Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Simon Slater]

On Wednesday, 30 May 2018 6:10:54 PM AEST Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> use of mailing lists it is common people forget to reply all.

I use "Reply to List" - easy as pressing L.
-- 
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net

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

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[osm.talk-au]

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2018 19:17
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

 

I quoted the whole off-list "discussion" with Thorsten. Since it was short and 
not controversial, I assumed it was in error not using reply all. Apologies if 
this is against some sort of mailing list etiquette, but in my use of mailing 
lists it is common people forget to reply all.

Depends on the other person .. some see it as 'private'. Others have just made 
an error. 
Personally I try to keep the replay to the list only ... no point in have a 
separate To: or Cc: thing in the address bar ... and it keeps my mail filters 
happy :) 




 

Not sending it to the list was an unintentional mistake on my side in this 
case… I wouldn’t have noticed that it didn’t went to the list if you hadn’t 
mentioned it…

 


It is less complex the way you have it :) ... but less 'truthful'. :( 
The broken up roads are a pain when you try to change there classifications .. 
you have to do it for each bridge and way ... at least that is the present 
arrangement .. possibly if they were relations it would be easier for the name, 
classification ... 

 

 

For roads, if you want to make a change that should affect all segments, what I 
found works very well is just to use the search function in JOSM to look for 
name=”xxx” then do a quick visual check to make sure it’s all and only the 
segments you want. Then you can directly and easily edit tags and it affects 
everything.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

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

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Warin]

On 30/05/18 18:10, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:34 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 30/05/18 16:03, Jonathon Rossi wrote:


I would say both of these should be mapped as bridges.



Problem: Personal discussion being shown on public list..
If you want more than the two of you  to contribute then hold the
discussion here. :)


I quoted the whole off-list "discussion" with Thorsten. Since it was 
short and not controversial, I assumed it was in error not using reply 
all. Apologies if this is against some sort of mailing list etiquette, 
but in my use of mailing lists it is common people forget to reply all.
Depends on the other person .. some see it as 'private'. Others have 
just made an error.
Personally I try to keep the replay to the list only ... no point in 
have a separate To: or Cc: thing in the address bar ... and it keeps my 
mail filters happy :)





I'd like to, but the problem it causes is that trails in national
parks and bushland are usually named, and MTB trails have other
tags including difficulty ratings. By splitting these trails to
add tiny bridges it makes it harder to maintain consistent tags
on separate highways, I know of a few trails with half a dozen
tiny bridges.

Do you see this as a problem? Or do you think I'm just making a
storm in a teacup?


Routes can be had in a relation containing many things including
bridges.
The difficulty rating could be placed on separate sections - the
individual ways, or placed in the relation as the same for all the
route ... depends on how much detail you want to get.

IMBA difficulty ratings (and those for hiking and horse riding) 
generally apply to the whole trail even if one section is easier, 
because you can't just leave the trail if it gets hard and usually 
trail builders will have decided the classification before starting 
work. However, trails can sometimes fork (for a decent length) and 
rejoin, so that does already give you multiple ways.


If the trail has the same name along all its length .. there is no
problem in splitting it up and having the same name on the
separate ways .. just like there in for highways now.
It is a 'challenge' to maintain some of it .. but it is the truth
and so that should be what is in OSM.


Great, I wanted to make sure people didn't see bush paths/trails as 
less important than roads for cars. I guess the only way to avoid 
fords being mapped incorrectly is to map bridges where they actually 
exist no matter their size.




It is less complex the way you have it :) ... but less 'truthful'. :(
The broken up roads are a pain when you try to change there 
classifications .. you have to do it for each bridge and way ... at 
least that is the present arrangement .. possibly if they were relations 
it would be easier for the name, classification ...
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:34 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30/05/18 16:03, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> I would say both of these should be mapped as bridges.
>>
>
> Problem: Personal discussion being shown on public list..
> If you want more than the two of you  to contribute then hold the
> discussion here. :)
>

I quoted the whole off-list "discussion" with Thorsten. Since it was short
and not controversial, I assumed it was in error not using reply all.
Apologies if this is against some sort of mailing list etiquette, but in my
use of mailing lists it is common people forget to reply all.

