Re: [talk-au] OSM Search results return strange stuff for Victoria.

[Jonathon Rossi]

Search is powered by Nominatim:
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=W=625658428=highway

It returns:
Computed Postcode 3192

This page describes the process for computed postcodes, basically the
center point of all elements with a postcode. There is an Overpass query
here you can run to see those elements:
https://github.com/mtmail/Nominatim/blob/master/docs/develop/Postcodes.md

All the elements with a postcode of 3190 are grouped tightly together, so
3192 is closer.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Ewen Hill  wrote:

> This is a weird one...
> Do a search for 3 Remington Drive, Highett e.g...
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=3%20Remington%20Drive%2C%20Highett#map=19/-37.95363/145.04802=N
>
> It returns the correct street but the incorrect postcode.of 3192 ..
>
> Does anyone know how 3192 is injected into the returned address please?
>
> Ewen
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?

[Jonathon Rossi]

Aggregate, that's the word I was after.

Do we have tags for big stockpiles of iron ore, coal, etc at mines or
ports? These tend to be pretty permanent and with heaps of loading
equipment around them.

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 7:30 PM Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 17/2/20 7:13 pm, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> > What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...?
> >
>
> landuse=stockpile
> resource=aggregate ?
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


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

Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?

[Jonathon Rossi]

What about a stockpile? And material=gravel/dirt/sand/...?

I have seen piles like that before, however I've not heard them called a
gravel pit, and my first thought was a quarry.

There appears to be people mapping stockpiles, but without any tag:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=stockpile#values

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:54 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17/2/20 5:25 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
>
> Warin - you reckon not map them?
>
>
> If they are permanent then they should be mapped. Can be usefull
> navigational points on a map.
>
>
>
> Sebastian - as Michael said, both temp & permanent but *much* bigger than
> a sandbox!
>
> Here's one that I spotted while mapping t'other day, that got me wondering
> about them.
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?relation=6007743#map=19/-36.41030/148.59385
>
>
> I know that in remote areas, they're often used as impromptu camping
> grounds, being somewhere that you can pull up, usually out of view of the
> road, & stop for the night.
>
>
> In remote areas anything can be used as a camp site ... those cuts off to
> the side for water to goto, a creek line... I would not map them for
> camping reasons.
>
>
>
> Kevin - I've never heard of them referred to as gravel stacks, only ever
> pits? Maybe a State thing?
>
>
> Or maybe just using the common term incorrectly - a pit is usually below
> ground, but it is the term 'we' usually use.
>
> Gravel stack is certainly more descriptive of what can found.
>
> However in remote areas they can and do use what is available locally - so
> these are pits - where stuff is dug out for local use.
>
> ???
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:52, Kevin Pye  wrote:
>
>> The term you're looking for is "gravel stack". A gravel pit is indeed a
>> quarry -- but that's something else.
>>
>> Kevin.
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 12:31, Michael James 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As someone who drives a lot of country highways they are both temporary
>>> and permanent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Sebastian S. 
>>> *Sent:* Monday, 17 February 2020 11:11 AM
>>> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Graeme Fitzpatrick <
>>> graemefi...@gmail.com>; OSM-Au 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Gravel pits?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this a temporary thing?
>>>
>>> Or is this similar to sand boxes they (used to) have next to rail lines?
>>> (For traction in winter)
>>>
>>> On 17 February 2020 10:14:47 am AEDT, Graeme Fitzpatrick <
>>> graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What do we map gravel pits as? (Areas off the side of a main road, used
>>> by Dept of Transport Main Roads to dump gravel etc for road building /
>>> repairs)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quarry seems a bit excessive!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Depot doesn't really cut-it either as there's nothing there except for a
>>> pile of dirt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> & is this another Aussie-only?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


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

Re: [talk-au] Men's Shed?

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:14 PM Sam Wilson  wrote:

> I think amenity=community_centre makes sense, and I think there’s enough
> in Australia to warrant a specific community_centre=mens_shed (or maybe
> community_shed, which Wikipedia suggests as the generic term).
>
I think shed (sometimes) describes the building not that they do. How about
community_centre=workshop?

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

Re: [talk-au] Men's Shed?

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:53 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 14:23, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Existing;
>>
>> amenity=community_centre
>> community_centre:for=men
>> name=North Sydney Men's Shed
>>
>>
>
>> name=Parramatta District Men's Shed
>> office=charity
>>
>> building=yes
>> name=St George Men's Shed
>>
>> amenity=social_centre
>> name=Bankstown Men's Shed
>>
>
> Hmmm - of those, I think I prefer =social_centre?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dsocial_centre
>

The wiki has this:
> Differentiation
> Some forms of community centres might overlap with social facilities.
When the centre is open to general audiences (sometimes of a specific age
group or with specific interests), gathering for particular activities, it
should be tagged amenity=community_centre. When it addresses an audience
with specific problems, and/or is staffed with professional helpers (social
workers, nurses), amenity=social_facility would be preferred.
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcommunity_centre)

>From my initial thoughts and from that description amenity=community_centre
would be my pick. I think of men's sheds a bit like Scouts for youth, which
I'd also tag community_centre not social_centre.

Also the wiki has community_centre:for=m*a*n not community_centre:for=m*e*n
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:community_centre:for).
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Discussion C: mapping on the street :: fixmes

[Jonathon Rossi]

Personally I add fixmes and notes fairly often when mapping at my computer
when I hit the limits of my survey, rather than out in the field. Notes to
explain why something isn't quite consistent with everything else or a way
that ends abruptly; and fixme for myself (or someone else if they desire)
to fix it up after I get back out there to survey it again.

I've mostly viewed fixme as something that would best show up in a mobile
app to someone physically in the location to map accurately, rather than
the other direction of pushing it to someone behind a desk. Like how
StreetComplete prompts to fill in missing information, Fix Me would allow
you to prompt someone physically to collect more information that isn't
just missing tagging.

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:59 AM Ben Kelley  wrote:

> Yeah agreed. If you added a FIXME, who would fix it?
>
> If I see something like that, I generally make a note to myself to go back
> and fix it later.
>
>  - Ben.
>
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 09:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> There are lots of fixmes on the map. They don't get fixed.
>> If you know of a correction .. do it. KISS.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Jonathon Rossi]

Thanks for jumping in Simon. Saves me digging through heaps of old threads.

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 6:53 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

> Why doesn't anybody else (outside of OSM) have an issue with the terms
> that we are asking to be waived? Because they simply ignore them.
>
> I have yet to see any data project proprietary, closed or open that
> actually conveys this correctly to their users (CC BY 4.0 IMHO actually
> rules out using so licensed data in closed projects). Given that the
> department in question and the other distributors of data on CC BY terms
> must be aware that the relevant terms are as a rule ignored, you would
> think that giving a positive answer to an organisation that is so polite to
> ask before using the data would just be a formality, but it seems not.
>
I now remember reading your comments on this in the past, and remember why
I also put DNRM in the too hard basket and just went back to mapping with
the resources we've got.

> It should really be clear from the blog post, but just to clarify: the
> interpretation of the CC BY licences that we based our guidance on is CCs
> reading of the licence and the result of discussion with CC, not something
> that the LWG invented.
>
I knew there was consultation but thanks for explicitly mentioning they
were completely involved during writing it. It is frustrating even
something like a CC license needs to be "interpreted" because it can be
read multiple ways.

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:55 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I have no reason to think otherwise, but would it really matter...?
>

Was just wondering if some sort of department policy was written up to
handle likely multiple emails about this topic with a templated email
response, or if the decision was reviewed again with your last email.

I don't. But to be fair, providing the exception for parallel distribution
> could be considered re-licensing, I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure, but it
> may be because of this they do see it as re-licensing.
>
>>
True, but that quote was that they wouldn't relicense under the ODbL. I
hadn't really thought about it as relicensing, but by definition removing a
clause would be a modified license. Interesting that heaps of other
agencies are granting OSM a modified license, obviously in addition to
everyone else getting it under CCBY4.

CCBY4 Clause:
>> > *No downstream restrictions*. You may not offer or impose any
>> additional or different
>> > terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures
>> to, the
>> > Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights
>> by any recipient
>> > of the Licensed Material.
>>
>
> That's it, as I understand it ODbL says you can provide data with these
> technical restrictions so long as a parallel version is made available
> without the technical restrictions. CC BY says you can't have any technical
> restrictions, even if you make a parallel version without the technical
> restrictions.
>
>>
The OSMF waiver asks for the licensor to allow copy protection on
derivative works. IANAL but am unclear which part of the CCBY4 clause
prevents copy protection on your derivative works if you in parallel
provided all CCBY4 "Licensed Material" unrestricted.

