Re: [talk-au] Maxar bushfire imagery

On 17/1/20 10:08 pm, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 17 Jan 2020, 11:42 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: I'm all for using the lifecycle prefix, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix. I agreed that if there's still remains there use ruined or destroyed, not sure what the

Re: [talk-au] Maxar bushfire imagery

On 17/1/20 9:42 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 19:53, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote: I have tagged some buildings that have been fire damaged to a large degree. I have used building=razed however I think this is w

Re: [talk-au] Maxar bushfire imagery

I have tagged some buildings that have been fire damaged to a large degree. I have used building=razed however I think this is wrong. I think the lifecycle prefix should be used. The choices are; ruins:* or destroyed:* Thoughts? I note there is the possibility of partial damage. A new tag

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:man_made=embankment

IF there is a road with embankments on either side then Volker is correct, just add embankment=yes to the way of the road. In this case the direction of the way does not matter. Read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:embankment On 17/1/20 9:44 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote: OK !

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:man_made=embankment

On 16/1/20 9:24 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote: maybe i asked it wrong, there is no way per say, it is a land fill and there is something on the top, but to the tracers looking at bing it looks flat but it is a big mountain, on the one hand or a big hole in the case of an reintion dry pond

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:man_made=embankment

On 16/1/20 3:25 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote: What does this mean ? “should be tagged on a way drawn with the*_/lower side on right side/_*of way direction” https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dembankment Like cliffs, embankments have a low side and a high side. An

Re: [talk-au] JOSM problem

For others that stumble on this .. Use the 'latest' version ... the 'tested' version has the bug... On 11/1/20 6:58 pm, Sebastian S. wrote: I noticed the slow upper menus too. If there a bug already existing that I can add to? On 11 January 2020 5:07:25 pm AEDT, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.

Re: [talk-au] Way has been simplified...

On 12/1/20 12:37 pm, Sebastian S. wrote: When using OSMAnd for routing I came across the following note: "way has been simplified using a error criteria of 3m" it is usually in green text. Does anyone know what this means, why do we need the note? What purpose does it serve? This is usually

Re: [talk-au] JOSM problem

/editor-layer-index/pull/759 so depending if you have swapped out your imagery source in JOSM to use ELI directly or not you may need to wait for that to get updated on the JOSM side. On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 14:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wro

[talk-au] A nice website for a bush fire over view

Bush fire site for Vic/NSW with OSM attribution.. but data from other sources too... https://bushfire.io Pity our federal government cannot do the same for all of Australia, could help stop those trolls. ___ Talk-au mailing list

Re: [talk-au] Fire Station Operators

gt; whole point was to be neutral on the exact name format and not engage > in a mass edit to reformat them to be the same, but instead respect > names will look different based on signage. > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 21:05, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mai

Re: [talk-au] Fire Station Operators

I have used the LPI Base Map for both name and operator, see Way: Narooma Fire Station (761122699) [operator fire & rescue] and Way: Narooma Rural Fire Service (761122698) I do not bother with the 'branch' as that is usually the leading value in the name and probably the same as the areas

Re: [talk-au] Fire Station Operators

The LPI Base Map distinguishes between the 2 .. And I see no problem in using that source. Examples Way: Narooma Rural Fire Service (761122698) [operator Rural Fire Service] and Way: Narooma Fire Station (761122699)  [operator Fire and Rescue] There are quite close together. An advantage of

Re: [talk-au] Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

On 06/01/20 18:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: & NSW is done! :-) Couldn't help thinking though, as I fixed some phone numbers, of just how many of these places - Bilpin, Bells Line of Road, Narooma & so on - are we now going to have to go back in & mark as destroyed? :-( I have done a few in

Re: [talk-au] Fire Station Operators

... On 05/01/20 23:28, Sebastian Spiess wrote: I took the liberty to add it to the wiki page. The building=fire_station is references on EN and DE translation of the amenity page thus I guess there should be no issue. On 5/1/20 9:15 pm, Warin wrote: There are some 944 of them in the data base

Re: [talk-au] Fire Station Operators

Created the wiki page for building=fire_station ... it is a small page but there. On 05/01/20 21:42, David Wales wrote: Thanks all, Changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79209273 On 5/1/20 9:15 pm, Warin wrote: There are some 944 of them in the data base .. so they should

