Re: [talk-au] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM
With regard to 4 & 5, I'd observe that even in it's anarchic form, OSM has been very successful in reflect these changes very quickly. Buildings and roads change during construction. Alignments of paths change and get corrected. So, I wouldn't necessarily conclude that there is something here that needs to be fixed. And people advocating for their interests is a strength. The issue of physical existence of a path vs. permission to use such a path is a still a fairly live one worldwide - and certainly not an issue just for AU. And regeneration is just one example of this. Cultural, military, privacy provide similar issues when decided where and how to map. That said, in my experience OSM mostly seems to reflect the ground truth more commonly than the government issued documentation in Australia. I'm always reluctant to see a good survey overridden by a government issued plan. And we run up against this all the time with cycling infrastructure being added from a council plan where none may ever get constructed or exist on the ground. And lots of plans can be made and change before a sod is turned. Ian. On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:43, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Country: Australia, Language: English, Topic: Regulation > > This AU email forum is the best there is, but I wish there was something > more. So, I will bring this topic up here where there may be community > support for something extra. From the header above this user group is > already specific but is it specific enough? This group discusses mostly > detail, but the details revolve around a concept and that is what I am > interested in here. The recent Wollongong discussion bought this to light. > The fundamental assumption is that OSM represents the real world. > > What is covered? > >1. Database design: The OpenStreetMap is a database and use is >restricted by its design, key types and permitted values. There is however >much scope in actual use that depends on interpretation. >2. OSM standards: Some of this ambiguity is resolved in the best >practice outlined in the OSM Wiki and worth knowing, as it is an attempt at >standardisation and actively enforced by some members of the community. >3. Regional standards: The AU email forum serves as a regional >discussion forum to get some sort of consensus of how Australia issues are >to be dealt with in Australia, i.e. adapting OSM to Australian >requirements. >4. State laws and regulations: Australia is a federation and each >state has its own laws and regulations. Local government is another level. >This autonomy shows up in OSM particularly in terms of permissions: who can >do what. In this context, we need to consider private/public property, >military and secure zones, and finally nature reserves and national parks >with restricted access but special rules. >5. Planning codes and zoning: This last one has got to do with how >land is used over time which arises in OSM as life cycles and featured also >in the Wollongong discussion as “regeneration”. It commonly arises with the >rezoning of land, release of land for public use, leases on land for >grazing and private use (parking). I have an interest in greenfield public >land developments: rezoned or planned. Once it has funding (parliament) the >project passes the hurdle that something changes in OSM, even though at >this stage it may not be anything visible. There is community interest to >see this on a map. There are many examples of this that include nature >reserves and new suburbs. End of life issues are track regeneration but >also track realignment which is common for mountain biking single track >management. It is not uncommon to hide but keep old track realignments. > > This AU email forum does not seem the pace for the last two items, but the > Wollongong discussion shows that awareness of these things is important for > the OSM maps to make any sense. Particularly if the maps are for navigation > (autorouting) or when render specialist maps (mountain biking or walking), > then such information is critical. There may be a discussion for a track or > area how to best define the permissions on paths and tracks. > > There is a lot of information on the web about this sort of thing on > government and official websites. I have further written to state > government departments requesting clarification and improvements. Local > tensions are not uncommon with competing claims. This tension can be seen > in the OSM community with certain keys toggling between individual > preferences. Mappers are people and advocate their interests on OSM and > sometimes join OSM specifically for this purpose. > > Are there any suggestions where matter 4 and 5 could be discussed and > links provided so that the OSM community can communicate, negotiate and > formulate a direction for these things? > >
Re: [talk-au] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM
19 Sep 2019, 01:41 by talk-au@openstreetmap.org: > > Are there any suggestions where matter 4 and 5 could be discussed and links > provided so that the OSM community can communicate, negotiate and formulate a > direction for these things? > > As long as it is about OSM it can be discussed on this mailing list and other OSM-specific channels. But note that "even though at this stage it may not be anything visible" or "Once it has funding (parliament) the project passes the hurdle" are not a good candidate to be mapped in OSM. There are (unfortunately) some highway=proposed but in general planned or gone features not actually present should be not mapped in OSM. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM
+1 to what Andrew and Seb have already said. This mailing list is a great place for this kind of discussion (including 1-5). It ensures the discussion is publicly documented for reference, everyone is included (no private discussion) and accessible regardless of where you based, and unlike slack/irc you people can reply at the time of day or week that best suits them. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for regional standards. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix for lifecycle tagging of proposed, planned, construction, disused, abandoned, demolished, removed etc.you could map proposed/planned greenfields, nature reserves etc. On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:43, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Country: Australia, Language: English, Topic: Regulation > > This AU email forum is the best there is, but I wish there was something > more. So, I will bring this topic up here where there may be community > support for something extra. From the header above this user group is > already specific but is it specific enough? This group discusses mostly > detail, but the details revolve around a concept and that is what I am > interested in here. The recent Wollongong discussion bought this to light. > The fundamental assumption is that OSM represents the real world. > > What is covered? > >1. Database design: The OpenStreetMap is a database and use is >restricted by its design, key types and permitted values. There is however >much scope in actual use that depends on interpretation. >2. OSM standards: Some of this ambiguity is resolved in the best >practice outlined in the OSM Wiki and worth knowing, as it is an attempt at >standardisation and actively enforced by some members of the community. >3. Regional standards: The AU email forum serves as a regional >discussion forum to get some sort of consensus of how Australia issues are >to be dealt with in Australia, i.e. adapting OSM to Australian >requirements. >4. State laws and regulations: Australia is a federation and each >state has its own laws and regulations. Local government is another level. >This autonomy shows up in OSM particularly in terms of permissions: who can >do what. In this context, we need to consider private/public property, >military and secure zones, and finally nature reserves and national parks >with restricted access but special rules. >5. Planning codes and zoning: This last one has got to do with how >land is used over time which arises in OSM as life cycles and featured also >in the Wollongong discussion as “regeneration”. It commonly arises with the >rezoning of land, release of land for public use, leases on land for >grazing and private use (parking). I have an interest in greenfield public >land developments: rezoned or planned. Once it has funding (parliament) the >project passes the hurdle that something changes in OSM, even though at >this stage it may not be anything visible. There is community interest to >see this on a map. There are many examples of this that include nature >reserves and new suburbs. End of life issues are track regeneration but >also track realignment which is common for mountain biking single track >management. It is not uncommon to hide but keep old track realignments. > > This AU email forum does not seem the pace for the last two items, but the > Wollongong discussion shows that awareness of these things is important for > the OSM maps to make any sense. Particularly if the maps are for navigation > (autorouting) or when render specialist maps (mountain biking or walking), > then such information is critical. There may be a discussion for a track or > area how to best define the permissions on paths and tracks. > > There is a lot of information on the web about this sort of thing on > government and official websites. I have further written to state > government departments requesting clarification and improvements. Local > tensions are not uncommon with competing claims. This tension can be seen > in the OSM community with certain keys toggling between individual > preferences. Mappers are people and advocate their interests on OSM and > sometimes join OSM specifically for this purpose. > > Are there any suggestions where matter 4 and 5 could be discussed and > links provided so that the OSM community can communicate, negotiate and > formulate a direction for these things? > > ___ > 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] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM
Hi Herbert, Not sure if I get your point. With regards to the list, my take on it is that this list is the right and good place for any of your issues/OSM Australian centric topics. If traffic on a particular aspect of issues is getting to much this might be an indicator that a separate list could make sense. The fact that not all of the aspects that you are interested in are discussed on the list might be a mere reflection of the various interest amongst the list participants and their level of expertise. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM
On 19/9/19 09:41, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: Are there any suggestions where matter 4 and 5 could be discussed and links provided so that the OSM community can communicate, negotiate and formulate a direction for these things? I can't suggest anything as I don't understand your questions. Would it be possible to restate what you are asking in a more concrete way? For example: how you might be proposing to deviate from what is currently thought of as good practice: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM
Country: Australia, Language: English, Topic: Regulation This AU email forum is the best there is, but I wish there was something more. So, I will bring this topic up here where there may be community support for something extra. From the header above this user group is already specific but is it specific enough? This group discusses mostly detail, but the details revolve around a concept and that is what I am interested in here. The recent Wollongong discussion bought this to light. The fundamental assumption is that OSM represents the real world. What is covered? - Database design: The OpenStreetMap is a database and use is restricted by its design, key types and permitted values. There is however much scope in actual use that depends on interpretation. - OSM standards: Some of this ambiguity is resolved in the best practice outlined in the OSM Wiki and worth knowing, as it is an attempt at standardisation and actively enforced by some members of the community. - Regional standards: The AU email forum serves as a regional discussion forum to get some sort of consensus of how Australia issues are to be dealt with in Australia, i.e. adapting OSM to Australian requirements. - State laws and regulations: Australia is a federation and each state has its own laws and regulations. Local government is another level. This autonomy shows up in OSM particularly in terms of permissions: who can do what. In this context, we need to consider private/public property, military and secure zones, and finally nature reserves and national parks with restricted access but special rules. - Planning codes and zoning: This last one has got to do with how land is used over time which arises in OSM as life cycles and featured also in the Wollongong discussion as “regeneration”. It commonly arises with the rezoning of land, release of land for public use, leases on land for grazing and private use (parking). I have an interest in greenfield public land developments: rezoned or planned. Once it has funding (parliament) the project passes the hurdle that something changes in OSM, even though at this stage it may not be anything visible. There is community interest to see this on a map. There are many examples of this that include nature reserves and new suburbs. End of life issues are track regeneration but also track realignment which is common for mountain biking single track management. It is not uncommon to hide but keep old track realignments. This AU email forum does not seem the pace for the last two items, but the Wollongong discussion shows that awareness of these things is important for the OSM maps to make any sense. Particularly if the maps are for navigation (autorouting) or when render specialist maps (mountain biking or walking), then such information is critical. There may be a discussion for a track or area how to best define the permissions on paths and tracks. There is a lot of information on the web about this sort of thing on government and official websites. I have further written to state government departments requesting clarification and improvements. Local tensions are not uncommon with competing claims. This tension can be seen in the OSM community with certain keys toggling between individual preferences. Mappers are people and advocate their interests on OSM and sometimes join OSM specifically for this purpose. Are there any suggestions where matter 4 and 5 could be discussed and links provided so that the OSM community can communicate, negotiate and formulate a direction for these things?___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
