Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves
Thanks again, and hats off to everyone for their great work. > On 17 May 2022, at 6:55 pm, Andrew Davidson wrote: > > On 17/5/22 18:19, Little Maps wrote: >> Andrew, of all the options that have been suggested, is cleary’s >> approach the one you’d most recommend? And thanks again for importing >> the reserve boundaries. If you never did anything else on osm you’d >> still be my hero for this alone - plus maybe the admin boundaries. >> :) Cheers. > > I think it's the neatest way to do it. It keeps the relation for the whole > area while letting you put names on the sections that you know. > > It's not just me doing the CAPAD stuff, I know that Nev W has done a lot of > work on this too (and I'm sure there are others). Also don't forget, Mr > Harvey did all the heavy lifting on getting us access to the PSMA data and > writing the scripts to get it ready for import. > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves
On 17/5/22 18:19, Little Maps wrote: Andrew, of all the options that have been suggested, is cleary’s approach the one you’d most recommend? And thanks again for importing the reserve boundaries. If you never did anything else on osm you’d still be my hero for this alone - plus maybe the admin boundaries. :) Cheers. I think it's the neatest way to do it. It keeps the relation for the whole area while letting you put names on the sections that you know. It's not just me doing the CAPAD stuff, I know that Nev W has done a lot of work on this too (and I'm sure there are others). Also don't forget, Mr Harvey did all the heavy lifting on getting us access to the PSMA data and writing the scripts to get it ready for import. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves
On 17/5/22 15:36, cleary wrote: I presume that a single closed way for an area would work - I think I might have done it somewhere but I don't recall where. The Hiawatha precinct was memorable because of its unusual name. It will work. Some validators will complain about a 1 member relation, but it is a cleaner approach than putting duplicate tags on the ways of the "parent" relation. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves
I presume that a single closed way for an area would work - I think I might have done it somewhere but I don't recall where. The Hiawatha precinct was memorable because of its unusual name. On Tue, 17 May 2022, at 2:44 PM, Little Maps wrote: > Thanks Cleary, that’s an interesting approach. Two questions: (1) would > you be open to the same approach being used if the local relation > contained just a single closed way, rather than a pair of polygons as > in your example? (2) in your example, the relation for the local area > contains just the boundary tag and the local name tag, and all the > other tags that describe the entire network are provided in the broader > relation. This seems to be a good way to avoid duplicating tags > unnecessarily? > > As far as I know, we don’t have permissions to use gov maps that show > the names of individual reserves. Like you I have used signs at reserve > entrances as the source of local names. Thanks again, Ian > >> On 17 May 2022, at 1:00 pm, cleary wrote: >> >> >> I had looked at this a few years ago. I edited one area , making it part of >> two relations : >> South West Woodland Nature Reserve (relation 5825677) >> South West Woodland Nature Reserve - Hiawatha Precinct (relation 7477098) >> >> The first relation includes all twenty or more areas that comprise the >> reserve, while the second shows just the particluar local area with its >> particular name. >> >> The reason I did not try to add names for more precincts or sub-areas is >> that I could not, at the time, find a permitted source for the names. >> Looking now, I see that I was remiss in not adding a source for the name of >> the Hiawatha Precinct - I had visited the area and I am guessing it was >> probably signposted or there was some other local source. Not sure if the >> names of all precincts are now available to OSM - if so, I think use of dual >> relations works well. >> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, 16 May 2022, at 8:31 PM, Little Maps wrote: >>> Hi folks, some advice please… >>> >>> In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves >>> (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to >>> be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South >>> West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, >>> the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has >20 >>> isolated segments, all called the same name: >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485 >>> >>> On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of >>> these patches are known and signposted with different names for >>> different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the >>> “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. >>> “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after >>> Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray >>> Valley Regional Park”.) >>> >>> I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names >>> that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) >>> whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do >>> so. >>> >>> I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members >>> of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this >>> change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the >>> boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a >>> separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the >>> existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the >>> isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the >>> newly separated patch. >>> >>> This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the >>> CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. >>> However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, >>> I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves >>> are signposted as and known in the regions. >>> >>> Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> 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] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves
Thanks Cleary, that’s an interesting approach. Two questions: (1) would you be open to the same approach being used if the local relation contained just a single closed way, rather than a pair of polygons as in your example? (2) in your example, the relation for the local area contains just the boundary tag and the local name tag, and all the other tags that describe the entire network are provided in the broader relation. This seems to be a good way to avoid duplicating tags unnecessarily? As far as I know, we don’t have permissions to use gov maps that show the names of individual reserves. Like you I have used signs at reserve entrances as the source of local names. Thanks again, Ian > On 17 May 2022, at 1:00 pm, cleary wrote: > > > I had looked at this a few years ago. I edited one area , making it part of > two relations : > South West Woodland Nature Reserve (relation 5825677) > South West Woodland Nature Reserve - Hiawatha Precinct (relation 7477098) > > The first relation includes all twenty or more areas that comprise the > reserve, while the second shows just the particluar local area with its > particular name. > > The reason I did not try to add names for more precincts or sub-areas is that > I could not, at the time, find a permitted source for the names. Looking > now, I see that I was remiss in not adding a source for the name of the > Hiawatha Precinct - I had visited the area and I am guessing it was probably > signposted or there was some other local source. Not sure if the names of all > precincts are now available to OSM - if so, I think use of dual relations > works well. > > > > >> On Mon, 16 May 2022, at 8:31 PM, Little Maps wrote: >> Hi folks, some advice please… >> >> In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves >> (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to >> be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South >> West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, >> the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has >20 >> isolated segments, all called the same name: >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485 >> >> On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of >> these patches are known and signposted with different names for >> different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the >> “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. >> “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after >> Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray >> Valley Regional Park”.) >> >> I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names >> that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) >> whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do >> so. >> >> I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members >> of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this >> change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the >> boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a >> separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the >> existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the >> isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the >> newly separated patch. >> >> This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the >> CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. >> However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, >> I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves >> are signposted as and known in the regions. >> >> Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves
I had looked at this a few years ago. I edited one area , making it part of two relations : South West Woodland Nature Reserve (relation 5825677) South West Woodland Nature Reserve - Hiawatha Precinct (relation 7477098) The first relation includes all twenty or more areas that comprise the reserve, while the second shows just the particluar local area with its particular name. The reason I did not try to add names for more precincts or sub-areas is that I could not, at the time, find a permitted source for the names. Looking now, I see that I was remiss in not adding a source for the name of the Hiawatha Precinct - I had visited the area and I am guessing it was probably signposted or there was some other local source. Not sure if the names of all precincts are now available to OSM - if so, I think use of dual relations works well. On Mon, 16 May 2022, at 8:31 PM, Little Maps wrote: > Hi folks, some advice please… > > In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves > (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to > be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South > West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, > the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has >20 > isolated segments, all called the same name: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485 > > On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of > these patches are known and signposted with different names for > different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the > “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. > “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after > Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray > Valley Regional Park”.) > > I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names > that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) > whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do > so. > > I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members > of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this > change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the > boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a > separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the > existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the > isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the > newly separated patch. > > This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the > CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. > However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, > I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves > are signposted as and known in the regions. > > Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian > > > > > ___ > 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] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves
On 16 May 2022, at 8:57 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not quite all with the 'same name'? > > While they are all members of the same relation some carry a name. e.g. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225222372 >> Thanks for that example. As I understand it, this puts a name on the way but does not specifically put a name on the section of the protected area, unless one devises a query that searches for all named ways in the broader relation? Hence the name never appears on any map unless one knows that this indirect technique was used, and devises a query to show such names. I might have interpreted the example wrongly? > Yes .. desirable to add the names that appear 'on the ground'. > > Possibly best to add the names on the individual ways .. assuming the single > way encompasses the area concerned? This becomes much more difficult along rivers, where ways delineating named reserves may need to be split from longer ways, and the newly divided segment would need to be delineated by a multipolygon, with some shared boundaries. Thanks again. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves
On 16/5/22 20:31, Little Maps wrote: Hi folks, some advice please… In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has >20 isolated segments, all called the same name: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485 Not quite all with the 'same name'? While they are all members of the same relation some carry a name. e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225222372 On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of these patches are known and signposted with different names for different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray Valley Regional Park”.) I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do so. Yes .. desirable to add the names that appear 'on the ground'. Possibly best to add the names on the individual ways .. assuming the single way encompasses the area concerned? I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the newly separated patch. Humm .. the individual patches are still part of the larger thing. Removing them from the relation looses that connection to the others? Don't know .. but I'd try to follow what has been done before? This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves are signposted as and known in the regions. Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves
Hi folks, some advice please… In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has >20 isolated segments, all called the same name: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485 On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of these patches are known and signposted with different names for different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray Valley Regional Park”.) I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do so. I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the newly separated patch. This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves are signposted as and known in the regions. Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