Re: [talk-au] Fire Station Operators

There are some 944 of them in the data base .. so they should be documented. I'd be pleased to add a few more, along with the suggested tags. On 05/01/20 21:02, Andrew Harvey wrote: Okay with me though it would be good if that tag was documented at

Re: [talk-au] Jervis Bay Territory admin boundary

On 04/01/20 10:57, cleary wrote: The Jervis Bay Territory/NSW boundary is shown such that Jervis Bay Territory overlaps into parts of Shoalhaven Council area and NSW suburbs. Obviously not correct. There seems to be no source provided for the location of the boundary, although much of it

Re: [talk-au] Bush Fire Neighbourhood Safer Places

On 04/01/20 13:18, adam steer wrote: Hi Andrew In Vic these are only used as a last resort. Not sure if 'assembly point' translates to 'only come here if there are absolutely no other options, and this place might not be safe anyway'. See:

Re: [talk-au] Did the Earth just move for you? RE WGS84

On 03/01/20 21:40, Dion Moult wrote: My impression was that the 1.8m jump was to do with the GDA standard (and therefore the MGA standards too). It is not a jump, physically Australia is slowly moving NE all the time (in relation to the 'rest of the world'). Some time in the future we may

Re: [talk-au] Did the Earth just move for you? RE WGS84

On 03/01/20 18:43, Dion Moult wrote: How does this get solved? Can someone help explain to me how this affects the map? My limited understanding is that this is the change from gda94 to gda2020. However, does osm store things in wgs84? And that hasn't changed, has it? For WGS84 to

Re: [talk-au] Did the Earth just move for you?

On 03/01/20 18:43, Dion Moult wrote: How does this get solved? Can someone help explain to me how this affects the map? My limited understanding is that this is the change from gda94 to gda2020. However, does osm store things in wgs84? And that hasn't changed, has it? wgs84 does change. It

Re: [talk-au] Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

Not worth discussion.. delete out of hand. On 02/01/20 14:00, Dion Moult wrote: Not a tourist attraction. Vote deletion of the tourist tag :) Dion Moult ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:57 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Just started on NSW & found a tag

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

On 01/01/20 18:13, Martin Wynne wrote: On 01/01/2020 05:11, Warin wrote: I would map the area around the road as landuse=highway. I would do the same for the lane/track between farm fields, while it supports the use of the farm it is not a field. Thanks, but the problem is that landuse

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

On 01/01/20 12:20, David Woolley wrote: On 01/01/2020 00:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing with mapping every *square inch* of land. I also don't think you should be mapping in that detail, but if you really want to, I would

Re: [Talk-GB] New Entertainment venue - what tags?

I think 3 nodes. While all operated by the one company .. do they all have the same fees, opening hours, contact details? The building can have the address .. and the company if it has all of the building. But each facility can have its own node or area (if you have that detail). The bar

Re: [OSM-talk] is OSM a fake map.

On 30/12/19 07:46, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote: i am talking about in my own back yard, i just hiked a mile down the street to check it out, it was not the same when i was there in 1985, but it did not match the mapper either. to that end, bing is 2015 or 16, as an example the county forest

Re: [talk-au] Phone number updates

On 30/12/19 08:39, David Wales wrote: My thought was that processing a subset of the formats could deal with a good chunk of the numbers, and the rest could be left for MapRoulette. For example, some code could look at every number in Victoria, Caution .. are you certain that everywhere in

Re: [talk-au] Question re tagging unpaved vs paved roads

On 30/12/19 12:06, Bob Cameron wrote: Okay thanks all. Surprisingly the Snowy Mountains Hwy between Dalgety and (almost) Bombala NSW had 3 unpaved sections near the wind turbine ridge. It has all been fully paved through for more than 3 years. As I drive I use an OSM based map set on my

Re: [talk-au] Question re tagging unpaved vs paved roads

On 29/12/19 19:52, Bob Cameron wrote: Hi The tagging guidelines don't quite seem to over this. I'd like to do it correctly. When a road is unpaved we use the surface=unpaved tag, the default (no tag) being paved. When an unpaved road is (roadwork) paved, should the tag be deleted or

Re: [talk-au] Local Government Address changes

On 28/12/19 09:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Thanks, fellas. Sorry, for a moment there I got Govt & Common Sense mixed up again! :-( The older I get the less I tend to mix those two. I think the Government see the use of the data is ok and long as you are not going to make money out of it.

