Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
I come across similar situations quite often and you could write an essay on access to each individual trail but it's not worth it and still doesn't improve the accuracy or clarity. My opinion is that the situation is sufficiently vague enough that I wouldn't tag any specific access or restrictions. It's an interesting topic Tony I hope you're not discouraged, keep mapping. :-) David Hi all Sorry, I referred to signs and brochures as 'maps' in my last mail, yes they do contain maps which can't inform our decision, but they also contain text information which can. Tony Thanks stev391 and others for the feedback and the welcome. Re real world indications of bicycle=no, there is a lot of signage in the area indicating that only formed and signed bike trails can be used and that the creation and use of other tracks is illegal. https://app.box.com/s/a7215oibuxni7igetyr1onq7yhowfkk1 Map of authorised bike paths at Horswood Rd https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.96593/145.30346 https://app.box.com/s/v0d7q8og4qwtzp6ke43u84a9jbkkha84 Detail of above stating Ride only on formed trails designated for cycling. Do not take shortcuts or make new trails. https://app.box.com/s/v2s8dl3q3a86gnuwlig2ez9ygsbzngif sign at cnr Logan Park Rd and Wellington Rd Please remain on formed Management tracks only, penalties apply https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93742/145.31140 https://app.box.com/s/t66300e74l19nr9dwsl7h9b8l25jt0bd Detail of sign Cyclists are not permitted ... to ride on tracks... other than those designated for mountain bike riding https://app.box.com/s/rldybfj6gfscfr3zwc7jd20tac7yho7y Detail of sign, map showing authorised trails https://app.box.com/s/wawk2d19abv5ic65h5daslgqj6xrhqut Sign at cnr Dargon Tk and Wellington Rd https://app.box.com/s/gy198r926p05g3f6wgt41hkm2p0jwswy Example of signage on authorised bike track (Dargon Track) Thanks for the photo of Ant Trail. Another at the link below https://app.box.com/s/n13xkced9ra4bv97xf1xqspl3xptnht5 Ant trail at Sunset Tk looking east It appears that this is not a formed track or a designated track. The signage in the area therefore indicates that its use is illegal. https://app.box.com/s/zbdg27crru77njfsvj58proe87qj0oif A similar but unnamed track at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93253/145.30901 Park notes http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/315692/Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding;Park-note-Lysterfield-Lake-mountain-bike-riding.pdf[1] http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/315693/Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NP;Park-note-Lysterfield-Park-and-Churchill-NP.pdf[2] map the authorised trails and indicate that the use of other trails is illegal. We do not always rely on on ground signage for tagging, for example footpaths would be tagged as cars=no even though there are no barriers or signs. Re the name of the trail, it is unclear how widely the name Ant Trail is known, it is not supported on the ground by eg signage. I spoke briefly with the head ranger Lysterfield last week and expect to talk again in the next 2 days and hope to get an official answer on (a) the exact legal status of these trails (b) whether Parks Vic has a position on how they should be mapped So please hold off retagging for a couple of days. Thanks Tony TONY,THANKS FOR FIRSTLY RAISING YOUR PROPOSED EDIT PRIOR TO MAKING THE CHANGE (AND ALSO WELCOME TO THE OPENSTREETMAP COMMUNITY). I HAD NOT BEEN TO THAT TRACK IN ABOUT 6 MONTHS, SO NEEDED TO REVISIT TO SEE WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND BEFORE PRESENTING MY ARGUMENT. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS AN ATTACK ON YOURSELF AND I HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAP. I AGREE WITH BRYCE, IT IS DEFINITELY NOT BICYCLE=NO AS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD TO INDICATE THAT THIS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED. SEE: HTTP://WIKI.OPENSTREETMAP.ORG/WIKI/BICYCLEWHICH STATES WHEN USING 'BICYLCE=NO': WHERE BICYCLES ARE NOT PERMITTED, ENSURE THIS IS INDICATED AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BELOW REFERENCED PHOTOS, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS IS NOT PERMITTED. THE TRACK IS QUITE WELL DEFINED AND WELL USED, HERE IS SOME PHOTOS OF THE TRACK:HTTP://WWW.- MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/YU6LBMRK8FBJT1LPJZJLHW/PHOTO(YOU MIGHT NEED TO SCROLL OUT USING THE SCROLL WHEEL IF THE PHOTO LOOKS TOO ZOOMED IN)IN THAT SEQUENCE OF PHOTOS YOU CAN SEE THE FIRE ACCESS TRACK WHICH IS VERY UNDEFINED (JUST LOW CUT GRASS, WITH OCCASSIONAL WHEEL RUTS) AND A VERY CLEAR MTB TRACK. TO COUNTER THE ARGUMENTS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED, THERE IS NO SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION OF THE FIRE TRAILS, DOES THIS MEAN IT IS NOT DEFINED AND IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED?HTTP://WWW.MAPILLARY.COM/MAP/IM/ISYCXINLETHKLFXNARZWKW/- PHOTO THIS TRACK APPEARS TO BE QUITE POPULAR ACCORDING TO THE STRAVA SEGMENTS:HTTPS://WWW.STRAVA.COM/SEGMENTS/5483327 (SOUTHBOUND)HTTPS://WWW.STRAVA.COM/SEGMENTS/5483306 (NORTHBOUND)THIS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE TRACK HAS EXISTED IN THE REAL
