Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 20/06/11 11:49, James Andrewartha wrote: Ah, that welcoming OSM spirit. Yes, it's easy to forget sometimes that we're all friends here. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 20 June 2011 05:00, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Elizabeth Dodd wrote: >> I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which >> licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will >> not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project. > > Fair enough. > > As of today, contributions to OSM are ODbL+CT only. > > Guess that's you gone, then. Bye. Ah, that welcoming OSM spirit. James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
Quoting Elizabeth Dodd : On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:10:47 +1000 Mark Pulley wrote: > And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned? Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? Rudeness won't get you anywhere. Actually, my comment was in relation to your rude comment. Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which > licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will > not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project. Fair enough. As of today, contributions to OSM are ODbL+CT only. Guess that's you gone, then. Bye. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/rationalising-administrative-boundaries-tp6477097p6493901.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:10:47 +1000 Mark Pulley wrote: > > And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned? > > > Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? > > Not everyone here has decided to give up on OSM. I'm going to decide > once I see what the map looks like after changeover - in the > meantime I'll keep mapping here. Rudeness won't get you anywhere. I am not permitting an irrevocable licence on my contributions. I never was, so I didn't contribute map updates to Garmin or Sensis or Google. I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 15 June 2011 06:15, John Smith wrote: > On 15 June 2011 12:16, Gary Gallagher wrote: >> I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across >> tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating >> above different ways. Roads are being connected to the boundary instead >> of the the road. The road or other way has been moved to create a clear >> path for the boundary and vice-a-versa. I presume the overlapping >> sections of the boundary could be merged with the underlying way. Has >> anybody had any experience doing this and what are the potential >> pitfalls? > > The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I > were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. > Not true. / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 19/06/2011, at 7:56 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: most of those places don't have better imagery, certainly not the places I did. Some places do have better imagery, or in some cases GPS traces (I noticed today some of the Barrier Hwy north of Burra is done on a relation - I have too much other stuff to do to do this now). And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned? Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? Not everyone here has decided to give up on OSM. I'm going to decide once I see what the map looks like after changeover - in the meantime I'll keep mapping here. Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:32:58 +1000 Mark Pulley wrote: > On 15/06/2011, at 3:15 PM, John Smith wrote: > > The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I > > were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. > > > Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and > waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no good > imagery). How easy is it to get a list of these ways? Now that better > imagery is available, most of those places don't have better imagery, certainly not the places I did. And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 19 June 2011 19:32, Mark Pulley wrote: > Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and > waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no good imagery). How > easy is it to get a list of these ways? Now that better imagery is > available, now would be a good time to move these tags onto new, more > accurate ways, using imagery, prior to the boundaries disappearing (with the > loss of other information e.g. names). (Even if the boundaries weren't > disappearing, it would still be good to create new ways, as the boundaries > often aren't accurate.) Assuming that the source tag was left it would be very trivial, you could use the XAPI to pull these. However, it's my experience a lot of these ways have been realigned to aerial imagery, which is what tends to break these boundaries so much. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 15/06/2011, at 3:15 PM, John Smith wrote: The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no good imagery). How easy is it to get a list of these ways? Now that better imagery is available, now would be a good time to move these tags onto new, more accurate ways, using imagery, prior to the boundaries disappearing (with the loss of other information e.g. names). (Even if the boundaries weren't disappearing, it would still be good to create new ways, as the boundaries often aren't accurate.) (This would be a good project for someone with spare time. I'm still doing edits from my SA trip a month ago, and will be continuing this for at least the next week.) Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 17 June 2011 18:38, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, David Murn wrote: >> That is the reason why very little effort has been expended mapping >> Australia lately, until we know what skeleton of data we'll have left to >> work with after the changeover. >> >> If you want to map for OSM at the moment, your best bet is to map >> offline using something like JOSM, then save all your edits to be >> uploaded when the licence issue has been sorted out, otherwise you might >> find youre spending hours fixing up the map only to find all your work >> removed or broken when other users data is removed. > > So is there some sort of secret Australian cabal that I should know > about? Do you guys have a mailing list? I sure don't see much of this > kind of discussion on this list... It's hardly a secret, in fact one of the guiding emphasises is on transparency. http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork?pli=1 Although I disagree with mapping offline, that would seem to be the most likely approach to people duplicating effort. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, David Murn wrote: > That is the reason why very little effort has been expended mapping > Australia lately, until we know what skeleton of data we'll have left to > work with after the changeover. > > If you want to map for OSM at the moment, your best bet is to map > offline using something like JOSM, then save all your edits to be > uploaded when the licence issue has been sorted out, otherwise you might > find youre spending hours fixing up the map only to find all your work > removed or broken when other users data is removed. So is there some sort of secret Australian cabal that I should know about? Do you guys have a mailing list? I sure don't see much of this kind of discussion on this list... Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, David Murn wrote: > On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:14 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, John Smith >> wrote: >> > The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I >> > were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. >> >> Oh? Do tell? > > All ABS boundaries (infact all .au government provided data that has > been imported.. toilets, bbqs, hospitals/police stations) will be > removed because theyre all distributed under CC licence, which is not > compatible with the licence OSMF are trying to introduce at the > moment. > > That is the reason why very little effort has been expended mapping > Australia lately, until we know what skeleton of data we'll have left to > work with after the changeover. I discovered you can click on the country names on odbl.de. http://odbl.de/australia-oceania.html (Warning, very large page as it has every user). We're put in with the kiwis which is interesting because their data import account is also undecided on CT/ODbL. Anyway, ABS data (suburbs/cities/state boundaries etc.) is the largest sole contributor making up 15% of all nodes. 64% of contributors have accepted CT but only 50% of the ways/nodes at last edit (so that's even including users who modified something CC licenced). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:14 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, John Smith wrote: > > The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I > > were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. > > Oh? Do tell? All ABS boundaries (infact all .au government provided data that has been imported.. toilets, bbqs, hospitals/police stations) will be removed because theyre all distributed under CC licence, which is not compatible with the licence OSMF are trying to introduce at the moment. That is the reason why very little effort has been expended mapping Australia lately, until we know what skeleton of data we'll have left to work with after the changeover. If you want to map for OSM at the moment, your best bet is to map offline using something like JOSM, then save all your edits to be uploaded when the licence issue has been sorted out, otherwise you might find youre spending hours fixing up the map only to find all your work removed or broken when other users data is removed. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, John Smith wrote: > The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I > were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. Oh? Do tell? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 16 June 2011 15:01, Gary Gallagher wrote: > Thanks for all the comments, I think I'll hold off. It does seem > unfortunate that there is no basic work-flow to convert a boundary into > a relation containing the ways that make it up. From what you've said > Nick merging nodes still keeps them as separate ways just stacked on top > of each other - which is what I'm trying to avoid. The boundaries should already be relations, but people tend to break them frequently. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
Thanks for all the comments, I think I'll hold off. It does seem unfortunate that there is no basic work-flow to convert a boundary into a relation containing the ways that make it up. From what you've said Nick merging nodes still keeps them as separate ways just stacked on top of each other - which is what I'm trying to avoid. Thanks Gary On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 16:32 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: > Gary wrote... > > "I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming > across > tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively > floating > above different ways. Roads are being connected to the boundary > instead > of the the road. The road or other way has been moved to create a > clear > path for the boundary and vice-a-versa. I presume the overlapping > sections of the boundary could be merged with the underlying way. Has > anybody had any experience doing this and what are the potential > pitfalls? > > Thanks >Gary" > > > Hi Gary, > > I'm a firm believer that virtual things like admin and landuse > boundaries should never be glued to roads. > Once I had to dissect about 5 layers of landuse park admin boundaries > in order to get to the road (I needed to add a bridge into the road). > It was a complete nightmare and took about an hour instead of about 1 > minute. > > If these boundaries can not be in their own seperate OSM layer then I > also would like to see them offset from the roads by a small margin. > > Cheers > Nick > > > > ___ > 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
[talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
Gary wrote... "I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating above different ways. Roads are being connected to the boundary instead of the the road. The road or other way has been moved to create a clear path for the boundary and vice-a-versa. I presume the overlapping sections of the boundary could be merged with the underlying way. Has anybody had any experience doing this and what are the potential pitfalls? Thanks Gary" Hi Gary, I'm a firm believer that virtual things like admin and landuse boundaries should never be glued to roads. Once I had to dissect about 5 layers of landuse park admin boundaries in order to get to the road (I needed to add a bridge into the road). It was a complete nightmare and took about an hour instead of about 1 minute. If these boundaries can not be in their own seperate OSM layer then I also would like to see them offset from the roads by a small margin. Cheers Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 15 June 2011 12:16, Gary Gallagher wrote: > I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across > tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating > above different ways. Roads are being connected to the boundary instead > of the the road. The road or other way has been moved to create a clear > path for the boundary and vice-a-versa. I presume the overlapping > sections of the boundary could be merged with the underlying way. Has > anybody had any experience doing this and what are the potential > pitfalls? The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating above different ways. Roads are being connected to the boundary instead of the the road. The road or other way has been moved to create a clear path for the boundary and vice-a-versa. I presume the overlapping sections of the boundary could be merged with the underlying way. Has anybody had any experience doing this and what are the potential pitfalls? Thanks Gary ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