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

On 27/12/19 16:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 15:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote: Node: Katoomba Airfield (1042094263) is a little difficult. I notice that the airfield is marked as "disused", but in

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

On 27/12/19 09:44, Phil Wyatt wrote: Hi Folks, You also need to consider how you deal with emergency road airstrips which are pretty common in Australia https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-31.8969/127.6186 There now exists tagging for them

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

Many of these 'airports' have no effective boundary and are best represented by a node. Some are 'operated' by the local council and the council owns a large area of land around the 'airport'. Some may be 'operated by the local station (in American 'ranch') and they may own some 100s of

[Talk-GB] Roundabouts one piece or segregated

I'm looking at Wivenhoe B1028 way 477263099. This is a segment of a roundabout. Would it not be better for the way to be a single feature in OSM? I think the route relations now handle roundabouts so there should be no problem there. Thoughts? ___

Re: [OSM-talk] water runs backwards.

In JOSM there is a tool to reverse a way. Useful not only on incorrect water ways but also cliff lines. On 23/12/19 13:06, stevea wrote: To be clear, it isn't necessarily from "bottom to top," rather, simply know and practice that the direction of a way tagged waterway should be in the

Re: [talk-au] Tagging of Park signs

On 21/12/19 12:30, Reuben via Talk-au wrote: Hi all, just wondering if anyone has any suggestions on to tag these (and similar) signs: http://docs.brisbane.qld.gov.au/standard-drawings/201507_-_bsd-10506_a_park_signage_-_ordinance.pdf

Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

rom:* "Peter Neale" *To:* "Talk-gb OSM List" *Cc:* *Sent:* Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 13:54 *Subject:* Fw: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51 Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their encourageme

Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

On 20/12/19 00:54, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their encouragement and help.  I will have a go at making the amendments using the iD Editor. I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that Christmas is coming

Re: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

On 19/12/19 19:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Peter Neale wrote: I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to go about it. Brilliant. Thanks for taking this on! You can do it from iD - no particular need to use JOSM for this. Essentially the trick is, for each way that

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

On 19/12/19 13:01, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: On 19/12/2019 01:41, Andy Townsend wrote: Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" - I'd rather the mapper make a clear choice as they know what is there,

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

On 19/12/19 00:41, Mike Baggaley wrote: Perhaps setting both building=yes and disused: building=apartments would fulfill all the needs. Err no. Having both tags on the one object is contradictory. How is it determined which tag to render? A building=* is rendered one way. A

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition

My understanding? If the feature is disused then place disused: in front of the existing tag; so building=apartments becomes disused:building=apartments or building=yes becomes disused:building=yes Having both disused:building=* and disused:building=* is a conflict, it is disused or

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

On 15/12/19 04:12, John Aldridge wrote: On 14-Dec-19 16:52, SK53 wrote: Like Dave I have come to the view that mapping individual fields as farmland is a good way to do it. I too concur. Here's the diary entry I wrote when I was doing the fields round here... I have at least some crop

Re: [talk-au] tagging of "demolished" roads

On 26/11/19 23:01, Ian Steer wrote: Nanga Rd in WA’s south west has been affected by bauxite mining and has been re-routed.  I’m hesitant to simply delete the old alignment, and am wondering whether there is an appropriate tag like “demolished=yes” to use on it instead ? If it is still

[talk-au] Whereis copyright?

I have found a contributor who is using 'whereis' as a source. I believe that is a copyright breach? Anyone know .. I don't want to go asking them and their web site is not clear to me (must update this softwear!)? ___ Talk-au mailing list

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

On 09/11/19 01:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"? Is permission required to enter this area? No permission required. Residents, their visitors, delivery vehicle going to the residents would all be allowed. From where I have seen

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

There is one group of roads with these kinds of signs. As they are on Forestry Commission property and would be maintained by them I would think they have some control over who uses them. On 08/11/19 10:24, Andrew Harvey wrote: The fact that they are not legally enforceable I think is

Re: [OSM-talk] Maintaining privacy as a casual mapper

On 03/11/19 21:42, Philippe Latulippe wrote: Hello everyone! I like to improve OSM casually, making small fixes as I use the map in my day-to-day life. However, doing so without any precautions would reveal a great deal of information about where I've been, since my edits cover exactly the

Re: [talk-au] Uluru naming consistency

On 29/10/19 09:53, Andrew Harvey wrote: Thanks for consulting the list for feedback before making the change, such a big change like this should be discussed first. On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 05:40, Joachim > wrote: For the following proposals I added the English