> [...] the Licensed Material *if doing so restricts* exercise of the
Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:00 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:43, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
>
>> I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want to
>> sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is all
>> useful and explains everything but that isn't on the signing page.
>>
>> Maybe instead of this:
>> > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
>> OpenStreetMap and its
>> > users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0
>> requires open access
>> > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap
>>
>> Something like this:
>> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license which
>> prohibits downstream restrictions preventing OpenStreetMap data under Open
>> Database License 1.0 to be distributed as a combined distribution
>> containing CC BY 4.0 licensed data. CC BY 4.0 licensed data remains as
>> such.
>>
>> Could be improved more, but a start. Thoughts?
>>
>
> I usually send both the cover letting which explains the why and the
> waiver form which is the action, and top it off with an email that also
> summarises the issue.
>
> That said, I'd recommend passing feedback to the licensing working group
> as they would need to sign off to any changes to the actual waiver form.
>
>>
I had considered providing feedback to the Licensing WG a while back on
this, but since I wasn't in contact with DNRM I don't think I had enough
information to justify to them that this might help get them across the
line. In your correspondence with Greg, do you know if he is responding or
someone on his behalf? Do you have any other information on why they might
be misunderstanding that their data needs to be relicensed for us to be
able to use it?

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Jonathon Rossi]

I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want to
sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is all
useful and explains everything but that isn't on the signing page.

Maybe instead of this:
> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
OpenStreetMap and its
> users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0 requires
open access
> or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap

Something like this:
[Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license which prohibits
downstream restrictions preventing OpenStreetMap data under Open Database
License 1.0 to be distributed as a combined distribution containing CC BY
4.0 licensed data. CC BY 4.0 licensed data remains as such.

Could be improved more, but a start. Thoughts?

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:03 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
>
>> I agree that neither side is likely change their position.
>>
>> Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver that makes
>> it clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its the
>> second half which mentions ODbL even though the cover letter block explains
>> it they aren't signing that page. When we were communicating with DNRM
>> early last year they do appear to think that they need to relicense under
>> the ODbL, and I can now sort of see how the waiver could be read that way.
>>
>
> I think OSMF's blog post, the cover letter and the waiver form are very
> clear. What changes would you propose?
>
> I got the impression as well, especially with the reply "The department
> will not provide the data under an ODbl licence." I did try to explain that
> they don't need to relicense the data under ODbL and that we are just
> asking for one exception to CC BY in order to be compatible with ODbL.
>
>
>> Waiver:
>> > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
>> OpenStreetMap and its
>> > users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0
>> requires open access
>> > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap
>>
>> CCBY4 Clause:
>> > *No downstream restrictions*. You may not offer or impose any
>> additional or different
>> > terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures
>> to, the
>> > Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights
>> by any recipient
>> > of the Licensed Material.
>>
>
> That's it, as I understand it ODbL says you can provide data with these
> technical restrictions so long as a parallel version is made available
> without the technical restrictions. CC BY says you can't have any technical
> restrictions, even if you make a parallel version without the technical
> restrictions.
>
>>

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Jonathon Rossi]

I agree that neither side is likely change their position.

Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver that makes it
clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its the second
half which mentions ODbL even though the cover letter block explains it
they aren't signing that page. When we were communicating with DNRM early
last year they do appear to think that they need to relicense under the
ODbL, and I can now sort of see how the waiver could be read that way.

Waiver:
> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
OpenStreetMap and its
> users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0 requires
open access
> or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap

CCBY4 Clause:
> *No downstream restrictions*. You may not offer or impose any additional
or different
> terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to,
the
> Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights
by any recipient
> of the Licensed Material.

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:16 AM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:07, Greg Lauer  wrote:
>
>> Just so I am clear on this issue. We are not asking DERM to change the
>> current CC4 licence. We are asking DERM to give us formal permission to use
>> the data. This can be as simple as an email from a responsible party at
>> DERM giving us permission. Am I interpreting this correctly?
>>
>
> We're not asking for them to license the data under ODBL or any other
> license, we're asking for a waiver which provides one exception and one
> clarifications to their data released under CC BY to ensure compatibility
> with the ODBL license and clarification on how OpenStreetMap provides
> attribution (which based on a strict, not taking an chances, reading of the
> CC BY 4.0 license, OSM's attribution may not be enough to satisfy CC BY
> 4.0). This is detailed at
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/.
>
> The waiver is the last page of
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqeTdWR1l3SzJVcTg/view. DERM
> (or whatever their abbreviation is these days) said they won't agree to the
> waiver once, and then again a second time in Dec 2018.
>
> All the other green departments from
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue were able
> to agree.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

Re: [Talk-transit] [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Jonathon Rossi]

I've been following along the few threads to better understand this topic,
however I'm still feeling that mapping complex timetables is a bit like
mapping the full menu of a cafe or restaurant, or the room options at a
hotel. These things vary whenever the service business chooses and it is
close to impossible to keep it up to date.

In Brisbane Australia, some PT timetables vary often especially with public
holidays (local, state or federal), school holidays (which differ between
schools) and especially with special events (sporting, concerts, etc).
Sometimes timetables get more trips sometimes less, it can be quite
variable throughout the year and not something that can be 100% codified
into timetable rules, and obviously not known too far in advance.

I appreciate that timetables are very useful for consumers of maps, and
understand that in some cities timetables can be reverse engineered by
being somewhat observable (I would think copying a full timetable off a
sign would classify as an import), however are we concerned that this adds
a massive burden to maintain this data in OSM and it is very likely to
always be out of date? If it is always going to be out of date will any app
developer even integrate this data into their app when they can use GTFS
feeds? The proposal refers to MAPS.ME and OsmAnd, have the developers of
either application been consulted?

Having this data embedded in the OSM tags also forces apps to reduce their
map cache duration to try to get more updated timetables.

I'm not very experienced with PT in OSM, but I'd have thought improving the
tags for mapping objects to GTFS feeds, including the GTFS endpoints and
license info as tags, and maybe then adding the ability to discover the
GTFS Realtime extension would be the way to go. I think this would give
much more power to app developers. It does overlap a little with
Transitland, but obviously OSM wouldn't be polling or hosting the feeds,
that would be up to an application developer.

Happy to hear any feedback if I've missed the point of this.

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 2:07 AM Jo  wrote:

> Hi Leif,
>
> You made me do it! :-) I sort of stole your proposal and started creating
> a new one. It differs in rather important ways from your proposal, so I
> preferred not modifying your wiki page. I also think it's important to
> decouple the (voting for a) full timetable solution from the solution where
> tags are added to indicate interval during 'opening_hours' or a route,
> which is a lot more likely to be accepted.
>
> So here goes:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_timetables
>
> Please let me know what you think. What I still haven't figured out yet is
> how to differ weekdays that fall in school holiday periods from "normal"
> weekdays. So work in progress.
>
> Polyglot
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> tagg...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Fw: Log bollard fence tagging

[Jonathon Rossi]

I'd use "barrier=bollard" on a way, it prevents passage by some traffic but
not being continuous I wouldn't call it a fence.

Even though it is 3m long I see it a bit like those large concrete
temporary bollards (the size of a standard pallet placed by forklift) that
are used to block vehicles during big events for the safety of people.

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:16 PM reube...@yahoo.com 
wrote:

> I sent this to the tagging list a month ago and got no response so I am
> going to forward it here.
>
> - Forwarded message -
> *Sent:* Monday, 1 October 2018, 11:17:26 pm AEST
> *Subject:* Log bollard fence tagging
>
> I am just wondering what the best way to tag barriers like this:
>
> https://timberbollards.com.au/products/brisbane-fence-log-barrier-600mm-high
>
> It is closest in design to a split rail fence however it is not a linear
> barrier (you can walk between them), and it doesn't seem right to use to
> use log bollard.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


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

Re: [talk-au] Sidewalk vs Footpath?

[Jonathon Rossi]

>
> In iD for me at least, paths next to roads are called "Pavement". I
> agree with this terminology the most and think it was a mistake for OSM
> to adapt the footway=sidewalk tag.
>

>From my experience "pavement" in the road transport industry commonly
refers to the road pavement or road surface, however more broadly the term
pavement is any hard surface for any form of traffic.

