Re: [talk-au] [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
Two points: 1. The terminology foot=designated and bicycle=designated is confusing, since the opposite of designated is not no but undesignated or non-designated. Just leave it as it is on thousands of ways as bicycle=yes or no and foot=yes or no. There is no need for a change. 2. The idea that every way on which bicycles are permitted should be designated cycleway implying it is primarily for bicycles, is, in my opinion either hopeful, naïve or arrogant. If you read, for example, the extract from the Australian Road Rules for Australian separated footpath it is clear that the correct designation is footpath and not cycleway. Leave well alone or you will bring the wrath of the gods down on OSM. 2009/12/14 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: One question, though, for Australian shared path, shouldn't this be: highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated rather than highway=footway, foot=yes, bicycle=yes I've updated the wiki page to this. I've made further updates - please correct me if you disagree - here is a summary: Australian footpath: highway=footway Australian bicycle path (Bicycle Only sign): highway=cycleway; foot=no Australian shared path (Bicycle and Pedestrian sign) highway=cycleway, foot=designated Australian separated footpath (Bicycle and Pedestrian separated by a line) highway=cycleway, foot=designated; segregated=yes Australian bicycle lane (Bicycle Lane sign) highway=type of highway, cycleway=lane ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How to tag a non-existent road
I agree with Graeme Wilson. OSM should not include non-existent roads. The only convincing argument I have seen put so far by the minority who want to show them is that it will save other mappers from wasted time. Given that mappers are the minority and people like Graeme in the majority I think it is there needs that should be given priority. Further, there is still the unresolved problem of what to tag these roads. Non-existent is unhelpful and ambiguous as many people have pointed out here. As far as I am concerned non-existent roads are in the same category as childrens' imaginary friends, important to the individual but not of much interest to anyone else. Let's face it. There is so much that really does exist left to be mapped we hardly need to put effort, particularly given the problems, into what does not. 2009/10/26 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 2009/10/25 Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com: It will of course be essential that these are not displayed in a misleading way (or not displayed at all) and are not suggested as possible routes. We do have a way of marking no through roads via the access=no tag so while whichever tag is chosen for nonexistent roads is being adopted worldwide, we can still ensure that there will not be any confusion. However, I'm not sure how that is displayed on the various outputs (such as the Garmin devices, the web page maps etc.). If they do appear we need to file bugs so that the parsing code is fixed up to not show them :) The problem here isn't collecting data, it's making sure it doesn't appear most of the time. Unlike raster images which display everything collected, vector information can be selectively shown etc. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How to tag a non-existent road
2009/10/26 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com So far you are the only one suggesting non-existent is unhelpful or ambiguous, please explain how it is either of these things. A browse through the preceding 30 or so entries in this thread will show that this is not the case. However, in an attempt to move this towards resolution, I have opened another to give people the opportunity to vote on the specifics. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Vote on highway=nonexistent
The current suggestion in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines is that roads that do not yet exist be tagged highway=nonexistent. There are two key questions to be answered: 1. Should such roads be entered into OSM? 2. If they are to be entered, should they be tagged highway=nonexistent? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How to tag a non-existent road
If highway=gazetted is ambiguous and most people are going to be puzzled by highway=non-existent, might I suggest highway=planned or highway=proposed (I occasionally find myself (walking) on highway=overgrown – but I am not suggesting adding this.) 2009/10/22 Evan Sebire e...@sebire.org I like 'gazetted_road', but I think it should be 'non-existent'. Looking at dictionary.com(which isn't a great reference) nobody would understand gazetted road, then I tried the best German translator dict.cc and it failed. Googling Gazetted road comes back with variety of answers, none of the first 10 results mean non-existent so Gazetted is probably ambiguous. looks like a clear winner with non-existent. Hope this helps On Wednesday 21 Oct 2009 16:36:29 John Smith wrote: 2009/10/22 Evan Sebire e...@sebire.org: In Melbourne people sometimes use the term 'unmade' for non-sealed roads. So perhaps something clearer like gazetted would suit Australia. Someone on another list mentioned 'non-existent' being better for non-native English speakers. But I think this doesn't really matter as application interfaces can translate it anyway. It would be better if we could come up with something that works well for most people without expecting software to translate it. If unmade is already ambiguous it would seem like a bad idea to use it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] When does a road become a track?
I have tired to find some official definitions to clarify this. Here is the Australian Standard definition of a road from AS 1348—2002 Road and traffic engineering—Glossary of terms: road: Route trafficable by motor vehicles; in law, the public right-of-way between boundaries of adjoining property In other words, a road is pubic land between two properties, whatever it is surfaced with so a fire trail completely within a State Forest would not not be a road. Track is not defined in AS 1348. In fact, when track is mentioned, it is in relation to railway tracks (the steel things) or the track of a vehicle (width between the wheels). Just to confuse matters, this is what the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water says about tracks in National Parks: So what's the difference between a *trail *and a *track*? Trails are generally only one lane wide and aren't covered with gravel or any other form of road surface. You can walk or cycle on them. If a trail is open to vehicles, it will often be suitable for 4WDs only. Walking *tracks *are for walkers only. Some are only wide enough for single-file walking; others allow three people to walk comfortably side-by-side. Higher-standard tracks, usually in areas visited by many people, may be surfaced with gravel, tarmac or boardwalks. Here is a pragmatic solution based on AS 1348 and OSM custom: highway=road if it is open to the public and located between property boundaries, regardless of surface. If it is within a property (including National Parks and State Forests): - unsealed: highway=track - sealed: highway=service Cheers. 2009/10/20 Liz ed...@billiau.net: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Mark Pulley wrote: This might sound like a silly question, but I was wondering if there is any guidance on when a road becomes a track. I've been driving on dirt roads since I first learnt to drive, so I might tag a way highway=unclassified surface=unsealed, where someone who has always lived in a capital city might see the same road and tag it highway=track tracktype=grade2. I'm particularly thinking of roads through forests (in particular of a road near Mt Canobolas, Orange NSW), some are in good enough condition to definitely call a proper road but others aren't as well maintained, narrower, more eroded. I haven't got any sample pictures (was busy driving!) a couple of weeks ago some rural mappers were in favour of your scheme. can i drive my car on it easily - road am i crawling along avoiding obstacles and wishing i had brought my mountain bike - track i don't grade tracks (personal belief only, if someone else wishes to spend time doing grading that's fine, but the condition of the surface varies according to when the council last graded, rain etc) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] When does a road become a track?
True, but it is probably just a technicality, in that it is the same property owner on both sides of the road, with a strip of public land (the road) down the middle. You just can't tell because there are no fences. (Actually, this is where Google maps can be useful in Australia because they do show propperty boundaries, though not always reliably.) On old maps this situation used to be marked by a sort of elongated S crossing the road to signify that the property continued. The cattle grids mark either the boundary of paddocks in the same property or the boundaries between different properties. The same thing applies to railway lines that go through people's properties. The railways call them rail corridors and these days treat them very much as private land. 2009/10/20 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 2009/10/20 swanilli swani...@gmail.com: Here is a pragmatic solution based on AS 1348 and OSM custom: highway=road if it is open to the public and located between property boundaries, regardless of surface. Some roads go through private properties, but they aren't tracks, you usually cross cattle grids when entering/exiting the private property, even though the road is publicly accessible. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] When does a road become a track?
I am not sure how this clarifies or confuses the tagging of roads in OSM compared with the Australian Standard definition. Both seem to be saying the same thing in different words. However, to move things along it would be worth looking into http://www.ozroads.com.au, an unofficial website that summarises the classification of roads in the states and territories (e.g. http://www.ozroads.com.au/NSW/RTA/classifications.htm). It would be nice to have the official classifications aligned to OSM classifications (e.g. primary , secondary etc). 2009/10/21 John Henderson snow...@gmx.com Some others in government seem to already have a mistaken idea about what constitutes a road. Take the Australian Road Rules: 12 What is a road (1) A road is an area that is open to or used by the public and is developed for, or has as one of its main uses, the driving or riding of motor vehicles. Note Motor vehicle is defined in the dictionary. (2) However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference in the Australian Road Rules (except in this Division) to a road does not include a reference to: (a) an area so far as the area is declared, under another law of this jurisdiction, not to be a road for the Australian Road Rules; or (b) any shoulder of the road. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping railway lines
The problem is you will find not with the metal railway carriages but with the coating on the windows. I find my GPS works well in almost all carriages (I get accuracy typically of 6 m). Occasionally though, I get no signal in carriages that have been fine in the past, the only difference seems to be in the glass, some of which has a very obvious metallic coating. Maybe you could go to a station and try it out in a cariage that was waiting to leave. 2009/10/7 John Henderson snow...@gmx.com Has anyone had success using a GPS unit inside a metal railway carriage to map a railway line? I notice that parts of the main line between Sydney and Melbourne are missing, eg: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.7446lon=147.886zoom=14layers=B000FTF I'd consider doing the trip on the XPT if someone has proven it's viable. And I've also had to move the railway line aside quite a distance when accurately adding roads in the Yass area. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Why not to change coastlines automatically to ABS data.
I would be cautious about preferencing survey and satellite/aerial photography data over ABS. I have found errors in both of these. Survey data from GPS seems at times to have been either traced pooly from gpx tracks or based on innacurate position data, especially where there are tall objects like buildings and hills nearby. Similarly, imagery can be misleading when there is vegetation, like mangroves on the shore, not to mention to low resolution of the yahoo imagery itself. 2009/10/5 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com Just noticed this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-20.34647lon=148.95263zoom=16layers=B000FTF If you then go to edit and zoom in you find: Two restaurants that are now in the ocean. The airport road now in the ocean, this is a surveyed road and runs along the foreshore. The dam next to the airport overlapping the ocean. The marina disappeared totally. It's the area with the three ferry tracks going into it. So PLEASE look at the sat photos and already entered data before you go removing the coastline and using the ABS data automatically as the coastline. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Australian bushwalking tracks
I posted the following to OSM-newbies a week back but have had no feedback. Any thoughts here? I would like some consensus on the tagging of Australian bushwalking tracks. Specifically, I am interested in unformed ways that are unsuitable for all but the most courageous/insane cyclists. They are typically just a worn path through bush. In some places (e.g. Royal National Park (RNP)) they are designated as cycling prohibited (see http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/NationalParks/parkCycling.aspx?id=N0030) a way on which cycling is permitted is referred to as a trail and one for walkers only, as a track. The RNP naming is inconsistent and these designations do not match OSM nomenclature. The OSM Australian Tagging Guidelines (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines) deals with cycling comprehensively (indeed, it seems biased that way) but is silent on this point except for suggesting that an Australian footpath be tagged as highway=footway with bicycle=no if unsuitable for bikes. While this might seem to address the issue, it is inconsistent with the general OSM guidance (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway) which clearly illustrates an urban, paved footpath. This is consistent with the Australian usage of the term footpath as the Macquarie dictionary defines a foot path as a path for pedestrians only, especially one at the side of a road or street. Given this inconsistency, I have been tagging fire trails and the like (I ask myself if they are suitable for 4WD) as highway=track and bushwalking tracks as highway=path. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian bushwalking tracks
I did see the Bush Walking Tracks section, which is more or less in line with what I had in mind. My problem is the ambiguity created under Footpaths and Cycleways which seems to me biases use by bicycles e.g.: Australian shared path (Bicycle and Pedestrian sign) - highway=cycleway, foot=yes I agree with Evan's view that We should emphasis tagging properties and not uses. Some of my local streets have a painted cycleway sign but it makes little sense to tag the street as highway=cycleway, rather than say, highway=residential. A further problem is that most of the bushwalking tracks I have checked on OSM are tagged as highway=footway which makes for a lot of changes if consistency and clarity is the object. However, since my objective is to clarify bushwalking and bush cycling tagging, here are some principles that have emerged so far: 1. Tag on properties and not uses. e.g. 1. A fire trail suitable for a 4WD fire truck tagged as highway=track. 2. Narrow, primarily walking, tracks as highway=path. 2. Preferably add to ways tagged highway=path trail_visibility=* ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility). (This seems to me to be more usable in Australia than sac_scale=* ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale) which is oriented to alpine climbing. sac_scale=hiking is probably the only valid one for the vast majority of Australia.) 3. Use bicycle=no and foot=no only where bicycles and foot traffic are legally prohibited or to clarify areas where there are both permitted and prohibited uses. This should be on the basis of evidence in the form of signage or some officially published policy like http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/NationalParks/parkCycling.aspx?id=N0030 ). 4. Allow potential users to determine the suitability for foot or bicycle use on the basis of the properties tagged. Any more thoughts? 2009/9/22 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:30 PM, swanilli swani...@gmail.com wrote: Given this inconsistency, I have been tagging fire trails and the like (I ask myself if they are suitable for 4WD) as highway=track and bushwalking tracks as highway=path. Did you see the Bush Walking Tracks section of the Australian Tagging Guidelines page? highway=path works for me. Add as many other details as you feel like, e.g. those suggested by Evan. Verifiability is difficult in this case, but still an important goal. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