I'd like to, but the problem it causes is that trails in national parks and
> bushland are usually named, and MTB trails have other tags including
> difficulty ratings. By splitting these trails to add tiny bridges it makes
> it harder to maintain consistent tags on separate highways, I know of a few
> trails with half a dozen tiny bridges.
>
> Do you see this as a problem? Or do you think I'm just making a storm in a
> teacup?
>
>
> Routes can be had in a relation containing many things including bridges.
> The difficulty rating could be placed on separate sections - the
> individual ways, or placed in the relation as the same for all the route
> ... depends on how much detail you want to get.
>

IMBA difficulty ratings (and those for hiking and horse riding) generally
apply to the whole trail even if one section is easier, because you can't
just leave the trail if it gets hard and usually trail builders will have
decided the classification before starting work. However, trails can
sometimes fork (for a decent length) and rejoin, so that does already give
you multiple ways.

If the trail has the same name along all its length .. there is no problem
> in splitting it up and having the same name on the separate ways .. just
> like there in for highways now.
> It is a 'challenge' to maintain some of it .. but it is the truth and so
> that should be what is in OSM.
>

Great, I wanted to make sure people didn't see bush paths/trails as less
important than roads for cars. I guess the only way to avoid fords being
mapped incorrectly is to map bridges where they actually exist no matter
their size.

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

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Warin]

On 30/05/18 16:03, Jonathon Rossi wrote:


I would say both of these should be mapped as bridges.



Problem: Personal discussion being shown on public list..
If you want more than the two of you  to contribute then hold the 
discussion here. :)




I'd like to, but the problem it causes is that trails in national 
parks and bushland are usually named, and MTB trails have other tags 
including difficulty ratings. By splitting these trails to add tiny 
bridges it makes it harder to maintain consistent tags on separate 
highways, I know of a few trails with half a dozen tiny bridges.


Do you see this as a problem? Or do you think I'm just making a storm 
in a teacup?


Routes can be had in a relation containing many things including bridges.
The difficulty rating could be placed on separate sections - the 
individual ways, or placed in the relation as the same for all the route 
... depends on how much detail you want to get.


If the trail has the same name along all its length .. there is no 
problem in splitting it up and having the same name on the separate ways 
.. just like there in for highways now.
It is a 'challenge' to maintain some of it .. but it is the truth and so 
that should be what is in OSM.


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

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Jonathon Rossi]

>
> I would say both of these should be mapped as bridges.
>

I'd like to, but the problem it causes is that trails in national parks and
bushland are usually named, and MTB trails have other tags including
difficulty ratings. By splitting these trails to add tiny bridges it makes
it harder to maintain consistent tags on separate highways, I know of a few
trails with half a dozen tiny bridges.

Do you see this as a problem? Or do you think I'm just making a storm in a
teacup?

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

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Jonathon Rossi]

>
> If you 'jump across it' I'd go for ford. Reason ... it is not a bridge,
> nor a culvert both of which require infrastructure.
> The ford to me give warning that I might get wet feet, and that if flooded
> I may have to wait.
> So that is the 'best fit' where the crossing has nothing other than what
> nature has provided.
>

When I said "more significant bridges (maybe anything you couldn't jump
across)", I meant that without the bridge you couldn't jump across. There
definitely is man made infrastructure, but they are small and just "anchor"
on either side of the stream.

I should have done this at the beginning, I've got some random examples
from Google Images that should help illustrate what I'm referring to.

Easy to jump over on foot, more just a convenience bridge especially for
wheeled users:
- https://cdn-files.apstatic.com/mtb/7018727_large_1495548882.jpg
- https://cdn-files.apstatic.com/mtb/7000400_medium_1418669614.jpg
- https://cdn-files.apstatic.com/mtb/7005254_medium_1442023869.jpg
-
https://i.wnc.io/s1024/2016-12-20_pisgah-bent-creek_small-creek-trail-sign-and-bridge.jpg
-
http://www.fotwheel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/preacher-bridge-1000x1000.jpg