Personally I refer to the path next to the road designed for
> pedestrians as the footpath, assuming sidewalk is an american term not
> really used in Australian English.
>
> So I had set the translation of "sidewalk" in the iD editor for
> Australian English to Footpath, however it seems this is causing
> confusion and leading to people inadvertently tagging paths not going
> along side the road as a sidewalk.
>
> At the moment iD has two presets "Foot path" (highway=footway) and
> "Footpath" (highway=footway, footway=sidewalk).
>
> I see now that's just confusing, so I think we should just change this
> back to sidewalk as it's probably understood by most Australians and
> it's clearer about the distinction between highway=footway and
> highway=footway, footway=sidewalk.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts?
>

I agree that us Aussies call both footpaths, iD has always displayed that
template as "Sidewalk" for me so must be using en-us, and I agree that it
makes sense to differentiate it from the standard "Foot Path" even though
Aussie's don't have a different word for them.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Pathogen Control Stations

[Jonathon Rossi]

Looks like the discussion on the tagging list has gone quiet, did you
settle on what to tag these?

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 11:02 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> On 30 June 2018 at 09:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To avoid future misuse of the tag there needs to be 2 tags
>>
>> One for cleansing - elimination of contaminates
>>
>> The other for cleaning - beautification
>>
>>
>>
>> man_made=boot_cleansing
>> or
>> man_made=boot_purging
>>
>> Any other ideas as to words to use?
>>
>
> How about
>
> man_made=boot_decontamination?
>
> Makes it pretty obvious that you're just talking about getting them
> polished!
>
> Will also reply on the other list!
> ___
> 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] Pathogen Control Stations

[Jonathon Rossi]

Thanks Warin,

I read your suggestion for "man_made=boot_cleansing", I'd opt for
"man_made=shoe_cleansing" since I don't wear boots but running shoes as a
runner not a hiker. The QPWS web site mentions "footwear", I think shoe
would be the most inclusive term.

P.S. Sorry I didn't reply on the tagging list, don't know of any way to
reply to that thread without having received those emails.

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:06 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Don't know - nothing in OSM I can see.
>
> I'll ask on the tagging list and see what they say.
>
> Note .. it may well not render/show up on the maps for sometime even
> once there is a tag and there are a few 100 mapped.
>
>
> On 28/06/18 21:49, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> > Throughout the Gold Coast Hinterland (including Lamington and
> > Springbrook National Parks) there are pathogen control stations. These
> > are designed to be used by humans to reduce soil and other
> > contaminates being carried on shoes between sections of the national
> > parks.
> >
> > Many have big brushes (mounted facing up) to clean soil out of your
> > shoes and a disinfectant applier for the base of your shoe, example
> > photo:
> >
> https://www.npsr.qld.gov.au/parks/lamington/images/pathogen-control-station.jpg
> >
> > I mapped one last week in Springbrook NP, however couldn't find any
> > relevant tags to apply to the node. Has anyone mapped them or seen
> > them mapped in OSM before? Is there anything similar that could be a
> > relevant tag?
> >
> >
>
>
> ___
> 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] Pathogen Control Stations

[Jonathon Rossi]

Throughout the Gold Coast Hinterland (including Lamington and Springbrook
National Parks) there are pathogen control stations. These are designed to
be used by humans to reduce soil and other contaminates being carried on
shoes between sections of the national parks.

Many have big brushes (mounted facing up) to clean soil out of your shoes
and a disinfectant applier for the base of your shoe, example photo:
https://www.npsr.qld.gov.au/parks/lamington/images/pathogen-control-station.jpg

I mapped one last week in Springbrook NP, however couldn't find any
relevant tags to apply to the node. Has anyone mapped them or seen them
mapped in OSM before? Is there anything similar that could be a relevant
tag?

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]

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

[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

[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

[talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

[Jonathon Rossi]

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.

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.

Thanks, Jono

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_one-node_brunnels_for_way_over_waterway
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simple_one_node_culvert_or_bridge
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/18182/how-do-i-show-a-stream-crossing-beneath-a-road-in-a-culvert
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-October/027063.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-April/thread.html#17202
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

Apologises, I missed that. BCC definitely seem one of the most progressive
Australian agencies surrounding open data so that should go well. Thanks
again for your work.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:37 PM Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Oh I was referring to the Brisbane City Council data you mentioned not
> DNRM.
>
>
> On 15 Mar. 2018 12:26 am, "Jonathon Rossi" <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
>
> I'll reach out to them to see if we can get the waiver completed tomorrow,
>> in the meantime I've added it too the list.
>>
>
> This isn't intended to sound rude, but why do you think they would have a
> different opinion on the CC BY 2.5 waiver and not just get the same
> response Joel received?
>
> It appears either DNRM either don't understand the waiver, or are not
> interested in passing it on to their lawyers. Do you have contacts there?
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

>
> I'll reach out to them to see if we can get the waiver completed tomorrow,
> in the meantime I've added it too the list.
>

This isn't intended to sound rude, but why do you think they would have a
different opinion on the CC BY 2.5 waiver and not just get the same
response Joel received?

It appears either DNRM either don't understand the waiver, or are not
interested in passing it on to their lawyers. Do you have contacts there?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

>
> No, that was a deliberate attempt to take this discussion off-list as
> I'm not sure that there is much point in raking over old mistakes
> unless we are trying to learn from our mistakes.
>

I know at least I am learning a lot about the whole licensing area and from
these past mistakes here and also now have an appreciation of the effort
and heartache others have gone though to get things to where they are
today. Hopefully this thread results in something useful.

> Your interpretation makes sense to me the way you explained it, I
> > hadn't noticed that detail. I assume you expect that if the
> > data.gov.au  team really meant to include other
> > non-Australian Government agencies it would explicitly be "Australian
> > Government and state and territory governments"
>
> Yes. In light of comments like this:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg07906.html
>
> we should be assuming that the attribution statement is precisely what
> the AGIMO meant it to be.
>

I had a look at some history of the data.australia.gov.au and data.gov.au
web sites, and as others claimed in those mailing list threads these web
sites appear to have always run as a portal where a government agency can
submit data and pick a license from a drop down, the data was even grouped
into "jurisdictions" on data.gov.au.

The copyright pages also had this:

> If you have any questions, please contact the contributing agency.
(captured 12 Nov 2009,
https://web.archive.org/web/20091112020639/http://www.australia.gov.au/about/copyright#data
)

> If you have any questions about a particular dataset on data.gov.au,
please contact the contributing agency.
> (captured 11 Mar 2011,
https://web.archive.org/web/20110311145839/http://data.gov.au/about/copyright/
)

Strangely the DCDB dataset was still available on data.australia.gov.au prior
to and on 26 Nov 2010, but disappeared by 01 Mar 2011:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101126161529/http://data.australia.gov.au:80/catalogue/property
https://web.archive.org/web/20110301031838/http://data.australia.gov.au/catalogue/property

... I thought maybe it moved to data.gov.au during a transition? However I
couldn't find it at any point in time under any of these (although that
doesn't mean it wasn't there):
- "Queensland" under jurisdictions (
https://web.archive.org/web/20110311235629/http://data.gov.au/jurisdiction/)
- "Property" category, while the other "property" category datasets did
come across from data.australia.gov.au
- QLD DERM agency (
https://web.archive.org/web/20110601192908/http://data.gov.au/data/?agency=Queensland+Department+of+Environment+and+Resource+Management
)

but I can't find any subsequent response to say if the ABS data was
> ever listed on data.gov.au. If anybody was mapping back in 2011 and
> knows it would be good to find out.
>

AndrewD, in Aug 2011 there were quite a lot of ABS datasets on data.gov.au:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110829100039/http://data.gov.au:80/data/?agency=Australian+Bureau+of+Statistics

To give a bit more context and perhaps point out a way to resolve this
> without every thing blowing up:
>
> At the time the permission from data.gov.au was obtained, OSM was in the
> final stages of the licence change. Normally the LWG wouldn't have
> become directly involved at all in the matter of licensing national
> datasets, just as it is now only involved on request in late stage
> vetting. However at the time there was a die hard group of people that
> wanted to derail the licence change at essentially all costs, and
> unluckily some of the louder voices were Australian. The people involved
> jumped on use of CC BY 2.* datasets from Australian government sources
> in OSM as one of the major arguments against the licence change and
> nobody local seemed to be willing to resolve the issue, as a result the
> LWG engaged directly with data.gov.au.
>

Simon, thanks for the background, I thought there was context I was missing
as I read though all the emails in those long threads yesterday. I can now
understand why various parties have a bad taste in their mouth over this
topic and why some people stepped away from the project.