Re: [talk-au] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
I lean towards mapping what's physically there, so if the trail exists I think it's ok to map it if you want to. If the trail is blocked by a fence/barrier and signage saying keep out etc, then I think access=no would be appropriate as it's facts based on what's physically there. I also default to If in doubt, leave the map as it is. So if someone has mapped something and I'm not really sure of any changes I'm thinking of making are correct, then I leave it alone. Anyway that's just my thoughts. Hi What (if any) is the correct tagging for unauthorised trails in national and state parks? For example, Ant Track https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.92599/145.32051 I have spoken with Parks Vic and they request that bike riders do not create additional trails and only use official trails. They would prefer if such unofficial trails were not mapped or named because it implies official status to park users. I have not yet worked out how to contact the author of Ant Track. Thanks Tony _ 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] Unauthorised bike trails in national parks
The access issues get very murchy very quickly. We have a Forestry area that is clearly signposted for bikes to stick to vehicle tracks, however for 10 years or more Forestry has sponsored volunteer mountain bikers to build and maintain trails in this area. Go figure. Parks have a category for some trails called keep but don't promote. ie they are not going to close the trail but they are not going to signpost it either. Maybe the Ant trail is one of these?? We have a council with a trail on an un-made road reserve. This is legal access for walkers and bike riders and possibly motor vehicles, however the trail is littered with no-bikes signs. Contact the council and they confirm it is ok for bikes to use. We have a council with signposted downhill mountain bike trails saying no-walkers, but there is not legal standing for the signage. We have a trail that seems to be randomly ok or not ok for bikes depending on the Ranger. One Ranger says, yep not supposed to ride bikes on that trail, that Ranger moves on and another Ranger takes his place, yep it's fine to ride bikes on that trail. Ranger moves on and another Ranger takes his place, no bikes shouldn't be on that trail DOH! We have trails that local volunteers have made up their own signage to limit use of a trail to their liking, with no authority from anyone, and some of this signage looks very professional. Walkers excluding bike riders, bike riders excluding walkers Good luck putting accurate access info in OSM. lol David Hi We have much the same issue with walking tracks and old surveying/mining roads is Tasmania. Parks has played a very dominating roll with Tasmapi it is actually dangerous as you can be standing on a made road/track and as it does not appear on the map you can get confused and lost. Also had a track appeared on a map a walking group could have walked out using it rather than calling in search and rescue to cross a flooded river. I use a simple rule, if it appears on the ground then it should appear in OSM. I do fully agree that access should be no. Just my thoughts based on lot of ground truthing. Ie getting lost. Cheers Brett Russell On 30 Jul 2015, at 12:09 pm, David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: I lean towards mapping what's physically there, so if the trail exists I think it's ok to map it if you want to. If the trail is blocked by a fence/barrier and signage saying keep out etc, then I think access=no would be appropriate as it's facts based on what's physically there. I also default to If in doubt, leave the map as it is. So if someone has mapped something and I'm not really sure of any changes I'm thinking of making are correct, then I leave it alone. Anyway that's just my thoughts. Hi What (if any) is the correct tagging for unauthorised trails in national and state parks? For example, Ant Track https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.92599/145.32051 I have spoken with Parks Vic and they request that bike riders do not create additional trails and only use official trails. They would prefer if such unofficial trails were not mapped or named because it implies official status to park users. I have not yet worked out how to contact the author of Ant Track. Thanks Tony _ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] tagging Fords and routing
Hi Andrew, That ford fails on ridewithgps so the problem must be with their routing engine. I'll get in touch with them about fixing it. Thanks for your help. Can you point to which ford node/way is causing you the issue? Just as a quick test this route works and it passes a ford=yes node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_carroute=-33.4973%2C150.7659%3B-33.5122%2C150.7665 On 20 July 2015 at 14:52, David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: Hi, I use www.ridewithgps.com for route planning and have found I can't plan a route across a ford even though the tagging looks correct. I'm not sure at the moment if this is a problem with OSM routing in general or with the www.ridewithgps.com routing. When planning a route it won't let you plan across a ford. You can plan along a way until it gets to the ford then it won't let you go across the ford even if the ford is part of the way. Has anyone come across this before?? Any tips on how to sort his out?? Thanks, David ___ 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] tagging Fords and routing