Too big to jump on foot (or too deep), so map it:
-
http://fearlessenterprising.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/small-garden-bridge-plans-bright-inspiration-9-bridges-home-outdoor-decoration.jpg
-
https://i.wnc.io/s1024/2016-12-20_pisgah-bent-creek_homestead-trail-orange-blaze-bridge.jpg
- http://pantra.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/BB-B2-300x225.jpg
-
https://media.alienadv.com/walking-over-bamboo-bridge-tea-estate-kerala-MTB-adventure-india-85C_750px.jpg
-
https://i.wnc.io/s1024/2004-01-04_pisgah-bent-creek_homestead-trail-at-small-creek-bridge.jpg

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

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Warin]

On 30/05/18 02:26, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
I finally got a response on the changeset, thanks for the pointer 
Warin. The response unfortunately isn't the clearest explanation of 
why fords were added when a ground survey wasn't performed since you 
can rarely see culverts from aerial imagery.


> I have only ever mapped what is on the ground. There's always some 
way for a path the cross a stream - ford, culvert, bridge etc. It just 
seems a bit trivial when you have a path crossing a mapped stream that 
is so small you can jump across it.


@Ian @Warin I definitely don't want to start edit wars which is why 
I'm here, and I do see how mapping a culvert/bridge as a node on the 
respective way is problematic because it isn't at the 
intersection/overlapping of both ways. Glad to hear you too Ian have 
run into this exact problem with somewhat trivial culverts/bridges, 
exactly as you said that are small enough you could jump over. I 
thought others would have weighed in with their opinion, so in lieu of 
that, I think I'll just start mapping all culverts by splitting 
waterways but only split highways (to reduce mismatching tag pain) for 
more significant bridges (maybe anything you couldn't jump across) 
unless I'm removing an erroneously mapped ford (and I'll reconsider).


If you 'jump across it' I'd go for ford. Reason ... it is not a bridge, 
nor a culvert both of which require infrastructure.
The ford to me give warning that I might get wet feet, and that if 
flooded I may have to wait.
So that is the 'best fit' where the crossing has nothing other than what 
nature has provided.



Thanks

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:25 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 23/05/18 00:56, Jonathon Rossi wrote:

Hi,

Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland
along with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot
of the fords aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of
the area. I tried commenting on a changeset
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304
) 2 weeks ago
and again a week ago without a response, they have been active in
that time and appear to be a long time contributor, but I'm now
at a loss on how to contact them.


Request a 0 hour block from the Data Working Group ...
This stops further edits until they acknowledge the problem.


My question isn't about what they've been doing, but about the
fact I've not wanted to split ways and try to line up a tiny
culvert or bridge when they are physically so small, however
because they haven't been mapped someone is now incorrectly added
fords. Many of the culverts are just a small pipe (sometimes as
small as 20mm diameter and 0.5m long) with dirt over it to keep
the trail dry (the trail is usually built up a little in the low
lying area), and many of the bridges are only a metre long timber
bridge especially those added for MTB.

The wiki states that bridge=* and tunnel=* should not be used on
nodes, so I've not used them and in the past only mapped fords
(many which have big sized gravel or stepping stones) and
obviously use a shared node.

I've read a bunch of discussion on this topic and agree that
splitting ways to model these is overkill as the tags on each way
can get out of sync and get in the way, but removing the
incorrect fords and not putting something in their place irks me.
The wiki's comment about a ford: "You are both on the highway and
in the waterway, and not separated logically as a stream under a
bridge would be" makes complete sense, and I don't want shared
nodes for these cases even though many streams are intermittent.

Finally my question, why couldn't we map a culvert as a node of a
waterway, or a bridge as a node of a highway? The only other
option I can think of is to add a note to a node of
highway/waterway describing what is there so someone doesn't add
a ford.


OSM rules - anything you like...
So you could map them as nodes... but other mappers could remove
them. Edit wars.

A culvert should be on the crossing of water and a path/road.

I also have concerns that another mapper has added water crossing
details ... base on nothing other than the presence in OSM of a
crossing .. the details are not viewable in imagery.
___
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] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Jonathon Rossi]

I finally got a response on the changeset, thanks for the pointer Warin.
The response unfortunately isn't the clearest explanation of why fords were
added when a ground survey wasn't performed since you can rarely see
culverts from aerial imagery.