Re: [talk-au] "Legacy" offices

On 28/10/19 10:46, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 08:50, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote: I am not that familiar with what Legacy actual does.. As far as I am aware they give financial support and advice, "Le

Re: [talk-au] "Legacy" offices

On 27/10/19 16:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Just mapping the local admin office for Legacy https://www.legacy.com.au/ Came up with: amenity=social_facility social_facility=outreach which seems OK, but I am not that familiar with what Legacy actual does.. As far as I am aware they give

Re: [talk-au] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

On 24/10/19 16:11, Luke Stewart wrote: It would be similar to how the suburb and other overlays currently work--one could see the aerial imagery in the background with the lot boundaries on top. Of what use is it??? Boundaries of  suburbs, National Parks, State Forests can all be tagged

Re: [talk-au] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

On 24/10/19 11:31, David Wales wrote: Not completely redundant. Would your proposal allow one to see lot boundaries and satellite imagery at the same time, without having to switch back and forth to the LPI base map? Within OSM, for what purpose? Note you can have that information for free

Re: [talk-au] LPI NSW Lot Boundaries—worthwile to request?

On 23/10/19 23:40, Luke Stewart wrote: G'day guys, Looking at the sixmaps website they have a lot boundaries overlay which does exactly what it says on the tin. Would it be worthwhile requesting permission to access this? My thoughts are that it could assist with armchair mapping for

Re: [talk-au] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

On 20/10/19 08:45, cleary wrote: I would like to confirm that the inclusion of qualifiers such as "closed" or "freight only" in the name is NOT appropriate. +1 for not appropriate. Use the description tag. e.g. railway=station name = xx (closed)  or railway=station name=xxx

Re: [talk-au] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

On 19/10/19 20:44, Ewen Hill wrote: Thanks Warin,    I have been using a node or polygon for the railway station as follows however it is raising a level 2 error in osmose... name=xxx historic:railway = station (or station_site) I think osmose may be complaining that it is not an area

Re: [talk-au] tagging old railway stations - what is the agreed approach

On 19/10/19 17:53, Ewen Hill wrote: Hi,    I am trying to get some clarity about tagging old railway stations like https://i1.wp.com/judithsalecich.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-former-Bogantungan-Railway-Station.jpg?ssl=1 that has not seen a train stop for a numbe of decades

Re: [talk-au] Suburban Tunnel at Sydney Central Station

On 15/10/19 00:00, Luke Stewart wrote: G'day, As of 13/10/19, part of the suburban tunnel at Central station has been closed off of public access due to Metro works (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.88344/151.20682). I originally changed the access tag from "customers" to "no" on

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

On 10/10/19 00:40, Simon Ritchie wrote: The real question, really, is why you're aiming for that level of precision That's what the emerging equipment does. For 'precision' i.e. repeatability then simply monitor the indicated position over a short time frame - where the satellites

Re: [talk-au] Australia Wiki Page

These now 'go somewhere' in that they redirect back to the main page.. On 11/10/19 13:15, Sebastian S. wrote: If these links come from a new template that has been rolled out I suggest to understand how the template is supposed to be used and not just delete the links. -- On 11 October 2019

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

On 10/10/19 11:27, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Just having a think about it & realised that we have the opposite number to consider as well! https://www.cwaa.org.au/ They would both tie in together nicely as amenity=community_centre + community_centre=men's_shed / cwa Appears cwa is not

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

in Australia? I have see a few Men's Sheds. Link? OSM existence? -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. On 7 October 2019 6:07:19 pm AEDT, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: On 07/10/19 17:43, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 7 Oct 2019, 08:39 by m

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

On 09/10/19 21:21, Martin Wynne wrote: On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed. "Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under its own brand with immediate effect." "planed' "are to be"

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

On 09/10/19 22:57, Simon Ritchie wrote: > You'll need a GPS receiver with the capability of outputting carrier phase data (u-blox receivers will do this) and ideally a well-characterised external antenna (these are quite expensive). That's very useful.  Thanks.  I am indeed using a uBlox

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

On 09/10/19 22:03, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: 2cm? I'm intrigued, what model are you using? What were the atmospheric conditions on the day you took your reading? I'd think to get that level of accuracy you 'd need readings over some considerable time... days? Otherwise you get bias from, as