Hi, I use www.ridewithgps.com for route planning and have found I can't plan a route across a ford even though the tagging looks correct. I'm not sure at the moment if this is a problem with OSM routing in general or with the www.ridewithgps.com routing. When planning a route it won't let you plan across a ford. You can plan along a way until it gets to the ford then it won't let you go across the ford even if the ford is part of the way. Has anyone come across this before?? Any tips on how to sort his out?? Thanks, David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New key proposal - paved=yes/no
I have 2 thought on this and have posted before about the surface=blahblah tag not being used for highway=path when by my interpretation it really should be. ie if you use highway=path, then you should be including the tag surface=blahblah if you have any idea what the surface is (because there is no default surface for highway=path). When using highway=path, there is no default for surface so renderer's are stuffed if the surface=blahblah is not also included. (I do my own gps rendering so I have a little bit of experience doing it, but I'm a hack not an expert :-). Surface=paved and surface=unpaved are acceptable tags. The other surface tags provide more specific details but still fall into either paved or unpaved. (For example surface=dirt is a type tag indicating unpaved but with more specific detail). When rendering you can pick up all the tags indicating a highway is paved and group them together and do the same for highway's that are unpaved. It's the ones that aren't tagged either way and have no default that are the problem. This is basically a problem with highway=path because the other have defaults for the surface. So my 2 thoughts: (1) Not including the surface tag when using highway=path causes problems for renderers that want to differential between paved and unpaved paths. If an additional tag such as paved=yes or paved=no is created that's fine with me, when rendering I'll just include that in the groupings for paved and unpaved paths along with the other tags I use for grouping, the important thing is there is something to differential between paved and unpaved when there is no default or when the highway doesn't conform to the default. (2) Renderers can already group highways into paved or unpaved when the tags have defaults or when the surface tag is included for highway=path and highways that don't conform to the default surface. So the fix is to get the renderers to use the information that is available already. David C My experience is that surface can have descriptive values that don't immediately indicate if the road is paved or not. Things like asphalt (presuming paved=yes) and gravel (presuming paved=no) are common. - Ben Kelley On 22 Sep 2014 09:24, Warin [1]61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Tagging for the render? You can have surface=paved or surface =unpaved! More detailes options are also avalible. The argument on the routing not using the right method for determining its route should be adressed to the router! Not patched to 'fix' the routers problem. The router should descriminate on the surfaces its finds actptable rather than ones it thinks are unaceptable. e.g. for paved it should acept surface = paved, concrete, asphalt ... is that just too hard?! I'm assuming cobblestones are unaceptable.. but if in France then they would be aceptable .. some of their 'main' roads are cobblestones ... My vote would be 'No'. As surface provides the information .. in some cases in more detail but the grouping into paved and unpaved is resasonable. On 21/09/2014 12:25 PM, Ben Kelley wrote: Hi. This sounds like a very good suggestion. Often you just want to know if the road is paved. It seems like that was the original intent of surface=, but that is not how it gets used now. How surface= implies paved= sounds good too. - Ben. On 21 Sep 2014 11:03, David Bannon [2]dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Interesting proposal on the OSM Tagging list. Oz would have a unpaved/paved ratio as higher that most countries, we should have an opinion on this. So far, reaction has been mixed, some (including myself) welcoming it and some seeing it as a duplicate of surface= Comments folks ? David On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote: Hello all, I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it. Idea I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and probably other types of elements) official. Taginfo for paved: [3]http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values The above shows that the key is already being used, but the Wiki doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the article about Key:surface. Rationale Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular surface type a given highway has. However, in some cases, a simple information on just whether a highway is paved or not, would be very useful. One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses to avoid unpaved roads, the software can check the value of the surface key, but in practice most (all?) of the navigation software only