> I have only ever mapped what is on the ground. There's always some way
for a path the cross a stream - ford, culvert, bridge etc. It just seems a
bit trivial when you have a path crossing a mapped stream that is so small
you can jump across it.

@Ian @Warin I definitely don't want to start edit wars which is why I'm
here, and I do see how mapping a culvert/bridge as a node on the respective
way is problematic because it isn't at the intersection/overlapping of both
ways. Glad to hear you too Ian have run into this exact problem with
somewhat trivial culverts/bridges, exactly as you said that are small
enough you could jump over. I thought others would have weighed in with
their opinion, so in lieu of that, I think I'll just start mapping all
culverts by splitting waterways but only split highways (to reduce
mismatching tag pain) for more significant bridges (maybe anything you
couldn't jump across) unless I'm removing an erroneously mapped ford (and
I'll reconsider).

Thanks

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:25 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23/05/18 00:56, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland along
> with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot of the fords
> aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of the area. I tried
> commenting on a changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.
> org/changeset/58540304) 2 weeks ago and again a week ago without a
> response, they have been active in that time and appear to be a long time
> contributor, but I'm now at a loss on how to contact them.
>
> Request a 0 hour block from the Data Working Group ...
> This stops further edits until they acknowledge the problem.
>
> My question isn't about what they've been doing, but about the fact I've
> not wanted to split ways and try to line up a tiny culvert or bridge when
> they are physically so small, however because they haven't been mapped
> someone is now incorrectly added fords. Many of the culverts are just a
> small pipe (sometimes as small as 20mm diameter and 0.5m long) with dirt
> over it to keep the trail dry (the trail is usually built up a little in
> the low lying area), and many of the bridges are only a metre long timber
> bridge especially those added for MTB.
>
> The wiki states that bridge=* and tunnel=* should not be used on nodes, so
> I've not used them and in the past only mapped fords (many which have big
> sized gravel or stepping stones) and obviously use a shared node.
>
> I've read a bunch of discussion on this topic and agree that splitting
> ways to model these is overkill as the tags on each way can get out of sync
> and get in the way, but removing the incorrect fords and not putting
> something in their place irks me. The wiki's comment about a ford: "You are
> both on the highway and in the waterway, and not separated logically as a
> stream under a bridge would be" makes complete sense, and I don't want
> shared nodes for these cases even though many streams are intermittent.
>
> Finally my question, why couldn't we map a culvert as a node of a
> waterway, or a bridge as a node of a highway? The only other option I can
> think of is to add a note to a node of highway/waterway describing what is
> there so someone doesn't add a ford.
>
>
> OSM rules - anything you like...
> So you could map them as nodes... but other mappers could remove them.
> Edit wars.
>
> A culvert should be on the crossing of water and a path/road.
>
> I also have concerns that another mapper has added water crossing details
> ... base on nothing other than the presence in OSM of a crossing .. the
> details are not viewable in imagery.
> ___
> 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] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[iansteer]

--
>>
> I have been “guilty” of adding small fords and culverts on bush tracks 
> because JOSM gives me an error message if you have a waterway crossing a way 
> without some sort of bridge, Ford, etc - and I try to avoid doing edits and 
> leaving errors/warnings.
>

>If the fords and culverts are real then there is no problem.

>But adding things that are not there just to remove some error/warning is not 
>good. They should be left as >errors//warnings.

>Only when the crossing can be resolved into a ford or culvert should that 
>feature be added.
>Otherwise an addition to solve an error/warning might be made that is wrong 
>... there could be a bridge!


I have only ever mapped what is on the ground.  There's always some way for a 
path the cross a stream - ford, culvert, bridge etc.  It just seems a bit 
trivial when you have a path crossing a mapped stream that is so small you can 
jump across it.

Ian

--

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 21:35:42 +1000
From: Andrew Harvey 
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Queensland Govt Spatial Catalogue
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Surfacing an old thread here as there have been recent developments.

The "Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries" dataset from QSpatial[1] has 
been previously imported by QldProtectedAreas[2]. It's CC BY 3.0 AU licensed, 
but the data custodian (Department of Environment and Science) has completed 
the OSMF CC BY waiver[3] clearing the data for use in OSM from a licensing 
perspective. The data custodian only agreed to complete the waiver for that 
specific dataset due to concerns about the data quality of other datasets.