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

On 09/10/19 22:42, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: ... and if you had 2 devices, how would you know which is right? You would need at least 3 devices, so that you could take a majority vote. Actually 5 would better 6 is general taken as a minimum number to get a good student's T And they

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads' conclusion

On 09/10/19 15:11, Ian Steer wrote: Sounds OK (I'll have to change my mapping practices) Other than not mapping things we should not, what we each contribute is up to us. There is certainly enough to do without adding any additional tasks to what most are already doing. There are 3

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads' conclusion

On 09/10/19 15:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: 2 thoughts. Map the full road we can see on overhead imagery, or just up to the (usual) gate? & access=private, or =destination? I think if we go with the provision of information for emergency services then we map all we can. Destination if

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads' conclusion

Yer... I'll sleep on it. Probably think of something better tomorrow! Leave it for a couple of weeks and see. On 09/10/19 13:10, Ben Kelley wrote: Looks good I think.  - Ben. On 9/10/19 11:55, Warin wrote: Ok.. I think the following can be done on the Australian Tagging Guidelines

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads' conclusion

Ok.. I think the following can be done on the Australian Tagging Guidelines; Remove the words "not map the interior private roads in detail" from service roads https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Areas Add a new section "Private Roads" under 'Road

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

On 07/10/19 19:57, Andrew Harvey wrote: I added this to the ATG as amenity=community_centre + community_centre:for=man, 'man' may mean both men and women. On the other hand it maybe the original use was for males only. I think the value is not good. There are only 4 uses of the

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

On 07/10/19 17:43, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 7 Oct 2019, 08:39 by matkoni...@tutanota.com: Based on images it sounds close to hackerspace/makerspace, but with no (or lower) focus on software part and greater on direct working with wood and similar materials. See

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

On 07/10/19 16:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Thanks fella's - thought I remembered seeing some mention of them! With only 2 expressing an opinion I am reluctant to put it on the wiki guide. What do you think Graeme? Anyone else? ___ Talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent tagging of botanic gardens around Australia - leisure=park vs leisure=garden

On 07/10/19 14:02, Andrew Davidson wrote: The current tagging for Australian botanical gardens is: leisure=park 57 leisure=garden 43 leisure=nature_reserve 6 lesiure=playground 1 tourism=attraction 2 tourism=zoo 2 landuse=forest 1 no object tagging 1 It would appear that the parkiness is more

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

On 07/10/19 14:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: As per the title, what do we call a Men's Shed? https://mensshed.org/ in case any of our overseas followers don't know what we're talking about! I'm guessing club=? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:club but what? Not really a community

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle It applies to the world. There is nothing Australian specific that I can see in your thoughts .. Nor can I see why ACT should be different from the rest of the world in how it maps bicycle infrastructure.

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

On 06/10/19 09:47, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: I apologise for the tone of the first post yesterday. I was a bit unwell. *** # The ATG proposed changes for paths in the ACT I have decided to write this as a proposal of changes to the ATG in the ACT (if any) and consideration of the

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'

On 05/10/19 20:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 5 Oct 2019, 01:44 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: The problem here is that some raise the "not map the interior private roads in detail" as not mapping them at all Are they not mapping them or also (incorrectly) deleting what others mapped? I

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

On 05/10/19 10:03, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: # Principle of tagging 1. Tagging should be consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction 2. Tagging should not be code but be explicit 3. Tagging should be useful 4. Tagging should be intuitive 5. Tagging should be easy (regional presets) I

[talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'

Hi, I am in 2 minds about this ... these roads exist so they can be seen. They might be usefull navigational features; firstly to plot progress along a public road - you have just past this private road so you must he here on the map. secondly for any emergency services - mainly thinking of

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

On 04/10/19 17:20, Andrew Harvey wrote: Fair points, so I agree to revert back the previous guidelines. I see highway=path used a lot for unsignposted bush walking track (single person wide, definitely not wide enough for vehicles), though for something that's unpaved then highway=path and

Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings

On 30/09/19 20:55, Andy Townsend wrote: On 30/09/2019 11:15, Jez Nicholson wrote: Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in OSMcan anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'? A possible (slightly contentious) view might be that: * some people have

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

On 30/09/19 14:37, Clinton Roy wrote: On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 13:58, Ewen Hill wrote: Just to note that you can ride on a footpath if you are 12 or under OR as an adult riding with a child 12 or under. This is a national standard in all states I believe. I believe it's only nsw and vic that

