Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Andrew,

I'm not sure I agree with you that naming a supercharger is equivalent 
to the naming of a supermarket branch.


To me, the supercharger seems more akin to a petrol pump, and while you 
might map individual pumps only the service station would be named.


Phil raises a good point with regards to locations with more than one 
charger: it's not really the pump itself that has a name, but the 
facility that is offering the charging services. The wiki seems to 
follow this line of thinking (but of course, it's not perfect) 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station. For 
consideration, I'd also consider the equivalence to how device charging 
stations or vending machines are mapped. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddevice_charging_station 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dvending_machine


Dian

On 2022-12-16 13:33, Andrew Harvey wrote:

I think it's reasonable for it to have a name like "Tesla Supercharger 
Hollydene, NSW". If Tesla refers to it as such, and you might ask 
someone to meet you at the Tesla Supercharger Hollydene, then that's 
it's name. Just like we would map name="Woolworths Dee Why", since 
that's what the receipt would label it as, and what you might tell 
someone when referring to the store. It doesn't stop you also tagging 
brand= and branch=.


On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 00:02, Sebastian S.  wrote:

Hi Phil,

I think you are getting to the real question...

So I did some checking and the charging invoice from Tesla does not 
give any REF or Name. It simply states the address.
The map in the car and on the phone gives ' Tesla Supercharger 
Hollydene, NSW' in bold as the identification token (trying to avoid 
using ame here).


For me as an user I want to find this charger when I search for it. I 
want to see the full token to easily distinguish between several 
chargers. I also would be happy to see the token on a rendered map.


Weather the text is in the REF or NAME tag I don't care.

I do think the chargers should also have tags for address details, plug 
, access and cost, network, operator and brand details. We are allowed 
to dream right?


So back to the real question. Is the argument that
' Tesla Supercharger Hollydene, NSW' is not a name and should not be 
used as a single text string? Or should the text string simply not be a 
NAME tag and instead a REF tag?


Or lastly is the expectation that data consumers 'construct' the 
information from other tags? For the last point I think it is a great 
idea but unrealistic see my ' Tesla Supercharger Central Coast NSW' 
example where the city=Tuggerah.


I'm happy to use REF if this is the majority preference.

Cheers Seb

On 15 December 2022 11:07:47 pm AEDT, Phil Wyatt 
 wrote:


Hi Sebastian,

I suppose for me it's a question of should OSM hold a name which can be 
made from other attributes and does it fit with the name and charging 
wikis?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name

Do tesla chargers/charge areas also have reference numbers like other 
networks? This usually goes in the ref key.


I suspect many of these are 'named' simply so they get a label in the 
carto map without people realising that the operator and ref are used 
for labelling charging stations in that map instance.


Other apps may well use other OSM attributes.

Some interesting 'name' insights in this post as well

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/397565

Cheers - Phil

From: Sebastian S. 
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2022 10:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Phil Wyatt ; 
'Warin' <61sundow...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

Hello all,

As an EV driver I think that some charge stations have names.

I do agree that 'Tesla Supercharger ' is not a name with much value. 
Tesla has names in their app for these charging stations, e.g. 'Tesla 
Supercharger Hollydene, NSW' or 'Tesla Supercharger Central Coast, 
NSW'. For the latter the name is not the same as the address which is 
one of my key reasons to have the name tag, full length.


Aside from the Tesla supercharger there will be other large high 
current or DC charging stations that in my view warrant a name. Mainly 
because the are or will be key stopover points that people will 
navigate to.


But I'm also of the opinion that the name of the Woolworths in Dee Why 
is ' Woolworths Dee Why '


Seb

On 15 December 2022 8:23:19 pm AEDT, Phil Wyatt  
wrote:


Thanks Warin,

Its pretty obvious that most are not real names but actually 
descriptions or operators/networks and locations


https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1p4N

Cheers - Phil

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2022 8:00 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] 'Named' EV chargers

On 15/12/22 17:11, Ben Kelley wrote:

My thoughts:

I wouldn't remove the names. It's a big call to say that this thing 
definitely does not 

[talk-au] Oceania Discourse Community open

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello all,

I'm pleased to report that the Oceania community on the OpenStreetMap 
Discourse server is open and operational!


https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73

If you've never used discourse, check out this How-To [1] guide for all 
the tips and tricks. For those who prefer email notifications, the 
how-to guide also explains how to configure email notifications similar 
to a mailing list!


Don't be shy! See you there.

Dian

Links:
--
[1] 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-to-use-this-forum-for-new-users/314___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Oceania Community Subcategory Feedback

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello all,

In accordance with the Moderator Selection Criteria [5], there are now 
five days for voting on this proposed new subcategory.


Please, leave your votes here [6].

Dian.

On 2022-10-26 23:05, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hello Australia and New Zealand lists,

Earlier this month I reached out to gauge interest in an Oceania 
category on the OSM Community [1] page. This effort has progressed and 
the request for the Oceania subcategory is being considered.


Three moderations have been proposed:

* Andrew Davidson (user:TheSwavu [2])
* Sam Wilson (user:Sam Wilson [3])
* Dian Agesson (user:Diacritic [4])

In accordance with the Moderator Selection Criteria [5], there are now 
five days for community discussion on this proposed new subcategory.


Please, leave your comments here [6].

Dian.



Links:
--
[1] https://community.openstreetmap.org/
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Sam%20Wilson
[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Diacritic
[5] 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/moderator-selection-criteria/2392

[6] https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/oceania-subcategory/4240/5___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Melbourne - Suburban Rail Loop - Too early to mark as under construction?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

In a recent edit, the Suburban Rail Loop [1]was marked as "under 
construction", and as a result is now rendering as a dashed railway 
line.


Just seeking views from others here: is this a bit premature? Should 
only a section of the loop be marked as under construction, or any parts 
of it at all?


Dian

Links:
--
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14747150___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Oceania Community Subcategory Feedback

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello Australia and New Zealand lists,

Earlier this month I reached out to gauge interest in an Oceania 
category on the OSM Community [1] page. This effort has progressed and 
the request for the Oceania subcategory is being considered.


Three moderations have been proposed:

* Andrew Davidson (user:TheSwavu [2])
* Sam Wilson (user:Sam Wilson [3])
* Dian Agesson (user:Diacritic [4])

In accordance with the Moderator Selection Criteria [5], there are now 
five days for community discussion on this proposed new subcategory.


Please, leave your comments here [6].

Dian.

Links:
--
[1] https://community.openstreetmap.org/
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Sam%20Wilson
[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Diacritic
[5] 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/moderator-selection-criteria/2392

[6] https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/oceania-subcategory/4240/5___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] So, should we request an Oceania Community Channel?

[Dian Ågesson]

Thanks all,

As part of the request, we will need to nominate 3 moderators. 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/moderator-selection-criteria/2392


Is anyone interested?

Dian

On 2022-10-11 22:15, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hello,

For those that aren't aware, there is currently a big push to move 
discussions from the mailing list/old forum onto the new community 
site. https://community.openstreetmap.org/


As part of the new site, we have the ability to request a new category 
or subcategory to be created specifically for Oceania. 
(https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/about-the-new-category-requests-category/1001)


Is this something that would be useful? Would people use the category, 
or would it be left to the wayside like the previous Australia category 
on the forum?


Thoughts?

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

[talk-au] So, should we request an Oceania Community Channel?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

For those that aren't aware, there is currently a big push to move 
discussions from the mailing list/old forum onto the new community site. 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/


As part of the new site, we have the ability to request a new category 
or subcategory to be created specifically for Oceania. 
(https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/about-the-new-category-requests-category/1001)


Is this something that would be useful? Would people use the category, 
or would it be left to the wayside like the previous Australia category 
on the forum?


Thoughts?

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

Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi all,

The "best" tagging for some of these paths are inherently subjective, as 
there isn't a tagging method that captures the subtleties involved.


Firstly, distinguishing between a "foot way" and a sidewalk is a 
subjective decision. How far from a road does a parallel path be before 
it is no longer a sidewalk, for example.


Secondly, there are multiple overlapping jurisdictions. In addition to 
each state's road laws, each council's local laws may prohibit or allow 
cyclists in specific areas. I don't expect an average mapper to have a 
law degree, and, though it should be easy, it may not able to work out 
the exact legality of riding a bicycle in all situations.


The best mapping will always rely on discretion. I don't believe it is 
correct to assume a lack of signage is, on its own, enough to tag one 
way or another. At most, I would suggest a "bicycle=permissive" 
restriction to indicate the unclear legality on even well used paths.


I don't think going around adding a specific bicycle permissions to 
every footway is particularly productive. A routing service could easily 
make this a non-issue by offering an "ignore sidewalk" button.


Dian

On 2022-10-09 09:43, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:


An interesting post by aharvey in that thread.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/38

regards,

Sebastian

On 9 Oct 2022, at 9:19 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:


To open another can of worms, just spotted this linked from 
discussions on a completely different proposal:


https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230/23

So, what is the relation between designated & yes?

Thanks

Graeme


___
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] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Graeme,

The network= tag for each route relation with a ref=* needs to be 
updated from the old scheme to use the AU:state prefix. For example 
network=S in Queensland becomes network=AU:QLD:S.


Phil included a really useful overpass query that I'm now going to be 
using to track where I need to make changes.


Dian

On 2022-10-02 09:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 20:51, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

I will continue updating relations where I can, but any help would be 
greatly appreciated tagging highway segments.


Happy to help where I can, Dian.

What's involved?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Phil,

Thank you so much for your efforts so far!

The tags on the relations are much more valuable as they tend to be used 
by newer and more recently updated data consumers. The network tags on 
the individual ways are more likely to be legacy supported


Ideally both would be updated at the same time, but I'm increasingly 
thinking that updating the ways might need to be a gradual transition. 
Maybe we leave the ways to be progressively updated as routes change or 
be modified?


For reference, the Americana project ( 
https://github.com/ZeLonewolf/openstreetmap-americana/issues) will use 
the relation tags to render Australian road shields on the map.


Dian

On 2022-10-02 11:45, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Hi Dian,

I have done all the route relations for the A, B and C roads in Tassie 
and added the network=AU:TAS. I wasn't aware that it was also needed on 
the individual ways?? I understand they have the corresponding ref tag 
(A1, B22 etc) but is there a need for the network tag on all the ways? 
It's a bit unclear on the wiki as it only talks about routes.


I think Tassie is a bit easier as we only have one National route and 
no numeric routes.


I used the following Overpass Turbo to collect up the appropriate class 
of roads


[out:xml][timeout:25];

{{geocodeArea:tasmania}}->.searchArea;

(
relation["route"="road"]["type"="route"]["ref"~"^A"]["network"!="AU:TAS"]["addr:country"="AU"]["addr:state"="TAS"](area.searchArea);


);

out meta;


;


Easily edited for other classes

Cheers - Phil

From: Dian Ågesson 
Sent: Saturday, 1 October 2022 8:49 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

Hello,

Just an update regarding this piece of work.

I was able to complete a bulk edit in Western Australia, however I 
found that it took a significant amount of effort. WA is the "easiest" 
of the states to convert, as it has less numbered routes and no 
alphanumeric routes to worry about.


Unfortunately, I don't believe a bulk edit for the other states is 
practical. Relations are much easier to update, but segments of 
highways that are shared by multiple routes are inherently manual 
tasks.


I will continue updating relations where I can, but any help would be 
greatly appreciated tagging highway segments.


Dian

On 2022-09-20 20:13, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hello list,

You may recall earlier this month the road route tagging guidelines 
were updated to adopt the "AU:" country prefix in the network field. 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-September/016533.html


In order to make the transition as quick and seamless as possible, I'd 
like to propose a bulk edit to adjust the network tabs across 
Australia.


The edit would:

* Change all road network tags to use the AU prefix in alignment with 
the new tagging guidelines 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes)


If there is support for this effort, I will make the change in one 
weeks time.


Would appreciate your thoughts and concerns.

Dian

___
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] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

Just an update regarding this piece of work.

I was able to complete a bulk edit in Western Australia, however I found 
that it took a significant amount of effort. WA is the "easiest" of the 
states to convert, as it has less numbered routes and no alphanumeric 
routes to worry about.


Unfortunately, I don't believe a bulk edit for the other states is 
practical. Relations are much easier to update, but segments of highways 
that are shared by multiple routes are inherently manual tasks.


I will continue updating relations where I can, but any help would be 
greatly appreciated tagging highway segments.


Dian

On 2022-09-20 20:13, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hello list,

You may recall earlier this month the road route tagging guidelines 
were updated to adopt the "AU:" country prefix in the network field. 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-September/016533.html


In order to make the transition as quick and seamless as possible, I'd 
like to propose a bulk edit to adjust the network tabs across 
Australia.


The edit would:

* Change all road network tags to use the AU prefix in alignment with 
the new tagging guidelines 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes)


If there is support for this effort, I will make the change in one 
weeks time.


Would appreciate your thoughts and concerns.

Dian
___
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] "Wrong" phone numbers

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Graeme.

I would go with phone:AU:mnemonic with capitals. :)

Dian

On 2022-09-25 00:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


Thanks!

It turns out that we actually have provision for 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone:mnemonic, 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone#Phonewords!


That then raises another question.

The wiki says to use it as phone:mnemonic [1]=+1-710-55-KLICK.

Because the number I asked about is an Oz only 1300, should it then be 
?


& full capitals?

Thanks

Graeme

On Thu, 22 Sept 2022 at 18:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

I too would ignore the marketing.

On 22/9/22 17:44, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Personally, I would just do the 6 as the others are redundant

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2022 3:47 PM
To: OSM-Au 
Subject: [talk-au] "Wrong" phone numbers

Just fixing a Note, & the company's phone number is listed on their 
website as 1300 xx xx, as they have their name in it. If you dial 
it though, the system will ignore the last two digits, as the first 10 
make a valid number


So how do we map it?

Phone numbers are supposed to be formatted as 1300 xxx xxx, so will 
including the last two digits cause an error?


Thanks

Graeme ___
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

Links:
--
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone:mnemonic___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Proposed Bulk Edit: Road Route Numbering.

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello list,

You may recall earlier this month the road route tagging guidelines were 
updated to adopt the "AU:" country prefix in the network field. 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-September/016533.html


In order to make the transition as quick and seamless as possible, I'd 
like to propose a bulk edit to adjust the network tabs across Australia.


The edit would:

 	* Change all road network tags to use the AU prefix in alignment with 
the new tagging guidelines 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes)


If there is support for this effort, I will make the change in one weeks 
time.


Would appreciate your thoughts and concerns.

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

Re: [talk-au] Adopting AU prefix in route network

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello list,

Thank you all for the feedback.

I have now integrated the new route number scheme into the tagging 
guidelines page based on the positive feedback.


The old tagging scheme will continue to be documented to assist with the 
transition.


Regards,

Dian

On 2022-09-06 01:05, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hey Mark,

I asked on Discord and both the ref on ways and on relations are used 
by different data consumers. While newer consumers use the relation, 
many older ones will use the way.


I'd be in favour of keeping the old_ref tags where the value is known. 
In Melbourne, at least, there are a lot of old road signs that will be 
hanging around long after the conversion happens in the area.


Dian

On 2022-09-05 19:53, Mark Pulley wrote:

Just a question about when (if) we do this. In the past I've placed the 
network/ref tags on both the relation and on the individual ways. Do we 
need the route number details on the ways as well, or can these be 
deleted from the ways?


Also, do we still need the old_ref tags (e.g. old route numbers prior 
to conversion to alphanumeric routes)?


If we go ahead with this change, I've got some time in the next few 
weeks, so am willing to volunteer to work on this.


Mark P.

On 26 Aug 2022, at 8:00 pm, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

Hello all,

Following on from a previous discussion on the mailing list [1], I've 
put together guidelines that would allow us to implement AU: prefixes 
in our route network tags.


The content is here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Proposed_Australian_Routes


I am looking for affirmation that this change is a good idea and should 
be implemented in Australia.


Dian ___
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

Links:
--
[1] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-August/016399.html___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adopting AU prefix in route network

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Mark,

I asked on Discord and both the ref on ways and on relations are used by 
different data consumers. While newer consumers use the relation, many 
older ones will use the way.


I'd be in favour of keeping the old_ref tags where the value is known. 
In Melbourne, at least, there are a lot of old road signs that will be 
hanging around long after the conversion happens in the area.


Dian

On 2022-09-05 19:53, Mark Pulley wrote:

Just a question about when (if) we do this. In the past I've placed the 
network/ref tags on both the relation and on the individual ways. Do we 
need the route number details on the ways as well, or can these be 
deleted from the ways?


Also, do we still need the old_ref tags (e.g. old route numbers prior 
to conversion to alphanumeric routes)?


If we go ahead with this change, I've got some time in the next few 
weeks, so am willing to volunteer to work on this.


Mark P.


On 26 Aug 2022, at 8:00 pm, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

Hello all,

Following on from a previous discussion on the mailing list [1], I've 
put together guidelines that would allow us to implement AU: prefixes 
in our route network tags.


The content is here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Proposed_Australian_Routes


I am looking for affirmation that this change is a good idea and 
should be implemented in Australia.


Dian ___
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



Links:
--
[1] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-August/016399.html___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Adopting AU prefix in route network

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello all,

Following on from a previous discussion on the mailing list [1], I've 
put together guidelines that would allow us to implement AU: prefixes in 
our route network tags.


The content is here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Proposed_Australian_Routes


I am looking for affirmation that this change is a good idea and should 
be implemented in Australia.


Dian

Links:
--
[1] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-August/016399.html___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello Andrew, and all.

I've updated the draft guidelines to document these changes. I've 
included an example of how it would be tagged.


What are your thoughts?

Dian

On 2022-08-18 09:44, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hi Andrew,

I really like what you're suggesting here. I'll adjust the draft I 
linked earlier to reflect what you've proposed below.


If everyone is happy with the draft we can integrate it into our 
tagging guidelines proper.


Dian

On 2022-08-18 08:51, Andrew Hughes wrote:

Hi Dian,

Working with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and having data that 
honours the jurisdiction geography (I.e. state/territory border) is 
invaluable to us.


I believe... Ways and State Route (relations) should split at the 
border. State routes typically form as members of the national route... 
therefore I would say ..

1. Ways are split or borders
2. Ways are members of state route relations  network=AU:QLD
3. State relations are members of a national relation (if they make up 
the national network) network=AU


I believe there is far less entropy in this convention as well.

Thoughts?

Cheers.

Andrew

On Fri, 12 Aug 2022, 2:38 pm Dian Ågesson,  wrote:

Excellent pick up Ben.

For routes that cross state borders, I would favour using AU:NAT (or 
AU:COM/AU:FED/AU:AUS, something that says "interstate or national).


I could also see an argument for creating a seperate relation for each 
state, with a national superrelation To be that seems like too much 
overhead.


Dian

On 2022-08-12 04:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 13:37, Ben Kelley  wrote:

I'm guessing more than one state has an A40.

& how would we work "Highway 1", with its myriad of alternative 
designations & names?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia)

Thanks

Graeme

 ___
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] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Andrew,

I really like what you're suggesting here. I'll adjust the draft I 
linked earlier to reflect what you've proposed below.


If everyone is happy with the draft we can integrate it into our tagging 
guidelines proper.


Dian

On 2022-08-18 08:51, Andrew Hughes wrote:


Hi Dian,

Working with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and having data that 
honours the jurisdiction geography (I.e. state/territory border) is 
invaluable to us.


I believe... Ways and State Route (relations) should split at the 
border. State routes typically form as members of the national route... 
therefore I would say ..

1. Ways are split or borders
2. Ways are members of state route relations  network=AU:QLD
3. State relations are members of a national relation (if they make up 
the national network) network=AU


I believe there is far less entropy in this convention as well.

Thoughts?

Cheers.

Andrew

On Fri, 12 Aug 2022, 2:38 pm Dian Ågesson,  wrote:

Excellent pick up Ben.

For routes that cross state borders, I would favour using AU:NAT (or 
AU:COM/AU:FED/AU:AUS, something that says "interstate or national).


I could also see an argument for creating a seperate relation for each 
state, with a national superrelation To be that seems like too much 
overhead.


Dian

On 2022-08-12 04:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 13:37, Ben Kelley  wrote:

I'm guessing more than one state has an A40.

& how would we work "Highway 1", with its myriad of alternative 
designations & names?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia)

Thanks

Graeme

 ___
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] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags

[Dian Ågesson]

Excellent pick up Ben.

For routes that cross state borders, I would favour using AU:NAT (or 
AU:COM/AU:FED/AU:AUS, something that says "interstate or national).


I could also see an argument for creating a seperate relation for each 
state, with a national superrelation…. To be that seems like too much 
overhead.


Dian

On 2022-08-12 04:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 at 13:37, Ben Kelley  wrote:


I'm guessing more than one state has an A40.


& how would we work "Highway 1", with its myriad of alternative 
designations & names?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia)

Thanks

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

[talk-au] Adopting "AU" Prefix on Network tags

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi,

I've cobbled together a draft model of how we could adopt the "AU" 
prefix within the network tags based on some of the issues raised in the 
previous thread.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Proposed_Australian_Routes

Would really appreciate your thoughts and opinions; tried to match the 
existing structure as closely as possible.


Dian.

On 2022-08-12 12:36, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hey Andrew,

I'm not surprised this is challenging to explain in an email. When I 
tidied up the Roads wiki page it was immediately clear that there are 
multiple layers of complexity here.


My understanding that there are several distinct "highway" concepts in 
Australia.  When you are referring to state routes and national routes, 
are you talking about the old, numberic route numbering system? Or, are 
you talking about highways that have been gazetted as a "state 
controlled highway", such as State (Bell/Springvale) Highway. Does it 
actually make sense to have the "A1" as part of the "National Highway" 
network, given that it is an alphanumeric route?


I don't believe it is possible to assume that every numbered route has 
a specific name, and vice versa (The A1!=Princes Highway!=Imlay Street, 
Eden), but it would be help to update the network tags to be more in 
line with international practice.


Dian

On 2022-08-11 07:45, Andrew Hughes wrote:

Hi Andrew,

No I had not seen that and it's really helpful thank you.

This is quite challenging to explain in an email but I will try...

Scenario: Given a way, how can I determine if that way is part of a 
state or national route with a name?


Scenario in Action:

* Given the way "Mulgrave Street Gin Gin QLD" 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31973923


* Is this part of any relation Yes there are 2

* First relation is the A1, is this a national/state Highway YES! 
because it has the route=road, network=NH 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198279
* Second relation is "Bruce Highway", is this national/state, NO! 
because it does not have a network=NH or S tag.  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198331


What's missing from the above:

* The Bruce Highway relation 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198331


* Does not identify that it is related to the A1 - National Highway
* Does not identify that south most section in North Brisbane the M1
* Does not identity that this is a State Route - but I am unsure if it 
should


* Similarly, the A1 relation  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198279


* Does not identify that it is related to the Bruce Highway (route)

* The way  "Mulgrave Street Gin Gin QLD" 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31973923


* Can't be reliably determined to be part of a state/national route and 
found to be named "Bruce Highway". Yes, I can say its on the A1 
(national highway) but I can't say that the Bruce Highway is a 
State/Road route


My 2c

I'm unsure if what I am looking for should exist in a hierarchy of 
parent/child relations, or if it is best left to trawling through tags 
and finding references by convention and hope that things are tagged 
correctly. I kinda think the first is correct, or else why would OSM 
even have relations?


Parent Child relation down to the way members

* RELATION: name=National Highway; ref=A1; route=road; network=NH

* RELATION:   name=Bruce Highway  ref=A1:M3; route=road; network=S  
<--- not sure if this is S or NH


* RELATION:   name=Bruce Highway  ref=A1; route=road; network=S

* WAY
* WAY

* RELATION:   name=Bruce Highway  ref=M1; route=road; network=S

* WAY...
* WAY...

The above would allow a way's membership and hierarchy to be traversed.

Thoughts?

Please let me know CHEEERS!

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 at 14:50, Andrew Davidson  
wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andrew Hughes 
 wrote:
Some worldwide/geographic tagging guidelines exist, that are based on 
a combination with the "network" tag: see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes




Have you read 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes

?

___
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 Gazetted Road Routes (National, State, Regional...)

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Andrew,

I'm not surprised this is challenging to explain in an email. When I 
tidied up the Roads wiki page it was immediately clear that there are 
multiple layers of complexity here.


My understanding that there are several distinct "highway" concepts in 
Australia.  When you are referring to state routes and national routes, 
are you talking about the old, numberic route numbering system? Or, are 
you talking about highways that have been gazetted as a "state 
controlled highway", such as State (Bell/Springvale) Highway [1]. Does 
it actually make sense to have the "A1" as part of the "National 
Highway" network, given that it is an alphanumeric route?


I don't believe it is possible to assume that every numbered route has a 
specific name, and vice versa (The A1!=Princes Highway!=Imlay Street, 
Eden), but it would be help to update the network tags to be more in 
line with international practice.


Dian

On 2022-08-11 07:45, Andrew Hughes wrote:


Hi Andrew,

No I had not seen that and it's really helpful thank you.

This is quite challenging to explain in an email but I will try...

Scenario: Given a way, how can I determine if that way is part of a 
state or national route with a name?


Scenario in Action:

* Given the way "Mulgrave Street Gin Gin QLD" 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31973923


* Is this part of any relation Yes there are 2

* First relation is the A1, is this a national/state Highway YES! 
because it has the route=road, network=NH 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198279
* Second relation is "Bruce Highway", is this national/state, NO! 
because it does not have a network=NH or S tag.  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198331


What's missing from the above:

* The Bruce Highway relation 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198331


* Does not identify that it is related to the A1 - National Highway
* Does not identify that south most section in North Brisbane the M1
* Does not identity that this is a State Route - but I am unsure if it 
should


* Similarly, the A1 relation  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/198279


* Does not identify that it is related to the Bruce Highway (route)

* The way  "Mulgrave Street Gin Gin QLD" 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31973923


* Can't be reliably determined to be part of a state/national route and 
found to be named "Bruce Highway". Yes, I can say its on the A1 
(national highway) but I can't say that the Bruce Highway is a 
State/Road route


My 2c

I'm unsure if what I am looking for should exist in a hierarchy of 
parent/child relations, or if it is best left to trawling through tags 
and finding references by convention and hope that things are tagged 
correctly. I kinda think the first is correct, or else why would OSM 
even have relations?


Parent Child relation down to the way members

* RELATION: name=National Highway; ref=A1; route=road; network=NH

* RELATION:   name=Bruce Highway  ref=A1:M3; route=road; network=S  
<--- not sure if this is S or NH


* RELATION:   name=Bruce Highway  ref=A1; route=road; network=S

* WAY
* WAY

* RELATION:   name=Bruce Highway  ref=M1; route=road; network=S

* WAY...
* WAY...

The above would allow a way's membership and hierarchy to be traversed.

Thoughts?

Please let me know CHEEERS!

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 at 14:50, Andrew Davidson  
wrote:


On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andrew Hughes  
wrote:
Some worldwide/geographic tagging guidelines exist, that are based on 
a combination with the "network" tag: see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes




Have you read 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Routes

?

___
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



Links:
--
[1] http://mail.hover.com/State(Bell/Springvale)Highway___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Graeme,

The 4WD_only tags and track types are already documented on the roads 
subpage of the Tagging Guidelines. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads


Do you think we should be adding detail for fords specifically?

Dian

On 2022-08-10 02:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Cleared a note to add a ford / river-crossing to a road in Cape York: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025490234, & added both a "ford" 
node, & also changed the actual river crossing to a track with 4wd only 
& similar tags.


Wondering if we should include those sort of details in the Guidelines? 
eg


4wd_only=extreme

bicycle=no

foot=no

highway=track

horse=no

motor_vehicle=yes

smoothness=horrible

tracktype=grade8

& possibly even hazard=wild_animals + animals=crocodile!

Thanks

Graeme
___
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] Is addr:housenumber=2/20 likely to be valid?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Mateusz,

The "sub address" that the reporter is describing are subdivisions with 
individual unit numbers. The unit number should be mapped using 
addr:unit, rather than included as part of the house number.


For example, a postal address of 1/50-52 Smith St should be mapped as:

addr:unit=1

addr:housenumber=50-52

Unfortunately, the default carto rendering of unit numbers (with the 
unit after the house number, "50-52 1") looks wrong and confusing to 
Australians. Putting the unit with the housenumber is a way to force a 
"better" rendering.


Dian

On 2022-07-13 03:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:


I want to confirm report from
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/4196

"In my area (and throughout built-up parts of Australian cities in 
general)

it is not uncommon to encounter blocks of townhouses which share a
primary address number but have distinct sub-address numbers.

The complete address numbers of such houses are written in the format
/, eg "1/50", "2/50", "3/50" for the first three houses
sharing the primary address site "50 Example St"."

Is it accurate? Is addr:housenumber=1/50 the standard and preferred
solution in such cases?

(I am asking as I know nothing about Australia addressing)

(BTW, if for some reason you want to comment on something
that is Australia and StreetComplete-specific - I will be on this 
mailing list
for some time, but as usual problem are better reported at the issue 
tracker)

___
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] OSM Wiki Cleanup Update: 6th Tagging Guidelines Page ready

[Dian Ågesson]

Thanks Kim and Phil.

I've updated the link to the one provided by Phil.

I don't believe that we should be including the descriptions verbatim, 
even if we could: the actual grading system is a bit too complex to 
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/21475/dse_trail_grade_brochure_tagged.pdf 
include on a single wiki page, and we probably don't want to encourage 
inaccurate tagging using an impartial definition. Plus it would be a big 
headache to try and keep the wiki aligned: it's much easier to provide a 
source to the authoritative definition.


In re: Pump track, there isn't an established tag that would 
differentiate a pump track - happy to add one if there is a good 
candidate, of course. :)


In re: Bike Lanes and Street Cycling is trying to convey what you 
described, and is largely taken verbatim from the previous guidelines:


Unfortunately, it is possible in Australia for a legally designated 
cycle facility to be completely unusable. A bicycle lane that is really 
a parking lane, or a shared path sign on a obstructed or even 
non-existent path. Mappers should use common sense and discretion, and 
map the effective facility that exists on the ground if it differs to 
what is defined by the Australian road rules.


Essentially, follow what best describes what is actually on the ground - 
don't simply follow every sign. :)


On 2022-06-28 10:51, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Hi Folks,

This is probably the best reference for the AWTGS

https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2022 8:21 PM
To: Dian Ågesson 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OSM Wiki Cleanup Update: 6th Tagging Guidelines 
Page ready


Hi Dian,

The AWTGS page referenced isn't much use. As a trail user it doesn't 
tell me if 1 is easy or hard.


Searching for other references I found
https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/safety/bushwalking-safety/australian-walking-track-grading-system
https://naturetrail.com.au/australian-walking-track-grading-system/
https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/things-to-do/hiking-and-bushwalking/choose-the-right-hike/how-walking-tracks-are-rated

all of which use almost identical descriptions and symbols for grades 1 
to 5. Does anyone know what the source for this is, and if we are 
allowed to include the descriptions verbatim in wiki.osm?


Is Pump track missing a key=value pair in the Value column?
bicycle=designated by its self doesn't imply pump track.

The "Bike Lanes and Street Cycling" section is vague. What does "map 
according to what is on the ground, rather than relying on technical, 
legal definitions" mean? Isn't what is signposted on the ground what 
the legal definition is? Given that many signposted bike lanes and 
trails in Australia are not fit for purpose (eg they have parked cars 
in them or cyclist dismount signs) I don't know how they can be tagged 
in a consistent and useful manner.


The rest of the page looks good.

Kim

On 26/6/22 22:02, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hello,

The sixth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycl
ing_and_Foot_Paths
is ready for review.

This page took a significant amount of effort, as there is ongoing
discussions, conflicting global guidelines, and the previous content
was quite out of date. This is also likely to be the subpage with the
most controversy, so I would strongly encourage contributions and
feedback from all.

Please, as always, don't be shy about providing feedback or raising
concerns. There are only one subpages to go with the Tagging
Guidelines pages: Utilities and Infrastructure.

Dian

___
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] definition of PSV (Public Service Vehicles) in Australia

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi all,

Unfortunately bus lane restrictions are not the same in each state and 
territory. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Transportation.


As there isn't a consistent delineation about what counts as a public 
service vehicle in each state and territory, it'd probably be better to 
err on the side of specific access tagging rather than relying on a 
state/territory default. For David's case, I think a tag of taxi=yes 
would be prudent.


Dian

On 2022-06-27 01:24, Ben Kelley wrote:


Hi.

I'm not sure if this helps, but a "bus lane" allows buses, taxis, 
bicycles and hire cars. A "bus only lane" allows only buses (not taxis 
and hire cars). (Neither allow rental cars.)


The psv wiki page suggests tagging individual types if necessary, but 
implies that a taxi is a PSV.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:psv

I think you should probably put taxi=no for a "bus only lane" but not 
for a "bus lane".


IANAL but I'd guess that ride share services are not taxis in this 
context.


- Ben.

On 27/6/2022 11:10 am, stevea wrote: On Jun 26, 2022, at 5:57 PM, David 
Vidovic via Talk-au  wrote:
In regards to PSV (Public Service Vehicles), I understand this 
encompasses buses/coaches.


For a "bus only" way such as a bus bay, I see common tagging 
[access=no] + [psv=yes] used.


Does anyone know if a Taxi is considered a "public service vehicle" and 
therefore able use the busy bay way? Or does [access=no] inherently 
prevent this and it would need a separate [taxi=yes] tag?
It might be controversial to say so, but "taxis" meant (until maybe a 
decade ago, with the uprising of the Uber's of the world, which are, in 
many places, "not _de jure_ taxis" but are rather "_de facto_ taxis") a 
legally-regulated car-for-hire (not "rental, YOU drive," rather "hail 
one" (or solicit a ride for a fare at a taxi stand)).


___
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] OSM Wiki Cleanup Update: 6th Tagging Guidelines Page ready

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

The sixth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths 
is ready for review.


This page took a significant amount of effort, as there is ongoing 
discussions, conflicting global guidelines, and the previous content was 
quite out of date. This is also likely to be the subpage with the most 
controversy, so I would strongly encourage contributions and feedback 
from all.


Please, as always, don't be shy about providing feedback or raising 
concerns. There are only one subpages to go with the Tagging Guidelines 
pages: Utilities and Infrastructure.


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

[talk-au] OSM Wiki Cleanup Update: 5th Tagging Guidelines Page ready

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi,

I am resending this email as it apparently bounced.

Dian

On 2022-05-12 12:44, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hello,

The fifth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Transportation 
is ready for review.


This page took longer than I anticipated to clean up as there was a lot 
of overlapping drafts and proposals for mapping public transportation.


Please, as always, don't be shy about providing feedback or raising 
concerns. There are only two subpages to go with the Tagging Guidelines 
pages: Cycling Paths and Footpaths, and Infrastructure.


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

Re: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Tony, Ian

The Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks section has not changed in some 
time.  I added the {{Controversial}} template following the extensive 
discussions around the time I started cleaning up the wiki pages 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-February/015886.html) 
to indicate that the section is still very much in discussion.


The template includes a link to the talk page for the wiki page, which 
cannot be removed. The archives for that page are accessible via the 
link in the top right (Talk:Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Archive_1).


I hope this helps. This section is definitely going to be the most 
disputed of the guideline subpages!


Dian

On 2022-05-16 11:37, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:


Hi Ian
I did not edit Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
only Footpath Cycling

Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
contains ... controversial information. See the talk page. This page  
has been archived as part of the Australian wiki cleanup

I wonder where that controversial material has gone?

Yes adding foot=yes to highway=path seems strange to me.

Tony

Tony,

I'm wondering about the usefulness of adding foot=yes to highway=path 
and

highway=track.

I have never done this because I thought it would be assumed that
pedestrians (and cyclists) can use paths and tracks ?

In WA, where people have (in my opinion) wrongly classified a path as a
footpath (and hence excluded bicycles), I have often changed it to a 
path,

but never tagged foot=yes and/or bicycle=yes.

Ian

Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:55:42 +1000
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [talk-au] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

Hi

I have edited
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Footpath_ 
Cycling


(1) to record the different international English uses of footpath, 
pavement and sidewalk


(2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.

Not intending to redefine anything, sorry if anything is controversial.

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] Proposing a bulk locality edit for new admin_level definitions

[Dian Ågesson]

Good morning.

This change to all localities in Australia has been executed.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121025161

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121025214

If you have any concerns or questions, please don't hesitate to get in 
touch.


Dian

On 2022-05-09 14:11, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hey all,

Following the mailing list discussion last month 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-April/016101.html), 
the Australian admin_levels have been updated in the wiki: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#admin_level=*_Country_specific_values. 
Admin_level=7 was removed, and suburbs/localities have been adjusted to 
level 9, to better align with other countries and improve the 
prominence in rendering.


I would like to propose performing a bulk edit to change the 
admin_level of these boundaries to ease the transition. This would 
involve:


* using JOSM to retrieve all relations in Australia with 
boundary=administrative and admin_level=10
* high-level confirmation that the locality is correct (ie, consistent 
with the version uploaded by the PSMA import)

* Changing admin_level to 9

Due to the size of the data being queried, this might be accomplished 
with a changeset for each state/territory.


Are there any comments, feedback or objections about this proposed bulk 
edit? If there aren't any objections, I'll look to make the change this 
weekend.


Dian

___
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] Proposing a bulk locality edit for new admin_level definitions

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey all,

Following the mailing list discussion last month 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-April/016101.html), 
the Australian admin_levels have been updated in the wiki: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#admin_level=*_Country_specific_values. 
Admin_level=7 was removed, and suburbs/localities have been adjusted to 
level 9, to better align with other countries and improve the prominence 
in rendering.


I would like to propose performing a bulk edit to change the admin_level 
of these boundaries to ease the transition. This would involve:


 	* using JOSM to retrieve all relations in Australia with 
boundary=administrative and admin_level=10
 	* high-level confirmation that the locality is correct (ie, consistent 
with the version uploaded by the PSMA import)

* Changing admin_level to 9

Due to the size of the data being queried, this might be accomplished 
with a changeset for each state/territory.


Are there any comments, feedback or objections about this proposed bulk 
edit? If there aren't any objections, I'll look to make the change this 
weekend.


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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Anthony,

Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the 
correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of 
view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road.


https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h

As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a 
moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of 
rapid fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient.


Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is 
being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers 
that may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected.


Dian

On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road 
which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit 
going the wrong way lmao.


From: Luke Stewart
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo
Cc: Dian Ågesson; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in 
the Road Rules.


On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo  
wrote:


Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that 
picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the 
point of view of that picture and back


From: Luke Stewart
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo
Cc: Dian Ågesson; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo 
would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the 
mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns 
in median breaks.


On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo  
wrote:


You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way 
road


From: Dian Ågesson
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM
To: Anthony Panozzo
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

Anthony,

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just 
to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the 
buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one 
of his edits


Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, 
as I have not reviewed them all.


However, every edit that you've referred to in this mail chain as being 
"wrong" hasn't had any issues. We've covered:


- Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)

- remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)

- adding a u turn using a way as a "via" member (valid)

And you have now raised a different type of problem,

- Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic 
lights.


On the latter point, I quote

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf

A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic 
lights if there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection"


Note 2--
U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless 
there is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate 
that the driver must or may turn right--see rule 92.


this is now the fourth type of error which isn't actually wrong.

If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am 
unable to identify a problem in the edits you've raised.


Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised 
before responding with another flurry of emails.


dian

On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just 
to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the 
buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one 
of his edits


From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au [1]
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)

--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, I

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

[Dian Ågesson]

Anthony,

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just 
to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the 
buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one 
of his edits


Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, 
as I have not reviewed them all.


However, every edit that you've referred to in this mail chain as being 
"wrong" hasn't had any issues. We've covered:


- Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid)

- remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid)

- adding a u turn using a way as a "via" member (valid)

And you have now raised a different type of problem,

- Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic 
lights.


On the latter point, I quote

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf

A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic 
lights if there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection"


Note 2--
U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless 
there is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate 
that the driver must or may turn right--see rule 92.


this is now the fourth type of error which isn't actually wrong.

If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am 
unable to identify a problem in the edits you've raised.


Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before 
responding with another flurry of emails.


dian

On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just 
to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the 
buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one 
of his edits


From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo)

--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12
Message-ID:


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is 
with this edit. The
road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end 
of a
median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it 
or
traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if 
there is a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the 
understanding to be able to blindly click buttons from this state,ent 
alone, and yet people will come to your defence lmao


From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest,
Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson)
2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo)

--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re:
Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6)
Message-ID: <80784b78-0628-85f3-f104-1f10b652d...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling 
me

it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections


Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender
by default on reply. You will have noticed the list email address in 
the

CC:. Or maybe you didn't notice?

By the way, the link you sent me off-list:

Re: [talk-au] user TheSwavu

[Dian Ågesson]

Good morning Anthony,

I've had a look at the intersection in question. In this edit 
(https://osmcha.org/changesets/120456255) TheSwavu has:


- Deleted forty five relations

- Deleted four ways within the intersection ("the cross")

- Altered four restrictions to apply a u-turn restriction using a way as 
a "via" role


If I understand you correctly, you are saying that

- The u turn restrictions only work "for one node, not two".

- The "cross"/four ways within the intersection is a valid mapping 
practice


ON THE U-TURN ISSUE

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13628392

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13628393

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13628394

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13628395

These four u turn restrictions appear to be correct. They prevent u 
turns from each direction of the dual carriageways.


There is no need to add additional restrictions for vehicles travelling 
from "two nodes away" because as a vehicle passes though the 
intersection it will be prevented from turning at the same point. The 
one way restrictions also prevent vehicles being routed through those 
ways to "avoid" the restriction.


What are you using to test the routing? It would be useful to know how 
you believe these restrictions aren't effective.


ON THE INTERSECTION MODELLING

you will realise those crosses at intersections do not break any OSM 
rules or policys. The no physical divide argument is not valid because 
they do not represent two different roads, this person is reverting 
edits he really knows nothing about.


I believe you are saying that because these turn lanes are representing 
a _single _road, rather than two roads, the principle of not splitting 
ways doesn't apply?


If so, you've misunderstood this guideline. There is no barrier 
enforcing physical separation between the road and it's turn lanes. They 
should not be mapped as separate ways.


COLLABORATION

This community seems to be all about winning a argument than giving a 
shit about the map.


From what I can see here, there isn't anyone who really wants to be 
having an argument at all. Other editors have pointed out where you 
might have misinterpreted the edits, and asked for more details. Myself, 
and others, have looked and seen nothing wrong on examination.


What is the routing service you are using, and what route are you 
testing? If there is a problem it needs to be fixed, but I (and it 
seems, everyone else) can't see what the problem is.


Dian

On 2022-05-02 17:27, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

He really is a major problem, it's a bit tedious but if anyone actually 
spent the time to randomly go through some of his edits you will see 
straight away how dangerous his edits really are. He 100% is randomly 
clicking buttons without even looking at what he is doing, as as 
everyone has seen here there is nothing I can do about it, he has the 
full support of a very vocal group here and he is free to go about it. 
If no one with a better voice than me can be bothered to actually look 
at these edits that's it for anyone to even bother to try to route 
anything youll be wasting your time. All my edits have always been by 
hand and personal knowledge and if that isn't as good as someone 
clicking buttons than everyone is wasting there time on this project.


From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 2:37 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 8

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7 (Anthony Panozzo)

--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 17:04:51 +
From: Anthony Panozzo 
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7
Message-ID:


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I am going to go through every single edit in Adelaide from this guy 
and report each one individually here and his user page, the small 
vocal group that backs this guy congrats your screwing the map!


From: 
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 2:30 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] turn restrictions discussion

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Anthony,

I'm not particularly interested in previous disagreements, so I'm not 
going to wade into this other "bus stop" issue.


It is clear that there is a disconnect between what you understand these 
edits are doing to routing algorithms, and what the other editors are 
explaining is happening. In particular, the method you are using to 
model intersections (using separate ways for turns where no physical 
separation) is causing extra complexity and errors. The wiki is a good 
place to start for more detail, as is 
https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/modeling-intersections-for-map-navigation/


I am happy to spend time going into this in more detail, but mailing 
lists tend to be a bad forum for really detailed conversation and these 
resources are a good start.


Dian

On 2022-05-01 02:50, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

What that luke person was talking about was a bus stop node upgrade 
which took place a few months ago, the kids on discord argued that 
there might be a 1 in million "edge case" which will ruin the map, so 
my mass edit was reverted and they have to be edited individually, now 
the same people came out of nowhere because they see me posting here 
and argue that this guy is free to go about clicking buttons based on 
the validator and there will never ever be an edge case scenario. With 
these kids it's personal they don't make any sense and that's why that 
kids decided to come in here and bring up bus stops lmao.


From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:55 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 57

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
(Andy Townsend (ajt1...@gmail.com))

--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:21:34 +0100
From: "Andy Townsend (ajt1...@gmail.com)" 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
Message-ID:

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

I suspect that no-one is taking the piss - depending on the mail client
"reply all" will very often go to the sender cc the list.

Perhaps a bit more discussion about what problems have been created 
might

have helped (and "source=knowledge") isn't a great description of why
something was changed, but to an outsider it does look like a couple of
rounds of polite questions were mossing before the "wtf is going on" on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373#map=19/-34.76638/138.58995
.

Where there are turn restrictions missing something vital like "from" 
or

"to" sometimes it's obvious what needs to be re-added, and sometimes
actually deleting it is just fine because other tags (such as oneway) 
are

doing the same job.

Where you think a turn restriction has been deleted in error, perhaps 
it

would help to comment why that was in error?

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 13:18 Anthony Panozzo,  wrote:

Im not it?s 100% true, youre the one taking the piss by jumping in 
this
conversation and just speaking on behalf of the other person involved 
when
the matter was already discussed and sorted. Please do not email me 
directly








*From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
*Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:41 PM
*To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
*Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55



Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 (Luke Stewart)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:07:00 +1000
From: Luke Stewart 
To: Anthony Panozzo 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
Message-ID:

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

Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss?

Cheers,
Luke

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo  
wrote:


I didn?t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block 
you

from doing so in the future, it?s against OSM au-talk policy







*From: *Luke Stewart 
*Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Anthony,

I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating 
when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know 
I've spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find 
the same errors get reintroduced.


I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If 
validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will 
eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other 
editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn't possible to 
stop other editors from making changes in an area.


In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the 
iD editor which create "orphaned" relations that would not be used in 
routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn't trying to undo the 
changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors.


I've created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn't 
until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more 
powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these 
restrictions perfect, I'd strongly recommend giving that a try.


Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map, 
and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It's better 
to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time 
doing the fun stuff. :)


Dian

On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote:

Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your 
validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some 
routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take 
to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the 
intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was 
functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns, 
you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but 
what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture 
either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which 
are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive 
ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more 
knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than 
for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don't 
know the intended routing and can't see any errors using the routing 
engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people 
with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do 
including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do 
not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it. 
I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors!


From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol 178,
  Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
   2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
   3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest, Vol
  178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt)
   4. FW:  Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt)

--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson 
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re:  Talk-au Digest,
Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c3...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:


This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge?


Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction
relation needs to have:

1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways
4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel

When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I
say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.


from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this
account 

[talk-au] OSM Wiki Update - Fourth Tagging Guidelines Page ready for review

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

Thank you for the feedback for the subpages that have been completed so 
far.


The fourth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries 
is ready for review.


Of particular importance in this subpage, the changes to the 
administration levels that was discussed earlier has been incorporated 
into this new subpage.


Please, as always, don't be shy about providing feedback or raising 
concerns.


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

[talk-au] OSM Wiki Update - Third Tagging Guidelines Page ready for review

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello list, and happy Friday.

Cleanup has of the Tagging Guidelines page is continuing.

The 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads 
received positive feedback, and with some minor adjustments has now been 
integrated fully into the page.


The third Tagging Guidelines subpage of the cleanup is ready for 
community endorsement: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian 
features [1].


This subpage is sort of a miscellany of various Australian features. As 
always, I've been guided by the actual usage of some of the tags 
suggested, a few of which have not been implemented despite their 
documentation many years ago.


Please, review this page and let me know your thoughts and feedback. If 
there are no objections, the old text from the guidelines will be 
removed.


Dian

Links:
--
[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australianfeatures___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging suggestions please - parking formal vs informal

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Bob,

Even though the term isn't used in Australian English, I'd almost be 
tempted to use the layby tag.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:parking%3Dlayby

In regards to the "informality" of these parking spaces, I think 
access=permissive would do the trick.


Dian.

On 2022-04-20 08:32, Bob Cameron wrote:


Only about regional areas, not urban

There are well used informal parks everywhere. Many used by trucks as 
rest areas. Some are tiny, some are huge, some are gravel pits, some 
are the NHVR green dot things.. Some councils even setup bins in them.


I'd like a way to tag any informal area. No extra tag would imply 
formal (signs)


Something like;

source:parking=sign (the blank default)
source:parking=informal
source:parking=stockpile (Possibly with the stockpile number in 
description=)

source:parking=nhvr

These informals are all about judgement and evidence of use.

Non standard examples. Will any existing tags cover them?

Tnxs

___
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] Unclassified Highway Speeds

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Andrew,

I'm chiming in as I encountered this issue documenting the "cleaned up" 
Roads tagging guidelines. 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads)


The tagging guidelines (both prior to, and following cleanup) state it 
is good practice in Australia to tag every road with a maxspeed.


The early guidelines say that the implicit speed limits have not been 
widely adopted in Australia, but this no longer appears to be true.


In use is both the maxspeed:type tag and source:maxspeed tag. 
Unfortunately, the earlier guidelines offers advice on the usage of the 
source:maxspeed tag that is contradictory to the global page. (It 
suggests local_knowledge to mark implicit speed limits rather than 
AU:urban). The maxspeed:type tag does not have this contradiction.


I am not sure if leaving the maxspeed blank (or using a non-numeric 
value) would be a good idea; using a non numeric value in maxspeed seems 
to be much less preferred globally than the alternative methods. I 
documented maxspeed:type rather than source:maxspeed following a discord 
discussion, but I believe either of those two schemes are preferable to 
using maxspeed=AU:urban.


Dian

On 2022-04-20 13:45, Andrew Hughes wrote:


Hi All,

First, I thought the tagging guidelines were "don't tag unless it's a 
non-default value" (my language to describe this might be inaccurate, 
feel free to improve). If this is true, then I shouldn't tag rural ALL 
roads with  maxspeed. It's only those that are "non-default".


Can anyone please confirm the above please?

Secondly, it does look like there is a tagging for implicit (speed) 
values as per  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed#Implicit_maxspeed_values 
 [1]

maxspeed = AU:urban
maxspeed = AU:rural

I believe that the above is better than tagging 50kph, 60kph or 100kph 
- because a change in legislation (as has happened in the past) can 
change is without tags needing to be updated.


But that all being said, I would still be tagging all roads and not 
just those that are "non-default" on the ground. Which contradicts the 
first point (if it is true that is).


This feels like a distinct gap in OSM (as others have pointed out). But 
this is one I would like to know how to deal with.


Perhaps area's could be tagged with maxspeed=AU:urban or 
maxspeed=AU:rural  to define "implicit speed areas"? I think this might 
be what is missing. Thoughts?


Thanks for reading
AH

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 10:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 wrote:


In regard to defaults, the default 50kph Qld (Oz-wide?) urban 
residential limit should apply around here, & sure enough, most 
streets are 50. But we also have some residential streets posted as 
40, 60 & 70, as well as 40 conditional school zones.


So I assume (using that terrible word! :-)) that actually tagging a 
speed limit on a road overrides the default?


& while I've seen reference to Default Qld Residential speed limit on 
the map, I've also noticed while driving around that OSMAND isn't 
showing a speed limit?


Thanks

Graeme
___
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



Links:
--
[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed#Implicit_maxspeed_values___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Wiki Clean Up Progress Update

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Kim,

Thanks for the great feedback!

Are all toll roads highway=motorway? All the ones I know in Victoria 
are. If so, we should add tollways to the description of 
highway=motorway


There was nothing documented in the previous version of the road 
hierarchy about toll roads, but a quick overpass query shows that are 
are a couple of toll roads are motorways, (Query [1]) notably Brunton 
Avenue in Melbourne (tertiary), Go Between Bridge, Brisbane



Should that be "impractical"?


Yup, fixed.

Unnamed Roads should use "noname=yes" and not "noname=*". That's 
probably what you intended, but may not be obvious to someone 
encountering the noname tag for the first time.


Fixed, thanks.

Should we talk about pipestems in driveways, given recent discussions 
on this list?


Yeah, I'm happy to add pipestem details; did we settle on 
service=pipestem?


We should discourage the vague surface values of "paved" and "unpaved", 
instead using more specific tags like asphalt and compacted. Can we 
replace the example with something more specific than 
"surface=unpaved"?


surface=gravel has it's own problems given the common use in Australia 
is different to the wiki description. I'm not sure the best way to 
address this.


I agree with you that we would want to encourage a more accurate tag. 
From what I could see on the wiki and in overpass queries, there is a 
lot of confusion about the surface tag. I would definitely welcome this 
list revisiting the discussion, but I didn't feel confident changing 
what was already there.


Dian

On 2022-04-18 07:10, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:


Hi Dian,

Some questions and comments.

Are all toll roads highway=motorway? All the ones I know in Victoria 
are. If so, we should add tollways to the description of 
highway=motorway


"Construction and maintenance of paved roads in profoundly remote 
areas is both practical and uneconomical"


Should that be "impractical"?

We should discourage the vague surface values of "paved" and "unpaved", 
instead using more specific tags like asphalt and compacted. Can we 
replace the example with something more specific than 
"surface=unpaved"?


surface=gravel has it's own problems given the common use in Australia 
is different to the wiki description. I'm not sure the best way to 
address this.


Should we talk about pipestems in driveways, given recent discussions 
on this list?


Unnamed Roads should use "noname=yes" and not "noname=*". That's 
probably what you intended, but may not be obvious to someone 
encountering the noname tag for the first time.


Regards,
Kim

On 17/4/22 23:23, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hello list,

Cleanup has of the Tagging Guidelines page is continuing.

The 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australia%27s_First_Peoples 
received positive feedback, and has now been integrated fully into the 
page.


The second Tagging Guidelines subpage of the cleanu[ is ready for 
community endorsement: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads.


This subpage was hard. This section had a lot of really old content, 
some of which had been largely unchanged for a decade. There was a lot 
of generic, non-Australia specific advice and explanations justifying 
what is now well accepted tagging practices. I have tried my best to 
update the wording of the relevant sections while keeping the intent 
and advice within consistent with the original while removing outdated 
information. I've also been guided by the actual usage of some of the 
tags suggested, which have not been implemented despite their 
documentation many years ago.


Please, review this page and let me know your thoughts and feedback. 
If there are no objections, the old text from the guidelines will be 
removed.


Dian

___
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



Links:
--
[1] https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hKL___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Wiki Clean Up Progress Update

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello list,

Cleanup has of the Tagging Guidelines page is continuing.

The 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australia%27s_First_Peoples 
received positive feedback, and has now been integrated fully into the 
page.


The second Tagging Guidelines subpage of the cleanu[ is ready for 
community endorsement: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads.


This subpage was hard. This section had a lot of really old content, 
some of which had been largely unchanged for a decade. There was a lot 
of generic, non-Australia specific advice and explanations justifying 
what is now well accepted tagging practices. I have tried my best to 
update the wording of the relevant sections while keeping the intent and 
advice within consistent with the original while removing outdated 
information. I've also been guided by the actual usage of some of the 
tags suggested, which have not been implemented despite their 
documentation many years ago.


Please, review this page and let me know your thoughts and feedback. If 
there are no objections, the old text from the guidelines will be 
removed.


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

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Steve,

You are looking in the right spot, although the confusion is 
understandable-the proposal (for lack of a better word) is for ACT 
Districts to be moved from Level 7 to Level 5, and for the other 
"districts" to not be included at all.


Forgive me if I over-explain some of these points, but for your benefit 
as a non-Australian:


Australia's government is generally broken into three levels of 
government: Federal, State/Territory (6 states, 9 territories), and 
Local (539 LGAs and Unincorporated Areas). These are currently: 
admin_level=2, admin_level=4, and admin_level=6.  LGAs are the 
second-level subdivision, and provide basic services: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Australia Counties are 
very much an anachronism, and exist only on paper as part of the 
cadastral land title system for some states.


The ACT does not contain any local government areas. It does, however 
have "districts": 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbs_of_Canberra#Districts. ACT 
Districts are subdivisions that are used for land titles, but also form 
part of the ACT government's provision of local services and planning 
strategies.


Dian

See, what I'm getting at is saying ACT District is 5, yet 7 means 
District, well, that ambiguity trips me up.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Dian Ågesson]

Thanks Andrew,

I'll make the adjustments to level 7 and 9 in the update guidelines as I 
prepare them.


I can also add the Districts of the ACT in at Level 5 as well, although 
should it be documented for all states' counties? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lands_administrative_divisions_of_New_South_Wales


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadastral_divisions_of_Victoria

Dian

On 2022-04-09 10:44, Andrew Davidson wrote:


On 8/4/22 21:57, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hey Andrew,

I don't believe anything was decided with regards to ACT districts. 
However, after looking into the details I don't think they actually 
fit in the administration boundary set up at all; seems closer to 
parishes/counties on other states than a "council" or locality.


I was going to suggest that they get moved to admin_level 5 which could 
be also used for counties in other states (that still have them).


Otherwise no problem with getting rid of level 7 and moving suburbs to 
9.


___
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] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Andrew,

I don't believe anything was decided with regards to ACT districts. 
However, after looking into the details I don't think they actually fit 
in the administration boundary set up at all; seems closer to 
parishes/counties on other states than a "council" or locality.


Dian

On 2022-04-08 02:47, Andrew Harvey wrote:


On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 09:33, Dian Ågesson  wrote:


Hey all,

Resurrecting this thread to see if there are any objections to 
implementing the following changes as part of the cleanup:


-Removing admin_level=7


Was there a resolution for Andrew Davidson's comment about ACT 
districts being admin_level=7?


What's the resolution for the other existing items tagged admin_level=7 
Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, etc.?


I think these aren't sufficiently administrative boundaries so we could 
remove the admin_level, boundary tags and replace type=boundary with 
type=multipolygon?



-Moving localities to admin_level=9


I'm happy with this.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey all,

Resurrecting this thread to see if there are any objections to 
implementing the following changes as part of the cleanup:


-Removing admin_level=7

-Moving localities to admin_level=9

Dian

On 2021-12-04 22:29, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hey Andrew,

Forgive my ignorance; how should we approach the Nominatim team? I'm 
more than happy to do so, I just don't know where to go.


Dian

On 2021-11-30 09:21, Andrew Davidson wrote:
On 30/11/21 09:55, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Since we don't have formally defined boundaries for 
place=region,district,city,quarter,neighbourhood,city_block should we 
be adding an admin_level at all?


So should we remove 7/5?
I'd be happy to get rid of admin_level 7. It never really had a good 
definition. The ACT district boundaries are currently 7 so we'd have to 
move them. Maybe to 5, or move 6 to 7 and make 6 the "county" level. We 
currently don't have anything at 5.


I checked via the overpass wizard query "admin_level=8 in AU" and there 
are no results, so no australia post borders are mapped that way, and 
I'm not aware of any.
I think that was an accident of history. boundary=postal_code was 
created after someone chose admin_level=8 for AU post codes.


So I'm supportive of removing Australia Post Postode Border from 
admin_level=8.

I second that.

That leaves should we move localities from 9 to 8? I don't think it 
really matters much to be honest.
Looking at other countries 8 appears to be things that have some form 
of administrative body. We should get rid of either 9 or 10 we don't 
really need both. Maybe move localities up to 9?


We should ask the Nominatim team before we go making any changes. We 
don't want to break their stuff.


___
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] OSM Wiki Cleanup Update: New Tagging Guidelines Subpage ready for Review

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Graeme,

Apologies; error in the email!

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Projects [1]

Dian

On 2022-04-07 04:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


Looking good, thanks, Dian.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 13:20, Dian Ågesson  wrote:


Hello list,

* New Project Pages have been created 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Projects).,


Returns:

AUSTRALIAN PROJECTS)

There is currently no text in this page.
?

Thanks

Graeme



Links:
--
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Projects)___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] OSM Wiki Cleanup Update: New Tagging Guidelines Subpage ready for Review

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello list,

Cleanup has been steadily progressing for Australian OSM Wiki pages.

 	* New Project Pages have been created 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Projects).,
 	* The Australia page has a new look, and outdated information has been 
removed (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia).
 	* The multiple data sources and imagery pages have been merged into a 
unified data sources page 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources).
 	* A new community page has been created, with links to social channels 
and archived pages from years gone 
by(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Mapping_Community).

* A new set of navigation templates have been created.
 	* More changes: see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Au_Clean/Log for more 
details


I'm now approaching the "pointy" end of the cleanup - the Tagging 
Guidelines page. This monster page is one of the longest guideline page 
on the wiki, and following the precedent of the United Kingdom 
guidelines the page will be divided into several subpages.


The first of these subpages is ready for community endorsement: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australia%27s_First_Peoples. 
I have tried my best to update the wording of the relevant sections 
while keeping the intent and advice within consistent with the original 
while removing outdated information.


Please, review this page and let me know your thoughts and feedback. If 
there are no objections, the old text from the guidelines will be 
removed.


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

Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

[Dian Ågesson]

This is unusual behaviour, certainly.

I can see that the notes in the US are being closed en masse as they 
can't be verified through compatible sources.


On looking at the notes added in Australia, they do seem to be an 
automated script comparing what's in OSM to an external source.


The notes added to Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt and Maningrida don't seem 
to be coming from a suitable NT give source. One of the notes suggests a 
street name for a road I was only able to find in Google Maps.


I would support a similar mass closure of these notes, referring to the 
lack of licensing information and directing Anonymous to contact the 
community.


Dian

On 2022-03-31 00:43, Andrew Davidson wrote:


Just a heads up to let you know that someone is currently trying to
bypass the import requirements of OSM by creating thousands of
anonymous map notes.

Seems to have started in the US and Canada:

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20States
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Canada

and has now includes Australia:

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Australia

___
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] Name used for street number

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Graeme,

It would need to be fixed, but I think it would be very doable in JOSM; 
change all the name: to address:street number and then strip out the 
'#'.


I'm happy to have a look later tonight if you aren't confident.

Dian

On 2022-03-19 17:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Just found a Note relating to the above, where the whole suburb has 
been mapped with the house number in the name field :-(


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-33.73504/150.93436

It appears that a search will still find an address so is this 
something that has to be fixed, or is it OK to leave it like this?


& if it has to be fixed, is there any easy way?

Thanks

Graeme
___
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] Mapping shared driveways

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Matthew,

I think the distinction is inherited from the distinction between 
highway=service and highway=residential. A "regular" driveway shouldn't 
be a residential road, and a narrow, but otherwise unremarkable 
residential road doesn't become a service road.


I do feel as though there is some overlap between highway=residential 
and highway=service as they are used. I've seen some residential roads 
tagged as service roads because they are "less important" or narrower 
than surrounding roads; possibly in order to affect the rendering. If a 
residential road is narrow enough though, it can be tagged as alley.


If I had to try and define the difference, it'd probably be based on 
whether the road is accessing a "single property" or not. The wiki 
definition of "highway=service" is for access roads to a building, 
servo, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park, etc. This 
would suggest that it is appropriate for roads that access a large 
property with multiple tenants, which could be analogous to a subdivided 
parcel of land with multiple units. Having a street name should 
generally be the giveaway, some googling also suggests that the lack of 
footpaths, streetlights, etc are other common features.


Ultimately though it's subjective, and Seb's examples are probably three 
perfect examples of edge cases.


Example 1 (818426144): Agree that highway=residential is not appropriate 
here. It looks like a driveway from the road functions, but the actual  
properties seem to access from shared driveways branched off of the main 
way: personally I'd say highway=service with five pups gems branching 
off, but I wouldn't "correct" the main branch if it had been tagged as a 
pipe stem as well. It does happen to be very long, though: if it was 
given a gazetted name, with each house getting renumbered accordingly, I 
think residential would be a justifiable alternative. The way north of 
this (181739516) is an example of just that: the mapper has gone with a 
plain highway=service, but residential would have been my first choice.


The second example, Tilbavale Close, doesn't look like a driveway, has 
individually numbered properties, and (for lack of a more scientific 
word) doesn't "feel" like a driveway. It's a narrow residential street. 
The funny spurs coming off the Close (184844140), even though they are 
part of the gazetted roadway, do look like shared driveways.


The last example (Cassugan Court) looks like like a driveway from the 
road, but someone has gone and gazetted a name and numbered the 
properties with it. Each property does have their own driveway branching 
off of it, though, so I'd say this looks like the most "driveway-ish" a 
road could be while still being highway=residential. If I came across 
this with a plain highway=service tag though, I'm not sure I'd correct 
it.


 It might be easier to define a pipe stem/shared driveway by what it 
isn't: it isn't a through road, it isn't any narrow residential road, it 
isn't any "short" residential road, etc…


Dian

On 2022-03-16 11:17, Matthew Seale wrote:

So what then distinguishes highway=residential from a shared driveway 
in Sebastian's 3 examples?


* The first way 818426144 is an unnamed shared service road, so seems 
to neatly fit the pipestem example as explained.  The addresses in this 
style of development are likely to be unit numbers, otherwise sharing a 
shared main road street addresss.
* The second way 184844142 and the third way 429541974 are named roads 
that appear as named roads on the JOSM Vicmap road network layer.  The 
addresses in these instances will most likely use that street name as 
their address, not the next main road they connect to.   So these don't 
appear to neatly fit the concept of a shared driveway to my thinking.


Otherwise taken to it's extreme interpretation there would be a large 
number of highway=residential that, due to being in privately developed 
areas, could be change to pipestem.  I don't think that is the intent.


Thoughts?

Matthew

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 9:42 AM Dian Ågesson  wrote:

Interesting discussion; it does seem like the consensus is landing on 
the side of service=pipestem.


There are 668 instances of driveway=pipestem in Australia: 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gU6, but there is 0 instances of 
service=pipestem: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gUd. However, it seems 
as though I have had a disproportionate influence (509 of 
driveway=pipestem were last edited by me 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gUf)


I don't have a strong preference either way, so I'm happy to move over 
to the service=pipestem structure (possibly through bulk edit?)


Dian

On 2022-03-16 08:53, Andrew Harvey wrote:

In the global community it's still disputed, see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems 
and my proposal to have this as an editor preset 
https://github.c

Re: [talk-au] Mapping shared driveways

[Dian Ågesson]

Interesting discussion; it does seem like the consensus is landing on 
the side of service=pipestem.


There are 668 instances of driveway=pipestem in Australia: 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gU6, but there is 0 instances of 
service=pipestem: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gUd. However, it seems as 
though I have had a disproportionate influence (509 of driveway=pipestem 
were last edited by me https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gUf)


I don't have a strong preference either way, so I'm happy to move over 
to the service=pipestem structure (possibly through bulk edit?)


Dian

On 2022-03-16 08:53, Andrew Harvey wrote:

In the global community it's still disputed, see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems 
and my proposal to have this as an editor preset 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/239 where the 
tagging question is still not resolved.


I've actually come around to the idea that service=pipstem is better, 
rational being that service=driveway is very clearly defined on the 
wiki as a non-shared driveway leading to a single residence. I think 
it's best we leave that intact and have a sibling tag service=pipestem 
for shared driveways. Otherwise you'll need to redefine 
service=driveway to be any type of shared or non-shared driveway and 
add a new tag driveway=single to most existing highway=service.


On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 08:10, Tom Brennan  
wrote:



I think I started the last discussion on this, so I'll wade in!
Driveways are a bit of a nightmare - there are lots that don't fit
neatly into one bucket or another.

We did agree that service=driveway, driveway=pipestem was better than
service=pipestem.

It's probably 6 of one, half a dozen of the other as to whether the 
ones

below are all shared driveways. Some could equally be classified as
private residential roads.

But they could all do with a clean up, one way or the other!

cheers
Tom

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 15/03/2022 9:22 pm, Dian Ågesson wrote:



Hi Seb!

The last time this came up on the mailing list
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/015014.html)
most people seemed to approve of the following mapping:

highway=service

service=driveway

driveway=pipestem

Dian

On 2022-03-15 20:16, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:


Hi all,

Had a query regarding the mapping of driveways / shared  driveways 
as
there seems to be quite a number of different approaches in the 
data.
Below are three examples of similar ways that have different tags 
used

in each instance.

Highway=service
Service= driveway
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/818426144

Highway=Residential
Service= driveway
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184844142#map=18/-38.00126/145.27585

Highway=residential
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429541974

Reading the OSM wiki, none of these ways are correctly mapped as 
they
are all shared driveways that leads from a road. my understanding 
that

they need to be tagged as follows:

Highway=service
Service= Pipestem

Would be interested in knowing your thoughts.

regards,

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping shared driveways

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Seb!

The last time this came up on the mailing list 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/015014.html) 
most people seemed to approve of the following mapping:


highway=service

service=driveway

driveway=pipestem

Dian

On 2022-03-15 20:16, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:


Hi all,

Had a query regarding the mapping of driveways / shared  driveways as 
there seems to be quite a number of different approaches in the data.
Below are three examples of similar ways that have different tags used 
in each instance.


Highway=service
Service= driveway
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/818426144

Highway=Residential
Service= driveway 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184844142#map=18/-38.00126/145.27585


Highway=residential
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429541974

Reading the OSM wiki, none of these ways are correctly mapped as they 
are all shared driveways that leads from a road. my understanding that 
they need to be tagged as follows:


Highway=service
Service= Pipestem

Would be interested in knowing your thoughts.

regards,

Sebastian
___
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] Wiki Clean Up Progress Update

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello all,

As discussed in an earlier email chain, I have started to perform some 
clean up of the wiki. To do this, I am building a set of pages in my 
wiki "Userspace", to avoid causing overlap with the current versions. I 
am documenting my changes/work here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Au_Clean/Log, but in 
the interest of transparency I'd like to share a bit of my progress at 
this (very) early stage.


Progress

- Australia Landing Page

I have created a new landing page for the Australia project using a 
modified version of the Template:Place template which was on the page 
previously. This new template has a neater map and removes the large, 
uncustomisable blue block that is at the top of the page. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Au_Clean


- Templates

I have also created quite a few templates that will aid with navigation 
and consistency across the different Australia pages, and its 
subprojects. I initially went a little overboard with these templates, 
but have trimmed them back a bit in preparation for more content to be 
written in the pages.


- State Projects

Pages have been created for each state project, but have not yet been 
filled with content. I am hoping that the new navigation templates will 
make it easier for Australia-wide content to be placed on the Au pages, 
leaving the state/city pages to be more focussed on local content. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Au_Clean/Western_Australia


For cities which did not have content on the wiki, I have created a 
template that will direct mappers to their respective state projects.


- New Community Page

There are a lot of different events pages, meetups and other social 
pages that are seriously out of date. Given the Front Page of the wiki 
has migrated to the OSM Calendar, I have tried to centralise all 
community channels/events to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Au_Clean/Community. 
Old events will be archived and accessible on that page as well.


- New Resources Page

The existing Aerial Imagery and Data Sources pages have been merged into 
a single 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Au_Clean/Resources 
page. @AHarvey, and others who maintain these pages, would appreciate 
your thoughts as to whether this layout works for you.


Next Steps

- Flavour Text/Content

Each of the pages, generally, need more words. I've put placeholder text 
in spots where some more expository language can go. This will fill out 
as the work progresses


- History Section.

One of the things that struck me about these old wiki pages is simply 
how much history there is in the Australia mapping project. Many editors 
have come and gone but their influence remains.


If there is an "old-timer" or particularly nostalgic editor that would 
be interested in writing a short history of OSM Au for the "Memory Lane" 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Au_Clean/Community, 
please get in touch.


- Active City Projects

There are quite a few cities that have active Wiki projects, and some of 
the editors I haven't seen on this mailing list. Before attempting to 
create a new version of those pages, I'd like to engage with the 
dedicated mappers directly to ensure the best info is moved across.


- Tagging Guidelines Page

This is probably the page that will require the most thought. I have not 
attempted to migrate it into a new form until the templates, layouts and 
general standard of the wiki pages has been clarified.


Thanks!

Please let me know your thoughts on these pages (preferably on the talk 
pages on the wiki, as it's easier to keep track there!), so that I can 
ensure everyone is happy with the results. :)


I'll be in touch once I've made more meaningful progress as well.

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

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

Things have escalated somewhat: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118091243


(There has definitely been something lost in translation, as this change 
isn't an example of what I was speaking to the editor about.)


As Kim said, I'm not talking about the marginal cases.

These are situations where an additional highway has been drawn for a 
left hand turn where there is no slip lane; and where right hand turn 
lanes are mapped as an X rather than a box.


I'm not sure if the editor is on this list, but I don't believe further 
engagement will work.


Dian

On 2022-03-05 10:48, Luke Stewart wrote:

Personally, for shallow slip lanes like this, I map with the angle of 
the island and do not make curves where it joins the new road.


On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 10:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:


Continuing on with that line of thought & looking at the example 
mentioned in the other thread:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-31.99548/115.99338

How should that left turn from Tonkin Hwy to Hale Rd be mapped?

As a relatively smooth curve the way it is now, or as an abrupt 45° 
angle at the physical traffic island eg ___/_|__ ?


Thanks

Graeme

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 at 08:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:
Looking back at the notes from the previous discussion & spotted this 
comment:


"only split the way at the point where you can no longer physically 
change lanes."


Physically, or legally?

Looking at the  Princes Hwy/William Rd [1] example, yes, there's only a 
painted line & island that you can physically cross, but that would 
mean doing an illegal lane change.


Are we supposed to worry about that, or not?

Thanks

Graeme

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 19:57, Luke Stewart 
 wrote:


(forgot to x-post to talk-au)

Hi,

The standard rule and the way that I map is to only begin a new way if 
there is some form a physical separation, so extra turning ways which 
can be completed with a box but are modelled as curves aren't following 
this rule (same goes for ways that start when lanes start rather than 
branching off where the physical separation begins).


Whilst there are arguments like "it looks better" or "helps with 
routing/direction finding/navigation", these are not reasons to break 
osm, rather to improve software.


In the case of the Princes Hwy/William Rd [1] intersection, the 
residential road should be drawn straight through the intersection, 
with the right turn lane specified with keys such as turn:lanes and 
change:lanes.


As for how to resolve with this user, probably affirming a regional 
consensus would be most convincing.


Cheers,
Luke ___
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

Links:
--
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Cleary,

Two points:

Paint isn't a barrier. Vehicles can, and do, traverse over paint; it's 
legal in many cases if there is a road blockage, for example. Being 
unable to change lanes doesn't make a single road into two roads. If I 
can't merge left then I'm not travelling on a different road than the 
car next to me.


Using legal separation to justify splitting the ways is also a poor 
standard. At most traffic light intersections, you can't change lanes 
past a certain point.  The method you're describing would demand each 
lane to be drawn as a separate highway.


Dian

On 2022-03-05 07:44, cleary wrote:

Paint is physical. It can be seen. It is not just a psychological or 
imaginary concept.  If one is driving a motor vehicle and abiding by 
the law then, in my understanding, an unbroken painted line on the road 
is a physical barrier that cannot be traversed.


On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, at 10:55 PM, ianst...@iinet.net.au wrote:


This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread,
but I'll start a new thread so as not to distract the original.

"  'Don't split ways if there is no physical separation' is one of the
core tenets of highway mapping in OSM."

My query is about how to correctly map an intersection in Perth while
abiding by the above.  I will try to describe the situation as best I
can without being able to resort to a sketch:

- there is a junction between 2 major highways in Perth (Roe & Tonkin
Highways)
- there is a slip road off one (Roe heading west) that merges with the
2 lanes of the other (Tonkin heading south)
- from the merge point there are 3 lanes (the slip lane + the 2 
through

lanes)
- from the merge point, there is no physical barrier down to the
traffic lights at the next intersection (Hale Rd - which is quite 
close

- hundreds of metres)
- however there is a solid white line between the slip lane and the 2
continuing lanes - right to the next intersection
- this means you cannot legally come off the slip lane and turn right
at the next intersection (Hale Rd) because you cannot legally cross 
the

solid white line

This has currently been mapped "as normal", ie 1 slip lane joining a 2
lane road, becoming 3 lanes after the merge point.

Other than maintaining the slip road as a separate way right to the
next intersection (with a no right turn), how else would this be 
mapped

so people coming off the slip road cannot turn right at the next
intersection?

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


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

[talk-au] Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

I'd like some assistance resolving a disagreement I'm involved with 
regarding the correct mapping of dual carriageways at intersections. I 
have previously mentioned this topic on the mailing list here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html 
[1].


To summarise briefly, a very active contributor prefers to model dual 
carriageway intersections in a manner that I don't believe is correct.


Turn lanes are split from main carriageways at the start of the new turn 
lane, then cross over each other in an "X" shape, rather than a Box 
shape that I've seen documented. (Examples, because I am bad at 
explaining: Burwood Hwy/Mountain Hwy [2], Smith St/Dandenong Rd [3], 
Burwood Hwy/Dorset Rd [4], Princes Hwy/William Rd [5]) Additional 
highways are introduced for left hand turns where there is no physical 
separation (eg, Mt Dandenong Tourist Rd/Mountain Highway [6], Greville 
St N/Sturt St [7], Glenleith St/Church St [8]). This editor has been an 
extremely active contributor for many, many years: I found these 
examples by just zooming in on a given town or suburb, found 
intersection that was modelled this way, and checked the history to 
confirm the source.


I initially engaged with the user in September (111051481 [9]), and 
after some initial delay, we have engaged in a productive conversation 
[10] since. To the user's credit, they have been patient and 
understanding in our interactions, and have made adjustments to their 
mapping style based on my feedback. Unfortunately, we have reached a 
fundamental point of disagreement [11], and I don't believe further 
changeset discussions are going to be productive.


I'm now a little too close to this discussion to be objective, and I 
would really appreciate some assistance with this disagreement. Due to 
the extraordinary output of this user, simply avoiding editing in 
similar areas isn't going to be practical. But am I incorrect in my 
assessment of intersection modelling? Is this a question of style, or of 
accuracy?


Kind Regards,
Dian.

Links:
--
[1] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html,

[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8917929878
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2951838115/history
[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8925914559/history
[5] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779286918/history
[6] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113685299/history
[7] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97655/history
[8] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/75040109/history
[9] https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111051481
[10] 
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=206929commented

[11] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118038711___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Driver-Reviver?

[Dian Ågesson]

Perhaps a simple food=yes on highway=rest_area?

On 2022-02-26 11:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


Just spotted one of these on a Note.

Do we map them at all, & if so how?

Cafe perhaps, possibly together with rest-area?

Thanks

Graeme
___
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] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Thorsten,

While I don't intend to simply rearrange sections verbatim, I want to 
focus on tidying, copy editing for spelling/grammar, and consolidating 
rather than making editorial decisions.


As Andrew suggested, I will reach out if there is something egregiously 
incorrect or contradictory, but I'm not intending to validate the entire 
wiki for correctness: I feel as though that would be beyond the remit of 
"tidying".


More than happy to work with simultaneous updates and additions 
though--I don't think it's a task that can be done in one edit!


Dian

On 2022-02-22 18:54, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:

If you do, please make sure to not just incorporate the recent 
undiscussed, subjective, if not outright wrong changes by Aaronsta.


From: Dian Ågesson 
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 17:00
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

Hello,

The wiki contains loads of really good information, but it's a little 
bit hard to navigate: the Australian Tagging Guidelines page seems to 
contain the most current information but is getting very long. There 
are a lot of state-specific articles that don't seem to have been 
updated since 2009.


I'd like to do a bit of housekeeping: tidy up some of the sections, 
mark some of the pages as archived, etc, to try and make it more 
approachable for newbies and more maintainable. Nothing substantive 
would change, nothing would be deleted. Does anyone have any 
objections, thoughts or concerns with regard to this?


dian
___
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] Anyone mind if I tidy the wiki a bit?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

The wiki contains loads of really good information, but it's a little 
bit hard to navigate: the Australian Tagging Guidelines page seems to 
contain the most current information but is getting very long. There are 
a lot of state-specific articles that don't seem to have been updated 
since 2009.


I'd like to do a bit of housekeeping: tidy up some of the sections, mark 
some of the pages as archived, etc, to try and make it more approachable 
for newbies and more maintainable. Nothing substantive would change, 
nothing would be deleted. Does anyone have any objections, thoughts or 
concerns with regard to this?


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

[talk-au] Sidewalks as "Path" when bicycles allowed? was: OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

I noticed in these changes that the Australian tagging guidelines have 
included this note about footpaths (sidewalks) in jurisdictions where 
cycling is allowed.


"

 On all shared use paths which can be used by both pedestrians and 
cyclists.
*Cycling is permitted on footpaths in ACT, NT, QLD, SA, Tas., and WA, 
and highway [1]=path [2] should be used in general circumstances. Refer 
to highway [1]=path [2] for further guidance on which supporting tags to 
use.


Is this accepted practice? To be this doesn't seem like a good idea:  it 
seems like the same problem as explicitly tagging sidewalks as 
bicycle=no; if there is any change in legislation the tags won't make 
sense?


Dian

On 2022-02-13 21:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:


That's not what happened here. See these examples:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/941255156085948466
/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/941255208787386428
/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/941255284171624489
/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/941255349749547018
/unknown.png

He simply indiscriminately removed all source tags from any loaded 
(into
JOSM) object, even though he didn't touch these in any way. No tag 
changes

(outside of deleting the source tags), no geometry changes.

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2022 18:57
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging 
Guidelines

has been changed by Aaronsta

On 13/2/22 14:18, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:

There is also that he seems to be deleting all source tags on any 
loaded

objects with many of his changesets.


I wrote a changeset comment on one of the changesets that do that,


When I make a change I delete the source tag when I'm using a different
source.

The new source can be seen on the changeset. The past source/s can be 
seen

using the history.

If there are no changes then there should be no change to any of the
existing tags - source or otherwise.

___
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



Links:
--
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Shared Zones (Or, Living Streets in car parks?)

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Graeme,

Spotting your change certainly reminded me of the shared zone signs I've 
been seeing, but not because it is tagged incorrectly. It's been on my 
to do list since I nearly got run over eating a Bunnings sausage over 
Xmas!


I think that this is a good example of a true "living street"; it would 
not have been a service road if not signed as a shared zone, and is 
intended to be shared space to encourage pedestrian traffic.


Similar examples I am familiar with include Fitzroy St, St Kilda at 
Acland Street; Kananook Creek Boulevard South in Frankston between 
Playne and Davey; and Hardware Lane, Melbourne, at the Bourke Street 
Carpark.


I have noticed that a lot of "true" living streets in Melbourne are busy 
roads that have been handed back to pedestrian traffic, or are in new, 
sterilised (soulless) places like Docklands.


Dian

On 2022-02-17 10:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


This discussion started in response to something that I mapped.

I was clearing a note / Inspector issue nearby & wondered why this 
street appeared differently on the map:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/216566993

Had a look & it was tagged as a service-alley which just didn't seem 
right, but neither did =residential, so I changed it to =tertiary 
(=unclassified may have been better?).


Question was raised as to whether it should be, so I've now changed it 
to =living_street pending outcome of these discussions.


Here it is FYI:

https://goo.gl/maps/g3jpqjDQLgCktmfc7

https://goo.gl/maps/wNQyQo7RZRyg94pg8

So what do we think it should be?

Thanks

Graeme

___
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] Shared Zones (Or, Living Streets in car parks?)

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

I am increasingly encountering shared zone signs in carparks, driveways 
and other minor service ways. The tagging guidelines suggest that shared 
zones are the equivalent of a highway=living_street, but I'm not sure 
that is the case.


When Shared Zones are applied to shopping strips, residential courts, 
etc, the Living Street tag seems appropriate. But, the parking aisle in 
front of the Bunnings entrance, or the shared driveway of a block of 
three units, doesn't seem to fit. Even though it is a "shared zone", it 
definitely isn't a living street like what Wikipedia describes.


In my opinion, a service street that is a shared zone should not be 
tagged as a living street, but should keep its service tag. (Potentially 
with a pedestrian_priority=yes or shared_zone=yes tag)


What does this group think of this? Would a change to the tagging 
guidelines be appropriate?


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

Re: [talk-au] "Bad" directions on Outback roads

[Dian Ågesson]

A further thought,

Tagging permissions that open the road in certain times, rather than 
close them, could also lead to better outcomes with less sophisticated 
routing software/offline connections.


access=no

access:conditional=yes @ (May-Nov)

access:conditional= discouraged @ (Dec-Apr and dry)

Dian

On 2022-02-10 01:28, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hey Brendan, Graeme

If we wanted to alleviate the explicitly conditional problem, you could 
combine the following:


vehicle:conditional=discouraged @ (Dec-Apr "Impassable during wet 
season")


vehicle:conditional=no @ (Dec-Apr and wet)

By leaving it discouraged without further info gives wiggle room for 
legal access when the road is passable.


Dian

On 2022-02-10 01:05, Brendan Barnes wrote:

Thanks Graeme, I'll just tweak your brackets a little to be a valid 
tag:


vehicle:conditional=no @ (Dec-Apr "Road is generally impassable during 
the wet season - seek local knowledge")


My only feedback would be an explicit conditional=no should only be 
used if there's signage or other evidence to support no general public 
access for those months each year.


If there's consensus seasonal roads should be tagged as such, I'm happy 
to write something up in the Australian tagging guidelines.


On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 09:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 wrote:


On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 08:25,  wrote:

The challenge with specifying months is the "wet"/"dry" season is it is 
not always fixed.


True, but if we modify Brendan's suggestion a bit to:

vehicle:conditional=no @ Dec-Apr ("Road is generally impassable during 
the wet season - seek local knowledge")


that "should" (?) stop routers from going along it, but when you stop 
at the servo & ask if the road to Burketown is open, they'll be able to 
say yes / no.


Thanks

Graeme


___
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] "Bad" directions on Outback roads

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Brendan, Graeme

If we wanted to alleviate the explicitly conditional problem, you could 
combine the following:


vehicle:conditional=discouraged @ (Dec-Apr "Impassable during wet 
season")


vehicle:conditional=no @ (Dec-Apr and wet)

By leaving it discouraged without further info gives wiggle room for 
legal access when the road is passable.


Dian

On 2022-02-10 01:05, Brendan Barnes wrote:

Thanks Graeme, I'll just tweak your brackets a little to be a valid 
tag:


vehicle:conditional=no @ (Dec-Apr "Road is generally impassable during 
the wet season - seek local knowledge")


My only feedback would be an explicit conditional=no should only be 
used if there's signage or other evidence to support no general public 
access for those months each year.


If there's consensus seasonal roads should be tagged as such, I'm happy 
to write something up in the Australian tagging guidelines.


On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 09:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 wrote:


On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 08:25,  wrote:

The challenge with specifying months is the "wet"/"dry" season is it is 
not always fixed.


True, but if we modify Brendan's suggestion a bit to:

vehicle:conditional=no @ Dec-Apr ("Road is generally impassable during 
the wet season - seek local knowledge")


that "should" (?) stop routers from going along it, but when you stop 
at the servo & ask if the road to Burketown is open, they'll be able to 
say yes / no.


Thanks

Graeme


___
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 a house name

[Dian Ågesson]

Genuine question:

If I go to Officeworks and get a sign printed with the name "Bob" and 
put it on my letterbox, does that become the name of my house?


On 2022-02-04 06:31, Warin wrote:


On 4/2/22 17:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


I've always listed the name of units & so on just as name=*.


+1

No longer used as the address, used 2 centuries ago.

Thanks

Graeme

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 16:14, Mat Attlee  wrote:

Whilst I was out surveying today I stumbled upon a building that had a 
street number but also a house name, as just above the entrance and 
door number it said Rivenhall. Now the question is should this be 
tagged as the name or addr:housename? I know the latter is common in 
the UK though I couldn't find anything about best practice in 
Australia.


___
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] Am I using addr:unit correctly?

[Dian Ågesson]

Thanks Andrew,

I was having a bit of a crisis of confidence as unit numbers don't seem 
to render as I expected, nor does nominatim seem to know what to do with 
them. 
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=W=1024067995=building


Dian

On 2022-01-27 10:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:

Your use of addr:unit looks correct here, I don't believe it needs to 
be subdivisions of a single building. You could have villa style 
townhouses where each dwelling is a separate building on a single site, 
where each building has it's own addr:unit and they all share the same 
addr:housenumber.


We should update the wiki to describe this as a valid scenario.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 10:24, Dian Ågesson  wrote:


Hello,

I had assumed that the addr:unit tag would be the appropriate place 
for a unit number in a subdivided block (specifically a complex such 
as this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1024067987 [1]).


The wiki seems to suggest that the addr:unit is for subdivisions of a 
single building though and doesn't seem to be the right tag?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:unit

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



Links:
--
[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1024067987#map=17/-38.06484/145.14231___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Am I using addr:unit correctly?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

I had assumed that the addr:unit tag would be the appropriate place for 
a unit number in a subdivided block (specifically a complex such as 
this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1024067987 [1]).


The wiki seems to suggest that the addr:unit is for subdivisions of a 
single building though and doesn't seem to be the right tag?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:unit

Dian

Links:
--
[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1024067987#map=17/-38.06484/145.14231___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi all,

When this issue was last raised on the mailing list, I suggested the 
following tagging schema.


* highway=rehabilitation
* access=no
* informal=yes
* rehabilitation:highway=path
* source:access=parks agency name

As has already been raised, deleting these tracks will only result in 
them being remapped at a later date. It should be recorded, in some way, 
so that the illegality of the path
is stored. It's primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to 
its illegitimate use.


By indicating that the land is not a highway, but land undergoing 
rehabilitation, the track would:


 	* not be displayed/rendered as a path (at least initially, until a new 
rendering was introduced)

* prevent mappers from remapping an illegal, deleted path
 	* provide details about the source of illegality for later ground 
truthing. (a check date tag could be added as well, if needed).


Thoughts?

Dian

On 2022-01-25 13:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 11:26, Tom Brennan  
wrote:



If the tracks were kept in OSM, but tagged appropriately so as not to
appear in the rendering,


& this is the big thing. Rendering needs to show that this track 
shouldn't be used. Maybe access=no gets a big red X across each 
entrance to say "closed".


then when someone inevitably goes to add them, they would see the 
tracks there already. Notes as to why they have been

removed could also be added.


Possibly a description would be better than a note, because they carry 
across devices, rather than only being seen on OSM itself?


Thanks

Graeme
___
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 "boundary" roads with addr:*

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Andrew,

There a few conceptual things I don't understand about how is_in would 
be implemented with regard to suburbs


I'm curious; if the border of a suburb is defined by a road; does the 
border change when the road is changed? If, for some reason, the 
boundary road was moved 10m north, does the suburbs grow/shrink 
accordingly? Is the suburb border an infinitely narrow line in the 
"centre" of the roadway, or does the road sit entirely within one suburb 
or another? What if a lanes are uneven?


If it is not bound to the roadway, and is instead "static" geometry, 
then you could have a situation where a road which is supposed to be the 
border is actually entirely misaligned with the legal border. Is_in 
doesn't cause these issues, but I think it may worsen individual 
situations by providing a misleading explanation about where a road 
actually is. I'd also be concerned about maintenance in growth areas 
where new suburbs are declared, etc.


Dian

On 2022-01-07 18:38, Andrew Hughes wrote:


Hi All,

Since I am only trying to define those that cannot be determined 
spatially, this sounds correct to me: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in


Explanation: Yes, they do say that the use is discouraged, but that is 
purely on the basis of boundaries being used as spatial relationships. 
I'm looking at exactly when that is not possible. I wouldn't want to 
tag something that clearly has a spatial relationship (topologically 
correct) with a boundary. Then, there's not discussion aroune what to 
do when this happens, only that others still advocate its use for such 
a scenario.


For the record, an example of why this is needed

We'll have a list of roads "Evergreen Terrace, Springfield" and we'll 
have some information about the road like "Cars from Shelbyville are 
not allowed". If we can't locate these road(s) in OSM because  the 
topology of the road/suburb is inaccurate - we can't map it. Thus, 
either the topology needs fixing (which I believe is impossible and I'm 
not going to bother talking about that) or the roads on the boundary 
can have a tag which is absolute and can be used preferentially (if 
desired).


Thoughts?

Cheers,
AH

On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 09:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:


On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 20:03, Ewen Hill  wrote:
Hi Graeme and happy new year,
How much can you datamine from a suburb:left , suburb:right ? I would 
suggest suburb polygons and street names only which would cover all 
eventualities and allow for the change in the suburb area without 
having to touch each road affected


I agree entirely & wouldn't use it myself, but was suggesting a 
possible option!


I'd leave it as Sandgate Road by itself, but with 436 Sandgate Road, 
Clayfield Qld 4011, & 475 Sandgate Road, Albion Qld 4010, tagged on the 
individual buildings themselves, as they currently are.


Thanks

Graeme ___
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] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Andrew,

Forgive my ignorance; how should we approach the Nominatim team? I'm 
more than happy to do so, I just don't know where to go.


Dian

On 2021-11-30 09:21, Andrew Davidson wrote:


On 30/11/21 09:55, Andrew Harvey wrote:

Since we don't have formally defined boundaries for 
place=region,district,city,quarter,neighbourhood,city_block should we 
be adding an admin_level at all?


So should we remove 7/5?


I'd be happy to get rid of admin_level 7. It never really had a good 
definition. The ACT district boundaries are currently 7 so we'd have to 
move them. Maybe to 5, or move 6 to 7 and make 6 the "county" level. We 
currently don't have anything at 5.


I checked via the overpass wizard query "admin_level=8 in AU" and 
there are no results, so no australia post borders are mapped that 
way, and I'm not aware of any.


I think that was an accident of history. boundary=postal_code was 
created after someone chose admin_level=8 for AU post codes.


So I'm supportive of removing Australia Post Postode Border from 
admin_level=8.


I second that.

That leaves should we move localities from 9 to 8? I don't think it 
really matters much to be honest.


Looking at other countries 8 appears to be things that have some form 
of administrative body. We should get rid of either 9 or 10 we don't 
really need both. Maybe move localities up to 9?


We should ask the Nominatim team before we go making any changes. We 
don't want to break their stuff.


___
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] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Dian Ågesson]

From my (admittedly limited) understanding, there are several different 
forms of recognition and ownership of land by Australia's First Peoples, 
and it varies from state to state. I don't believe the specific 
boundary=administrative tag is appropriate for any of the use cases, but 
I want to make clear that I don't believe using a different tag should 
in any way detract from the legitimacy, ownership or importance of these 
areas. Because the legal framework is complicated, unfortunately I think 
the tags will inevitably be complicated as well


Traditional Owners

Most (all?) states recognise particular Indigenous Corporations as the 
"Traditional Owners" of areas of land. As Traditional Owners, these 
corporations are given certain rights (often a requirement to be 
consulted on land changes) but don't necessarily have any specific legal 
power or self-governance over land in the same way as an LGA might. For 
this reason, I don't believe Traditional Ownership boundaries are suited 
to "administrative" boundaries, for the same reason that planning 
overlays wouldn't be appropriate as "administrative" boundaries. The 
boundary=aboriginal_lands tag seems to be more targeted towards 
"reservations", which doesn't seem to suited to Traditional Owner 
Recognition. My suggestion would be either:


boundary=protected_area
heritage=3 _(as is state recognition)_
protection_title=Registered Traditional Ownership
heritage:operator=_Traditional Owners Corporation_
protect_class=24
name=Traditional Owners
name:aus=_Traditional Owners_

_or, to coin a tag_

boundary=aboriginal_lands
aboriginal_lands=traditional_ownership

Native Title

Native Title is separate to Traditional Ownership as defined by the 
states, but tends to afford more rights over the land (and compensation, 
if I recall correctly). Again though, I don't believe it is equivalent 
to an administration area.


boundary=protected_area
heritage=2 _(as is federal recognition, not state)_
protection_title=Native Title
heritage:operator=_Traditional Owners Corporation_
protect_class=24
name=Traditional Owners
name:aus=_Traditional Owners_

_or, _

boundary=aboriginal_lands
aboriginal_lands=native title

Indigenous Protected Areas

This is another volunteary arrangement between Indigenous Organisations 
and Australian Government, but is also focussed on conservation. To be 
an Indigenous Protected Area, the land must be owned by First Peoples. 
(it's not clear whether ownership is akin to sovereignty or land 
ownership.)


These appear to already be mapped as Nature Reserves 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8317126#map=8/-28.507/134.436)


Aboriginal LGAs

There are also Indigenous Land Councils that operate and administer land 
as the LGA. They will already be captured as an administrative boundary 
(See APY lands https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6792088)


They could perhaps be enriched with an additional tag indicating their 
unique status, but should probably stay the same as other LGAs?


Aboriginal Land Permits

Separate to that legal mechanism, there are areas where a perit is 
required to enter private land owned by Indigenous Organisations. These 
are probably the closest equivalent to the standard 
boundary=aboriginal_land tags, but I'm really not sure of the legal 
distinction between state to state.


If the data can be sourced appropriately and respectfully with First 
Peoples I would wholeheartedly support their inclusion.


Dian

On 2021-11-30 17:51, stevea wrote:

On 2021-11-30 18:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 16:55, stevea  wrote:


On Nov 29, 2021, at 10:39 PM, Ewen Hill  wrote:

Indigenous nations/country
I have a strong belief that we should allocate an entry around level 
three to six for indigenous country. There will be discussion on 
fuzziness of boundaries and ownership, a number of these have been 
resolved already by the Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAP) for an 
area however I don't see that being a huge issue. My key issue is 
appropriation of the country and area polygons for the ability for 
others to commercialise this or reduce the purchasing of indigenous 
materials.


I don't see that all RAPs and others would update the map, however I 
see having the ability to add this data and be able to index it, is 
important to OSM in Australia.


Ewen

Yep, great idea!

We did discuss this briefly a little while ago, when Aus Post started 
pushing for / allowing "Country" names to be included in mailing 
addresses.


https://auspost.com.au/about-us/supporting-communities/rachael-mcphail-making-traditional-place-names-part-of-mailing-addresses

I agree that it may not be something that is very usable "now", but 
it's something that will only gain in popularity over time, so let's 
get in early with OSM!



"Um," (he begins timidly)...


It's alright Steve, we don't bite! (that hard anyway :-))

To sum it up simply - it's complicated!

[talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

I wanted to prompt a conversation about admin_level tagging in Australia 
and whether the current levels are appropriate.


For context, I have been slowly changing suburbs in suburban Melbourne 
back from place=town to place=suburb following 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/015042.html) 
this discussion. Metropolitan suburbs are more correctly tagged with the 
"suburb" tag, however without being listed as 'towns' they don't appear 
as a label until a greater zoom is used. You can see the difference in 
this image [1]: the south east is using "place=suburb", but the 
north/west hasn't yet been changed.


Suburbs and Localities in Australia are all using admin_level=10 [2], 
and some changes in early 2020 to the default map rendering 
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4016) 
significantly reduced the prominence of admin_level 9 and 10 tags. While 
some other countries do use levels 9 and 10 for "suburbs", most seem to 
use it for neighbourhoods, sub-divisions, etc. I feel as though this 
makes Australia's usage a bit of an outlier, as a 'suburb' has more 
prominence than a generic neighbourhood would. There are also a few 
entries in the existing admin_level structure that seem out of place?


I can see this was discussed in September 2020 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2020-September/013976.html). 
In that thread, the hierarchy of places was agreed to be generally 
Country>State>LGA>locality (town/suburb)>land parcel, but the 
implications for rendering weren't covered.


I would like to propose that we adjust the admin_level to better align 
with the general usage of suburb within the community, with the 
additional benefit of better rendering consistent with the boundary 
usage internally.


Current Usage

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

_Australia_

State/Territory Border

LGA Border
 		District or Region Border (e.g Greater Sydney, Greater Melbourne, 
etc.)

Australia Post Postode Border
Locality Border (ONLY where larger than ABS boundary)
Locality Border (suburbs or towns)

Proposed Usage

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

_Australia_
__
State/Territory Border
 		District or Region Border (e.g Greater Sydney, Greater Melbourne, 
etc.)

LGA Border
(none)
Locality Border (suburbs or towns)
(none)
(none)*

* Australia Post Borders would be changed from boundary=administrative 
to boundary=postal_code, or put here if appropriate.


Appreciate this is a big topic with lots of complexity. Would love to 
hear your thoughts.


Dian

Links:
--
[1] https://imgur.com/a/QcDMBjv
[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] M11 naming

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey all

Having driven the road today from Dingley to Thompsons Road I can 
confirm two things.


1) The freeway is particularly boring and unremarkable. Not worth the 
trip unless it is actually the quickest route to take.


2) The signs all read Mornington Peninsula Freeway; both on the turns to 
get onto the road and on the distance signs while driving on the road 
itself.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dingley_Bypass_%26_Mornington_Peninsula_Freeway.jpg

It also has a _huge _median, so they are obviously expect to extend it 
to three lanes at some point.


Dian

On 2021-11-26 15:53, Brendan Barnes wrote:

Unfortunately the Major Road Projects Victoria website is not 
compatible with the ODbL, as "no part may be reproduced or used for any 
commercial purposes whatsoever". The press release on their site has no 
other licencing information, so we should treat it as copyright and not 
use it as a source for OSM data.


The Engage Victoria website is CC BY 4.0 (State of Victoria (Department 
of Premier and Cabinet)), but unfortunately we don't have a waiver for.


To ensure data in our database is sourced correctly, we need to collect 
street naming from on-the-ground surveys, compatible imagery providers, 
and any other compatible licence sources.


On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 00:07, Adam Horan  wrote:

The existing southern end of this road which was known through 
construction as 'Peninsula Link', and is mapped as such now, should 
probably also be called 'Mornington Peninsula Freeway.'
See relation 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12622680#map=12/-38.1791/145.1193 
and ways within.
Here is a VicRoads doc referring to upgrades on the southern part, and 
calling it Mornington Peninsula Freeway https://engage.vic.gov.au/mpfu

However roadsigns along the road seem to call it Peninsula Link still.

re the Mordialloc end - the project page is clear that _"The 9km long 
Mordialloc Freeway connects the Mornington Peninsula Freeway in 
Aspendale Gardens to the Dingley Bypass in Dingley Village..."_

https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/projects/mordialloc-freeway
The press release for opening it calls it Mordialloc Freeway 
https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/news/mordialloc-freeway-open


On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 22:51, Brendan Barnes  
wrote:


Nice work from the community surveying and mapping so quickly since 
early opening.


There's no KartaView imagery of the extension, and Mapillary isn't 
loading for me right now, so it's hard to weigh-in as an armchair 
mapper.


On sampling some of the ways (example 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/913115111), both name=* and 
official_name=* appear to be sourced correctly and follow the "map 
what's on the ground" good practice.


My only suggestion would be alt_name=* being the same as 
official_name=* is probably redundant.


On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 21:11, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

Hello,

There has been a flurry of activity in South-East Melbourne surrounding 
the opening of the brand new M11 extension. Unfortunately, it seems as 
though sources vary on the name of this new section of road.


The construction has been heavily advertised and promoted as the 
'Mordialloc Freeway'. That is the name of the road on Vicnames as well.


Every roadsign I've seen in the area though uses 'Mornington Peninsula 
Freeway'. Wikipedia (currently) uses that name as well, but the editors 
there seem unsure what to call it as well.


Thoughts?

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

Re: [talk-au] M11 naming

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Adam,

it was at the corner of Lower Dandenong and also Centre Dandenong; they 
both said Mornington Peninsula Fwy. I saw it again this morning on my 
way through the area, and didn't take a photo… can try and do so again 
later today if needed?


dian

On 2021-11-26 16:54, Adam Horan wrote:

@Dian where were the roadsigns that you saw? Maybe someone can get out 
and take some pictures.


From VicNames it seems that south of Springvale Road it's called 
Mornington Peninsula Freeway, but north of Springvale it's Mordialloc 
Freeway. Continue further south and it's Peninsula Link, and then 
further it's back to Mornington Peninsula Freeway.


I'm sure the signs on Peninsula Link still say that, but I have seen 
newer/adjusted signs in this northern area which refer to MPF. 
Unfortunately I can't remember exactly where I saw them...


The only consistent thing is the M11 numbering :)

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 15:56, Brendan Barnes  
wrote:


Unfortunately the Major Road Projects Victoria website is not 
compatible with the ODbL, as "no part may be reproduced or used for any 
commercial purposes whatsoever". The press release on their site has no 
other licencing information, so we should treat it as copyright and not 
use it as a source for OSM data.


The Engage Victoria website is CC BY 4.0 (State of Victoria (Department 
of Premier and Cabinet)), but unfortunately we don't have a waiver for.


To ensure data in our database is sourced correctly, we need to collect 
street naming from on-the-ground surveys, compatible imagery providers, 
and any other compatible licence sources.


On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 00:07, Adam Horan  wrote:

The existing southern end of this road which was known through 
construction as 'Peninsula Link', and is mapped as such now, should 
probably also be called 'Mornington Peninsula Freeway.'
See relation 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12622680#map=12/-38.1791/145.1193 
and ways within.
Here is a VicRoads doc referring to upgrades on the southern part, and 
calling it Mornington Peninsula Freeway https://engage.vic.gov.au/mpfu

However roadsigns along the road seem to call it Peninsula Link still.

re the Mordialloc end - the project page is clear that _"The 9km long 
Mordialloc Freeway connects the Mornington Peninsula Freeway in 
Aspendale Gardens to the Dingley Bypass in Dingley Village..."_

https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/projects/mordialloc-freeway
The press release for opening it calls it Mordialloc Freeway 
https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/news/mordialloc-freeway-open


On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 22:51, Brendan Barnes  
wrote:


Nice work from the community surveying and mapping so quickly since 
early opening.


There's no KartaView imagery of the extension, and Mapillary isn't 
loading for me right now, so it's hard to weigh-in as an armchair 
mapper.


On sampling some of the ways (example 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/913115111), both name=* and 
official_name=* appear to be sourced correctly and follow the "map 
what's on the ground" good practice.


My only suggestion would be alt_name=* being the same as 
official_name=* is probably redundant.


On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 21:11, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

Hello,

There has been a flurry of activity in South-East Melbourne surrounding 
the opening of the brand new M11 extension. Unfortunately, it seems as 
though sources vary on the name of this new section of road.


The construction has been heavily advertised and promoted as the 
'Mordialloc Freeway'. That is the name of the road on Vicnames as well.


Every roadsign I've seen in the area though uses 'Mornington Peninsula 
Freeway'. Wikipedia (currently) uses that name as well, but the editors 
there seem unsure what to call it as well.


Thoughts?

Dian ___
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
___
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] M11 naming

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey Adam,

I've seen the signs at both Lower and Centre Dandenong Roads. Both said 
Morning Peninsula Fwy. I drove past one this morning but didn't take a 
picture, but I can swing past again if necessary.


Dian

On 2021-11-26 16:54, Adam Horan wrote:

@Dian where were the roadsigns that you saw? Maybe someone can get out 
and take some pictures.


From VicNames it seems that south of Springvale Road it's called 
Mornington Peninsula Freeway, but north of Springvale it's Mordialloc 
Freeway. Continue further south and it's Peninsula Link, and then 
further it's back to Mornington Peninsula Freeway.


I'm sure the signs on Peninsula Link still say that, but I have seen 
newer/adjusted signs in this northern area which refer to MPF. 
Unfortunately I can't remember exactly where I saw them...


The only consistent thing is the M11 numbering :)

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 15:56, Brendan Barnes  
wrote:


Unfortunately the Major Road Projects Victoria website is not 
compatible with the ODbL, as "no part may be reproduced or used for any 
commercial purposes whatsoever". The press release on their site has no 
other licencing information, so we should treat it as copyright and not 
use it as a source for OSM data.


The Engage Victoria website is CC BY 4.0 (State of Victoria (Department 
of Premier and Cabinet)), but unfortunately we don't have a waiver for.


To ensure data in our database is sourced correctly, we need to collect 
street naming from on-the-ground surveys, compatible imagery providers, 
and any other compatible licence sources.


On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 00:07, Adam Horan  wrote:

The existing southern end of this road which was known through 
construction as 'Peninsula Link', and is mapped as such now, should 
probably also be called 'Mornington Peninsula Freeway.'
See relation 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12622680#map=12/-38.1791/145.1193 
and ways within.
Here is a VicRoads doc referring to upgrades on the southern part, and 
calling it Mornington Peninsula Freeway https://engage.vic.gov.au/mpfu

However roadsigns along the road seem to call it Peninsula Link still.

re the Mordialloc end - the project page is clear that _"The 9km long 
Mordialloc Freeway connects the Mornington Peninsula Freeway in 
Aspendale Gardens to the Dingley Bypass in Dingley Village..."_

https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/projects/mordialloc-freeway
The press release for opening it calls it Mordialloc Freeway 
https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/news/mordialloc-freeway-open


On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 22:51, Brendan Barnes  
wrote:


Nice work from the community surveying and mapping so quickly since 
early opening.


There's no KartaView imagery of the extension, and Mapillary isn't 
loading for me right now, so it's hard to weigh-in as an armchair 
mapper.


On sampling some of the ways (example 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/913115111), both name=* and 
official_name=* appear to be sourced correctly and follow the "map 
what's on the ground" good practice.


My only suggestion would be alt_name=* being the same as 
official_name=* is probably redundant.


On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 21:11, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

Hello,

There has been a flurry of activity in South-East Melbourne surrounding 
the opening of the brand new M11 extension. Unfortunately, it seems as 
though sources vary on the name of this new section of road.


The construction has been heavily advertised and promoted as the 
'Mordialloc Freeway'. That is the name of the road on Vicnames as well.


Every roadsign I've seen in the area though uses 'Mornington Peninsula 
Freeway'. Wikipedia (currently) uses that name as well, but the editors 
there seem unsure what to call it as well.


Thoughts?

Dian ___
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
___
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] M11 naming

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

There has been a flurry of activity in South-East Melbourne surrounding 
the opening of the brand new M11 extension. Unfortunately, it seems as 
though sources vary on the name of this new section of road.


The construction has been heavily advertised and promoted as the 
'Mordialloc Freeway'. That is the name of the road on Vicnames as well.


Every roadsign I've seen in the area though uses 'Mornington Peninsula 
Freeway'. Wikipedia (currently) uses that name as well, but the editors 
there seem unsure what to call it as well.


Thoughts?

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

Re: [talk-au] Service Roads?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hi Andrew,

From your description in example A, it sounds like you are describing 
frontage roads (what we would call service roads in Australia). Rather 
confusingly, the service tag isn't the best tag for these roads; 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Frontage_road has a good 
explanation.


Dian

On 2021-11-19 15:56, Andrew Hughes wrote:


Hi Again,

With regards to service roads. I would like to know if there is a 
tagging convention that would provide a distinction between roads that 
appear to all fall under highway=service for the following examples:


Example A: This is what is referred to "traditionally" as a "service 
road" (outside the OSM world that is). I'd describe it as,a minor road 
that is associated with a major road, it runs parallel to its major 
road counterpart and gives general access to the local area so that the 
major road is occupied by traffic that does not want to stop in the 
local area https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118171809


Example B: A way (perhaps even a driveway or parking_isle?) that 
provides access to a carpark. It's not really paired with a major road 
and is not designed to "split" the local traffic from traffic passing 
through as per A  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28262128


The main difference I feel between A and B is that A is really part of 
a major/bigger arterial way and services the local needs that the 
arterial way will not. B is not really a thoroughfare and is more in 
line with the "destination" rather than a thoroughfare. You only use 
the B way to access the carpark(s). Someone else might have a better 
interpretation however I do feel like on the ground they are very 
different roads and tagging with highway=services alone doesn't reflect 
that.


Thanks in advance,
Andrew
___
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] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

[Dian Ågesson]

Thanks Warin,

I maybe should have explained myself a bit better; I was actually 
referring to the ways leading into the roundabout, rather than the 
roundabout itself. :)


On 2021-11-15 20:38, Warin wrote:


On 15/11/21 6:18 pm, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hello,

Quick question, as I'm not sure that there is an established consensus 
in Australia for this.


Where a way leading to a roundabout has a small traffic island, what 
is the preferred way to map? I have seen both the "traffic island as a 
node" approach (because they aren't really separate carriageways) and 
the "splitting ways" approach (because physical separation and more 
"detailed).


Specific examples: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121203404/history 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121203404/history> or 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/603989993 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/603989993>


Is there a preferred approach, or does it not really matter? If 
splitting ways, are u-turns restrictions required?


Roundabouts are one way. So do ing a U turn by going the wrong way in 
the roundabout would be against the law. I'd think all roundabouts 
would be one way.


I have yet to see a 'no U turn' on them and they do make a good safer 
place to do a u turn if you do the correct thing.


There are very small roundabouts that have a specific tag ... basically 
these are a white painted circle on the road - they as so small that 
trucks and buses need to go over the centre ... those I'd only do as a 
node.


___
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] Suburbs: Nodes, Areas, or both?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hey all,

I would appreciate the thoughts of the community with regards to suburb 
representations.


In a recent change set 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113355648) a node was 
introduced for Gruyere. Gruyere is on the urban boundary, but is 
technically in Metropolitan Melbourne. As such, it straddles the border 
between what could be considered a bona fide suburb, and an independent 
town.


Mick has correctly pointed out that many of the other localities in the 
area are represented by both an area and a node.


Is this the way all suburbs should be represented? Or is it an 
urban/rural distinction?


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

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[Dian Ågesson]

I think you've struck the central issue here: if it is on the ground, it 
will get mapped again, and again and again by editors who think that the 
path is merely missing, not consciously removed.


It should be recorded, in some way, so that the illegality of the path 
is stored. I can imagine a use case where a hiker sees a path, checks 
the map and sees that it is an illegal path and therefore shouldn't be 
used.


I would be in favour of a tagging system that accurately reflects the 
status of the path, even if it is not supported by renderers. It's 
primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its illegitimate 
use.


something like:

access=no

informal=yes

rehabilitation:highway=path

source:access=parks agency name

Dian

On 2021-10-29 22:11, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:


OSM is the database.

If there are things incorrectly tagged in the database, they should be
fixed. Nobody is saying otherwise.

So yes, if in the example you gave below the legal authority has 
specified
that you are only allowed to use specific marked trails with specified 
modes
of transport, then the tags should reflect that and need to be fixed if 
they

don't.

Simply completely deleting features clearly visible on the ground does 
not
do that, and just invites the next person who comes past to map them 
again,

possibly with wrong tags once more.

OSM is NOT how any particular consumer decides to use and present the
information from the database. That includes Carto.

I don't think it's acceptable to compromise the database because you 
don't

like how a particular data consumer uses it.

If you are unhappy about how something is being presented:

a) ensure that the database correctly reflects reality
b) engage with the data consumer (be it Carto or any of the countless 
other
consumers of OSM data) to convince them to represent the data the way 
you

want.

This is the nature of an open database like OSM, you don't control how 
data

consumers use the data.

-Original Message-
From: fors...@ozonline.com.au 
Sent: Friday, 29 October 2021 20:34
To: Frederik Ramm 
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang
National Park)

Hi Frederik, Thorsten

1. "a park manager would prefer them not to, and therefore deletes the 
track

in order to keep people from exercising their rights".

Does this happen, has it ever happened? I would be surprised if it 
happened
here. Anyway its not what I thought we were talking about, illegal 
trails.


2. 3. and 4. "knowing which informal trails they might have taken can 
be
helpful, might even save lives" possible but very unlikely. I could 
equally

argue that the types of illegal trails that I am seeing, the "I rode my
mountain bike down this way" type of trail (see #951362516
later) can reduce map utility, they are often barely visible but are
rendered the same as the type of trail a lost person would follow.
Neither Frederik's nor my argument is particularly strong.

I mentioned women's refuges earlier. Its irrelevant that we map the 
polygon
but not the label. Its not because they are not verifiable, I could 
ground
truth them by knocking on the front door and asking. We do not map 
women's
refuges because that is the right thing to do. We search for 
justifications

later.

Finally Frederik and Thorsten stress the importance of lifecycle 
tagging,

access tagging and rendering by the data users. I agree with them.

We at OSM are not doing a great job of rendering. Go to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.93168/145.30667
There are 3 trails,
Way: 476219417 which is access=no
Way: Granite Track (56176535) which is legal These 2 tracks are 
rendered

similarly, very few map users would notice that one of them was closed

We are not doing a great job on tagging either The third track Path
#951362516 is illegal but not tagged as such. The editor should know 
that it
is illegal they say "Probably unofficial but reasonably well used" 
there is
a good chance they knew. It was clearly signed at every entrance to 
"stay on
formed trails" and there are lots of maps on sign boards showing all 
the

legal trails.

Now this trail is mapped, it is going to attract lots of traffic. Its 
never
going to save a lost walker's life. Its going to take many many hours 
of
volunteer labour to keep it closed for long enough to revegetate and 
get
deleted from the map. That's the consequence of the Parks Service 
respecting

OSM's consensus policy.

I support OSM's consensus form of government and as a consequence 
support

the consensus position on illegal tracks. But it causes others a lot of
problems and I think we can be more responsible and nuanced within the
consensus position.

Tony

Hi,

On 29.10.21 09:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: You could map a track 
under the "if it exists then map it" rule but

you don't have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We
don't have to map every informal trail.
This 

Re: [talk-au] Service road highway areas as frontage road access

[Dian Ågesson]

Thank you all for your feedback.

For what it is worth, the editor has responded on a different changeset. 
I've written what ended up being War and Peace to explain the importance 
of mapping roads in a linear fashion, and encouraged them to join this 
list. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112825020


Dian

On 2021-10-24 13:22, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:

I've updated the intersection to a similar layout to that suggested by 
Thorsten.


I have a passing familiarity with the area.

It looks like Ewan has just suggested a similar layout.

While making that edit I noticed Burwood Highway is tagged with 
foot=yes. My first response was that's wrong as walking down a highway 
would be dangerous (and illegal?). But then, foot=yes can imply a 
footpath which is safe to use, but then the highway would be better 
tagged with footway=sidewalk or sidewalk=left, though on the south side 
of Burwood highway it would be better to tag the service lane, and not 
the main highway. The next step is to map individual footpaths. I 
decided to avoid that rabbit warren, and left foot=yes on the highway 
for now.


On 23/10/21 5:18 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:

Looking on mapillary, it seems you can also enter there, so the current 
mapping is wrong.


Also, I can't see any legal reason, besides it being dangerous if there 
is traffic, to cross all the way from the parking lot at the top to 
that Burnwood Highway Service Road at the bottom, or the other way 
around.


I'm not going to actually touch it, as it's way outside my usual 
mapping area, but personally I would map it like this:


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/901351143542784050/unknown.png

Cheers,

Thorsten

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Saturday, 23 October 2021 14:23
To: Dian Ågesson 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Service road highway areas as frontage road 
access


On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 at 13:54, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

On the most recent edit, a highway=service area has been introduced for 
a roadway between a main road, a frontage road and a side street


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/995553123 [1]

I have not seen this before, and it doesn't strike me as correct.

No, I would agree that it is not correct, & there's no real need for it 
to be there.


From looking at what's already mapped, it would appear to be OK, with 
one possible exception?


Can traffic from the Hwy enter the service road at the Rose St 
intersection, or is it one-way outwards only?


If it's two-way, then Rose St should be broken, & the section between 
the service road & the Hwy made two-way. At the same time, you could 
also move it to the middle of the intersection, but that's only my OCD 
neatness coming out! :-)


Thanks

Graeme

___
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

Links:
--
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/995553123___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Service road highway areas as frontage road access

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

A few months ago I mentioned issues around duplicate ways for turn lanes 
at intersections (Mailing list link [1]).


Since then I have worked to resolve some of the intersections and I have 
also reached out to the editor(s), who haven't responded or engaged but 
have slowly adjusted their editing methods.


On the most recent edit, a highway=service area has been introduced for 
a roadway between a main road, a frontage road and a side street


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/995553123

I have not seen this before, and it doesn't strike me as correct. Would 
appreciate other's judgement as I want to ensure I am communicating in 
line with community consensus.


Dian.

Links:
--
[1] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/014968.html___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Russian Town Names?

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello,

I've stumbled upon a considerable trove of towns that have had Russian 
names added to them. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bRp


After going through them they nearly all seem to be transliteration done 
my the same handful of users (who have various amounts of blocks).


While the tag is obviously valid for some towns and cities (capitals, 
tourist spots or places with a large Russian community) I don't think 
that the majority of these towns should have the tag. Some of the towns 
have populations of less than 50!


Do others agree? If so, what is the best way to rectify this?___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au