As far as I'm aware we haven't been able to get the waiver completed by other 
departments who publish their data on QSpatial and we have no QSpatial blanket 
waiver, only this specific dataset.

Is anyone interested in updating OSM based on some of the new data from this 
dataset? A quick scan in QGIS there are some differences (mostly due to new 
data published on QSpatial) but mostly it's consistent.

To compare the two I,

1. Downloaded queensland.osm.pdf extract from 
http://download.openstreetmap.fr/extracts/oceania/australia/
2. Extracted protected areas from that file with:
osmium tags-filter --overwrite -o qld-protected-areas.osm.pbf 
queensland.osm.pbf nwr/boundary=protected_area,national_park,state_forest

Giving https://tianjara.net/data/QLD_Protected_Areas.geojson from QSpatial and 
https://tianjara.net/data/qld-protected-areas.geojson from OSM which can be 
compared in QGIS or JOSM using the GeoJSON plugin.

[1] http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/index.page
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas
[3]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:QPWS_ProtectedAreas_CC-BY3.0_OSM_PermissionSigned.pdf

On 26 January 2016 at 21:35, Nev Wedding  wrote:

> Hi
> I have been browsing the Queensland Spatial Catalogue and noticed the 
> following
>
> Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries  Published date -
> 11 Jun 2015
> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Protected%20areas%20of%20Queensland%20-%20boundaries%
> 22
>
> Nature refuges and coordinated conservation Date published -14 Sep 2012
> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Nature%20refuges%20and%20coordinated%
> 20conservation%20areas%22
>
> ** Has this been imported and if not do we have permission to use to 
> edit/update the OSM
>
>
> Others I noticed that may be useful were Local government area 
> boundaries http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Local%20government%20area%20boundaries%20-%20Queensla
> nd%
> 22
> Locality boundaries
> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Locality%20boundaries%20-%20Queensland%22
>
> All are licensed under a Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia 
> licence.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 131, Issue 19



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Warin]

On 23/05/18 00:56, Jonathon Rossi wrote:

Hi,

Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland 
along with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot of 
the fords aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of the 
area. I tried commenting on a changeset 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304) 2 weeks ago and 
again a week ago without a response, they have been active in that 
time and appear to be a long time contributor, but I'm now at a loss 
on how to contact them.



Request a 0 hour block from the Data Working Group ...
This stops further edits until they acknowledge the problem.

My question isn't about what they've been doing, but about the fact 
I've not wanted to split ways and try to line up a tiny culvert or 
bridge when they are physically so small, however because they haven't 
been mapped someone is now incorrectly added fords. Many of the 
culverts are just a small pipe (sometimes as small as 20mm diameter 
and 0.5m long) with dirt over it to keep the trail dry (the trail is 
usually built up a little in the low lying area), and many of the 
bridges are only a metre long timber bridge especially those added for 
MTB.


The wiki states that bridge=* and tunnel=* should not be used on 
nodes, so I've not used them and in the past only mapped fords (many 
which have big sized gravel or stepping stones) and obviously use a 
shared node.


I've read a bunch of discussion on this topic and agree that splitting 
ways to model these is overkill as the tags on each way can get out of 
sync and get in the way, but removing the incorrect fords and not 
putting something in their place irks me. The wiki's comment about a 
ford: "You are both on the highway and in the waterway, and not 
separated logically as a stream under a bridge would be" makes 
complete sense, and I don't want shared nodes for these cases even 
though many streams are intermittent.


Finally my question, why couldn't we map a culvert as a node of a 
waterway, or a bridge as a node of a highway? The only other option I 
can think of is to add a note to a node of highway/waterway describing 
what is there so someone doesn't add a ford.


OSM rules - anything you like...
So you could map them as nodes... but other mappers could remove them. 
Edit wars.


A culvert should be on the crossing of water and a path/road.

I also have concerns that another mapper has added water crossing 
details ... base on nothing other than the presence in OSM of a crossing 
.. the details are not viewable in imagery.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au