Re: [talk-au] Highway=path
The Australian Tagging Guidelines says to tag them highway=path, foot=yes. I think surface=unpaved or dirt or ground should be included too. Yup. I've long argued that objectively verifiable tags, like surface, are very useful. Yeah I recon that would be good, and have the surface hyperlinked back to the global wiki. I think it would also be good in the section for Urban Footpaths and Cycleways where it mentions highway=footway. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Highway=path Oz Tag Guideline
I've always taken the reference to urban in Urban Footpaths and Cycleways and non urban in Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks as just to help the reader understand the type of feature relavent to that section. I've never taken it as a limitation on the locations where tags can be applied or not applied. On 4/06/2014 10:48 AM, David Clark wrote: This is what I'd suggest is added to the Australian Tagging Guidelines wiki if there is no objection. (This is a simplification of what is at [1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface ). Add to both sections: * Urban Footpaths and Cycleways * Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks ---start Paths for non-motorised use (highway=footway; highway=path) should always be tagged with [2]surface given that there is no default for such paths. [3]surface=paved is non-specific and covers the specific tags of sealed, tarmac, asphalt, bitumen, concrete. [4]surface=unpaved is treated as the opposite of paved, specific tags are dirt, earth, ground, grass, gravel, metal, sand, wood. ---end What do you think? All the best, David ___ Talk-au mailing list [5]Talk-au@openstreetmap.org [6]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au The present 'guidelines' are good in relating tags to the legal things. They are not good for the mapper. And they separate things on location rather than what they are. For a guide for mappers and in use I'd prefer highway=footway A paved path intended for pedestrians. Defaults; surface = paved; foot=yes, bicycle=state specific ... mostly permissive (child/children under 12 + accompanying adult/s, width =1.2 meters highway=path An unpaved path intended for pedestrians. Defaults;surface = unpaved; foot=yes, bicycle=yes, width =2 meters highway=cycleway A path intended for cyclists. Defaults; foot=no, bicycle=yes, width =2 meters; surface = paved Thus the difference between footpath and path becomes the surface rather than the location. The defaults should cover the majority thus easing the tagging load. The difference between 'paved' and 'unpaved' .. consider a rock surface .. if it is natural then 'unpaved' .. if layed out/treated then 'paved' it has much to do with the finish i.e. smooth or rough. ___ Talk-au mailing list [7]Talk-au@openstreetmap.org [8]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au References 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface 2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface 3. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface 4. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface 5. mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 6. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 7. mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 8. 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] Highway=path
I probably should clarify, I'm really talking about paths that have been tagged highway=path without including any other tags. I'm sure with a bit of direction and encouragement people would include the surface=what ever it is tag. If the mapper doesn't know the surface, then fair enough, leave it out. But I think more often than not the mapper probably would know at least enough to tag it paved or dirt. It's a case of mapping what is physically there, a rocky, rooty bushwalking trail for example should be tagged differently to a concrete path that parents push a kiddies pram along. All the best, David - Original message - From: David Clark [1]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au To: [2]talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] Highway=path Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:45:55 +0930 I've been mapping stuff on OSM for a while but I've recently started doing my own rendering for gps. From this I've gained a new insight into the highway=path tag so am posting here. Firstly my focus is on tracks and trails so that is where I'm coming from. The basics of what I have noticed is that a lot ways are tagged highway=path with no other information. I have found this to be a difficult problem when it comes to rendering. The highway=path tag is a little different to the other highway tags. Firstly it covers quite a broad range of features for walking, cycling, horse riding. Secondly it has no default surface type. For example roads default is paved unless otherwise specified, highway=track defaults to unpaved. Highway=path doesn't have a default. Before messing around with rendering I would tag as highway=path and not bother too much with the other assortment of tags. Partly this is because there are heaps of tags that can be used and there was no particular direction on their priority or importance of use. For rendering I really need a surface tag included to separate the paths into practical catagories. Having no surface tag results in such a large mix of data that it becomes impractial to define any further. However if the surface=paved,dirt.. whatever is used the usefulness of the data is massively increased. For rendering I (and other examples of rendering I have seen) use the highway=path, surface=paved,dirt..etc tag to split the data into paths that are paved and paths that are not paved. This results in a practical ability to split surfaced paths (butumen, cement, pavers etc) and trails (gravel, dirt etc). I'd like to see the difference between: walking trails, dirt trails, single track etc. and paved paths, bitumen paths, concrete paths etc. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this. So in summary: highway=path is a unique tag because it covers a broader range of features than most tags. highway=path has no surface default like most other way tags do. adding the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc adds a much need qualifier for pratical rendering. My request: Firstly that people tagging paths consider adding the surface tag as well. You probably already know the surface (as I always did even though I didn't realise the significance of adding the tag) and if you're interested in paths your likely one of those most interested in having it rendered in a practical way. Secondly I think this is worth adding to the Australian Tagging Guidelines wiki in some form. ie Please add the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc when tagging paths. Preferred minimum being paved or dirt. What do you think? All the best, David ___ Talk-au mailing list [3]Talk-au@openstreetmap.org [4]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au References 1. mailto:dbcl...@fastmail.com.au 2. mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org 3. mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 4. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Highway=path
I've been mapping stuff on OSM for a while but I've recently started doing my own rendering for gps. From this I've gained a new insight into the highway=path tag so am posting here. Firstly my focus is on tracks and trails so that is where I'm coming from. The basics of what I have noticed is that a lot ways are tagged highway=path with no other information. I have found this to be a difficult problem when it comes to rendering. The highway=path tag is a little different to the other highway tags. Firstly it covers quite a broad range of features for walking, cycling, horse riding. Secondly it has no default surface type. For example roads default is paved unless otherwise specified, highway=track defaults to unpaved. Highway=path doesn't have a default. Before messing around with rendering I would tag as highway=path and not bother too much with the other assortment of tags. Partly this is because there are heaps of tags that can be used and there was no particular direction on their priority or importance of use. For rendering I really need a surface tag included to separate the paths into practical catagories. Having no surface tag results in such a large mix of data that it becomes impractial to define any further. However if the surface=paved,dirt.. whatever is used the usefulness of the data is massively increased. For rendering I (and other examples of rendering I have seen) use the highway=path, surface=paved,dirt..etc tag to split the data into paths that are paved and paths that are not paved. This results in a practical ability to split surfaced paths (butumen, cement, pavers etc) and trails (gravel, dirt etc). I'd like to see the difference between: walking trails, dirt trails, single track etc. and paved paths, bitumen paths, concrete paths etc. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this. So in summary: highway=path is a unique tag because it covers a broader range of features than most tags. highway=path has no surface default like most other way tags do. adding the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc adds a much need qualifier for pratical rendering. My request: Firstly that people tagging paths consider adding the surface tag as well. You probably already know the surface (as I always did even though I didn't realise the significance of adding the tag) and if you're interested in paths your likely one of those most interested in having it rendered in a practical way. Secondly I think this is worth adding to the Australian Tagging Guidelines wiki in some form. ie Please add the surface=paved,dirt,..,.. etc when tagging paths. Preferred minimum being paved or dirt. What do you think? All the best, David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] JOSM Scripting
I'm trying to work out how to filter by tags using Scripting in JOSM but am struggling to work out how to do it. Anybody got any tips? Thanks, David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New tile rendering server (Experimental)
Does that mean it will be easier (therefore more likely) to improve the rendering of OpenCyclemap? That would be good. - Original message - From: Grant Slater [1]openstreet...@firefishy.com To: [2]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au Cc: talk-au [3]talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] New tile rendering server (Experimental) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:36:15 +0100 On 23 July 2013 15:08, David Clark [4]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: Sorry I don't really understand this, how will this affect me and what I see? Hopefully you shouldn't see any difference. :-) It is a large behind the scenes change on how we produce the default map tiles (view) for OpenStreetMap.org The old map stylesheet was a mass of difficult to understand XML. The new map stylesheet is completely re-written in a much cleaner CartoCSS syntax. Easier to maintain and improve, it is also easier to customise it for other projects. Andy Allan's talk explains it better than I could to: [5]http://vimeopro.com/openstreetmapus/state-of-the-map-us-2013/video/6 8093876 We have also changed the server infrastructure used for rendering the map tiles. The old server was becoming very complicated to maintain and administer due to the many layers of complexity, code, and undocumented hacks built up over time. The new server is setup using an automated devops system (opscode chef). The chef cookbook we wrote is here: [6]http://git.openstreetmap.org/chef.git/tree/HEAD:/cookbooks/tile Regards Grant References 1. mailto:openstreet...@firefishy.com 2. mailto:dbcl...@fastmail.com.au 3. mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org 4. mailto:dbcl...@fastmail.com.au 5. http://vimeopro.com/openstreetmapus/state-of-the-map-us-2013/video/68093876 6. http://git.openstreetmap.org/chef.git/tree/HEAD:/cookbooks/tile ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New tile rendering server (Experimental)
Sorry I don't really understand this, how will this affect me and what I see? Thanks David - Original message - From: Grant Slater [1]openstreet...@firefishy.com To: talk-au [2]talk-au@openstreetmap.org, [3]nzopen...@googlegroups.com Subject: [talk-au] New tile rendering server (Experimental) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:18:49 +0100 Hi Oceania (Talk-AU and nzopengis), I have just switched the default OpenStreetMap.org “Mapnik style” map tiles for tile.openstreetmap.org in the Oceania region across to our new rendering server. The new rendering server has been tested and is now ready for production. We’re migrating traffic over region-by-region and the Oceania region is the first to go live. The countries in the Oceania region affected are those with dark green links on this map: [4]http://dns.openstreetmap.org/tile.openstreetmap.org.html In addition to new hardware, the rendering server also uses the new “openstreetmap-carto” stylesheets. These are a complete re-write of the XML stylesheets to use CartoCSS, making them easier for our cartographers to work with. Andy Allan’s great talk at State of the Map US described the reason for the stylesheet re-write: [5]http://stateofthemap.us/saturday.html#schedule/saturday/putting-the- carto-into-openstreetmap-cartography The map tiles will be slightly slower at medium-high zooms while the server builds up its cache. The style is designed to look the same as the current XML stylesheet. The “openstreetmap-carto” stylesheet is maintained here: [6]https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto Big Thank you to #osm-dev for helping draft this announcement. Kind regards Grant Slater Part of the OSM Sysadmin Team References 1. mailto:openstreet...@firefishy.com 2. mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org 3. mailto:nzopen...@googlegroups.com 4. http://dns.openstreetmap.org/tile.openstreetmap.org.html 5. http://stateofthemap.us/saturday.html#schedule/saturday/putting-the-carto-into-openstreetmap-cartography 6. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Mawson Trail relations
Help with relations: There are two relations assigned to the Mawson Trail (both of which are currently incomplete, ie they don't show the whole 900km trail yet). http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=2001420 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=153983 I want to do the following so I can try and get the whole Mawson Trail on OSM. (1) I want to assign the ways in 2001420 to 153983. (2) Then delete 2001420. I'm not sure how to do this and can't find info on how to do it. Thanks, David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mawson Trail relations
All sorted, thanks Ian. :-) - In JOSM open both relns. Select all objects in one. Add selection to other. Delete the first. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Export a route?
Is there a way I can export a route as osm or gpx or kml from Openstreetmap. ie Mawson trail: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=153983 I just want the lines that are part of this relation and nothing else. Thanks, David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] network and route tags
I was looking at Opencyclemap rather than mapnik, but the data has updated now and the mtb trails look different to the cycle paths so it's all good for me I think. Now I'm trying to work out how to include a section of a way in a route. ie I have a route (The Mawson trail) that passes along a section of a fire road, but it doesn't pass along the full length of the fire road. How do a I select only a section of the fire road (not the full length of it) so I can make the relationship to the route? Sorry for the scope creep of my original post. David - Original message - From: Barker, Nicholas [1]nbar...@pb.com.au To: Barker, Nicholas [2]nbar...@pb.com.au Cc: [3]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au [4]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au, talk-au [5]talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] network and route tags Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 09:40:12 + Updates on opencyclemap have been vastly improved I've noticed. In line with the normal map updates more or less* Sent from my iPhone On 31/01/2013, at 10:38 PM, Steve Bennett [6]stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:33 PM, David Clark [7]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: Ok I've changed route=mtb to mtb=yes for the trail itself. That fixes the issue I had with the route side of this so that's great. Using this approach an mtb trail (singletrack) looks the same as a cycle path (paved commuter path). Is this correct? Looks the same in what? Mapnik? I'm not sure - mapnik may treat highway=path; bicycle=yes as equivalent to highway=cycleway. They'll probably look different in opencyclemap, if and when that ever gets updated again. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list [8]Talk-au@openstreetmap.org [9]http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au __ NOTICE: This communication and any attachments (this message) may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. References 1. mailto:nbar...@pb.com.au 2. mailto:nbar...@pb.com.au 3. mailto:dbcl...@fastmail.com.au 4. mailto:dbcl...@fastmail.com.au 5. mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org 6. mailto:stevag...@gmail.com 7. mailto:dbcl...@fastmail.com.au 8. mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 9. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] network and route tags
Ok I've changed route=mtb to mtb=yes for the trail itself. That fixes the issue I had with the route side of this so that's great. Using this approach an mtb trail (singletrack) looks the same as a cycle path (paved commuter path). Is this correct? The area I'm looking at first is the Lynton Trails and Mitcham in Adelaide. David - Original message - From: Steve Bennett [1]stevag...@gmail.com To: [2]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au Cc: talk-au [3]talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] network and route tags Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:36:31 +1100 Hi David, Where is this, btw? In general: - route=lcn are for bike paths that get you somewhere useful in the local vicinity. (We still debate exactly what LCN means in Australia) - route=mtb are for all mountain bike trails. Don't get hung up on any connotations you might have with a word like route, as a native English speaker. The benefit to using route=mtb is that they show up specially highlighted on mountain biking map styles, which is useful and appropriate. So, for each trail, I would: - a route relation with route=mtb, and name=xx, and other tags as appropriate - tag the trail itself with highway=path, name=xx, surface=dirt/gravel, and add the route relation Steve On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 4:33 PM, David Clark [4]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: Hi All, I am interested in a small area of trails. There are about 10 trails in a local reserve, all the trails are sign posted and named etc, but there is no actual marked route you just pick which trails you want to use to get to where you want to go. However the tagging used in OSM to me seems wrong. (1) network=lcn Is this correct to use? Should there be other tags associated with this such as network:name=x etc? (2) route=mtb All the trails are tagged with route=mtb. However there is no marked or recognised physical route associate with these trails. Each trails is short approximately 200m to 500m long so it seems to me the route tag is not applicable. Etiquette: If the above tags are wrong, is it ok to just delete them? These tags have been used in this trail area and 2 others. Thanks, David ___ Talk-au mailing list [5]Talk-au@openstreetmap.org [6]http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au References 1. mailto:stevag...@gmail.com 2. mailto:dbcl...@fastmail.com.au 3. mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org 4. mailto:dbcl...@fastmail.com.au 5. mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 6. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] network and route tags
Hi All, I am interested in a small area of trails. There are about 10 trails in a local reserve, all the trails are sign posted and named etc, but there is no actual marked route you just pick which trails you want to use to get to where you want to go. However the tagging used in OSM to me seems wrong. (1) network=lcn Is this correct to use? Should there be other tags associated with this such as network:name=x etc? (2) route=mtb All the trails are tagged with route=mtb. However there is no marked or recognised physical route associate with these trails. Each trails is short approximately 200m to 500m long so it seems to me the route tag is not applicable. Etiquette: If the above tags are wrong, is it ok to just delete them? These tags have been used in this trail area and 2 others. Thanks, David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