Re: [talk-au] Discussion F: landuse=residential

On 30/09/19 13:30, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: I have not had the time to review OSM Wiki on this, unfortunately. What I have seen in the editor is that some mappers have mapped the whole suburb with one polygon, while others have mapped every city block. The latter sort of makes sense

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

On 30/09/19 00:30, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: On 29/09/2019 14:30, David Woolley wrote: I think too much effort goes into these big changes. The actual change is dead easy in JOSM. It's all this faffing about having to discuss it that takes up all the time. +1 As I said in another thread

Re: [talk-au] Discussion E: how to find faults in maps

On 29/09/19 07:30, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: I welcome your comments. 1) This is not Australian specific. 2) The topic is an FAQ 3) Before you post .. do some research Read and use the tools from here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_assurance There are at least 264

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

On 27/09/19 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 27 Sep 2019, 01:58 by ben.kel...@gmail.com: Yeah agreed. If you added a FIXME, who would fix it? Future me or mappers who can visit the location? It is also likely to happen during mapping from aerial images. I have done a few from the

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

On 27/09/19 09:05, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: When something needs correcting mark it with a comment (or photo) for correction immediately (FIXME). There are lots of fixmes on the map. They don't get fixed. If you know of a correction .. do it. KISS.

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

A liquidator will try to maximalise money returned. This could/should mean sale of fixtures and fitting of leased premisses and then terminating leases.  On 25/09/19 22:03, Edward Bainton wrote: Legal situation of leases, fixtures and fittings as far as I'm aware: - Lease continues and rent

Re: [talk-au] Consistent tagging of botanic gardens around Australia - leisure=park vs leisure=garden

On 24/09/19 20:56, Andrew Davidson wrote: On 24/9/19 10:56 am, Daniel Graus wrote: Should all botanical gardens be changed to match one another? Is leisure=park or leisure=garden more correct in some/the majority/all of these cases? OK, a quick global survey Of the ~2,500 botanical

Re: [OSM-talk] mapbox, (Changeset Analyzer), whodidit

On 24/09/19 12:42, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:   What are these for anyway, other than stalking ?, There are lots of tools to find things in OSM. I use some of them to find my own errors! They might be used to find out who changed something. What each is intended for may not be all it can

Re: [talk-au] What is a discussion brief?

On 23/09/19 09:41, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: What is a discussion brief? A discussion brief serves to describe comprehensively what we know before we go on to review an issue in OSM. The objective is to decide how to solve a nagging problem. I resist in saying the “best way” as I think

Re: [talk-au] Topic B: inconsistencies, idiosynchrosies and vagueness

There are inconsistencies from one place to another around the world. These idiosyncrasies are what make the world so interesting for travellers. OSM needs to cater for that. Reading the OSM wiki can be reading the last change by some editor 'fixing' it for their view, which may well be fine

Re: [OSM-talk] Abuse of natural=cliff tag

On 12/09/19 00:13, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Wednesday 11 September 2019, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: I read carefully your response and looked at the picture. I didn't travelled exactly at this place but will go there in October ! However I've already been in Český ráj

Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands

On 12/09/19 21:06, Sebastian S. wrote: Good discussion, I also think the track should be mapped. Aside from access no I think it might be worthwhile adding decommissioned or rehabilitation tags to tracks that should not be used to indicate their intended end. Other thoughts are: - why show

Re: [talk-au] Paths in Illawarra Conservation Lands

On 13/09/19 10:38, Phil Wyatt wrote: You may also need to check the legislation for NSW Often bicycles are classified as 'vehicles' under the legislation and are only allowed on designated vehicular roads, purpose built mountain bike trails or designated shared trails which would normally be

Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps

On 5/9/19 12:26 am, Jez Nicholson wrote: The curse of derived data! So much effort to be able to share the boundary of a property. **sigh** If they had derived their data from OSM .. then all would be fine. ___ Talk-GB mailing list

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

On 4/9/19 9:16 am, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: The Uffington White Horse is tagged as man_made=geoglyph, which seems apposite and is documented (if underused). +1. Not all on hills, small .. or historic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marree_Man Adding a natural=bare_rock  tag to

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

On 4/9/19 7:58 am, Andy Mabbett wrote: On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 17:03, Dan S wrote: Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth : Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a relation, I would tag it as that. Done; though "historic" seems inapt. The "type=*" tag

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >