Re: [talk-au] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

No objections from me. They haven't responded yet, and from everything we
can tell they imported the data without any other cross checks and didn't
follow the import guidelines.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 at 22:00, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> I’ve got some spare time (having caught up with the surveys from my last
> holidays), so I can go through these and revert them. Any objections?
>
> Mark P.
>
> On 9 Feb 2024, at 9:57 am, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>
> We do have permissions to use this data it's listed in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_South_Wales,
> however from looking at their changeset history, it looks like
>
> 1. They are conducting an import by en-mass blindly adding and replacing
> existing data with the imported data
> 2. They may be engaging in directed mapping (being employed to make these
> changes), since their changesets are all the same, importing speed limits,
> except for one Local Knowledge changeset
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131210459 in India.
>
> If they want to conduct an import like this, they need to go through the
> proper process, so based on and the issues you've rased it should be fine
> to revert all their affected changes and then ask going forward to go
> through the import guidelines
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import_guidelines.
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 21:32, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> Does the NSW Government Speed Zone data have a licence suitable for
>> importing into OSM? Also, is it generally accurate?
>> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones
>>
>> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/road-segment-data-from-datansw
>>
>> The reason I ask is that I recently came across a few roads with speed
>> zones updated based on this data. The biggest problem is that the changes
>> made in these three changesets were incorrect (i.e. the previously surveyed
>> maxspeeds were updated from this data, but on survey in December 2023 the
>> original surveyed maxspeed was the correct one).
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129760120
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759614
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759603
>>
>> Other changesets have been made based on this data, but I haven’t checked
>> the accuracy of them.
>>
>> Mark P.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

We do have permissions to use this data it's listed in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_South_Wales,
however from looking at their changeset history, it looks like

1. They are conducting an import by en-mass blindly adding and replacing
existing data with the imported data
2. They may be engaging in directed mapping (being employed to make these
changes), since their changesets are all the same, importing speed limits,
except for one Local Knowledge changeset
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131210459 in India.

If they want to conduct an import like this, they need to go through the
proper process, so based on and the issues you've rased it should be fine
to revert all their affected changes and then ask going forward to go
through the import guidelines
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import_guidelines.


On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 21:32, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> Does the NSW Government Speed Zone data have a licence suitable for
> importing into OSM? Also, is it generally accurate?
> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones
>
> https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/road-segment-data-from-datansw
>
> The reason I ask is that I recently came across a few roads with speed
> zones updated based on this data. The biggest problem is that the changes
> made in these three changesets were incorrect (i.e. the previously surveyed
> maxspeeds were updated from this data, but on survey in December 2023 the
> original surveyed maxspeed was the correct one).
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129760120
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759614
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759603
>
> Other changesets have been made based on this data, but I haven’t checked
> the accuracy of them.
>
> Mark P.
>
> ___
> 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] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Harvey]

If there is a general park notice "stay on marked tracks only" combined
with the "End of track" I would say that's sufficient to imply you can't
continue further and therefore access=no.

Without the general park notice but simply "End of track", to me that just
means it's the end of foot=designated, and further tracks would be foot=yes
and informal=yes, without any access=no.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 22:55, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> On my last holiday I took a detour to re-check the Apsley Gorge track.
>
> The asphalt path ends at a lookout
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/324186826
>
> The ‘controversial’ path is still present south of here - I followed it
> some of the way (about 350m), but didn’t follow it all the way to the end.
>
> There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows
> the sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!)
> https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6
>
> On the left side of the sign, there’s a warning icon (exclamation mark),
> then “No safety rail”, another warning icon (man falling off edge of
> crumbling cliff), then “Unstable edges”
>
> On the right side of the sign is the text “End of track, no safety rail
> beyond this point”
>
> The sign is there to discourage walkers venturing further south, but it’s
> not technically a “do not enter” sign.
>
> Does that help with what to do with this particular example?
>
> Mark P.
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:
>
>> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
>> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>>
>> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
>> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
>> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>>
>> For this particular example, the results would be:
>> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
>> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
>> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
>> 3. No reversion
>>
>
> I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle
> prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
> or rehabilitated:highway=*.
>
> If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
> capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
> that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
> via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.
>
>
> ___
> 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 - NSW NPWS liaison

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 16:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Tried a test message from an outside e-mail but doesn't seem to have come
> through.
>
> Do you have to be subscribed to the list to be able to post to it?
>

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

Re: [talk-au] OSM - NSW NPWS liaison

[Andrew Harvey]

Due to the structure of OSM, we don't have a single "Liaison Officer", so
it's best if they join the list here and join the community discussion. I'm
happy to engage directly with them if they prefer a single point of
contact, but I'd need to stress that no single person is an authority
within OSM and all I could really do is help support them with how OSM
works from a community side.

On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> DWG have received a
> "*Request for a Liaison Officer*:
> To enhance the accuracy of OpenStreetMap data pertaining to the NSW
> National Parks and Wildlife Service"
>
> This has come up in regard to tracks that they say they have previously
> requested be deleted (I'm contacting them to confirm just which?)
>
> What would be the easiest way for them to contact us with questions like
> this - here / Forum / Discord?
>
> Question posed in all three places
>
> 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] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, 11:12 pm Andrew Harvey, 
wrote:

>
>
>> Do they say that the data is supposed to be
>> updated weekly?
>>
>
> That order was set as a weekly recurring order.
>

I just got the reccuring email for my orders, so this appears fixed now and
they will be fresh.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 at 00:25, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> This is the URL
>
> https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/cl-isd-prd-datashare-s3-delivery/Order_FDBZT5.zip
>
> Is it from the DELWP?


Yes


> Do they say that the data is supposed to be
> updated weekly?
>

That order was set as a weekly recurring order.


> Also, could you share the order details, including name, ID, Projection,
> Buffer, File Format and Area? It would help make the whole process more
> reproducible, starting from the source (the DELWP Vicmap Address page).
> Otherwise we wouldn't know how to get an url from DELWP serving the same
> kind of files.
>

Yes good point, I've added this detail to the README
https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm/-/blob/master/README.md?ref_type=heads#vicmap-source-data
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Andrew Harvey]

 I found the process was only using Vicmap data from last year, so I've
updated that. The URL it's using should be serving new data every week but
I'm not sure it was not happening previously. So we'll need to monitor this
if the import is delayed further.

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:48, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On a second thought, why don't we just generate the osc file with
>
> make dist/unitFromnumber.osc
>
> and apply the osc file manually? Of course that's assuming the file is
> correct. For example, to understand the discrepancy in the number of
> nodes I mentioned above. I also noticed some minor issues with the
> script, like when the number of changes exceeds 10k, it attempts to
> split them multiple files, but they are identical rather than sequential
> parts.
>

 I took another look into this, the code wasn't completed. The osc file
generated may include ways but doesn't include all the nodes for those ways
so it can't be uploaded from JOSM (I tried and it failed). One solution
would be to have the osc file generated to include them.

Correct it attempts to split the changes to meet the changeset element
limit, but this implementation was not completed, so while two files are
generated they don't have the limit applied. It looks like JOSM may be able
to do the splitting for us though, if we use JOSM to upload rather than my
code directly.



On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 22:30, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> And there's always tried and true email based code review which we can
> do say in this mailing list, which both of we are already using. The
> person (say me) who wants to send a pull/merge request can create
> patches using git format-patch[1]. I can then send the patch to this
> mailing list, and then the person who reviews (say you) can comment
> inline, and I can respond to the comments inline, just like normal
> emails. After some back and forth once you are happy with the patches
> you can apply them to your repo with git am[2].
>
> [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch
> [2] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-am
>
> I got a few commits so far in my fork[3], and if you are open to doing
> it in this mailing list, I'll prepare some patches and send them here.
>

I'm not a fan, and besides this mailing list is for mappers so it's not the
place for detailed code review.

I'd rather if you can submit a Merge Request on GitLab (or Pull Request on
GitHub).

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 20:53, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Mon 2023-10-16 15:35:13 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 15:16, Yuchen Pei  wrote:
>
> >> On Mon 2023-10-16 14:51:00 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> >> > On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:40, Yuchen Pei  wrote:
>
> >> > [... 38 lines elided]
>
> >> > mr2osc.mjs is used in Stage 2 (replacing street_number=x/y with
> >> > unit_number=x && street_number=y). For example, the Makefile rule
> >> > dist/unitFromNumber.osc is generated using this script. I have
> >> > generated
> >> > the osc file[1]. However, this file contains 38k nodes, whereas
> >> > the
> >> > input MR file[2] only has 12k features. So my question is - does
> >> > anyonw
> >> > know what is the easiest way to see all the changes in this file
> >> > staged
> >> > on a map, as a sanity check? OTOH I'd assume the file format is
> >> > some
> >> > standard osm change format.
>
> >> > Yes, this is mentioned in the README
>
> >> >> You can visualise the tag changes with bin/mrCoopDiff.js and
> >> > www/mrPreview.html at URL
>
> >> What is URL?
>
>
> > Ah yeah I put URL as a placeholder I was going to replace. At the moment
> > you can only view that locally within the repository as I haven't hosted
> > it.
>
> Got it, thanks. Somehow when I open www/mrPreview.html I only see a map,
> but not the addresses in the changes in Stage 2. I took a look at the
> content of the www/mrPreview.html, and I don't see references to any of
> the geojson or osc files.
>
> > [... 8 lines elided]
>
> >> > I can do the test upload of a small area (say ~100 addresses) and
> >> > report
> >> > back.
>
> >> > Please if you insist, can you just do < 10, no need to do 100.
>
> >> Why?
>
>
> > For testing, I feel it should be a number that we can manually work with.
> > After your testing either we need to then wait for the planet export to
> > catch up with your changes, or potentially have a conflict to deal with
> in
> > JOSM (or maybe JOSM would handle it, I'm not sure).
>
>

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 12:13, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Personally I think it should be suburb and postcode (drop the country)
>

https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm#inclusion-of-addrsuburb-addrpostcode-and-addrstate

It was noted that there is not a consensus within the community, therefore
I opted to omit them as part of the import to remain neutral.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Andrew Harvey]

That's okay. I created https://github.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm as a mirror
of the GitLab code, happy to collaborate via Issues and Pull Requests there.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 15:49, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Mon 2023-10-16 15:35:13 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > [... 86 lines elided]
>
> > Are you on the OSM World Discord?
>
> I do not use Discord, because it is proprietary. I am on IRC, xmpp,
> mastodon and Signal - do you use any of these? If not can you suggest
> another free software option?
>
> Best,
> Yuchen
>
> --
> Timezone: UTC+11
> PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
>   <https://ypei.org/assets/ypei-pubkey.txt>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 15:16, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Mon 2023-10-16 14:51:00 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:40, Yuchen Pei  wrote:
>
> > [... 38 lines elided]
>
> > mr2osc.mjs is used in Stage 2 (replacing street_number=x/y with
> > unit_number=x && street_number=y). For example, the Makefile rule
> > dist/unitFromNumber.osc is generated using this script. I have
> > generated
> > the osc file[1]. However, this file contains 38k nodes, whereas
> > the
> > input MR file[2] only has 12k features. So my question is - does
> > anyonw
> > know what is the easiest way to see all the changes in this file
> > staged
> > on a map, as a sanity check? OTOH I'd assume the file format is
> > some
> > standard osm change format.
>
> > Yes, this is mentioned in the README
>
> >> You can visualise the tag changes with bin/mrCoopDiff.js and
> > www/mrPreview.html at URL
>
> What is URL?
>

Ah yeah I put URL as a placeholder I was going to replace. At the moment
you can only view that locally within the repository as I haven't hosted
it. I was working on getting it out on GitLab pages or something like that
from the CI/CD pipeline.

>
> > I did this and validated that the changes look as intended.
>
> > [... 39 lines elided]
>
> > I can do the test upload of a small area (say ~100 addresses) and
> > report
> > back.
>
> > Please if you insist, can you just do < 10, no need to do 100.
>
> Why?
>

For testing, I feel it should be a number that we can manually work with.
After your testing either we need to then wait for the planet export to
catch up with your changes, or potentially have a conflict to deal with in
JOSM (or maybe JOSM would handle it, I'm not sure).


> > Once I've reviewed the above and am happy with it I'll do the upload
> > with the import account as planned.
>
> Even though you asked whether I would like to help and I said yes, the
> communications so far have give me the impression that you want to work
> on it solo


Not the case, I think it's great that you've taken interest in the import,
if we can work together to get it done that would be ideal.


> which is less of a problem if there's a clear timeframe to
> complete it. After all it was started in 2021 and stalled, and this is a
> community project to improve the VIC address coverage for everyone. To
> get it done I will continue working on it as I have been in the past few
> weeks. If Stage 2 is done I will push for progress in Stage 3, and so
> on.
>

It's a balance, I don't want to hold things up, at the same time we don't
want to mess up such a large import by rushing.

Are you on the OSM World Discord?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:40, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Tue 2023-10-03 19:51:13 +1100, Warin wrote:
>
> > [... 14 lines elided]
>
> > OK, what is needed to be done for "Stage 2 - Set unit from
> > housenumber"?
>
> > Further testing of the upload script. The changes themselves are
> > pretty safe. It's using a custom uploader and if something isn't
> > right it could make a mess. Sure the changeset could be reverted
> > in the worst case scenario but you end up with more history so
> > best to avoid this. I'll see if I can find some time to progress
> > this further.
>
> > Umm 'custom uploader' .. a file compatible with JOSM should be easy
> > enough to create. Then selecting a small area to upload and test would
> > be a simple manual operation, as would uploading the entire change
> > set.
>
> I notice two scripts in the repo with the ability to upload:
>
> ./bin/mr2osc.mjs - converts a MapRoulette geojson to ocs files, and
> upload unless --dryrun is specified
>
> ./bin/upload.sh - upload osmChange files using a python script. I have
> not looked much into this one yet, as it showcases Stage 3.
>
> mr2osc.mjs is used in Stage 2 (replacing street_number=x/y with
> unit_number=x && street_number=y). For example, the Makefile rule
> dist/unitFromNumber.osc is generated using this script. I have generated
> the osc file[1]. However, this file contains 38k nodes, whereas the
> input MR file[2] only has 12k features. So my question is - does anyonw
> know what is the easiest way to see all the changes in this file staged
> on a map, as a sanity check? OTOH I'd assume the file format is some
> standard osm change format.
>

Yes, this is mentioned in the README

> You can visualise the tag changes with bin/mrCoopDiff.js and
www/mrPreview.html at URL

I did this and validated that the changes look as intended.


>
> To Andrew: what specifically are you worried about with the upload
> script, and how can we help with the testing and uploading?
>

I was worried that if the object had changed since the OSC was generated
those changes might have been lost, as well as general error handling in my
custom uploader in case there were rejections. Though reviewing again,
letting JOSM upload the OSC would work.

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 20:48, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On a second thought, why don't we just generate the osc file with
>
> make dist/unitFromnumber.osc
>
> and apply the osc file manually? Of course that's assuming the file is
> correct. For example, to understand the discrepancy in the number of
> nodes I mentioned above. I also noticed some minor issues with the
> script, like when the number of changes exceeds 10k, it attempts to
> split them multiple files, but they are identical rather than sequential
> parts.


I'll take a look at that.



On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 13:23, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> My understanding of this Stage is to fix all the discrepancies between
> streetnumber=X/Y in osm and streetnumber=Y;unit=X in the vicmap dataset,
> before Stage 3 - uploading new addresses from the latter.
>

Correct.


>
> I can do the test upload of a small area (say ~100 addresses) and report
> back.
>

Please if you insist, can you just do < 10, no need to do 100.

Once I've reviewed the above and am happy with it I'll do the upload with
the import account as planned.



On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 14:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Do we need the country, city & post code fields?
>

This is mentioned at
https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm#inclusion-of-addrsuburb-addrpostcode-and-addrstate
with the conclusion that "After lengthy engagement with the local
community, we opt to omit addr:suburb, addr:postcode, addr:state tags in
the current import." However existing tags won't and shouldn't be touched
as part of this import.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 11:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> In regard to Strava, it would be very handy if they read OSM access data &
> removed traces from their map when tracks are changed to access=no.
>

And they or anyone else can't do that if we just delete the way completely
as some are advocating here.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 14:19, Ben Ritter  wrote:

> I agree with all of this. If the track exists on the ground, something
> should exist in OSM.
>
> This situation is not a novel one that requires a new tag prefix, I think
> it should be represented with:
>
>- highway=* because it is clearly a track to a surveyor
>- informal=yes because it is not maintained like the other paths
>- access=no because the relevant authority says so
>
> I believe it's more nuanced than that.

If the point of the closure is to permanently remove the track and restore
it back to bush, and especially if there has been some work done like
placing branches or fallen tree trunks along the path, or if vegetation is
regrowing within the track, then it should use one of the "stages of decay"
lifecycle prefixes.

If the future status is unknown, but it's currently closed, then that's
where I'd leave the highway=* value intact and add access=no.



On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 23:33, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> A brief summary of the options for this type of situation (not just this
> particular edit, but similar edits in the past and probably future):
>
> 1. Revert the change sets (in the absence of more information)
> 2. Partial revert, with a change in tags
> 3. Leave the deletion as it is.
>
> For this particular example, the results would be:
> 1. Full revert - way will be marked informal=yes, but without access tags
> 2. Partial revert - could add access=no, or
> alternatively abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=*
> 3. No reversion
>

I would opt for 2, leave the way in place, but with access=no, a lifecycle
prefix on the highway tag like abandoned:highway=*
or rehabilitated:highway=*.

If there is signage that says closed for rehabilitation, we should
capture the closure reason somewhere, so OSM data consumers can present
that reason for the closure to users, whether that be
via rehabilitated:highway=* or something like, access:reason=rehabilitation.



On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 13:55, Ewen Hill  wrote:

> Hi all,
>   A fantastic thread and I feel it is important to assist those protecting
> the environment over ground truth mapping.
>
>  On lord Howe Island, currently over 70% of the island is off-limits for
> an outbreak of Myrtle Rust with the Island Board stating "The rust has the
> potential to change the way our mountains and forest looks, it may alter
> food webs and ecology, and potentially affect world heritage values,". In
> Western Australia, there is Phytophthora (dieback), now prevalent in the
> Stirling Ranges which is mainly carried long distances by human activity.
> In these and other more local instances,we should endeavour to assist
> protection.
>
> I feel the  lifecycle prefixes and access=no in most instances however it
> might be better to remove all highway tagging other than a note to protect
> fragile ecology so that no downstream map accidentally maps these.
>



On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 22:57, Ben Ritter  wrote:

> I think we can assist environmental maintenance without compromising the
> ground truth value. They are not actually in conflict with each other.
>

Exactly this. If we map the closure including the reason for the closure,
we can help inform park users about which areas to avoid and why they are
asked to avoid those areas. People are going to still see the path on the
Strava heatmap or they are still going to find it on the ground anyway.


>
> In fact, I think it is *more helpful* to keep the highway features with
> the addition of the access tag and/or the lifecycle prefix.
>
> Many OSM users are used to incomplete data, so if they saw an OSM map
> which didn't include tracks that they observe in the wild, they would
> likely assume the data is missing, not that there is a restriction on it.
>

Good point, we see this already with Overture maps which conflates OSM
buildings with AI generated buildings. I can see in the future map
providers might conflate OSM highway=* network with probe data like Strava,
I'm not saying we need to map all the negative space too but for paths
which may still get activity it may help to map these in OSM so that a
conflation won't pick up on it being missing in OSM.


>
> With the aim of ensuring as many maps as possible indicate the closure,
> the existing lifecycle tag should be used, which is
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway, instead of a new
> one.
>
> Anyone publishing maps using OSM data while ignoring the access tag is
> being reckless, and should stop it. Deleting those features is not a
> solution in any specific case (this thread is case in point), or in the
> long term for the reasons above.
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 23:48, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Mon 2023-10-02 21:42:01 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> > [... 15 lines elided]
>
> > It's been a while since I worked on this, but I believe it was the
> > matching of existing OSM addresses to Vicmap, and that matching
> > affects most of the import stages.
>
> OK, what is needed to be done for "Stage 2 - Set unit from housenumber"?
>

Further testing of the upload script. The changes themselves are pretty
safe. It's using a custom uploader and if something isn't right it could
make a mess. Sure the changeset could be reverted in the worst case
scenario but you end up with more history so best to avoid this. I'll see
if I can find some time to progress this further.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 00:10, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On Mon 2023-10-02 21:35:10 +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> > While OSM doesn't have layers, https://openaddresses.io/ more or less
> > acts as the address layer. The datasets there aren't all ODBL, but
> > they are generally open. It includes GNAF.
>
> Thanks, I didn't know of openaddresses, but I'm a bit confused - what
> does open mean here? I can't find the license of the GNAF data, but
> looking at its webpage[1] it does not look free. Does "open" here simply
> mean "gratis access"?
>

I recently updated a few of the Australian sources in OpenAddresses which
had stalled.

See
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/19432f89-dc3a-4ef3-b943-5326ef1dbecc/resource/09f74802-08b1-4214-a6ea-3591b2753d30/

"The EULA terms are based on the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license (CC BY 4.0). However, an important restriction
relating to the use of the open G-NAF for the sending of mail has been
added. The open G-NAF data must not be used form the generation of an
address or a compilation or address for the sending of mail unless the user
has verified that each address to be used for the sending of mail is
capable of receiving mail by reference to a secondary source of
information. Further information on this use restriction is available here."

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 06:30, Simon Poole  wrote:

> Except if something has massively changed, the GNAF data isn"t actually
> open.
>

Depends on your definition of open. Not open enough for OSM, but open
enough for most use cases.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 23:16, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> > The preparation and planning is well progressed in my view. There is
> > always going to be a long tail of corner cases and I was attempting to
> > handle more of these in the code and that never got finished. We
> > probably would be better to make a call to accept those corner cases
> > and go ahead with the import.
>
> Thanks for the context. Which of the 7 Stages mentioned in the README
> correspond to the corner cases?
>

It's been a while since I worked on this, but I believe it was the matching
of existing OSM addresses to Vicmap, and that matching affects most of the
import stages.


> > Are you interested in working on it?
>
> Absolutely! Thankfully git is decentralised so I don't really need a
> gitlab account.


It would be much easier if you can create one though as otherwise
collaboration will be difficult. From what I can see you just need either a
phone number OR credit card, so you should be able to create an account
without a credit card.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 11:45, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> Maybe we can go stage by stage. Stage 1 - postal_code is the first stage
> that has not been completed.
>
> I built the dist/postalCodeURLs.txt file (see attached) yesterday and it
> contains 2425 JOSM RemoteControl urls. Shall we go ahead and import
> them (or a newly generated version)?
>

I spent some time today reviewing the import again, and this one was ready,
so I've done it at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142031616

For context, we decided not to include addr:postcode on each address object
imported, therefore to ensure we can still capture address postcodes, they
are added to the admin_level=9 boundary relations. There were a bunch
already mapped but this changeset completed those missing the tag. My prior
analysis comparing these boundaries in OSM and the Vicmap address points
with postcode found this is a reliable way to ensure we have postcode
coverage, except for some edge cases mentioned in the import documentation.