Now it should be pointed out that, as I've said previously, the major
> concern, and why we wanted permission in the first place is that the
> ODbL doesn't require downstream attribution on derivative databases and
> works, it just requires a pointer back to the source of the database.
> That is the reason why OSM, in one way or the other, has always required
> that data sources that have licensed their data on CC BY 2.X/3.0 terms
> agree that indirect attribution via the website or the contributors page
> is sufficient. I have yet to hear that such agreement has been withheld,
> as clearly anything else would be totally impractical. It should be
> noted that we didn't require downstream attribution even when OSM data
> was licensed CC BY SA 2.0, and we would have needed exactly the same
> 

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

I hope you don't mind me replying back on list and that it was just an
accident not CCing the list.

Your interpretation makes sense to me the way you explained it, I hadn't
noticed that detail. I assume you expect that if the data.gov.au team
really meant to include other non-Australian Government agencies it would
explicitly be "Australian Government and state and territory governments"
or similar, at a minimum "government" being pluralised?

Is your view that the only listed dataset that might be permissible is the
ABS data, the one that is noted as a "maybe"?

I'm reading between the lines and maybe airing dirty laundry, but is it the
position of the OSMF that the permission is valid and your view that it
isn't, which is why you manually monitor usage because you didn't feel like
this discussion again and have better things to do?

I've read quite a lot of the emails on this topic but definitely not all of
them, so I apologise that I'm coming into this passionate topic fairly
green.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:29 PM Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> None of this changes the fundamental issue which is that the
> Commonwealth cannot give permission to a third-party to use a state
> owned dataset without that state delegating the authority. There is not
> a single piece of evidence that this is the case and the burden of proof
> would be on proving that they did rather than the other way around.
>
> As I've already said to Simon if you read the actual attribution
> statement that was agreed on:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg07970.html
>
> it starts with "Contains data from Australian government public
> information datasets". The key phrase is "Australian government" and
> this has a specific meaning:
>
>
> https://guides.service.gov.au/content-guide/terms-phrases/#australian-government
>
> Which shows that they were giving us permission to use the datasets
> owned by the Commonwealth; which I am able to believe they may have been
> able to do. If they were including the datasets owned by the states and
> territories they would have required us to state "Contains data from
> Australian Government and state and territory governments public
> information datasets".
>
>
> On 13/3/18 16:06, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13/3/18 10:32, Simon Poole wrote:
> >>> you are assuming that
> >>> data.gov.au received the data from the states on the same terms as
> >>> everybody else, that really doesn't have to be so.
> >>
> >> What makes you think I'm assuming anything? To publish data on
> >> data.gov.au an organization has to register
> >> (
> >>
> https://toolkit.data.gov.au/index.php?title=Starting_on_datagovau#Getting_an_Account
> >> )
> >> and provide the following waiver:
> >>
> >> "On behalf of the , I request a data publishing account on
> >> data.gov.au.  will be responsible for the management of
> >> this account and the data that is published using it.  will
> >> notify the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) to any
> >> changes in ownership of the account and of any issues if they arise. The
> >> responsibility of publishing data appropriately, in accordance with
> >> privacy, security and other relevant considerations rests entirely with
> >> the data publisher and DPMC take no responsibility."
> >
> >
> >> Not sure what part of that you think transfers any rights from the
> >> holder to DPMC.
> >
> >
> > However, isn't that assuming that the process of getting data on the web
> > site prior to 2011 is the same as it is today.
> >
> > It appears data.gov.au was started under the Australian Government
> > Information Management Office (AGIMO) which is still part of the
> Department
> > of Finance (known back then as the Department of Finance and
> Deregulation),
> > but is now run by the Digital Transformation Agency (under the Department
> > of the Prime Minister and Cabinet), so that document has at least been
> > changed since 2011 if not didn't exist back then.
> >
> > If it did exist and all data came through that waiver I would have
> expected
> > the then "Assistant Director, Gov 2.0 Strategy and Services (Manager
> > data.gov.au), Department of Finance and Deregulation" (source: LinkedIn,
> > not linking their profile) would have just responded that they don't own
> or
> > control the data and to go see the owner.
> >
> > Yes, it is possible that they didn't know what they were agreeing to or
> > they didn't 

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

>
> On 13/3/18 10:32, Simon Poole wrote:
> > you are assuming that
> > data.gov.au received the data from the states on the same terms as
> > everybody else, that really doesn't have to be so.
>
> What makes you think I'm assuming anything? To publish data on
> data.gov.au an organization has to register
> (
> https://toolkit.data.gov.au/index.php?title=Starting_on_datagovau#Getting_an_Account
> )
> and provide the following waiver:
>
> "On behalf of the , I request a data publishing account on
> data.gov.au.  will be responsible for the management of
> this account and the data that is published using it.  will
> notify the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) to any
> changes in ownership of the account and of any issues if they arise. The
> responsibility of publishing data appropriately, in accordance with
> privacy, security and other relevant considerations rests entirely with
> the data publisher and DPMC take no responsibility."


> Not sure what part of that you think transfers any rights from the
> holder to DPMC.


However, isn't that assuming that the process of getting data on the web
site prior to 2011 is the same as it is today.

It appears data.gov.au was started under the Australian Government
Information Management Office (AGIMO) which is still part of the Department
of Finance (known back then as the Department of Finance and Deregulation),
but is now run by the Digital Transformation Agency (under the Department
of the Prime Minister and Cabinet), so that document has at least been
changed since 2011 if not didn't exist back then.

If it did exist and all data came through that waiver I would have expected
the then "Assistant Director, Gov 2.0 Strategy and Services (Manager
data.gov.au), Department of Finance and Deregulation" (source: LinkedIn,
not linking their profile) would have just responded that they don't own or
control the data and to go see the owner.

Yes, it is possible that they didn't know what they were agreeing to or
they didn't actually have permission under whatever arrangement was agreed
to with each stakeholder. However, if we dispute this person's agreement,
then how do we trust each other permission/waiver we've got signed, how do
we know if the person is permitted to represent the government or
organisation on this matter?

After all this data is published under CC BY 2.5/3.0.

That's putting it politely. There is a rather toxic stratum of
> correspondence on talk-au around the period of the license change.
>
> As I said earlier this is a can of worm and I have been deliberately
> leaving the Contributors page alone and just keeping an eye on what
> people are importing into OSM.


I obviously don't want this to become a toxic discussion again and
understand there are differing opinions, but I don't think ignoring the
problem is a good solution for OSM. Manually looking at every changeset for
data.gov.au sounds like a burden you shouldn't have to perform.

Do you know of a way we could verify this permission without data.gov.au
(DNRM or another on the list) just responding they know nothing about it
and don't think it is valid because the source arrangement details are a
decade old and people have moved on or forgotten?

Many thanks everyone for the discussion.
Jono
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

Cheers Simon, that makes sense. I have to defer to those who have contacted
DNRM via private email whether DNRM have made any explicit remarks over the
previous permission. I was initially getting the feeling from some comments
that there was some legal evidence, but I've not seen anything. I guess
since there isn't any legal evidence, that is the reason nothing was
changed on the contributors page, at least now that we don't have
permission to use the CC BY 4.0 data that is explicitly noted.

I'm glad we've got a clear picture of what is allowed and what isn't at
this point in time.

@AndrewH that looks great, once the page has got a heap of green it'll be
useful. I noticed you are missing the BCC datasets, although I've not used
them.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:57 PM Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:

>
> Am 12.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
>
> Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. I
> just wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future after
> thinking I was doing the right thing, and no one else has done this each
> time this has come up in the past.
>
> Jonathon the effort is clearly appreciated. At the time the issue was
> rather hotly debated and (as I wasn't really involved at the time) we would
> likely need to ask Michael Collinson for the historic information.
>
>
> I've made your suggested change to the page in regards to CC BY 4.0
> datasets, I've also moved it to the bottom line of the section since that
> made sense.
>
> If we don't doubt the validity of the permission granted as you mentioned
> we obviously don't know internal government arrangements way back, then
> does that mean we'd allow people to continue using the DNRM (and others) CC
> BY 2.5 datasets?
>
>
> There are (at least) two aspects here:
>
> - has the DNRM explicitly made a statement on the validity of the explicit
> permission from data.gov.au back then?  If no, then I don't see a reason
> to change our approach.
> - we have tightened our regime wrt CC BY 4.0  relative to CC BY 2.5,
> because it is a significantly changed licence and a number of the concerns
> we have with 4.0 don't exist in such a form in 2.5 (in particular the for
> OSM very relevant section on database rights), and to be consistent we've
> asked, going forward, for the equivalent terms in older CC licenses to be
> waived too. We've however not asked anybody to go back to CC BY 2.X sources
> from which we have received permission in the past and assume that such
> permission continues to be valid for the datasets it was given at the time.
>
>
> Simon
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:17 PM Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 12.03.2018 um 11:13 schrieb Simon Poole:
>>
>>
>>
>> Making clear that we don't the validity of the permission granted for the
>> CC BY 2.5 datasets, but don't extend it to covering the current ones and
>> avoid speculating on internal government arrangements way back.
>>
>> That should have been:
>>
>> .. that we don't doubt the validity ..
>> ___
>> 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] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. I just
wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future after
thinking I was doing the right thing, and no one else has done this each
time this has come up in the past.

I've made your suggested change to the page in regards to CC BY 4.0
datasets, I've also moved it to the bottom line of the section since that
made sense.

If we don't doubt the validity of the permission granted as you mentioned
we obviously don't know internal government arrangements way back, then
does that mean we'd allow people to continue using the DNRM (and others) CC
BY 2.5 datasets?

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:17 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

>
>
> Am 12.03.2018 um 11:13 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
>
>
> Making clear that we don't the validity of the permission granted for the
> CC BY 2.5 datasets, but don't extend it to covering the current ones and
> avoid speculating on internal government arrangements way back.
>
> That should have been:
>
> .. that we don't doubt the validity ..
> ___
> 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] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

> Have we necessarily exhausted all our options? I only ever asked DNRM, I
know of other dataset from different agencies which is also CC-BY 4.0.

This is also why I added a heading for the "data.gov.au" text, it was
sitting directly under the "Commonwealth of Australia" previously, the
"Department
of the Environment and Energy" and "Geoscience Australia" sections are now
at the same level as the "data.gov.au" one.

My intention was to clarify the permission granted from data.gov.au, no
other section changes. This obviously is a living document so hopefully in
the future we'll get permission from DNRM which can go under the Queensland
section.

Did I misunderstand your question?

> Also is it really needed to redact all that DCDB stuff? That was imported
back when we had permission right?

I feel Ian's remark is a good one to follow (even thought he likely isn't a
lawyer), but it appears those at the time (like Ian said) were acting in
good faith with permission from a federal government agency. If DNRM send a
take down I guess we'd have to redact it all even if other changes have
been built on the data afterwards.

I will remove my changes including DCDB contributions though because we did
know at this time, and can now point people to this page in future.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:54 PM Joel H. <joelh@cocaine.ninja> wrote:

> Have we necessarily exhausted all our options? I only ever asked DNRM, I
> know of other dataset from different agencies which is also CC-BY 4.0.
>
> Also is it really needed to redact all that DCDB stuff? That was imported
> back when we had permission right?
>
> On 12/03/18 17:07, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> I'm glad you mentioned that Ian, because I started looking at what we'd
> have to "redact" and it is very mixed up with data from DCDB and survey, so
> we'd loose heaps.
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Natural+Resources+and+Mines#values
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Environment+and+Resource+Management#values
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=dcdb#values
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:02 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Ian, that makes sense, glad to get a few more people involved in
>> this discussion.
>>
>> With the comment in mind I've amended the text to this for now:
>> > The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by
>> the Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is
>> no evidence they had permission to grant us these rights at that point in
>> time. Permission to use the following datasets in the future must be
>> obtained directly from the copyright owner (2018-03-12).
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:59 PM Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We need the right form of words.  I completely agree we should not rely
>>> on data.gov.au permission for any new datasets.
>>>
>>> However, I'm not sure we want words that would give someone
>>> justification to go down the redaction path for existing data sets.  We
>>> were given permission by one arm of the government, about data owned by
>>> another arm, and we relied on that in good faith.   We stopped when we had
>>> information suggesting anything to the contrary.
>>>
>>> Ian.
>>> On 12 March 2018 at 17:41, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Andrew, and thanks again for flagging my use a few months back.
>>>>
>>>> Can we once and for all publicly note the "data.gov.au permission can
>>>> of worms", even if that is simply adding to the existing Contributions page
>>>> text noting exactly what everyone "in the know" knows about the problem,
>>>> OSM contributors shouldn't have to search the mailing list for this info.
>>>>
>>>> I've made the following addition to the wiki page:
>>>> > The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by
>>>> the Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is
>>>> no evidence they had permission to grant us these rights. Permission to use
>>>> the following datasets at any time must be obtained directly from the
>>>> copyright owner (2018-03-12).
>>>>
>>>> If this isn't appropriate, then I'm all ears.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again guys even though this isn't the outcome we wanted.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:30 PM Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

I'm glad you mentioned that Ian, because I started looking at what we'd
have to "redact" and it is very mixed up with data from DCDB and survey, so
we'd loose heaps.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Natural+Resources+and+Mines#values
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Environment+and+Resource+Management#values
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=dcdb#values

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:02 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:

> Thanks Ian, that makes sense, glad to get a few more people involved in
> this discussion.
>
> With the comment in mind I've amended the text to this for now:
> > The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by
> the Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is
> no evidence they had permission to grant us these rights at that point in
> time. Permission to use the following datasets in the future must be
> obtained directly from the copyright owner (2018-03-12).
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:59 PM Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We need the right form of words.  I completely agree we should not rely
>> on data.gov.au permission for any new datasets.
>>
>> However, I'm not sure we want words that would give someone justification
>> to go down the redaction path for existing data sets.  We were given
>> permission by one arm of the government, about data owned by another arm,
>> and we relied on that in good faith.   We stopped when we had information
>> suggesting anything to the contrary.
>>
>> Ian.
>> On 12 March 2018 at 17:41, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Andrew, and thanks again for flagging my use a few months back.
>>>
>>> Can we once and for all publicly note the "data.gov.au permission can
>>> of worms", even if that is simply adding to the existing Contributions page
>>> text noting exactly what everyone "in the know" knows about the problem,
>>> OSM contributors shouldn't have to search the mailing list for this info.
>>>
>>> I've made the following addition to the wiki page:
>>> > The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by
>>> the Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is
>>> no evidence they had permission to grant us these rights. Permission to use
>>> the following datasets at any time must be obtained directly from the
>>> copyright owner (2018-03-12).
>>>
>>> If this isn't appropriate, then I'm all ears.
>>>
>>> Thanks again guys even though this isn't the outcome we wanted.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:30 PM Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeap, this has already been covered before:
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-March/011291.html
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the data.gov.au team not
>>>>> DNRM (or a former named department), so how relevant/legal do we think 
>>>>> this
>>>>> is now that we know DNRM's position on the matter who are the actual
>>>>> copyright owner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

Thanks Ian, that makes sense, glad to get a few more people involved in
this discussion.

With the comment in mind I've amended the text to this for now:
> The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by the
Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is no
evidence they had permission to grant us these rights at that point in
time. Permission to use the following datasets in the future must be
obtained directly from the copyright owner (2018-03-12).

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:59 PM Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We need the right form of words.  I completely agree we should not rely on
> data.gov.au permission for any new datasets.
>
> However, I'm not sure we want words that would give someone justification
> to go down the redaction path for existing data sets.  We were given
> permission by one arm of the government, about data owned by another arm,
> and we relied on that in good faith.   We stopped when we had information
> suggesting anything to the contrary.
>
> Ian.
> On 12 March 2018 at 17:41, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Andrew, and thanks again for flagging my use a few months back.
>>
>> Can we once and for all publicly note the "data.gov.au permission can of
>> worms", even if that is simply adding to the existing Contributions page
>> text noting exactly what everyone "in the know" knows about the problem,
>> OSM contributors shouldn't have to search the mailing list for this info.
>>
>> I've made the following addition to the wiki page:
>> > The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by
>> the Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is
>> no evidence they had permission to grant us these rights. Permission to use
>> the following datasets at any time must be obtained directly from the
>> copyright owner (2018-03-12).
>>
>> If this isn't appropriate, then I'm all ears.
>>
>> Thanks again guys even though this isn't the outcome we wanted.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:30 PM Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeap, this has already been covered before:
>>>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-March/011291.html
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the data.gov.au team not
>>>> DNRM (or a former named department), so how relevant/legal do we think this
>>>> is now that we know DNRM's position on the matter who are the actual
>>>> copyright owner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> ___
>> 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] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

Thanks Andrew, and thanks again for flagging my use a few months back.

