .. but I map to the sides ... these are usefull for escape/access to/from the BNT .. and may be of use to others too. I tend to map water along there too .. as they too can be usefull. I do not map their campsites .. could lead to over use .. and at least some of them require permission (in some cases writen permission!). I don't know who is maping the BNT sections and if they have any permission to do so. I certainly don't have permission .. but they I don't identify my bits as part of the BNT. Some of my side bits will distract others from the BNT. Some of my side bits were part of teh BNT .. but are no longer part of the BNT - it changes over time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail is not a dedicated bicycle route
On 14/09/2014 11:25 AM, Mark Rennick wrote: I note there has been mapping of the Bicentennial National Trail as a ‘bicycle route’ in the Victorian Alpine National Park area. I have two comments on this: 1.*This trail is not a dedicated ‘bicycle route’*. // As stated on the http://www.bicentennialnationaltrail.com.au/about/ web site: /‘//The*Bicentennial National Trail*is Australia’s premier long distance, multi-use recreational trekking route...The National Trail was originally conceived as a route for the long distance horse trekker but is now enjoyed by cyclists and hikers as well.’ / // I believe this trail should be mapped as a _generic_, not bicycle ‘route’, tagged with for example: horse trekking, mountain biking, hiking. It may however be desirable to have this trail additionally mapped as a ‘bicycle route’. For example, so that mountain bike route planning will see this route in applications such as ‘Openmtbmap’. It should be mapped as an _additional _relationship, to the generic Bicentennial National Trail route, without the name ‘Bicentennial National Trail’. A) Generic route? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route .. has bicycle, horse and walking ... how would you make it generic? Usually the particular activity (bicycle, horse or walking) make a map for that activity - that may not identify a 'generic' as being usable by that activity. So, as you point out it may be needed to map it for each activity. In which case the 'generic' loses its appeal. B) Name.. if it is the 'Bicentennial National Trail' (BNT) then it should carry that name. C) Copyright? Are the BNT happy with OSM mapping this data? I know they want to be able to change the route quickly (floods, fires etc.) but I have no idea as to their official attitude as to 'their' route being placed into OSM data. Similar thoughts on the 'alternate BNT routes'. - Words - dedicated .. as in 'exclusive'? Humm We have 'designated' bicycle routes - some of these are exclusive, most are shared. Think that is a poor choice of word .. maybe substitute designated for dedicated? -- I'm happy to map bits along the BNT .. but I map to the sides ... these are usefull for escape/access to/from the BNT .. and may be of use to others too. I tend to map water along there too .. as they too can be usefull. I do not map their campsites .. could lead to over use .. and at least some of them require permission (in some cases writen permission!). I don't know who is maping the BNT sections and if they have any permission to do so. I certainly don't have permission .. but they I don't identify my bits as part of the BNT. Some of my side bits will distract others from the BNT. Some of my side bits were part of teh BNT .. but are no longer part of the BNT - it changes over time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail (adrianplaskitt)
I've cobbled this from a digest .. so if it does not correctly hook into the thread - apologies. Adrian, as well as the keys you should have the phone numbers for access to private property (and phone them for permission), notify camp sites that you are coming (to get permission), and contact the section coordinator for the latest info (and they will probably ask for your BNT membership ID) - track changes, festivals, floods, fires, logging, water availability etc. If you don't belong to the BNT then your going to be doing some work... much easier to join and get the maps with NOTES and use their main office to get the majority of the camp site permissions done for you. In addition the property owners recognise your BNT membership ID, easing their concerns. For each and every BNT map there is at least one a page of text notes with more information - such as phone numbers for access permissions, getting keys, 12.1 km go under the bridge and turn left - things you cannot put on a map! A little of the BNT does not follow a track, nor creek, nor ridge .. it is purely cross country. While it can be mapped, that bit would be less than truthful when placed on a map without notes attached! Further the BNT does change reasonably frequently. So it is a moving target. The BNT guide books are copyright - taking the track information from there and mapping to OSM it may well breach copyright. Certainly copying the phone numbers would lead to many people being angry! For personal use I have made a gpx track of the entire BNT based on what is avalible on the web, but I know it is incorrect in quite a few places due to updates and the fact that I belong to the BNT and have bought a few guide books. I'm mixed about letting my gpx file go public ... so it is not avalible at the moment. [talk-au] Re bicentennial trail. Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au at 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-request at openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org Date: Sun Dec 1 19:41:34 UTC 2013 From: Adrian adrianplaskitt at hotmail.com To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail Message-ID: CA+z=q=uUymaXFZ0L+V0BAfeyKe+1SSTWt_xjxfQEUt7Q8GvgGw at mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Sun Dec 1 19:41:34 UTC 2013, Adrian adrianplaskitt at hotmail.com wrote: It is great that you guys are mapping this. I have thought about doing some of this trip. As I recall the only way to get maps previously was to buy them from the trail authorities. Also, I think there are some gates that require keys that are available from the trail authorities where it crosses private land. Is the information on how to get this marked on the map? Cheers Adrian. Sent from my iPhone End ** ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On 30 November 2013 Ian Sergeant wrote: We have relations for admin boundaries for entire countries, and relations for cross-country railways and highways. They'd seriously break if we made them into relations and super-relations just to satisfy someone's idea of how many is manageable. FYI the relations you mentioned are much smaller than you think. The relation for admin boundaries for entire Australia (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/80500) has about 50 members only. The longest railway line in Australia should be the Train Indian Pacific from Sydney to Perth. This relation (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2033217) has about 430 members. There is no one big relation for the M1 highway in Australia. It is broken into many short relations. The section from Melbourne to Wodonga (Relation 240718) has 219 members. The section from Newcastle to Lismore (relation 2910576) has 358 members. The longest section may be from Brisbane to Cairns (relation 198279) has 737 members. Back to BNT, the existing 3 relations (2347837, 2347838, 2347839), after removing the errors and duplications,has 193 members each, covering 645km. However, the total length of BNT is 5330km. Therefore if the whole BNT is in one relation, it will have 1594 members - too far away from the recommended 300 members. Mander___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
Hi Steve, Are you telling me that, for the sake of showing the route in your site http://cycletour.org1. for every rail trail, we should have 4 duplicated relations - bicycle, mtb, walker, horse 2. for every bike route, there should be 3 duplicated relations - bicycle, mtb, walker Why don't you use tags like foot=yes, bicycle=yes, mtb=yes, and horse=yes? Mander ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, It seems the point of the three relations is to identify which parts of the trail are accessible to which categories of users. How do you intend to encapsulate that info? What is the basis for splitting the trail into state sections, and putting three relations into another reln? I don't think relations of relations is well supported, and I can't see the motivation for it here. Hi guys, I noticed the three-way duplication but assumed it was for a different reason: so that, say, a hiking map that looks for route=hiking relations will show the BNT, a mountain bike map that looks for route=mtb will also show it etc. Unfortunately I think this is basically legitimate: if the same route is a hiking, cycling and mountain biking route (and we haven't even done horse riding yet) then it probably needs those duplicates. (FWIW, that's a bit of an if - most of the Victorian section is pretty useless for cycling, and not great for unsupported hiking either.) Btw you can see both the BNT and AAWT on my map, http://cycletour.org - just zoom in a couple of clicks. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
It seems the point of the three relations is to identify which parts of the trail are accessible to which categories of users. How do you intend to encapsulate that info? No such problem. There is one and only one official route that walker, MTB and horse are able to take on; ie the existing 3 relations should be exactly the same. Moreover, I have compared the existing 3 BNT relations (2347837, 2347838, 2347839). After removing the errors and duplications, these 3 relations are EXACTLY the same. However there are some alternate routes which are: 1. to avoid river crossing when water level is high (eg map 4 guidebook 11) 2. to go to campsite (eg map 14 of guidebook 12) 3. to get water or good feed for horses (eg map 10 guidebook 12) 4. to bypass long and dry tracks (eg map 18 of guidebook 11) 5. to go to a town (eg map A of guidebook 7) 6. to bypass a town (eg map 4 5 of guidebook 10) 7. to bypass hard-to-navigate sections (eg map 12 of guidebook 12) 8. to bypass overgroswn tracks (eg map 11 of guidebook 9) 9. to bypass tracks that are closed during winter (eg map 11 of guidebook 11) 10. shortcuts (eg map 2 guidebook 10) 11. to bypass steep, rough, difficult or dangerous sections (eg map 11 of guidebook 10 - 19km of road with heavy truck traffic and no verge - dangerous to horse, mtb and walker.) Note that the original route permits MTB and horse. The alternate routes are for those who don't want the challenge. I'd put all alternate routes into a separate relation called something like BNT - alternate routes so that we can tell the alternate route from original route. What is the basis for splitting the trail into state sections, and putting three relations into another reln? The BNT is too long to be maintained in one relation. The recommended size of a relation is 300 members (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation#Size). Even if it is separated into 3 relations (one for each state), it is well over the recommended size. Actually, to reduce the size problem, it'd better to have 12 BNT relations - one for each BNT guidebook. Mander On Wednesday, 27 November 2013 5:31 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, It seems the point of the three relations is to identify which parts of the trail are accessible to which categories of users. How do you intend to encapsulate that info? What is the basis for splitting the trail into state sections, and putting three relations into another reln? I don't think relations of relations is well supported, and I can't see the motivation for it here. Ian. On 22 November 2013 20:52, Mander Li mander...@yahoo.com.au wrote: I tried to create a Bicentennial National Trail relation, but found 4 relations of this name: Relation 176684: created in July 2009 by John Henderson with route=hiking. This covers 213km from Canberra CBD to Taralga (half way between Canberra and Sydney) Relation 2347837 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=hiking. This covers about 95% of VIC section, 40% of Canberra section, 2% of NSW section, 1% of QLD section. Total 715km of which 53km of the Dargo High Plains Road is not part of the BNT Relation 2347838 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=bicycle. This is almost the same as Relation 2347837 (with less ways and without the 53km of Dargo High Plains Road). Total 645km. Relation 2347839 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=mtb. This is the same as Relation 2347838. Question for Nick Barker: Why 3 relations? BNT is a trail for walkers, MTBers, and horses, so these 3 relation will be the same. Question for John Henderson and everybody: what should be the route type (route=hiking, bicycle or mtb) when the trail is for walkers, MTBers and horses? I suggest: 1. Relation 2347837: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - VIC section; and remove sections in other states 2. Relation 2347838: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - NSW section; remove sections in other states; and merge with Relation 176684 3. Relation 2347839: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - QLD section; and remove sections in other states 4. Relation 176684: remove all sections; put Relations 2347837, 2347838, 2347839 into it as members; ie this relation will become a super-relation with 3 relations as member 5. Change all 4 relations to have tags: route=mtb, foot=yes and horse=yes IMHO, this is becasue 1) BNT is for road bikes, 2) trails for hiking may not allow MTB, 3) 99.9% of trails that allow MTB also allow walkers, 4) it allows the tags mtb:difficulty=advanced, and mtb:type=crosscountry as in now Relation 2347838 John Henderson, you won't be able to see the trail at hiking.waymarkedtrails.org, but it will be at mtb.waymarkedtrails.org. Any comments? or I'll do it. Mander ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On 30 November 2013 14:56, Mander Li mander...@yahoo.com.au wrote: No such problem. There is one and only one official route that walker, MTB and horse are able to take on; ie the existing 3 relations should be exactly the same. Cool. So obviously you have the right idea that they should be de-duplicated. The BNT is too long to be maintained in one relation. The recommended size of a relation is 300 members (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation#Size). Even if it is separated into 3 relations (one for each state), it is well over the recommended size. Actually, to reduce the size problem, it'd better to have 12 BNT relations - one for each BNT guidebook. Yeah - personally I'd ignore the wiki, but that's just me. We have relations for admin boundaries for entire countries, and relations for cross-country railways and highways. They'd seriously break if we made them into relations and super-relations just to satisfy someone's idea of how many is manageable. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
Hi, It seems the point of the three relations is to identify which parts of the trail are accessible to which categories of users. How do you intend to encapsulate that info? What is the basis for splitting the trail into state sections, and putting three relations into another reln? I don't think relations of relations is well supported, and I can't see the motivation for it here. Ian. On 22 November 2013 20:52, Mander Li mander...@yahoo.com.au wrote: I tried to create a Bicentennial National Trail relation, but found 4 relations of this name: Relation 176684: created in July 2009 by John Henderson with route=hiking. This covers 213km from Canberra CBD to Taralga (half way between Canberra and Sydney) Relation 2347837 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=hiking. This covers about 95% of VIC section, 40% of Canberra section, 2% of NSW section, 1% of QLD section. Total 715km of which 53km of the Dargo High Plains Road is not part of the BNT Relation 2347838 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=bicycle. This is almost the same as Relation 2347837 (with less ways and without the 53km of Dargo High Plains Road). Total 645km. Relation 2347839 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=mtb. This is the same as Relation 2347838. Question for Nick Barker: Why 3 relations? BNT is a trail for walkers, MTBers, and horses, so these 3 relation will be the same. Question for John Henderson and everybody: what should be the route type (route=hiking, bicycle or mtb) when the trail is for walkers, MTBers and horses? I suggest: 1. Relation 2347837: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - VIC section; and remove sections in other states 2. Relation 2347838: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - NSW section; remove sections in other states; and merge with Relation 176684 3. Relation 2347839: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - QLD section; and remove sections in other states 4. Relation 176684: remove all sections; put Relations 2347837, 2347838, 2347839 into it as members; ie this relation will become a super-relation with 3 relations as member 5. Change all 4 relations to have tags: route=mtb, foot=yes and horse=yes IMHO, this is becasue 1) BNT is for road bikes, 2) trails for hiking may not allow MTB, 3) 99.9% of trails that allow MTB also allow walkers, 4) it allows the tags mtb:difficulty=advanced, and mtb:type=crosscountry as in now Relation 2347838 John Henderson, you won't be able to see the trail at hiking.waymarkedtrails.org, but it will be at mtb.waymarkedtrails.org. Any comments? or I'll do it. Mander ___ 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] Bicentennial National Trail
I tried to create a Bicentennial National Trail relation, but found 4 relations of this name: Relation 176684: created in July 2009 by John Henderson with route=hiking. This covers 213km from Canberra CBD to Taralga (half way between Canberra and Sydney) Relation 2347837 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=hiking. This covers about 95% of VIC section, 40% of Canberra section, 2% of NSW section, 1% of QLD section. Total 715km of which 53km of the Dargo High Plains Road is not part of the BNT Relation 2347838 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=bicycle. This is almost the same as Relation 2347837 (with less ways and without the 53km of Dargo High Plains Road). Total 645km. Relation 2347839 created on 13/8/2012 by Nick Barker with route=mtb. This is the same as Relation 2347838. Question for Nick Barker: Why 3 relations? BNT is a trail for walkers, MTBers, and horses, so these 3 relation will be the same. Question for John Henderson and everybody: what should be the route type (route=hiking, bicycle or mtb) when the trail is for walkers, MTBers and horses? I suggest: 1. Relation 2347837: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - VIC section; and remove sections in other states 2. Relation 2347838: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - NSW section; remove sections in other states; and merge with Relation 176684 3. Relation 2347839: to be renamed as Bicentennial National Trail - QLD section; and remove sections in other states 4. Relation 176684: remove all sections; put Relations 2347837, 2347838, 2347839 into it as members; ie this relation will become a super-relation with 3 relations as member 5. Change all 4 relations to have tags: route=mtb, foot=yes and horse=yes IMHO, this is becasue 1) BNT is for road bikes, 2) trails for hiking may not allow MTB, 3) 99.9% of trails that allow MTB also allow walkers, 4) it allows the tags mtb:difficulty=advanced, and mtb:type=crosscountry as in now Relation 2347838 John Henderson, you won't be able to see the trail at hiking.waymarkedtrails.org, but it will be at mtb.waymarkedtrails.org. Any comments? or I'll do it. Mander___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On 30/04/13 14:29, Nick Hocking wrote: The other day I was riding the push bike along some trails and got talking to some horse riders. It turns out the Lady (Jenny) is the ACT coordinator for (and also the secretary of) the Bicentennial National Trail Ltd. Naturally I dropped the term Openstreetmap and it appears that they are very interested to hear about OSM and their mapping guy would like to talk to us about what they could do with OSM. Apparently they are doing quite a bit of remapping in Queensland, due to the floods, so I see BNT and OSM being very usefull to each other. I told Jenny that one of our Canberra mappers (John) had done quite a bit of work on the BNT in the ACT and they would love to talk to you about it, if you'd be agreeable to that. I'd be delighted to offer what help I can. I haven't done any active mapping for a while, and the OSM BNT route needs to be remapped from the Barton Hwy east to the NSW border. This is because the BNT has been rerouted through the new suburbs. I've created a relation for the BNT: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/176684 I've also configured the route to show up on: http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=9lat=-34.76218lon=149.35801route=1 There it's marked using a symbol to represent the official trail marker (a yellow triangle with two vertical ochre stripes) as osmc:symbol=green::yellow_triangle:||:red They also need to have topographical maps for their trail guides but I'm not sure whether OSM has that yet for Australia. It turns out that the trail I was riding on is part of the BNT but is not yet mapped as such in OSM, so I'll have to start surveying the southern part of the ACT's bit of the BNT when time permits. Therefore, my question is, who is the best OSM person to advise BNT of the various technical details of using OSM map data. That's a good question. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On 2013-04-30 10:02, John Henderson wrote: SNIP I'd be delighted to offer what help I can. /SNIP If it's any use, Qld portion dataset is available and may be on a compatible licence: http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/services_resources/item_details.php?item_id=34193 The data is hard to link to: in the Search Terms box near the bottom enter Bicentennial http://dds.information.qld.gov.au/DDS/Search.aspx Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
Am happy to help re technical convos - can talk about postgis/mapnik to render, or other things like slippy map solutions On Apr 30, 2013 5:35 PM, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: On 30/04/13 14:29, Nick Hocking wrote: The other day I was riding the push bike along some trails and got talking to some horse riders. It turns out the Lady (Jenny) is the ACT coordinator for (and also the secretary of) the Bicentennial National Trail Ltd. Naturally I dropped the term Openstreetmap and it appears that they are very interested to hear about OSM and their mapping guy would like to talk to us about what they could do with OSM. Apparently they are doing quite a bit of remapping in Queensland, due to the floods, so I see BNT and OSM being very usefull to each other. I told Jenny that one of our Canberra mappers (John) had done quite a bit of work on the BNT in the ACT and they would love to talk to you about it, if you'd be agreeable to that. I'd be delighted to offer what help I can. I haven't done any active mapping for a while, and the OSM BNT route needs to be remapped from the Barton Hwy east to the NSW border. This is because the BNT has been rerouted through the new suburbs. I've created a relation for the BNT: http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/relation/176684http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/176684 I've also configured the route to show up on: http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.**org/en/?zoom=9lat=-34.76218** lon=149.35801route=1http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=9lat=-34.76218lon=149.35801route=1 There it's marked using a symbol to represent the official trail marker (a yellow triangle with two vertical ochre stripes) as osmc:symbol=green::yellow_**triangle:||:red They also need to have topographical maps for their trail guides but I'm not sure whether OSM has that yet for Australia. It turns out that the trail I was riding on is part of the BNT but is not yet mapped as such in OSM, so I'll have to start surveying the southern part of the ACT's bit of the BNT when time permits. Therefore, my question is, who is the best OSM person to advise BNT of the various technical details of using OSM map data. That's a good question. John __**_ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: They also need to have topographical maps for their trail guides but I'm not sure whether OSM has that yet for Australia. It turns out that the trail I was riding on is part of the BNT but is not yet mapped as such in OSM, so I'll have to start surveying the southern part of the ACT's bit of the BNT when time permits. Geoscience provides elevation data at high resolution for free (CC-BY commercial use allowed etc.) @ http://nedf.ga.gov.au/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page It does limit you to 2GB (I'm assuming this trail is pretty long!) but you can get the full dataset on a harddrive at the National Library Map Room http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/5760724?lookfor=SRTMoffset=1max=9 This is ArcGIS-grid Geographic format but you can use GDAL to convert it to GeoTIFF which gets you to the same point as the american OSM map renderers http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shaded_relief_maps_using_mapnik If anybody wants to test Mapnik rendering out, I have converted the ACT data into GeoTIFF http://www.sendspace.com/file/4zo9wj (This is smoothed, I have the unsmoothed version too) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
Hi The other day I was riding the push bike along some trails and got talking to some horse riders. It turns out the Lady (Jenny) is the ACT coordinator for (and also the secretary of) the Bicentennial National Trail Ltd. Naturally I dropped the term Openstreetmap and it appears that they are very interested to hear about OSM and their mapping guy would like to talk to us about what they could do with OSM. Apparently they are doing quite a bit of remapping in Queensland, due to the floods, so I see BNT and OSM being very usefull to each other. I told Jenny that one of our Canberra mappers (John) had done quite a bit of work on the BNT in the ACT and they would love to talk to you about it, if you'd be agreeable to that. They also need to have topographical maps for their trail guides but I'm not sure whether OSM has that yet for Australia. It turns out that the trail I was riding on is part of the BNT but is not yet mapped as such in OSM, so I'll have to start surveying the southern part of the ACT's bit of the BNT when time permits. Therefore, my question is, who is the best OSM person to advise BNT of the various technical details of using OSM map data. Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On 06/10/11 16:47, Steve Bennett wrote: It would be very cool to have it fully mapped. As a trail, it has the same issue as some other trails like the Tasmanania Trail, which really work best for horses and are problematic for cyclists (poor surface, obstacles) and hikers (lacking interest, long distances between campsites)... Not to mention that BNT maps are usually out-of-date before they're even printed. Even in my area (the part already mapped), the exact route changes several times a year. This makes it ideal for OSM coverage of course, as long as there's enough enthusiasm to keep it reasonably current. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:08 PM, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: Not to mention that BNT maps are usually out-of-date before they're even printed. Even in my area (the part already mapped), the exact route changes several times a year. Interesting. Who makes the changes? Do they update any signs? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
On 06/10/11 17:17, Steve Bennett wrote: Interesting. Who makes the changes? Do they update any signs? I did the initial mapping and some changes, but I notice that others have contributed updates. Generally, new signage gets added (although old signs on disused sections usually get left there). In many places, there are no signs. But it's usually obvious how a rider/cyclist/hiker would travel between remaining signs. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
The 5,330 km National Trail known as the Australian Bicentennial National Trail (BNT), is only partially mapped in OSM. Refs: OSM existing Route Relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/176684 There is a website regarding the trail here http://www.nationaltrail.com.au/ I suppose that the reason it's not on OSM is because the guidebooks with the route have to be purchased, are copyrighted, and in some cases out of print or very hard to find. The Queensland government has free vector data of the Qld section of the route under a seemingly permissive licence (it's the DERM_SHORT_OPEN). I wondered if anyone had heard of this licene before and whether it considered to be OSM compatible, and this route relation could then be updated using this file? Getting the data: 1) Go to http://dds.information.qld.gov.au/dds/ 2) in section 2 enter search term National Trail 3) Result should be Bicentennial National Trail in Queensland datset 4) Download Dataset: Metadata: --- Text Bicentennial National Trail in Queensland Date: 18-03-2010 (revision) Maintenance and update frequency: not planned Abstract: The Bicentennial National Trail is the longest marked, non-motorised, self-reliant multi-use trekking route in the world, stretching an extraordinary 5,330 kilometres from Cooktown in tropical North Queensland, to Healesville in Victoria. Following the inspiration of the legendary bushman R. M. Williams, the Trail follows the historic coach and stock routes, old pack horse trails, and country roads. Wherever possible along its great length the Trail has been designed to be a living history of our country, following the routes of our early pioneers and highlighting historic sites and artifacts along the way. The trail has been mapped within Queensland by the Queensland Government for the National Trail Organisation circa 1987. See www.nationaltrail.com.au for more information. The original maps within Queensland were compiled and supplied by the Department of Lands, Queensland Government. These maps were digitised and have been realigned to agree with the digital cadastral database. Owner: Department of Environment and Resource Management Data / Resource Constraints: Copyright: (C) The State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management) 2010 Licence: DERM_SHORT_OPEN Lineage: This dataset was digitised from Department of Lands 1:10 cadastral paper maps used to create the maps in the National Trail guidebooks. The original maps in the National Trail guidebooks within Queensland were compiled and supplied by the Department of Lands, Queensland Government in 1987 for the publication in 1988 (first edition) and with some revisions in 1992 (second edition). Data Quality: Positional accuracy: If captured from 1:10 Provisional Cadastral Maps positional accuracy +- 250 metres and from 1:10 Standard Cadastral Maps positional accuracy +- 55 metres. Chris -- cbar...@pobox.com ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bicentennial National Trail
Am I reading it right, that it is 250m accuracy data, with the trail as at it was 20 years ago? If so, we may want to consider the data quality. Ian. On 6 October 2011 13:56, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: The 5,330 km National Trail known as the Australian Bicentennial National Trail (BNT), is only partially mapped in OSM. Refs: OSM existing Route Relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/176684 There is a website regarding the trail here http://www.nationaltrail.com.au/ I suppose that the reason it's not on OSM is because the guidebooks with the route have to be purchased, are copyrighted, and in some cases out of print or very hard to find. The Queensland government has free vector data of the Qld section of the route under a seemingly permissive licence (it's the DERM_SHORT_OPEN). I wondered if anyone had heard of this licene before and whether it considered to be OSM compatible, and this route relation could then be updated using this file? Getting the data: 1) Go to http://dds.information.qld.gov.au/dds/ 2) in section 2 enter search term National Trail 3) Result should be Bicentennial National Trail in Queensland datset 4) Download Dataset: Metadata: --- Text Bicentennial National Trail in Queensland Date: 18-03-2010 (revision) Maintenance and update frequency: not planned Abstract: The Bicentennial National Trail is the longest marked, non-motorised, self-reliant multi-use trekking route in the world, stretching an extraordinary 5,330 kilometres from Cooktown in tropical North Queensland, to Healesville in Victoria. Following the inspiration of the legendary bushman R. M. Williams, the Trail follows the historic coach and stock routes, old pack horse trails, and country roads. Wherever possible along its great length the Trail has been designed to be a living history of our country, following the routes of our early pioneers and highlighting historic sites and artifacts along the way. The trail has been mapped within Queensland by the Queensland Government for the National Trail Organisation circa 1987. See www.nationaltrail.com.au for more information. The original maps within Queensland were compiled and supplied by the Department of Lands, Queensland Government. These maps were digitised and have been realigned to agree with the digital cadastral database. Owner: Department of Environment and Resource Management Data / Resource Constraints: Copyright: (C) The State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management) 2010 Licence: DERM_SHORT_OPEN Lineage: This dataset was digitised from Department of Lands 1:10 cadastral paper maps used to create the maps in the National Trail guidebooks. The original maps in the National Trail guidebooks within Queensland were compiled and supplied by the Department of Lands, Queensland Government in 1987 for the publication in 1988 (first edition) and with some revisions in 1992 (second edition). Data Quality: Positional accuracy: If captured from 1:10 Provisional Cadastral Maps positional accuracy +- 250 metres and from 1:10 Standard Cadastral Maps positional accuracy +- 55 metres. Chris -- cbar...@pobox.com ___ 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] Bicentennial National Trail
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: I suppose that the reason it's not on OSM is because the guidebooks with the route have to be purchased, are copyrighted, and in some cases out of print or very hard to find. Yeah I know a bit about the BNT. It's also hard to directly map because of its remoteness, lack of signage, lack of maintenance etc etc. In Victoria, it shows up intermittently on some DSE maps. It would be very cool to have it fully mapped. As a trail, it has the same issue as some other trails like the Tasmanania Trail, which really work best for horses and are problematic for cyclists (poor surface, obstacles) and hikers (lacking interest, long distances between campsites)... Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