Can we once and for all publicly note the "data.gov.au permission can of
worms", even if that is simply adding to the existing Contributions page
text noting exactly what everyone "in the know" knows about the problem,
OSM contributors shouldn't have to search the mailing list for this info.

I've made the following addition to the wiki page:
> The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by the
Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is no
evidence they had permission to grant us these rights. Permission to use
the following datasets at any time must be obtained directly from the
copyright owner (2018-03-12).

If this isn't appropriate, then I'm all ears.

Thanks again guys even though this isn't the outcome we wanted.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:30 PM Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeap, this has already been covered before:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-March/011291.html
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the data.gov.au team not DNRM
>> (or a former named department), so how relevant/legal do we think this is
>> now that we know DNRM's position on the matter who are the actual copyright
>> owner.
>>
>>
>>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

There is a bunch of very outdated info which I don't think is relevant to
this on the discussion/talk page on this too:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Contributors#Australian_government_public_information_datasets

Is anyone familiar with the Licensing Working Group, should we defer this
to them and request they edit the Contributions page?
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:

> It appears so, and they just have a boilerplate response to these types of
> questions now.
>
> Since we are stuck between DNRM and OSMF on CC-BY 4.0 (in no ill way) it
> would be good to at least clear up the current position so others don't get
> caught like me. The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the data.gov.au
> team not DNRM (or a former named department), so how relevant/legal do we
> think this is now that we know DNRM's position on the matter who are the
> actual copyright owner.
>
> > [...] We have also been given explicit permission to incorporate and
> publish such CC-BY licensed geographic coordinate datasets under a free and
> open license, including the Open Database License, provided that primary
> attribution is made here and that each dataset used is also listed here in
> the format Dataset Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally
> retrieved from http://data.australia.gov.au:
> > [...]
> > Property Boundaries Annual Extract Queensland (Lite DCDB), unknown
> publication date, CC-BY 2.5 Australia, Queensland Department of Environment
> and Resource Management, originally retrieved from http://data.gov.au/152
> (Archived)
> (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Commonwealth_of_Australia
> )
>
> > Contains data from Australian government public information datasets.
> The original datasets are available from the Australian government data
> website under Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) and
> Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY). We have also been
> given explicit permission to incorporate and publish such CC-BY licensed
> geographic coordinate datasets under a free and open license, including the
> Open Database License, provided that primary attribution is made here and
> that each dataset used is also listed here in the format Dataset Name, Date
> Published, License, Agency Name, originally retrieved from
> http://data.australia.gov.au
> (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission
> )
>
> Even if we got an older copy of the data (which would still be very
> useful), we still need explicit permission to use this CC-BY 2.5 data
> according to OSMF:
>
> > Both the 2.0 and 3.0 versions of the CC BY (Creative Commons
> Attribution) licence have been popular with government and other sources
> for a long time. Due to differences between CC BY and the ODbL with respect
> to attribution, the LWG (OSMF Licence/Legal Working Group) has always
> required explicit permission from licensors to use such data in
> OpenStreetMap and attribute by adding an entry to our attribution pages on
> our central websites.
> (https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/)
>
> IANAL, but now that we know officially that DNRM won't give it to us on
> CC-BY 4.0 data they most likely wouldn't give us that permission on the
> CC-BY 2.x/3.x data either today, we should make changes to the
> contributions page to reflect that DNRM has not given us permission to
> incorporate their data. I'm going to revert my recent changes earlier this
> year which were flagged, but it also means if we come across imported data
> from the DCDB which there is some I've seen attributed to it, then we
> should remove it and replace it with something we can derive from another
> source.
>
> Jono
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:40 PM Joel H. <joelh@cocaine.ninja> wrote:
>
>> Yeah pretty much, I interpret it as "We will not deviate from CC-BY 4.0".
>>
>> On 12/03/18 14:37, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>>
>> Is that (second sentence) word for word the same response you got the
>> first time, where they thought they'd have to relicense under the ODbL?
>>
>> P.S. sorry about not replying all with my last email.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK everyone, Here is the feedback I got after asking for permission to
>>> use CC-BY 4.0 datasets:
>>>
>>> Thank you for your enquiry regarding use of the localities boundaries
>>> dataset in OpenStreetMap.
>>> The Department has given consideration to your request and advise that,
>>> consiste

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

It appears so, and they just have a boilerplate response to these types of
questions now.

Since we are stuck between DNRM and OSMF on CC-BY 4.0 (in no ill way) it
would be good to at least clear up the current position so others don't get
caught like me. The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the data.gov.au
team not DNRM (or a former named department), so how relevant/legal do we
think this is now that we know DNRM's position on the matter who are the
actual copyright owner.

> [...] We have also been given explicit permission to incorporate and
publish such CC-BY licensed geographic coordinate datasets under a free and
open license, including the Open Database License, provided that primary
attribution is made here and that each dataset used is also listed here in
the format Dataset Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally
retrieved from http://data.australia.gov.au:
> [...]
> Property Boundaries Annual Extract Queensland (Lite DCDB), unknown
publication date, CC-BY 2.5 Australia, Queensland Department of Environment
and Resource Management, originally retrieved from http://data.gov.au/152
(Archived)
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Commonwealth_of_Australia)

> Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. The
original datasets are available from the Australian government data website
under Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) and Creative
Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY). We have also been given
explicit permission to incorporate and publish such CC-BY licensed
geographic coordinate datasets under a free and open license, including the
Open Database License, provided that primary attribution is made here and
that each dataset used is also listed here in the format Dataset Name, Date
Published, License, Agency Name, originally retrieved from
http://data.australia.gov.au
(
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission
)

Even if we got an older copy of the data (which would still be very
useful), we still need explicit permission to use this CC-BY 2.5 data
according to OSMF:

> Both the 2.0 and 3.0 versions of the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution)
licence have been popular with government and other sources for a long
time. Due to differences between CC BY and the ODbL with respect to
attribution, the LWG (OSMF Licence/Legal Working Group) has always required
explicit permission from licensors to use such data in OpenStreetMap and
attribute by adding an entry to our attribution pages on our central
websites.
(https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/)

IANAL, but now that we know officially that DNRM won't give it to us on
CC-BY 4.0 data they most likely wouldn't give us that permission on the
CC-BY 2.x/3.x data either today, we should make changes to the
contributions page to reflect that DNRM has not given us permission to
incorporate their data. I'm going to revert my recent changes earlier this
year which were flagged, but it also means if we come across imported data
from the DCDB which there is some I've seen attributed to it, then we
should remove it and replace it with something we can derive from another
source.

Jono

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:40 PM Joel H. <joelh@cocaine.ninja> wrote:

> Yeah pretty much, I interpret it as "We will not deviate from CC-BY 4.0".
>
> On 12/03/18 14:37, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> Is that (second sentence) word for word the same response you got the
> first time, where they thought they'd have to relicense under the ODbL?
>
> P.S. sorry about not replying all with my last email.
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK everyone, Here is the feedback I got after asking for permission to
>> use CC-BY 4.0 datasets:
>>
>> Thank you for your enquiry regarding use of the localities boundaries
>> dataset in OpenStreetMap.
>> The Department has given consideration to your request and advise that,
>> consistent with Queensland Government policy, our data is provided under a
>> CC:BY 4.0 licence.  The Department will not provide the data under an Open
>> Database licence.  It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for
>> use of our data
>>
>>
>> On 12/03/18 14:27, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>>
>> Could you please share their response or paraphrase it so we can all
>> understand their reasons.
>>
>> Thanks, Jono
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:24 PM Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I tried again, and got rejected again. I had contact with someone behind
>>> a local GIS company who said he would try to help. But I haven't heard
>>> back. So I've put it to rest for now...
>>>
>>> I guess we shoul

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

Is that (second sentence) word for word the same response you got the first
time, where they thought they'd have to relicense under the ODbL?

P.S. sorry about not replying all with my last email.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK everyone, Here is the feedback I got after asking for permission to use
> CC-BY 4.0 datasets:
>
> Thank you for your enquiry regarding use of the localities boundaries
> dataset in OpenStreetMap.
> The Department has given consideration to your request and advise that,
> consistent with Queensland Government policy, our data is provided under a
> CC:BY 4.0 licence.  The Department will not provide the data under an Open
> Database licence.  It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for
> use of our data
>
>
> On 12/03/18 14:27, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> Could you please share their response or paraphrase it so we can all
> understand their reasons.
>
> Thanks, Jono
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:24 PM Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tried again, and got rejected again. I had contact with someone behind
>> a local GIS company who said he would try to help. But I haven't heard
>> back. So I've put it to rest for now...
>>
>> I guess we should advocate for more compatibility with CC-BY 4.0 in our
>> licence.
>>
>> On 12/03/18 13:35, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>>
>> Joel,
>>
>> Did you get a response from DNRM? Are you still in talks with them?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:07 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Great to hear Joel, I was actually wondering last night if you'd already
>>> sent this off.
>>>
>>> I'm not an expert in this area so happy for others to correct me,
>>> however my reading of your description of the second section that DNRM
>>> needs to waive doesn't explain to someone not familiar with what we are
>>> requesting, I think DNRM staff are likely to think this is still too hard
>>> and push back yet again. I like Andrew Harvey's description here
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/df/NSW_GNB_170427_OpenStreetMap.pdf>
>>> of both sections including the extended part of section 2, maybe he will
>>> give permission to use his description.
>>>
>>> Regarding who has signed the waiver:
>>> - According to the contributors page for BCC
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.brisbane.qld.gov.au_explicit_permission>
>>>  it
>>> appears they haven't signed the waiver because it didn't exist until early
>>> 2017 but it appears they gave explicit permission to incorporate and
>>> publish their CC-BY data under an ODbL, more than the waiver requires
>>> - The explicit permission from NSW Land and Property Information sounds
>>> the same as the BCC one giving more permission than OSMF now needs
>>> - The NSW Geographical Name Register have signed the waiver
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/df/NSW_GNB_170427_OpenStreetMap.pdf>
>>> - Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ed/Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf>
>>> - SA and MRWA seem to have explicitly agreed with the same sort of thing
>>> BCC and NSW LPI did
>>>
>>> I don't know if there was some sort of informal/old waiver or explicit
>>> permission template because the older ones are pretty similar, they
>>> obviously aren't explicit about Section 2(a)(5)(B) though. If that is the
>>> case I'd amend your list of who has signed the waiver, maybe even consider
>>> linking to the NSW GNR and Victoria DELWP signed waivers proving the claim.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps, Jono
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:09 PM Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All! I have made a response to DNRM, regarding the licensing for
>>>> locality boarders. Please give a critique before I send!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Hello [NAME],*
>>>>
>>>> *Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the approval for
>>>> OpenStreetMap.*
>>>>
>>>> *As a response to your concern over the licence change, it isn’t
>>>> necessary for DNRM data to be re-licenced as a result of usage in
>>>> OpenStreetMap. It’s simply about signing a waiver to clarify minor
>>>> differences in licences. Approving usage in OSM shouldn’t tamper with the
>>>> goals of D

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

Joel,

Did you get a response from DNRM? Are you still in talks with them?

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:07 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:

> Great to hear Joel, I was actually wondering last night if you'd already
> sent this off.
>
> I'm not an expert in this area so happy for others to correct me, however
> my reading of your description of the second section that DNRM needs to
> waive doesn't explain to someone not familiar with what we are requesting,
> I think DNRM staff are likely to think this is still too hard and push back
> yet again. I like Andrew Harvey's description here
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/df/NSW_GNB_170427_OpenStreetMap.pdf>
> of both sections including the extended part of section 2, maybe he will
> give permission to use his description.
>
> Regarding who has signed the waiver:
> - According to the contributors page for BCC
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.brisbane.qld.gov.au_explicit_permission>
>  it
> appears they haven't signed the waiver because it didn't exist until early
> 2017 but it appears they gave explicit permission to incorporate and
> publish their CC-BY data under an ODbL, more than the waiver requires
> - The explicit permission from NSW Land and Property Information sounds
> the same as the BCC one giving more permission than OSMF now needs
> - The NSW Geographical Name Register have signed the waiver
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/df/NSW_GNB_170427_OpenStreetMap.pdf>
> - Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ed/Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf>
> - SA and MRWA seem to have explicitly agreed with the same sort of thing
> BCC and NSW LPI did
>
> I don't know if there was some sort of informal/old waiver or explicit
> permission template because the older ones are pretty similar, they
> obviously aren't explicit about Section 2(a)(5)(B) though. If that is the
> case I'd amend your list of who has signed the waiver, maybe even consider
> linking to the NSW GNR and Victoria DELWP signed waivers proving the claim.
>
> Hope that helps, Jono
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:09 PM Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All! I have made a response to DNRM, regarding the licensing for
>> locality boarders. Please give a critique before I send!
>>
>>
>> *Hello [NAME],*
>>
>> *Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the approval for
>> OpenStreetMap.*
>>
>> *As a response to your concern over the licence change, it isn’t
>> necessary for DNRM data to be re-licenced as a result of usage in
>> OpenStreetMap. It’s simply about signing a waiver to clarify minor
>> differences in licences. Approving usage in OSM shouldn’t tamper with the
>> goals of DNRM since OSM uses a very similar licence with many of the same
>> philosophical views.*
>>
>> *The first part that needs approval is whether or not you think our
>> method of Attribution, is sufficient with the “reasonable manner”
>> requirement of the CC-BY 4.0. We credit sources through the following page:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors
>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors>, It’s also possible to
>> add sources to the objects which are DNRM’s data.*
>>
>> *The second is to waive Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC*
>> *BY 4.0 license as to OpenStreetMap and its users with the understanding
>> that*
>> *the Open Database License 1.0 requires open access or parallel
>> distribution of*
>> *OpenStreetMap data.*
>>
>> *Many organisations such as Brisbane City Council and New South Wales
>> Land and Property Information, have already given permission in the same
>> way that DNRM could.*
>>
>> *I hope you take the time to reconsider. I’ve attached the PDF that is
>> needed for your review, keep in touch.*
>>
>>
>> *Joel Hansen*
>> *Local OpenStreetMap Editor*
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

Great to hear Joel, I was actually wondering last night if you'd already
sent this off.

I'm not an expert in this area so happy for others to correct me, however
my reading of your description of the second section that DNRM needs to
waive doesn't explain to someone not familiar with what we are requesting,
I think DNRM staff are likely to think this is still too hard and push back
yet again. I like Andrew Harvey's description here

of both sections including the extended part of section 2, maybe he will
give permission to use his description.

Regarding who has signed the waiver:
- According to the contributors page for BCC

it
appears they haven't signed the waiver because it didn't exist until early
2017 but it appears they gave explicit permission to incorporate and
publish their CC-BY data under an ODbL, more than the waiver requires
- The explicit permission from NSW Land and Property Information sounds the
same as the BCC one giving more permission than OSMF now needs
- The NSW Geographical Name Register have signed the waiver

- Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver

- SA and MRWA seem to have explicitly agreed with the same sort of thing
BCC and NSW LPI did

I don't know if there was some sort of informal/old waiver or explicit
permission template because the older ones are pretty similar, they
obviously aren't explicit about Section 2(a)(5)(B) though. If that is the
case I'd amend your list of who has signed the waiver, maybe even consider
linking to the NSW GNR and Victoria DELWP signed waivers proving the claim.

Hope that helps, Jono

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:09 PM Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All! I have made a response to DNRM, regarding the licensing for
> locality boarders. Please give a critique before I send!
>
>
> *Hello [NAME],*
>
> *Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the approval for
> OpenStreetMap.*
>
> *As a response to your concern over the licence change, it isn’t necessary
> for DNRM data to be re-licenced as a result of usage in OpenStreetMap. It’s
> simply about signing a waiver to clarify minor differences in licences.
> Approving usage in OSM shouldn’t tamper with the goals of DNRM since OSM
> uses a very similar licence with many of the same philosophical views.*
>
> *The first part that needs approval is whether or not you think our method
> of Attribution, is sufficient with the “reasonable manner” requirement of
> the CC-BY 4.0. We credit sources through the following page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors
> , It’s also possible to
> add sources to the objects which are DNRM’s data.*
>
> *The second is to waive Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC*
> *BY 4.0 license as to OpenStreetMap and its users with the understanding
> that*
> *the Open Database License 1.0 requires open access or parallel
> distribution of*
> *OpenStreetMap data.*
>
> *Many organisations such as Brisbane City Council and New South Wales Land
> and Property Information, have already given permission in the same way
> that DNRM could.*
>
> *I hope you take the time to reconsider. I’ve attached the PDF that is
> needed for your review, keep in touch.*
>
>
> *Joel Hansen*
> *Local OpenStreetMap Editor*
>
>
> ___
> 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] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Jonathon Rossi]

Thanks Warin,

The Queen Street Mall in Brisbane is exactly that, a pedestrian highway
area and with the tag, however I did read something that the tag has to be
on the way not the relation so probably the reason routing doesn't work
there.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7781404

I think it makes sense for something that really is a highway, it feels
wrong tagging a park like that though, and iD instantly renders it
different so I suspect it'll introduce rendering problems.

When I get some time I'll try to jump into the GraphHopper discussion to
see if I can understand the problem better and see if a rudimentary
implementation is possible. I can already see how hard it is, how do you
know you can get from a residential road to a park for example.

Thanks again, Jono

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:18 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01-Feb-18 03:35 PM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> > Exists for areas of concrete too
> Yes true, including car parks which usually don't have footpaths.
>
> > I think if you tag an area as pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not
> go across them.
> Did you mean to say will or will not go across them?
>
>
> Will NOT go across them. Someone suggest that they may use the way itself
> for routing - so goes around the outside .. that would be helpful at least.
>
> And how would you tag an area as "pedestrian"?
>
> Create a closed way (that is an area), then tag it with
>
> highway=pedestrian
> area=yes  (this last should not be required ... but belt and braces
> approach)
>
> Refer Way: 354759945
> For steps refer Relation: 4645750
>
>
>
> Sounds like the general consensus is that routing is "broken" and we
> continue mapping as you'd expect, and there are no real good workarounds.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:48 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A 'well known' routing problem.
>>
>> Exists for areas of concrete too ... I think if you tag an area as
>> pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not go across them.
>> For an area of steps the bottom, top and sides can have ways that are
>> paths ... that gets around the routing issue.
>> In the longer term routes should solve the problem .. they don't see it
>> as an urgent issue as there are not many people using pedestrian routing.
>>
>>
>> On 01-Feb-18 01:45 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>>
>> It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for
>> GraphHopper:
>> https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I
>>> was trying to work out if OSM could do this.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in
>>>> local parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature
>>>> rather than from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly
>>>> across a park that is just grass.
>>>>
>>>> In the following example, I've mapped:
>>>> - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
>>>> inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
>>>> the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
>>>> - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into
>>>> the park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
>>>> well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
>>>> trees keep it path like
>>>> - other well formed paths that lead out to roads
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056
>>>>
>>>> The OSM Wiki states:
>>>>
>>>> > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a
>>>> road, should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's
>>>> debatable whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node,
>>>> or cross over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
>>>> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
>>>>
>>>> If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
>>>> playground) then it feels like t

Re: [talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Jonathon Rossi]

> Exists for areas of concrete too
Yes true, including car parks which usually don't have footpaths.

> I think if you tag an area as pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not
go across them.
Did you mean to say will or will not go across them? And how would you tag
an area as "pedestrian"?

Sounds like the general consensus is that routing is "broken" and we
continue mapping as you'd expect, and there are no real good workarounds.

Thanks

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:48 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A 'well known' routing problem.
>
> Exists for areas of concrete too ... I think if you tag an area as
> pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not go across them.
> For an area of steps the bottom, top and sides can have ways that are
> paths ... that gets around the routing issue.
> In the longer term routes should solve the problem .. they don't see it as
> an urgent issue as there are not many people using pedestrian routing.
>
>
> On 01-Feb-18 01:45 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for
> GraphHopper:
> https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
>
>> To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I
>> was trying to work out if OSM could do this.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in
>>> local parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature
>>> rather than from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly
>>> across a park that is just grass.
>>>
>>> In the following example, I've mapped:
>>> - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
>>> inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
>>> the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
>>> - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into
>>> the park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
>>> well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
>>> trees keep it path like
>>> - other well formed paths that lead out to roads
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056
>>>
>>> The OSM Wiki states:
>>>
>>> > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a
>>> road, should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's
>>> debatable whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node,
>>> or cross over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
>>> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
>>>
>>> If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
>>> playground) then it feels like the responsibility of the routing engine to
>>> just do this (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
>>> feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through the park from each
>>> entrance that we feel is a main thoroughfare.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem elsewhere?
>>>
>>> Jono
>>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Jonathon Rossi]

It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for GraphHopper:
https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:

> To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I
> was trying to work out if OSM could do this.
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
>
>> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in local
>> parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature rather than
>> from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly across a
>> park that is just grass.
>>
>> In the following example, I've mapped:
>> - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
>> inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
>> the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
>> - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into the
>> park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
>> well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
>> trees keep it path like
>> - other well formed paths that lead out to roads
>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056
>>
>> The OSM Wiki states:
>>
>> > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a road,
>> should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's debatable
>> whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node, or cross
>> over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
>> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
>>
>> If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
>> playground) then it feels like the responsibility of the routing engine to
>> just do this (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
>> feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through the park from each
>> entrance that we feel is a main thoroughfare.
>>
>> Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem elsewhere?
>>
>> Jono
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Jonathon Rossi]

To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I was
trying to work out if OSM could do this.

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:

> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in local
> parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature rather than
> from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly across a
> park that is just grass.
>
> In the following example, I've mapped:
> - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
> inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
> the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
> - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into the
> park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
> well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
> trees keep it path like
> - other well formed paths that lead out to roads
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056
>
> The OSM Wiki states:
>
> > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a road,
> should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's debatable
> whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node, or cross
> over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
>
> If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
> playground) then it feels like the responsibility of the routing engine to
> just do this (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
> feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through the park from each
> entrance that we feel is a main thoroughfare.
>
> Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem elsewhere?
>
> Jono
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Jonathon Rossi]

In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in local
parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature rather than
from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly across a
park that is just grass.

In the following example, I've mapped:
- the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
- trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into the
park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
trees keep it path like
- other well formed paths that lead out to roads

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056

The OSM Wiki states:

> Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a road,
should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's debatable
whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node, or cross
over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)

If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
playground) then it feels like the responsibility of the routing engine to
just do this (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through the park from each
entrance that we feel is a main thoroughfare.

Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem elsewhere?

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

Re: [talk-au] Help with licensing

[Jonathon Rossi]

> The Department will not provide the data under an Open Database license.
It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for use of our data.

Am I missing something, I didn't think we were asking anyone to relicense
their data under the ODbL, just to accept our understanding of one clause
(Section 3(a)(1)) and waive another (Section 2(a)(5)(B)). Are DNRM
misunderstanding what we are requesting?

The second line of the waiver says:
> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
OpenStreetMap and its users with the understanding that the Open Database
License 1.0 requires open access or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap
data.

Section 2(a)(5)(B) says:
> No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or
different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological
Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the
Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.

Aren't we (OSMF) just asking the copyright owner to waive their rights to
this clause to allow downstream users of the collective OSM data so that
for example it could be put on a Bluray disc. Their data would still be
CCBY licensed, and the OSM data would be a mix of ODbL and CCBY licensed
data?

/cc Simon Poole

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:19 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:

> I also want to make use of the QLD DCDB and was going to start a new
> thread on the mailing list about it today to work out how to get out of
> this stalemate after Andrew Davidson informed me last week.
>
> It appears Andrew Harvey just recently had great luck with Victoria DELWP
> signing the waiver and on a corporate letterhead. AndrewH was that luck and
> are there any insights that you could assist us with here that might help
> us convince QLD DNRM?
>
> Jono
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:42 PM Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's a known problem with a difference of opinion between the Queensland
>> Government and OSM as to licence compatibility. See this thread for example:
>>
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg10883.html
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Satuim <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>
>>> I recently asked for permission to use a CC-BY 4.0 dataset but got
>>> rejected. The dataset I want to use is fairly important (boundaries for
>>> suburbs and counties for QLD).
>>>
>>> Here is the response I got:
>>>
>>> The Department will not provide the data under an Open Database license.
>>> It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for use of our data.
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>> 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] Help with licensing

[Jonathon Rossi]

I also want to make use of the QLD DCDB and was going to start a new thread
on the mailing list about it today to work out how to get out of this
stalemate after Andrew Davidson informed me last week.

It appears Andrew Harvey just recently had great luck with Victoria DELWP
signing the waiver and on a corporate letterhead. AndrewH was that luck and
are there any insights that you could assist us with here that might help
us convince QLD DNRM?

Jono

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:42 PM Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> It's a known problem with a difference of opinion between the Queensland
> Government and OSM as to licence compatibility. See this thread for example:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg10883.html
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Satuim <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> I recently asked for permission to use a CC-BY 4.0 dataset but got
>> rejected. The dataset I want to use is fairly important (boundaries for
>> suburbs and counties for QLD).
>>
>> Here is the response I got:
>>
>> The Department will not provide the data under an Open Database license.
>> It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for use of our data.
>>
>>
>> ___
> 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