> BTW, I'd assume the whole pipeline for each stage should be generated at
> approximately the same time, using the data downloaded at approximately
> the same time. If that is the case, it would make sense to have a
> Makefile rule for each stage, that remove all files in the pipeline for
> that stage and redownload and recompute them. What do you think?
>

It was built to run the whole process and generate all the outputs from all
the import stages together, at this stage I wouldn't be refactoring it.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to efficiently improve AU address coverage?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 12:34, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I read in a 6-year old post[1] that the Netherlands had an address
> coverage of over 99%. This made me curious what would be the Australian
> number. G-NAF boasts 15M addresses[2], whereas according to
> metrics.improveosm.org there are less than 1.2M address points mapped in
> AU[3], so that makes it less than 8%, way lower than the Netherlands.
> But please correct me if my stats are flawed.
>
> [1]
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/adding-housenumbers-with-streetcomplete/81323
> [2]
> https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/geocoded-national-address-file-g-naf
> [3]
>
> https://metrics.improveosm.org/address-points/total-metrics-per-interval?duration=weekly=country=13=km=2022-01-01=2023-09-24
>
> Is there a way to efficiently improve the address coverage in Australia?
> What are the main roadblocks?
>

I don't have the numbers, but StreetComplete would already be helping
already to improve the coverage,

In terms of imports the roadblocks are data availability (only ACT, NSW,
TAS, VIC are currently available. QLD, NT, SA, WA are not) and then people
contributing to an important effort. For the most part the community would
like to see more address imports so that's unlikely a roadblock.


> For Victoria there was an initiative to import vicmap addresses[4][5],
> I wonder how many addresses it will add, and why it apparently got stuck
> (0 edits from the importer user[6])
>

That was my work. I ran out of time to finish the pre-work and actually do
the import, and without any other activity it's been on-hold.

It also mentions

> Mon 30th May 2022 - Import executed per plan (date may be moved back

> if there is unresolved feedback or discussion from the proposal sent

> to imports)

Did the execution really happen?


No it didn't. I think that was just the planned date.



On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 18:15, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

> On 1 October 2023 12:56:20 GMT+11:00, Phil Wyatt 
> wrote:
> > but I also see that the VIC
> > import is well progressed
>
> How is it well progressed, do you have a link showing the progress? From
> what I see it seems to be stalled.
>

The preparation and planning is well progressed in my view. There is always
going to be a long tail of corner cases and I was attempting to handle more
of these in the code and that never got finished. We probably would be
better to make a call to accept those corner cases and go ahead with the
import.

Are you interested in working on it?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] What is the license of vicmap2osm?

[Andrew Harvey via Talk-au]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2023, at 8:25 PM, Yuchen Pei wrote:
> The repo for the vicmap importing project, vicmap2osm[1] seems to be
> missing a license, could you add one please? Thank you.

package.json declares it as under the MIT license, but I've added a dedicated 
LICENSE file now for clarity.

> I would have created an issue on the gitlab repo if I had an account
> there, but apart from the horrible recaptcha, gitlab now also requires
> credit card information to register (!).

I'm surprised to hear that, I thought it was only required if you were going to 
use CI/CD minutes. Sounds like they had to implement these measures to combat 
platform abuse.

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 16:37, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Personally, I believe if the managing agency requests that the tracks be
> removed from the map then as good corporate citizens we should do
> everything possible to lower the promotion of such tracks. Track managers
> also have a responsibility to also actively advise people and if the area
> is high use then signage and rehabilitation at the locations will help.
>
>
>
> Track rehabilitation, even when undertaken actively, can take many, many
> years and there will likely be remains of the
> closed/abandoned/rehabilitated tracks showing in some environments, on some
> imagery, for an extended period of time.
>
>
>
> I don’t believe that the abandoned or disused tags adequately reflect the
> desire of the managers but it is supported by some. Some users may see
> those tags as an ‘opportunity’ to reopen the track and promote use back to
> previous levels and they may do this without the backing of the agency.
>
>
>
> In a nutshell, in this instance, they are asking for folks to stop going
> there. I also feel that if a track has active rehabilitation being
> undertaken then a better tag would be rehabilitated:highway=*type* along
> with access=no. Many such tracks will get limited rehabilitation at the
> ‘take off points’ only and the rest of the track will be left to very
> slowly rehabilitate, maybe with some occasional bars to impede water flow
> and allow buildup of debris. Again, it will take many years for full
> rehabilitation to take place.
>

I'm fine with a new lifecycle prefix like rehabilitated where there are
visible efforts to actually rehabilitate (e.g. new plantings, levelling,
filling the track with dead trees, etc.), if there is just a track closed
sign that's not quite the same as physically it may still be perfectly
usable just legally you can't use it.

I wish park managers would see mapping it in OSM as a rehabilitated track
or closed track would help keep people off the track. Data consumers could
then build maps or provide hints or notices to their map users to indicate
such so people don't use the track naively assuming it's open for use. If
it's not mapped in OSM, unless people see the track closed signage, they
might just stumble upon it and think its overgrown and actually start
clearing and rebuilding it!
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 20:57, Mark Pulley  wrote:

> I know this has been discussed on the list before, but the NSW NPWS has
> deleted some informal paths at Apsley Falls (Oxley Wild Rivers National
> Park).
>
> These were deleted in 2022 by a NPWS employee, and after discussion were
> reverted. I re-surveyed them later that year.
> These paths have been recently deleted again, initially edited by a
> different NPWS employee. (Three different change sets, summarised below.)
>
> I had thought the consensus last time was to leave the paths in, tagged as
> informal=yes (unless the path has been formally closed, in which case
> access=no can be used). Is this still the case? Also, do we need to add a
> policy to the wiki for similar situations?
>

We have
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Path


Informal Paths (informal=yes) - these would still show up as for use, but
with the note that they may not be maintained, may not have signage etc.

Closed Paths (abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* + access=no) - These
should not show up as for use, but still be present in OSM data for users
looking for closed paths.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Robert,

To preface, I'm not a lawyer and your should seek your own independent
legal advice, but as I understand:

1. the department has made a decision to adopt OSM as your data source,
accepting the terms this data is licensed under
2. you will adapt, modify, enhance, correct or extend OSM data with your
gazetted place and road names, which likely creates a Derivative Database
under the ODbL, we'll call this DTP Validated OSM
3. where you make this DTP Validated OSM data available to others, like
your distribution partners or the public via your open data portal, it must
continue to be licensed under the ODbL.
4. The implication for your distribution partners would likely be if they
want to further adapt, enhance, correct or extend your DTP Validated OSM
data, and they then use that adapted data publicly, they must continue to
license their adaptations under the ODbL, ie. the license is viral.
5. There is nothing here preventing these distribution partners using your
DTP Validated OSM data, or making further changes or adaptations to it. If
they don't accept the terms then they don't need to use your data.

One alternative, if you create your data independently of OSM may be to
publish it with only references to OSM, e.g. to OSM object IDs or with
location references eg. OpenLR. If created independently you may be able to
license as you wish.

You could in parallel still publish a full osm derived version of the data
under ODbL for convenience for those who accept the ODbL terms.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 10:13, Robert C Potter (DTP) via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi OSM,
>
> Representing the state transport authority (Department of Transport and
> Planning) we have made the strategic decision to use OSM as our
> foundational mapping data source.  We are confident that this is a decision
> will be of value to both ourselves improving the management of the networks
> (road, Train, Bus, tram) and adding significantly to the citizens of the
> state.
>
> Our intended use of OSM is built on an extract being done then validating
> that extract for the gazetted/official place and road names. The resultant
> validated dataset will be shared that via our Opendata portal.  Our state
> government has a strong commitment to sharing all data openly.  We are
> currently developing that process and should be in production by the end of
> the year.
>
> Alas, there has been concern from our distribution partners with the ODbl
> license requirement to "Share alike".  You know these companies; Google,
> Here, Tomtom and Apple.
>
> The information we would share, and all shared as ODbl;
>
>- Disruptions
>- Heavy vehicles
>- Bicycles routes
>- Public transport routes and timetables
>
> I am wondering how we, can continue engage with these partners and use and
> improve OSM.
>
>
>
> If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Robert Potter
>
> *Helping people use the power of location to make better decisions*
>
> Manager, Spatial Data Strategy
> Department of Transport and Planning
>
> 1 Spring Street
>
> MELBOURNE 3000
>
>
> *M *0402 484 739
>
> *F* 03 9935 4111
> *E *robert.pot...@roads.vic.gov.au
> *W dtp.vic.gov.au *
>
>
> I acknowledge the Traditional Aboriginal Owners of Country throughout
> Victoria and pay my respect to Elders past and present and emerging and to
> the ongoing living culture of Aboriginal people.
>
> DISCLAIMER
>
> The following conditions apply to this communication and any attachments:
> VicRoads reserves all of its copyright; the information is intended for the
> addressees only and may be confidential and/or privileged - it must not be
> passed on by any other recipients; any expressed opinions are those of the
> sender and not necessarily VicRoads; VicRoads accepts no liability for any
> consequences arising from the recipient's use of this means of
> communication and/or the information contained in and/or attached to this
> communication. If this communication has been received in error, please
> contact the person who sent this communication and delete all copies.
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 08:11, Tom Brennan  wrote:

> There are an increasing number of places/features in NSW that are
> getting dual (aboriginal) naming.
>
> For example:
> - Booraghee / Bradleys Head
> - Cooyoyo / The Castle
> - Fort Denison / Muddawahnyuh
>
>  From the point of view of the Geographic Names Board, there doesn't
> appear to be any primacy given to one name or the other.
>
> Is there a view as to how to record these in OSM?
>

At a minimum they should have:

name:en=Bradleys Head (name in English)
name:aus=Booraghee (name in Australian Aboriginal Language (non-specific)

This allows data consumers to choose what they display to users and how.


> The specific aboriginal language is not necessarily known.
>

You can/should use the Australian Aboriginal Language (non-specific)
language code "aus", ie. name:aus=*
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name:aus


> There are obviously tags like 'alt_name' that can be used to store a
> second name, but not sure if that's most appropriate in cases like this.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or, administrative boundaries?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 14:05, OSM via Talk-au 
wrote:

> Since the coastline tag is also supposed to represent the high water mark
> then I would say that they should be snapped together (since they then
> represent the same feature - that is, the high water mark). This would mean
> that the boundary data already in OSM from the government basemaps would
> just be their own mapping of the high water mark, and probably be less up
> to date or refined as our own.
>
Exactly. So if anything we should be actively snapping them.


> This is my first time responding on talk-au, lmk if I've messed up any
> formatting to link to the original question.
>
It's come through but as a new thread, and for some reason from talk-au
instead of from you and via talk-au.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or administrative boundaries?

[Andrew Harvey]

Personally I'd prefer to snap them, it makes it easier for us to maintain,
better for data consumers, and overall cleaner data.

I speculate these departmental GIS teams are creating the boundaries from
their own coastline datasets anyway, so why not just have them match OSM's
coastline?

I think it's unlikely these GIS representations are the absolute set in
stone authority, if they rebuild their GIS data with newer coastline data
their boundary geometry will change.

I agree with Frederik here, if someone wants the boundaries exactly as they
appear in the government published dataset they should go there and not
expect OSM to be exactly the same. They shouldn't be untouchable objects in
OSM, we can hold a different representation of the boundary to the
department's GIS dataset that doesn't make OSM wrong.

I think you'll find exactly what Frederik says, that the moment you step
foot on the land out of the water you'll be deemed in the national park for
most purposes, except particular cases where the boundaries does extend out
in the water.

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

Re: [talk-au] VIC Traffic Lights MapRoulette import

[Andrew Harvey]

There was positive support for the proposal on Discord #oceania and no
issues identified here so we've started working through the challenge and
invite anyone interested to join in.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 16:04, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I've prepared an import proposal at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/VIC_Traffic_Lights#Import_Data
> for missing traffic lights from DTP data.
>
> The import has been prepared as a MapRoulette challenge at
> https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/38490.
>
> Any feedback or issues appreciated.
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] VIC Traffic Lights MapRoulette import

[Andrew Harvey]

They are split already in the task properties, so the challenge should only
contain traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings and no uncontrolled
crossings.

The data sheet indicates it was only installed in 2018 and the Mapillary
imagery there is older, so might need to mark this as too hard. We could
leave a note instead for a survey check.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 at 21:57, Daniel O'Connor 
wrote:

> https://maproulette.org/challenge/38490/task/155741018 seems a bit weird!
>
> Is it possible to easily split the pedestrian crossings from traffic
> lights?
> Some appear to just be "crossings" for example -
> https://maproulette.org/challenge/38490/task/155740397 - no lights/etc.
> Worth mapping, but a fair bit different!
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 3:40 PM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> I've prepared an import proposal at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/VIC_Traffic_Lights#Import_Data
>> for missing traffic lights from DTP data.
>>
>> The import has been prepared as a MapRoulette challenge at
>> https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/38490.
>>
>> Any feedback or issues appreciated.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] VIC Traffic Lights MapRoulette import

[Andrew Harvey]

I've prepared an import proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/VIC_Traffic_Lights#Import_Data
for missing traffic lights from DTP data.

The import has been prepared as a MapRoulette challenge at
https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/38490.

Any feedback or issues appreciated.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] DTP Data Wavier Submitted

[Andrew Harvey]

This is great news!

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, 4:47 pm Robert Potter via Talk-au, <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi OSM-AU,
>
> It is with great pleasure and personal satisfaction that I can today
> announce that an appropriately appointed officer has signed the CC BY 4.0
> wavier for DTP https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Victoria,_Australia.
>
> This means any information made public via the Victorian Government
> OpenData platform by the Department of Transport and Planning is able to be
> used in OpenStreetMap, including and most requested has been the GTFS
> supply.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Robert Potter
>
> *Department of Transport and Planning (Victoria, Australia) -
> OpenStreetMap Wiki
> *
>
> *W dtp.vic.gov.au *
> DISCLAIMER
>
> The following conditions apply to this communication and any attachments:
> VicRoads reserves all of its copyright; the information is intended for the
> addressees only and may be confidential and/or privileged - it must not be
> passed on by any other recipients; any expressed opinions are those of the
> sender and not necessarily VicRoads; VicRoads accepts no liability for any
> consequences arising from the recipient's use of this means of
> communication and/or the information contained in and/or attached to this
> communication. If this communication has been received in error, please
> contact the person who sent this communication and delete all copies.
> ___
> 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] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

[Andrew Harvey]

I hope this passes your legal Rob. My takeaway is that your implementation
shouldn't rely on the OSMF's APIs or data downloads being available, so
your operations and use of OSM data would not be impacted if these services
weren't available or were returning unexpected responses.

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 09:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Hi Rob
>
> Response received from Legal:
>
> " The OSM Terms of Use do not impose any addition restrictions on the use
> of the OpenStreetMap geodatabase beyond the terms of ODbL.
> We do prohibit the emergencies services and anything similarly
> time-sensitive from using OSM Services directly because OSM does not
> guarantee uptime or responsiveness. However, while OSM Services include
> *data distribution*, they do not include the *data itself*. Thus, the
> Department is free to download the planet file and use the data purely
> under the terms of ODbL, but should not rely on the existence or freshness
> of the planet file download."
>
> So you should be fine to go with it, as long as everybody realises that
> OSM is still only updated by volunteers, so could potentially have issues.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 10:41, rob potter  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport
>> and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki
>> 
>>  and
>> we are looking to consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations.
>>
>> *Lawyers have raised a concern about these conditions, as the road data
>> use is supplied to our emergency services fire and ambulance.  We have not
>> started using the information but we are implementing a system of
>> validation and change detection, then produce an authoritative version for
>> other agency consumption.*
>> *Unlawful and other unauthorized uses include a clause "Operate dangerous
>> businesses such as emergency services or air traffic control, where the use
>> or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or
>> significant property damage;" and "Store data available through the
>> Services in order to evade these Terms (including aiding anyone else in
>> doing so); or"*
>>
>> Please any advice would be greatly appreciated, ultimately we will
>> enhance the overall content of OSM in the Victoria, but really do not want
>> to cause problems later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Rob
>> ___
>> 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] NSW Bridal Track

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 14:46, Josh Marshall 
wrote:

> A tangent, but I'm rather happy that iD _*finally_* fixed their English
> description for =track (it included "unmaintained" for a long time; many
> were quite annoyed at the original change to include that)... and I can't
> find any discussion about why they finally gave in and reverted it! Vested
> interest, since it along with =path are likely my two most used, given I
> map a lot of bush with fire trails and run/ride singletrack.
>

https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/288

We can have Australian translations for these terms in iD. I just added
Fire Trail as a synonym for it.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] NSW Fire Station names

[Andrew Harvey]

Echoing what cleary said about reliance on the DCS Base Map, it's not our
goal to recreate their label format.

In my opinion it's more important to have branch and ref tagged as it gives
more flexibility to data consumers on how they choose to label it, eg. they
could choose,

{branch} FS
{branch} Fire Station
{branch} Fire Station, {ref}
{operator} Station {ref}, {branch}

etc.

For the name I'd first go with any signage on the ground, but otherwise I
think "Lane Cove Fire Station" works well.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 at 22:01, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Note .. The Lane Cove Fire Station had 2 entries for the one feature,
> one on a single node the other on a way tagged for the building. I
> removed the duplicated tags from the building and place them on the
> node. No I am not doing this everywhere, I seek to separate the
> amenity=fire_station from the building=* and then expand the amenity to
> the boundaries usually beyond the building. Lane Cove did not lend
> itself to that. Still thinking on it, and a few other problem sites.
>

For fire stations that have grounds then yes you'd have
amenity=fire_station on the grounds with a seperate building=* way inside.
But for these city fire stations that don't have grounds and take up the
whole building, the amenity=fire_station -should go on the building way.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] [OSM-talk] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023, 2:09 am Greg Troxel,  wrote:

> rob potter  writes:
>
> As others pointed out those are website terms.  You want to use the
> data, not the website, and you should read the Open Database License.
>

The terms cover data distribution, ie downloading from
planet.openstreetmap.org so you need to go through those terms to obtain
OSM data regardless of the ODbL.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023, 2:09 am Greg Troxel,  wrote:

> rob potter  writes:
>
> As others pointed out those are website terms.  You want to use the
> data, not the website, and you should read the Open Database License.
>

The terms cover data distribution, ie downloading from
planet.openstreetmap.org so you need to go through those terms to obtain
OSM data regardless of the ODbL.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi legal-questions,

I'm forwarding this interesting question about the OSMF Terms of Use
preventing anyone from obtaining OSM data for emergency services use. This
is in direct conflict with the ODBL terms which contain no such
restriction, and also include a limitation of liability clause. Surely
other emergency services organisations are using OSM data without issue.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 12:24, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> Interesting point you raise!
>
> While on the surface you'd think terms (from the OSMF Terms of Use
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#III._Unlawful_and_other_unauthorized_uses)
> only ask you not to use OSMF services like the website, API for those
> purposes and not the data, it includes "data distribution".
>
> I suggest you raise this on the legal talk mailing list
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk and/or directly with
> the OSMF legal-questi...@osmfoundation.org (
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Contact).
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 11:41, rob potter  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport
>> and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Department_of_Transport_and_Planning_(Victoria,_Australia)>
>>  and
>> we are looking to consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations.
>>
>> *Lawyers have raised a concern about these conditions, as the road data
>> use is supplied to our emergency services fire and ambulance.  We have not
>> started using the information but we are implementing a system of
>> validation and change detection, then produce an authoritative version for
>> other agency consumption.*
>> *Unlawful and other unauthorized uses include a clause "Operate dangerous
>> businesses such as emergency services or air traffic control, where the use
>> or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or
>> significant property damage;" and "Store data available through the
>> Services in order to evade these Terms (including aiding anyone else in
>> doing so); or"*
>>
>> Please any advice would be greatly appreciated, ultimately we will
>> enhance the overall content of OSM in the Victoria, but really do not want
>> to cause problems later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Rob
>> ___
>> 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: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Rob,

Interesting point you raise!

While on the surface you'd think terms (from the OSMF Terms of Use
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#III._Unlawful_and_other_unauthorized_uses)
only ask you not to use OSMF services like the website, API for those
purposes and not the data, it includes "data distribution".

I suggest you raise this on the legal talk mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk and/or directly with
the OSMF legal-questi...@osmfoundation.org (
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Contact).

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 11:41, rob potter  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport
> and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki
> 
>  and
> we are looking to consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations.
>
> *Lawyers have raised a concern about these conditions, as the road data
> use is supplied to our emergency services fire and ambulance.  We have not
> started using the information but we are implementing a system of
> validation and change detection, then produce an authoritative version for
> other agency consumption.*
> *Unlawful and other unauthorized uses include a clause "Operate dangerous
> businesses such as emergency services or air traffic control, where the use
> or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or
> significant property damage;" and "Store data available through the
> Services in order to evade these Terms (including aiding anyone else in
> doing so); or"*
>
> Please any advice would be greatly appreciated, ultimately we will enhance
> the overall content of OSM in the Victoria, but really do not want to cause
> problems later.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Rob,

Interesting point you raise!

While on the surface you'd think terms (from the OSMF Terms of Use
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#III._Unlawful_and_other_unauthorized_uses)
only ask you not to use OSMF services like the website, API for those
purposes and not the data, it includes "data distribution".

I suggest you raise this on the legal talk mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk and/or directly with
the OSMF legal-questi...@osmfoundation.org (
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Contact).

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 11:41, rob potter  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport
> and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki
> 
>  and
> we are looking to consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations.
>
> *Lawyers have raised a concern about these conditions, as the road data
> use is supplied to our emergency services fire and ambulance.  We have not
> started using the information but we are implementing a system of
> validation and change detection, then produce an authoritative version for
> other agency consumption.*
> *Unlawful and other unauthorized uses include a clause "Operate dangerous
> businesses such as emergency services or air traffic control, where the use
> or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or
> significant property damage;" and "Store data available through the
> Services in order to evade these Terms (including aiding anyone else in
> doing so); or"*
>
> Please any advice would be greatly appreciated, ultimately we will enhance
> the overall content of OSM in the Victoria, but really do not want to cause
> problems later.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
> ___
> 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] What are the best practices for mass updating cycle paths?

[Andrew Harvey]

Exactly. It looks like the website might also show "cycle friendly" streets
which on the ground may have no infrastructure or signage, so not something
we would map.

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 10:52, Ben Kelley  wrote:

> Practically, using this data would be difficult I think.
>
> Partly because there is a lot of stuff already mapped. The other problem
> is that I have found Councils' web sites are a bit optimistic about how
> much of their planned cycling infrastructure actually exists. It's hard
> to know what is "on the ground" from their data sets.
>
>   - Ben.
>
>
> On 7/2/2023 10:40 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> > Hi
> > Looking further City of Sydney Data Hub is licenced CC By 4.0 but OSM
> > has been waiting on the waiver since 2020 "CC BY 4.0 - waiver sent
> > 01/12/2020, "considering your request" on 03/12/2020"
> >
> > The licence for the cycle network data links to 2 logos, a CC by 4.0
> > logo and a "Open Data" logo which I can only find 2 other occurrences
> > of in the net and no definitions.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >> Hi
> >> First check that its listed at
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources
> >> If not ykou probably need to get them to sign a release
> >> Tony
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I have been looking into cycle paths data in OSM and found that Sydney
> >>> doesn't seem to have this dataset:
> >>>
> https://data.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/datasets/cityofsydney::cycle-network/explore
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This data is focused on the city centre. Are there any
> >>> recommendations on
> >>> how I should get about this, or if there are any best practices or
> >>> guidance
> >>> when uploading datasets from official sources?
> >>>
> >>
>
> ___
> 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 Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 12:44, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

>
> Looking good. Given...
>
> Node:  traffic_sign=AU:R6-22
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3227568911
>
> Way:  low_gears:hgv=designated
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245284221
>
> Question:
>
> The tagging of the way  does not use the AU:R6-22 (signage) code. Can
> anyone elaborate on why this is?  They seem like conflicting tagging
> schemes.
>

You can if you like
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign#On_a_way_or_area.

One is tagging the exact sign (which is specific to Australia), the other
is tagging the restriction which the sign creates on the way (which could
apply globally).

Would someone be able to review this tagging...
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132233374


That looks okay. The wiki does say

In case of multiple signs separated by commas or semicolons, the prefix
should appear only once at the beginning (except if signs from different
prefixes are combined).

Which would be traffic_sign=AU:R6-22,G9-83

but how you have it should also be acceptable.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-transit] [OSM-talk] Automated Populate/Update Problem

[Andrew Harvey]

Yep you'll reach Victorian and Australian mappers better on talk-au as some
might not join the global talk list ->
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au.

I'll echo other's comments here, if you are planning or have done the
conflation I'd suggest sharing those results so the community can review
and share feedback.

On Wed, 28 Sept 2022 at 19:16, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> Given you are in Australia I would try the talk AU list as well. Maybe
> also the discord channels as there are a few Ozzie folks there in the
> Oceania channel with lots of transport experience.
>
> Cheers - Phil
> (On the phone so apologies for any typos)
>
> On 28 Sep 2022, at 6:36 pm, rob potter  wrote:
>
> 
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> I have read the guidelines.
>
> I'm in Victoria, Australia
>
> Rob
>
> On Wed, 28 Sept 2022, 18:07 Eugene Alvin Villar,  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I work for the state transport department
>>>
>>
>> Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but which state and which country?
>> Depending on the answer, there might be a local community that can help and
>> provide guidance as well with the conflation/import process.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eugene
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 3:24 PM rob potter  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I work for the state transport department and we are looking to become
>>> an active member of the community and as a first dataset we have focused on
>>> is our public transport stops, bus and tram initially and then stations.
>>>
>>> I would like your advice on how to achieve the outcome.
>>>
>>> There are a number of considerations:
>>>
>>>
>>>- Currently in the state there are ~9,100 highway:bus_stop
>>>   - our GTFS - stops.txt has ~27,000 stops
>>>   - the current accuracy of highway:bus_stop needs review.
>>>   - stops.txt location appears to be of a much better quality
>>>
>>> My initial thought was extract current, match data location, enrich what
>>> stops.txt has then create all new and remove existing as final step.
>>>
>>> I would guess there are people screaming NO!! if so, please advise
>>> of a viable way of making such a significant
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Rob
>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> t...@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 18:25, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> Hi Ben, Andrew, Graeme,
>
> Agree 100%, the hazard is the "steep descent" (or similar), which most
> likely (but not always) coincides with the include/gradient sign such as
> "15%" (and we might see "incline=-15" tag used as well).
>
> possible tags are:
>
> hazard=Descent  <-- because this is applicable to not just trucks!
> hazard=Steep Descent  <-- because this is applicable to not just trucks!
> hazard:hgv=Descent
> hazard:hgv=Steep Descent
> hazard:hgv=Steep Descent;Tilting
>
>
> incline=-15
> incline:forward=-15 < if you want to specify direction or is this
> implicit in just using incline and direction of the way anyway
>
>
>
> The "restriction" (assume that is the common OSM term Andrew?) or signage
> on the road is to use low gears.  Q: Tagged on a node and/or  way?
>

If there is an end sign, then I'd map it along the way as something like
`low_gears:hgv=designated`. Then I'd also map the traffic sign as a node,
either separate or on the way.


>
> What about
>
> traffic_sign:hvg=Use Low Gears
> traffic_sign:hvg=AU:Use Low Gears
> traffic_sign:hvg=Tilting
> traffic_sign:hvg=Use Low Gears;Tilting
>
>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign says "It is common to
use both human-readable values (like city_limit) as well as national
traffic sign IDs (like DE:310) where they exist."

It would just be traffic_sign=* not traffic_sign:hgv=*.

My preference would be to use the exact sign number, eg.

traffic_sign=AU:R6-22
traffic_sign=AU:R6-23
traffic_sign=AU:W8-201N

traffic_sign=AU:W1-205
traffic_sign=AU:W1-8-2
traffic_sign=AU:W1-8-3
traffic_sign=AU:W1-8-4
traffic_sign=AU:W1-8-5

Would anyone like me to create a mapillary challenge so we can tag a few of
> these examples?
>

Looks like Mapillary does detect some of this signage, under signs "Trucks
rollover" and "Steep descent", a MapRoulette challenge would be a great
idea.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Andrew Harvey]

Good point. If it's a restriction, it should be more like the maxspeed tag,
maxspeed:hgv=*

So something like low_gears:hgv=designated rather than using the hazard key.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 11:25, Ben Kelley  wrote:

> Just one thought on this:
>
> The "use low gears" it not itself the hazard. It is the steep hill that is
> the hazard (where the mitigation strategy for HGVs is to use low gears.
> Same for rollover/sharp bend.
>
>  - Ben
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 10:38, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> Thank You Greame,
>>
>> The  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards tag
>> seems very appropriate but in my mind, needs a :hgv namespace.
>>
>> still not sure on the actual values but...tag/values I would appreciate
>> feedback on:
>>
>> hazard:hgv=Use low gears
>> hazard:hgv=Long Steep Descent
>> hazard:hgv=Use low gears;Long Steep Descent
>>
>>
>> Another example I would appreciate feedback  are QLD "Tilting Truck
>> signs": https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/warning
>>
>> hazard:hgv=Tilting
>> hazard:hgv=High Risk Rollover
>> hazard:hgv= ?
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 11:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 10:40, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>>>
 There are other signage like "No Engine Breaking", could anyone propose
 a convention inline with the above that could be extended for such
 additional signage?

>>>
>>> Answering in reverse!
>>>
>>> I thought I remembered something about "quiet zones" for traffic, so did
>>> some searching & found:
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dlevel_crossing#Quiet_zones,
>>> but which has apparently never been used.
>>>
>>> Also found
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#Quiet_lanes
>>>
>>> The same idea could possibly be used as designation=quiet_zone, possibly
>>> with quiet_zone=hgv?
>>>
>>> Can anyone suggest the most appropriate way to take ways where the road
 is signed with "Use Low Gears"?

>>>
>>> & maybe the same concept as designation=low_gears?
>>>
>>> That one could even come in under
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards as
>>> hazard=low_gear_required?
>>>
>>> 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 Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Andrew Harvey]

Extending on what Phil said see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign. While I still think
we should have a separate hgv low gear tag, tagging the traffic sign would
be okay.

traffic_sign=AU:R6-22
traffic_sign=AU:R6-23

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 20:10, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> I think I have seen something whereby you can use the designations on this
> page (ie R6-22) for the actual signs but I could be completely wrong! May
> have been used in ref tagging?? I think it was in NSW somewhere.
>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
> *From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 January 2023 12:30 PM
> *To:* Andrew Hughes 
> *Cc:* OSM Australian Talk List 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 10:40, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
> There are other signage like "No Engine Breaking", could anyone propose a
> convention inline with the above that could be extended for such additional
> signage?
>
>
>
> Answering in reverse!
>
>
>
> I thought I remembered something about "quiet zones" for traffic, so did
> some searching & found:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dlevel_crossing#Quiet_zones,
> but which has apparently never been used.
>
>
>
> Also found https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#Quiet_lanes
>
>
>
> The same idea could possibly be used as designation=quiet_zone, possibly
> with quiet_zone=hgv?
>
>
>
> Can anyone suggest the most appropriate way to take ways where the road is
> signed with "Use Low Gears"?
>
>
>
> & maybe the same concept as designation=low_gears?
>
>
>
> That one could even come in under
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard#Traffic_hazards as
> hazard=low_gear_required?
>
>
>
> 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: [OSM-talk] Automated Populate/Update Problem

[Andrew Harvey]

Yep you'll reach Victorian and Australian mappers better on talk-au as some
might not join the global talk list ->
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au.

I'll echo other's comments here, if you are planning or have done the
conflation I'd suggest sharing those results so the community can review
and share feedback.

On Wed, 28 Sept 2022 at 19:16, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> Given you are in Australia I would try the talk AU list as well. Maybe
> also the discord channels as there are a few Ozzie folks there in the
> Oceania channel with lots of transport experience.
>
> Cheers - Phil
> (On the phone so apologies for any typos)
>
> On 28 Sep 2022, at 6:36 pm, rob potter  wrote:
>
> 
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> I have read the guidelines.
>
> I'm in Victoria, Australia
>
> Rob
>
> On Wed, 28 Sept 2022, 18:07 Eugene Alvin Villar,  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I work for the state transport department
>>>
>>
>> Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but which state and which country?
>> Depending on the answer, there might be a local community that can help and
>> provide guidance as well with the conflation/import process.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eugene
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 3:24 PM rob potter  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I work for the state transport department and we are looking to become
>>> an active member of the community and as a first dataset we have focused on
>>> is our public transport stops, bus and tram initially and then stations.
>>>
>>> I would like your advice on how to achieve the outcome.
>>>
>>> There are a number of considerations:
>>>
>>>
>>>- Currently in the state there are ~9,100 highway:bus_stop
>>>   - our GTFS - stops.txt has ~27,000 stops
>>>   - the current accuracy of highway:bus_stop needs review.
>>>   - stops.txt location appears to be of a much better quality
>>>
>>> My initial thought was extract current, match data location, enrich what
>>> stops.txt has then create all new and remove existing as final step.
>>>
>>> I would guess there are people screaming NO!! if so, please advise
>>> of a viable way of making such a significant
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Rob
>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Mapping surf breaks

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 18:18, Josh Marshall 
wrote:

> Are there any concerns on me taking the idea and running with it? It would
> be good at least to flesh out the wiki page on what tags can or should be
> applied. I already have a spreadsheet from the grommie on the various
> attributes of a surf break (left and right waves, tide/swell/wind
> required). Does this require a formal proposal?
>
> My own pause relates to how even though surf breaks are physical locations
> (would be mapped as either areas or points), they are tied to underwater
> features and topography such as reefs, not necessarily visible from the
> surface. And so will rely heavily on local knowledge. But if not rendered
> by default, there’s no problem with that, right?
>

It would be great to see surf breaks better mapped!

I would suggest just start tagging ones you know well, invent your own
tags, no proposal needed so you can be liberal with experimenting with the
tags and how the features are represented. Over time I'd recommend
documenting your tags on the wiki, if eventually into a proposal, to gain a
more global point of view and consensus.

natural=surf_break
surf_break=* (beach, reef, shipwreck, etc)
sport=surfing
name=* if named

Points or areas should be good. Would linear ways make sense sometimes?
Right hand side could indicate direction waves break?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 13:45, Jake Coppinger  wrote:

> > tl;dr - I’m interested in getting more surfing-centric tagging into
> OSM, hopefully leading to an open surfing map.
>
> As an avid surfer (Sydney region) and OSM contributor I love the sound of
> this!
>
> Something I note that is missing on the wiki (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dsurfing) is how to tag
> something when surfing *isn't* an option at a beach - the absence of
> `sport=surfing` on a beach node may just mean it hasn't been surveyed yet.
> Being able to query all surfable (or exclude non-surfable) beaches would be
> great for a road trip or choosing a campsite.
>
> For example, Brighton-Le-Sands never has waves as it's in Botany Bay.
> `sport=none` wouldn't make sense as it's a great spot for windsurfing (and
> beach cricket etc :D). Is there space for a tag like `surfing=unsuitable`
> or `waves=minimal` to be added to a `natural=beach`?
>

If we could start over I'd advocate for natural=coastline on the land/sea
border only, and natural=shoreline for other borders. Would it be safe to
assume beaches along the sea/ocean edge are surf beaches and beaches along
bays or harbours are not?

surfing=yes/no should act like the rest of the access tags, meaning are you
allowed to surf or not, rather than is it any good for surfing.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 16:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 13:17, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no because some
>> motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them.
>>
>
> & then you get situations like this:
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.535651543577=153.53896264714=17=1164980277280563=photo=0.3457481526763355=0.5159430950498471=2.6582278481012658
>
> then 100m further:
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.536232873317=153.53874804183=17=387825812412523=photo=0.4645538612648733=0.5690565818776447=1.5949367088607593
>
> which is tagged as: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115
>
> Yes, it works, I guess, but to my mind it looks ridiculous, & also errors
> in Osmose etc as an unconnected cycleway!
>

I would probably not model that way, the onramp should merge much sooner
with the motorway and that should be good enough, unless you start mapping
paint on the road.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 12:26, Little Maps  wrote:

> Hi folks, is there any consensus on how to tag cycling on motorway
> shoulders?
>
> In some places, the simple tag bicycle=yes (or no) is used.
>

We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no because some
motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them.

In others, the left hand shoulder is tagged as a cycle lane, using
> "cycleway=lane" or "cycleway:left=lane". Others have  used
> "cycleway=shoulder".
>

In addition to the general bicycle=* access tag, where bicycles are allowed
we should tag what kind of bicycle facility is there.

On the ground, the signs I know (in Vic and S NSW) usually read, "cyclists
> use left shoulder" and "emergency lane, bicycles excepted". It's not
> explicitly called a cycle lane in Vic or NSW road guidelines, only that
> bicycle access is permitted along the road shoulder (as on any other
> non-motorway road).
>

Based on that signage I would say cycleway=shoulder is more appropriate as
indicates the shoulder is the designated place for bicycles (as opposed to
cycling in the motorway vehicle traffic lanes).

Though sometimes it's not clear. Markings like
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=382158833064847 are common with marked
bicycle crossings which make it look more like a cyclelane than a shoulder
cyclists must use.


> In my mind, there's a big difference between tags that imply, "you're
> allowed to ride on the motorway" (as on any other road) versus, "there's a
> dedicated bike lane here".
>

Yeah agreed, hence the difference between the bicycle=* access tag and the
cycling facility cyleway=*.
___
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"?

[Andrew Harvey]

The hazard tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard seems like a
good fit to warn of crocs.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 at 01:57, Bob Cameron  wrote:

> The Gregory River Doomadgee Road crossing near Tirranna Springs Qld has
> a "not on foot" warning sign as the water over the causeway runs very
> fast. Hard to know if it's a legal direction though.
>

I think official signage telling you not to is sufficient for the access
tags, even if technically you may not be breaking any laws. This would line
up with the general guideline of mapping what's on the ground and not
mapping per legislation.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Head or point on non-coastal land

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 08:15, Tom Brennan  wrote:

> > natural=point only has some ~400 uses world wide, no wiki page so .. low
> > uses = no rendering. Choosing one of the additional tags will get
> > rendering .. but it should be appropriate to the feature not just
> > 'tagging for the render'
>
> So from a long term perspective, is it better to just keep marking them
> as "natural=point", and once there is a critical mass, pushing for
> rendering? I'm not really clear on whether tags are supposed to be
> defined first, or if it's just based on use.
>
> I'm not particularly fussed about whether or not they are rendered in
> the map. Rather, I'd like to see them in the data, in the most
> appropriate way.
>

Agreed, natural=point seems good. You can just start using the tag, though
is good if we can at some point create a wiki page, even better if we can
push it through a tagging proposal.
___
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?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 11:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> The other awkward one is when the POI's address is Level 5 of This
> Building. Should we include that as part of the address, usually under Unit
> Number, or just as level=*?
>

You should do both,

level=5 for indoor mapping to know which level the POI is on
addr:floor=5 indicates that the floor number forms part of the full address

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:floor describes this a bit.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to create an exception for buses where way tag is [parking:lane:left = no_stopping] ?

[Andrew Harvey]

I wouldn't worry about trying to map that because, if there is a bus stop
then the bus will always be able to stop to drop off / pick up customers
regardless of the no_stopping. Given this would likely be a general law or
regulation it wouldn't warrant specific tagging.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 at 15:22, David Vidovic via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In Sydney, we have a situation where buses service bus stops along the M2
> Motorway.
>
> Cars and Ride Share vehicles are not permitted to stop at these bus stops.
>
> To prevent vehicles stopping, I believe I can use the common tagging
> method [parking:lane:left = no_stopping] on a way segment
>
> BUT, I don't want this tag to prevent buses from being able to service the
> bus stop.
>
> Is there an exception tag or some other kind of tag that could allow buses
> to stop?
>
> Cheers,
> David
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Bicycle access tags in Victoria and other edits edits

[Andrew Harvey]

OSM never really had a good tag for truly shared foot/cycle paths, so it's
been long standing practice to use highway=cycleway + foot=designated +
bicycle=designated + segregated=no for shared paths. So by adding the
foot=designated and segregated=no tags they change highway=cycleway from a
bicycle only path to a true shared path.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 at 07:29, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Using the tag the tag highway = cycleway indicates that the route is
> designated for bicycles only.
> In Victoria, this is hardly the case as most paths are generally signed as
> shared paths. I’ve yet to come across a dedicated cycle path during my
> riding.
>
> regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
> On 17 May 2022, at 6:15 pm, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
>
> On 16/5/22 23:38, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:
>
> Can I please clarify "using highway=cycleway should only be used where
> there are signs allowing"?
>
> That is how I've always used it in urban areas.
>
>
> This would only apply in NSW/VIC. In other jurisdictions putting up signs
> has become pointless because you can ride anywhere. In Canberra almost none
> of the shared path system has explicit signage. I use cycleway to tag
> "primary" routes and footway for "secondary" routes.
>
> So this would be a cycleway:
>
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Bike_path_in_Dickson%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg/576px-Bike_path_in_Dickson%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg
>
> and this is a footway:
>
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Footpath_in_Hackett%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg/576px-Footpath_in_Hackett%2C_Canberra%2C_Australia.jpg
>
>
> ___
> 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] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[Andrew Harvey]

Thanks that's great. I changed them to use a caption, and tweaked the text,
but if you feel that's worse feel free to revert or let me know and I will.

On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 16:58,  wrote:

> 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] Australian Tagging Guidelines Footpath Cycling

[Andrew Harvey]

A highway=track without any other access tags is ambiguous, so you should
always tag either access=* or foot=*. An agricultural track on private
property should have access=private to prevent trespassing. A fire trail
which only authorised emergency services and land management vehicles can
use would be motor_vehicle=private, and if walkers are allowed then
foot=yes should be added to distinguish it from private property.

highway=path is for mixed use or unspecified modes, so foot=yes can help
make it clearer walkers are allowed, as some highway=path would be on
private property and access=no, so always best to explicitly tag the access.

On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 21:17, Ian Steer  wrote:

> 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] Brisbane Cricket Ground

[Andrew Harvey]

Yeah that looks good, I added some wiki and operator tags too
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/4049692

On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 19:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> I have made some tagging changes to 'The Gabba'
>
>
> Firstly I think this refers to both the playing and spectating area so
> have placed those tags on the outer way see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4049692.
>
> The building and playing areas remain but are not named.
>
> I have added a separate way for the cricket pitch and re tagged the AFL
> pitch as AFL only (using australian_football as per OSM requirements)
>
> I think this is correct? Anyone else?
>
>
> ___
> 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] MapRoulette - Propose Tag Change Based Challenges

[Andrew Harvey]

Did you see
https://github.com/osmlab/maproulette3/wiki/Cooperative-Challenges and
https://github.com/maproulette/mr-cli#generating-cooperative-tasks-with-tag-only-fixes
?

I referred to those guides previously for
https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm/-/blob/master/bin/findAbbrStreets.js
which created a MR challange to find and suggest fixes for abbreviated
street types in addr:street. You could probably do it just with the mr cli
tool but personally I found manually constructing the JSON more flexible.

On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 13:15, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm creating my first MapRoulette challenges as a learning exercise and
> they involve simply tag edits only.
>
> I found this vid that shows how to perform simple tag only edits in
> MapRoulette https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLlvp_3l97c
>
> Challenge is here https://maproulette.org/challenge/17664
>
> That being said, none of the features in the video appear when I start the
> challenge, nor can I find any documentation on how to create such a
> challenge.
>
> Does anyone know if/how these can be created/activated because they look
> fantastic.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew H
>
> p.s. MapRoulette + Overpass was super easy to get working with each
> others, really happy with it & now I just want to optimize the editing
> workflows.
> ___
> 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] Creating a Mapping Team?

[Andrew Harvey]

The organised editing guidelines at
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines should be
followed if the whole team is working together on mapping activities in a
coordinated way. Any questions feel free to ask.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 14:30, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Would anyone be able to please point me in the right direction? I am
> looking to learn more about mapping teams and how to create one for the
> National Heavy Vehicle Regulator  https://www.nhvr.gov.au/
>
> I have looked high and low, but I can't anything.
>
> 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] Wiki Clean Up Progress Update

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 20:28, Bob Cameron  wrote:

> Good stuff Dian!
>
> I don't know how widespread the problem is, but Garmin GPS navigation
> devices see no road surface tag as sealed. This can create routing stress
> for the driver and possibly safety issues. Might be worth mentioning that
> it's far better to default tag new roads in non urban areas as unpaved than
> no tag, if the surface is unknown.
>
No, that would be tagging for the renderer. It should be fixed by the
software/vendor to use a different default or simply display this to the
user as unknown surface. If the surface is not known it should have no
surface tag, and surface=paved/unpaved/etc only tagged when known.


> I use surface:fine_gravel in places. Problem is that the gravel eventually
> wears off and it becomes.. unpaved! Unpaved is also what one would use if
> sourcing only from overhead imagery. This all for another discussion though.
>
I'm still not sure the best way to tag gravelly rocky sandy soil and
usually just use unpaved.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Unclassified Highway Speeds

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 14:58, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

> 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.
>
I would agree that it's good practice to tag every road with a maxspeed.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_local_legislation_if_not_bound_to_specific_objects
does
seem to confirm that. Generally being more specific with your tagging
especially when confirmed on the ground is better.

Similar for surface=asphalt, it used to be the case that you wouldn't
bother tagging this as you assume it was the case if no surface was tagged,
but to improve data quality and to distinguish this from "yet to be
surveyed", and with the rise of editors like iD which give you an explicit
dropdown or checkbox and StreetComplete which asks for every feature and
needs an explicit tag to know it's been checked on the ground, it's more
acceptable to always tag.


> 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.
>

I think those are useful in addition to the maxspeed tag, as they indicate
if the maxspeed value came from a signpost/road marking, or due to implied
legal defaults eg in NSW residential roads are 50km/h unless otherwise
signposted.
___
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

[Andrew Harvey]

In addition to other suggestions, see also informal=yes/no
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal. Meaning it exists but
never specifically designed and built for that purpose and likely is not
officially maintained.

Generally I'd say that informal=yes would imply there is no operator=*, and
using an operator=* tag implies informal=no.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 18:37, 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

[Andrew Harvey]

How about your suggestion, assigning defaults based on urban/rural, which
you may be able to roughly assign based on buffering highway=residential?

Otherwise I think this will always be lacking in OSM until those maxspeed
tags are set.

In NSW we have some open data
https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/speed-zones but the usual
issues about the accuracy of that data applies, but perhaps it could be
used to fill in the blanks?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 11:54, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> We're using OSM and pgrouting and it's GREAT!
>
> Something that I have found difficult to come to terms with, is assigning
> a "default speed" for unclassified roads (without a maxspeed tag). This is
> because in metro area's these are most-likely to be 50kph. However, out in
> regional areas these are likely to be 100kph.
>
> *Examples:*
>
> Unclassified Roads in Brisbane: Likely to be 50kph (default)
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hLK
>
> Unclassified Roads in Yorke Peninsula Council: Likely to be 100kph
> (default)
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hLL
>
> *Question:*
>
> What would be the best approach to achieving a more realistic speed given
> the above (while also taking into consideration the tagging guidelines)?
>
> 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] Tagging bicycle on footpath laws Was: Re: HighRouleur edits

[Andrew Harvey]

> (Personally I do have a whole bunch of country, state and even
> county-specific adaptions for cycle.travel's routing, but I'm very aware
> that I'm the outlier. And I've never even heard of "def:*" tags.)
>

For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593
has def:highway=footway;access:bicycle=no best documentation I could find
was https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults so not a
very well developed tag but is in use in some places.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] JOSM multipolygon how-to?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 15:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Was going to mention a couple of days ago - it worked!!! :-)
>
> Was able to successfully create my lake with an island in it & have also
> added islands to other lakes already mapped as MP :sunglasses" :-)
>
> So thanks everybody for your help! :-)
>
> Another question though, thanks.
>
> I'm seeing some relations marked in JOSM as "incomplete":
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9728292#map=14/-28.1002/153.4320
> appears OK here, but not in JOSM?
>
> How do you fix something like that?
>

It means JOSM hasn't downloaded all the member ways, in one of the panels
on the right showing the relation, right clicking download incomplete
members will fetch them all.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging bicycle on footpath laws Was: Re: HighRouleur edits

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 14:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 12:50, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think this is getting too much into mapping regulations, we could just
>> have no bicycle tag and leave it to data consumers to apply the regional
>> defaults.
>>
>
> What would that do to bike routing?
>

Well your router would need to look up the specific default whether that's
something in the routing engine configuration, pulled from the OSM wiki, or
pulled from the Victoria state relation def:* tags.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Tagging bicycle on footpath laws Was: Re: HighRouleur edits

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 07:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 17:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bicycles are allowed on footpaths in Victoria   .  .  .
>>
>
> Which, to me, means that all footpaths should be bike=yes, as "some"
> people are allowed to ride on them, unless they are specifically signed as
> bike=no.
>

I think this is getting too much into mapping regulations, we could just
have no bicycle tag and leave it to data consumers to apply the regional
defaults.
___
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?

[Andrew Harvey]

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] HighRouleur edits

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Tony and Sebastian,

There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care
deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best
intentions to make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible. You're
both engaging in discussion of the actual changes so to me everything I see
is happening in good faith. From a DWG perspective it doesn't appear there
is any malice here.

Though there is clearly some disagreement about how certain things should
be mapped even when you both have a common agreement of what's on the
ground.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions provides
some useful definitions of bicycle access tags, personally in my view we
should be using
bicycle=designated where clearly signposted for bicycles weather that is by
paint or signage
bicycle=no where there is clear no bicycles signage

In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671174716 it does appear
to me to be ambiguous, so perhaps the best is exactly how it's currently
mapped without a bicycle tag at all? That said, if there is a signposted
bicycle route which takes you through that way I think that should be
enough to give it implied bicycle access, therefore bicycle=yes.

Is there a wider community view about this?

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 16:20,  wrote:

> Hi Sebastian
>
> Thanks for participating in this discussion.
>
> You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly
> permitted without signage".
>
> This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step
> with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly
> permitted without signage.
>
> I believe that your retagging, just on the absence of signage is
> unjustified. The DWG position is that the result could be right or
> wrong because of other indications which one would need a site
> inspection to find.
>
> You say "Your approach doesn't  follow the on the ground rule, as you
> insist on disputing map updates that are based what's on the ground or
> lack there of. Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no
> signage and SHOULD come to the same conclusion".
>
> Again, we disagree and I believe my position is the consensus view, if
> there is no signage other mappers might come to the same conclusion or
> to the opposite.
> I disagree with your reasoning. I think it is a misinterpretation of
> what is on the ground, that doesn't mean that my approach doesn't
> follow the on the ground rule.
>
> Thanks
> Tony
>
> > Tony
> >
> > I don?t understand why you have taken it upon yourself to have to
> > verify other edits.
> >
> > OSM data relies on being verifiable.
> > You and I recently both visited the same area / way, as I made a
> > correction to incorrect data from a previous mapper. The Mapillary
> > data you provided as part of the visit did not provide conclusive
> > evidence that the way is a cycle/shared path due to a lack of
> > signage. Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren?t explicitly
> > permitted without signage.
> > Your approach doesn?t  follow the on the ground rule, as you insist
> > on disputing map updates  that are based what?s on the ground or
> > lack there of.
> > Any other mapper can visit and verify that there is no signage and
> > SHOULD come to the you f same conclusion.
> >
> > It not clear why existing data in OSM hasn?t be verified for accuracy?
> > When I?m out riding I use it an opportunity to check and verify
> > data. There are a lot of footways with bicycle=yes and/or ways
> > assigned as sharedpaths however upon visiting the area it is
> > apparent that bike are not permitted.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> >> On 6 Apr 2022, at 10:29 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> >> ?Hi Sebastian and list
> >>
> >> I went out to Changeset: 118627943 and took photos. It is my belief
> >>  that a short section of bike route through park should be
> >> cycleway.  Sebastian disagrees, his changeset comment follows.
> >>
> >> Comment from HighRouleur about 5 hours ago
> >> From the Mapillary info provided, there doesn?t appear to be any
> >> signage permitting bicycles on said road.
> >> Given it forms part of a designated bike route perhaps bicycle =
> >> dismount might be the most appropriate.
> >>
> >> Sebastian was previously blocked by the DWG with an estimated
> >> 14,731 bicycle paths changed to bicycle=no  in 636 changesets. He
> >> no longer adds bicycle=no but still changes paths to footways.
> >>
> >> Sebastian continues to change shared paths and cycleways to
> >> footpaths and removes bicycle=yes solely on the basis of there not
> >> being explicit signage that bicycles are allowed. He has done 9
> >> such edits in the last 4 days.
> >>
> >> The DWG declines to act on the logic that without a site visit to
> >> check, the path might or might not be better described as a
> >> footway. I do not have the time to individually visit each of
> >> Sebastian's edits. I have had enough.
> >>
> >> So mapping 

Re: [talk-au] Precedence of alt naming

[Andrew Harvey]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground
on the ground should come first unless it's a typo (yes street signs
sometimes have typos) and other names in use as the alt_name.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 07:11, Bob Cameron  wrote:

> This might have been covered before..
>
> What is the consensus on precedence of alt_names, more for roads and
> waterways.
>
> Example, I sometimes come across (NSW) creek name formal signs that are
> quite different from what is shown on the DCS overlays. Is the primary
> name the "on the ground" one and the DCS one alt? or the reverse.
>
> It is also quite common to see suffixed "s" on names. Probably not that
> important, but worth asking.
>
> Tnx
>
>
> ___
> 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] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur

[Andrew Harvey]

The access tag doesn't really capture if it's private property or not. You
can have private property which is open to the public, and you can have
public lands closed to the public. So you can't really set the access tag
just on the basis of it being private land as it all depends how it's
signed or any implicit access restrictions.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 16:29, Sebastian Azagra Flores 
wrote:

> In using the tag access=permissive, how does one verify that access has
> not been revoked by the owner?
> In one of the changesets in question, the site clearly private property
> (as it is a retirement village)
> I would have thought that access=private would have been a better tag to
> use in lieu of destination.
>
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
> On 21 Mar 2022, at 1:44 pm, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22,  wrote:
>
>> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit
>> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the
>> access=destination tag.
>>
>> Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not
>> conform?
>>
>
> See also
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only
> and the linked discussion thread.
>
> Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the
> local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more
> "access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something
> signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset
> comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then
> I think it's reasonable to revert.
> ___
> 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] SA Open Data

[Andrew Harvey]

Which ones? The first three

Location SA Topographic Basemap
Location SA Imagery Imagery
Location SA Basemap

aren't listed as CC BY, and in Nov 2019 they confirmed these weren't under
CC BY, I can't see anything that says that's changed.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 15:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Just looking at SA Data in the catalogue.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue#South_Australia
>
> A few things are listed as Not under an Open Licence, while we have a
> waiver on other areas.
>
> Looking at the SA Open Data page, it appears to say that it is now all  
> Creative
> Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence
>  ? :
> https://data.sa.gov.au/
>
> If so, would our existing waiver also cover everything there, or would we
> need another / extra?
>
> 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] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22,  wrote:

> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit
> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the
> access=destination tag.
>
> Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not
> conform?
>

See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only
and the linked discussion thread.

Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the
local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more
"access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something
signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset
comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then
I think it's reasonable to revert.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 11:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Personally, yes, these & similar are the only times I would use that e.g.
> https://goo.gl/maps/ACMTnn6gQJTLz5NF6 (& as always, for illustration
> only!)
>

That sign looks like hgv=no. So no heavy goods vehicles, but anyone else
can use it. It's not related to the destination access value.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Use of Perth Transport data?

[Andrew Harvey]

Correct that the license is not compatible so we would need a specific
permission to use it. For starters the license is revocable, which is a
non-starter for OSM.

I have not requested it, I could try asking.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 at 10:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Suggestion was made on a Note that we could check bus stop details via
> https://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/About/Spatial-Data-Access.
>
> The Data Catalogue says "
> License not compatiable with ODbL
> & makes reference to a discussion a few years ago:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2018-February/011678.html
>
> Andrew H, you were going to contact them about it - any joy?
>
> 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] NSW school zone markings

[Andrew Harvey]

Correct, it's a school zone, not a general 40 area. See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#School_zones

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 at 19:28, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 19/3/22 16:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >
> > The yellow box says 40. Is that to indicate the start of the school
> > zone, or is it just a general limit for that street?
>
> I think it indicates a school zone rather than just a 40 zone:
>
>
> https://www.nsw.gov.au/topics/roads-safety-and-rules/road-lanes-lines-markings/road-lines-markings
>
> as there are a range of other exciting rules you can break in a school
> zone:
>
>
> https://bvt.dcs.dcs.skpr.dev/sites/default/files/2021-11/School_zone_offences.pdf
>
> >
> > 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] Mapping shared driveways

[Andrew Harvey]

I don't think we are going to have a single rule that always applies, but:

generally a shared driveway
- will break the highway=* gutter with a kerb ramp
- usually won't have a kerb
- usually on private land
- usually maintained by the owners
- letter boxes and garbage bins usually need to be taken out to the street
and not along the shared driveway
- not part of the public road network

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping shared driveways

[Andrew Harvey]

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

Re: [talk-au] Special event clearways and lane=*

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 07:17, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> I didn't. The thought was based on how people were tagging other
> variable lane counts: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gSc


Yeah and I think that's correct for reversible/tidal flow lanes where the
lane count in either direction or even in one direction changes throughout
the day where they open/close lanes on a schedule. I've used
lanes:conditional along with
lanes:forward:conditional/lanes:backward:conditional for this myself.

Maybe I am overthinking it. If you go with what the wiki says, then
> lanes=* is just a literal count of how many lanes are painted on the
> ground regardless of how often you can use them.
>

Yeah I think that's the way to do it, though for example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/252133052#map=18/-33.89141/151.20767 you
can see on the imagery the western side of the road has much shorter dotted
lines so likely this lane is only for parking and not meant for regular
traffic flow, in which case it wouldn't be included in the lane count in my
opinion. In contrast to the road from
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2551595 where it's painted as a regular
lane and is used as a regular lane during special events so it's a full
traffic flow lane but mostly used for parking.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Special event clearways and lane=*

[Andrew Harvey]

Looking at the note and the imagery I would say it's definitely

lanes=4 (if no one was parked there then you could use all 4 lanes for
driving)
psv:lanes=designated|yes|yes|yes ("Bus Lane")
access:lanes=no|yes|yes|yes (you can't use the left lane, unless you are a
psv)

parking:lane:right=parallel (parallel parking is available on the right
side of the road)
paring:lane:right:parallel=on_street (per the wiki "As a rule of thumb, if
the parking cars are on the part of the road that is traversible, i.e. that
could and would otherwise be used by traffic, it is parking on_street. If
not, it is parking street_side.")
parking:condition:right:conditional=ticket @ (Mo-Fr 08:00-22:00;Sa-Su,PH
08:00-22:00) (you need a ticket to park here during those times
parking:condition:right=free (free parking, except for those times listed
in the conditional)
parking:condition:right:maxstay:conditional=2 hours @ (Mo-Fr 08:00-18:00);
4 hours @ (Mo-Fr 18:00-22:00; Sa-Su,PH 08:00-22:00)

I think we need an additional tag to say the parking described in
parking:lane:right is part of the lane count.

I don't know how we could tag the special event clearway as obviously we
can't tag the specific times they apply because they are so variable and
ever changing, we probably need a new tag to simply say it's designated as
a clearway for special events only. We should tag this, just not sure
exactly how.

Where did you find the wiki suggesting lanes:conditional?

On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 19:18, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> There is a note on Chalmers St:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2551595
>
> where the question was how many lanes does this road have?
>
> Normally I'd say:
>
> lanes=3
> lanes:conditional=2 @ ()
>
> the wiki suggests:
>
> lanes=4
> lanes:conditional=3 @ ();2 @ ()
>
> because it wants to count the special event clearway. Now the problem is
> that I don't know what to put in as a condition for 3 @ () as it is
> arbitrary ie: whenever someone decides to type something into the system.
>
> Do people have an opinion about which option to use:
>
> lanes=3 ... and ignore the clearway
> lanes=4 ... and come up with something for the condition
>
> or
>
> lanes=3 and use the same condition for 4 @ () with the idea that if
> the condition can't be parsed at least it will default to 3.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 Notes

[Andrew Harvey]

I'm not referring to any specific note here, but probably the most common
use of the Notes feature is when something needs confirmation on the
ground, so resolving it without actually going there on the ground to check
goes against what it was opened for, and generally I think should be left
open until it's checked on the ground.

Other notes may be able to be resolved remotely which you and Andrew
Davidson have made excellent progress with.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 11:24, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Is it just me, or is anybody else getting a bit annoyed with the efforts
> of one person in continually reactivating Notes, often for trivial,
> non-sensible reasons?
>
> Have a look at the first 15 or so on the list here for comments, plus a
> few that have been re-resolved.
>
> https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Australia
>
> The same person was mentioned earlier in the month or re-opening Notes
> that in one case refer to something that may happen in a few years time, &
> another referring to arguments between Council, a property developer &
> local residents:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-March/015908.html
>
> In both these cases, I've tried to explain to them that it's not an OSM
> problem, but they've reactivated them again anyway :-(
>
> So which is it, am I closing things that should stay open, or is this
> person being a pain?
>
> 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] Fwd: Assistance with ongoing disagreement regarding intersections

[Andrew Harvey]

I agree that the ways should only be split for a physical separation, and
turn lanes should use turn:lanes and legality of changing lanes
change:lanes as Thorsten points out.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OSM Notes

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 17:16, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 1:46 PM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> > For example,
>
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2684418 a street library won't be
> visible on aerial imagery, you either need to confirm on the ground or use
> street level imagery. If it's unable to be verified remotely best to leave
> it open for someone on the ground to verify it.
>
> I'm not exactly sure why this particular mapper works this way. So far
> this year we have closed 503 of their notes. About 300 of them
> resulted in some sort of edit to the map and another ~120 of them had
> already been mapped. The other 80 are a mixture of out of date
> information, comments about things that were no longer on the map,
> wanting to add things that are temporary, information that was wrong,
> and things that could not be confirmed. Overall we have managed to
> deal successfully with 85% of their material.
>
> Now as you have pointed out this is an active mapper and given the
> nature of the notes they have created they are in effect outsourcing
> their mapping to others. So far this year they will have received 500+
> emails from the OSM system which means they will be well aware that
> people have been processing their notes. If they think that some of
> their notes have been incorrectly handled they are welcome to do their
> own mapping or at least reactivate them.
>
> I have also encountered at least another two mappers who seem to have
> adopted the same method of operations, opening many notes but not
> actually dealing with them.
>

I get it, they add a lot of notes, but from what I've seen mostly they are
helpful. If someone wants to add notes with the lane count and turn lanes
of every intersection but not actually follow through and edit, that's
fine. We should be encouraging, not discouraging it. They probably just
want to help OSM but might feel too overwhelmed to edit or maybe only have
the time to add the note and not edit the map.


>
> >
> > Though I realise it's not always easy and at some point it makes sense
> to close the note as unactionable.
>
> This is where the problem lies. The map note system is a terrible
> issues management system. All we have to play with for filtering and
> managing these is location and a binary status (open/closed). So the
> more notes hanging around the harder it is to manage them. You only
> need to look at the note stats for Germany or the USA to see what
> happens once they start to build up.


Sure it would be nice to add tags to issues to say, "needs survey", some
people are using hashtags like #surveyme for this.


> So it comes down to the question
> of what is the point of keeping:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2440403
>
> or
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2079710
>
> open? They are just noise that is hiding the signal. If we had some
> system of managing them then you could leave them all open, but at
> present there isn't even an easy way of finding your own notes that
> are still open.
>

Sure some are worth closing if they are indecipherable or not something
that can be mapped, I'm just trying to point out that while it's
commendable that people are trying to close notes (really this is great),
our goal should not be to close all notes from the armchair and it's okay
to leave those open that need further ground truthing.


> >
> > StreetComplete asks about open notes.
>
> Based on the default settings it only asks about notes that are posed
> as questions.
>

Correct, and some people change their settings to see all notes. I think
OSMAnd has an option to show notes and probably other apps too.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OSM Notes

[Andrew Harvey]

For example,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2381617, tracks in the bush often aren't
visible from imagery, so it needs a ground survey to add them.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2684418 a street library won't be
visible on aerial imagery, you either need to confirm on the ground or use
street level imagery. If it's unable to be verified remotely best to leave
it open for someone on the ground to verify it.

Though I realise it's not always easy and at some point it makes sense to
close the note as unactionable.

StreetComplete asks about open notes.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 12:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Thanks, Andrew, & not disagreeing!
>
> But when there's a Note still there from ~4 years ago that says "Path", &
> when we look, there's a path already mapped 20m away from that note tag, do
> we assume that that is the path in question so close the note as resolved,
> or hope that somebody will get there sometime to check it out, although
> nobody has apparently yet looked at it in the last 4 years?
>
> & it gets worse in remote areas. Which mapper is going to trek 10k in from
> the nearest road (or for some of them out West, 100+k!) to confirm that
> there is a track (that doesn't appear on any imagery or Govt sources)
> running from here to there?
>
> At least partially, some of the problem is that Notes are invisible unless
> deliberately activated. Any of us could have 100 of them within 5k of our
> home, which could be easily checked, but not know about them, so never
> check & resolve them.
>
> & then, over these last several days, I'm seeing a few notes being
> reactivated (often by people with user names but 0 edits) but with no
> comment as to why they've reactivated them? I wonder if some people think
> that they have to have a note on the map to show that "this is here"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 19:08, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> While there has been a lot of good work going on with these notes, I
>> would like to point out that many are there because they need a ground
>> survey to check. So the goal should not be to get open notes to zero only
>> from airchair mapping. If it's not something that's actionable without a
>> survey then best leave it open as many apps ask users on the ground to
>> comment on open notes and some mappers look at them for their local area.
>>
>> There was some concern raised about this on the Oceania discord channel
>> and I've noticed myself, so wanted to raise it here.
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 15:46, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 10:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I write this, there are now 3543
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry if I'm boring any of you? :-), but thought I'd update this to
>>> mention that after another 11 days, we are now at 2460!
>>>
>>> & please check out the graph :-) - I'm waiting eagerly for the
>>> cross-over that has to be due any day now! :-)
>>>
>>> https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Australia
>>>
>>> The oldest Notes have also jumped from 2013 to ~30 still outstanding
>>>> from 2017,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now at two tricky ones from 2018, + 24 others prior to 2019, all with
>>> questions asked on them.
>>>
>>> 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] OSM Notes

[Andrew Harvey]

While there has been a lot of good work going on with these notes, I would
like to point out that many are there because they need a ground survey to
check. So the goal should not be to get open notes to zero only from
airchair mapping. If it's not something that's actionable without a survey
then best leave it open as many apps ask users on the ground to comment on
open notes and some mappers look at them for their local area.

There was some concern raised about this on the Oceania discord channel and
I've noticed myself, so wanted to raise it here.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 15:46, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 10:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> As I write this, there are now 3543
>>
>
> Sorry if I'm boring any of you? :-), but thought I'd update this to
> mention that after another 11 days, we are now at 2460!
>
> & please check out the graph :-) - I'm waiting eagerly for the cross-over
> that has to be due any day now! :-)
>
> https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Australia
>
> The oldest Notes have also jumped from 2013 to ~30 still outstanding from
>> 2017,
>>
>
> Now at two tricky ones from 2018, + 24 others prior to 2019, all with
> questions asked on them.
>
> 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] People's views on naming on and off ramps.

[Andrew Harvey]

Something like "Mickleham Road Offramp" sounds like a description to me
rather than a name. Unless the ramp has a special name just for the ramp
that is different to either road, then I think we should leave off the
name, and as you suggest use the existing destination tag and/or
destination_sign relation. We have
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_junction to
indicate any exit number. I've never seen "X Road Offramp" actually
signposted, is usually just a destination sign.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 12:15, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> It appears that people like to make up names for on and off ramps. By
> made up I mean the "names" don't appear on other maps nor are they
> signed. Normally I just don't pay attention to them but we have a note:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3064262
>
> asking what "name" should be on an off-ramp and I don't know what the
> answer is.
>
> Do people have a view on how these should be mapped? Are they something
> we should be using the destination tagging for rather than using names?
> Could we come up with some words to go in the guidelines?
>
> ___
> 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] 2377 occurrences of fixme="unknown type of water crossing"

[Andrew Harvey]

What would you like them to do? A fixme tag is very low impact, though I
agree at a certain point adding fixmes en masse is not helpful when you
could already assume from the data that it's incomplete.

There was a suggestion to add this to StreetComplete
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/3749 but
unfortuantly it's not available yet.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 19:31, Ewen Hill  wrote:

> Graeme,
>I'm with you for sending it back to them Graeme. I'm trying to clean up
> the Mawson and the Heyson trails where there are clearly no culverts and
> you wouldn't expect a culvert at all. Warin is correct that there can be a
> small pipe or two under the road in some instances to allow limited flow
> under the road but when it rains, it is designed primarily as a ford. You
> would only see this on key roads and not the tracks that most of these are
> on.
>
>I'm hoping that there can be better due diligence when uploading
> significant changes by adding a small set and requesting feedback.
>
> Ewen
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 14:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 13:02, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> Giving it back to "the Organisation" responsible, telling them that's not
>> acceptable & asking them to fix it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>
> --
> Warm Regards
>
> Ewen Hill
>
> ___
> 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?

[Andrew Harvey]

Sounds good to me, if there's anything that could be controversial like
specific tagging recommendations then feel free to either raise on the talk
page or on this list.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 18:03, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

> 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

Re: [talk-au] Strange Street type (Pltn)

[Andrew Harvey]

Sounds like it should be tagged as a destination then
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination rather than as a
road/track name.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 13:45, Mark Rattigan  wrote:

> Further to my last, the note/sign is likely in reference to the Pinus
> radiata forest planted by the WA's Forests Department on the
> former/historic Southampton Homestead property:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_homestead
>
> The signposted track looks to go directly to such a forest.
> It's not a named track according to Landgate, so I think it may be a
> poorly executed direction sign.
>
> Cheers
> Mark
>
> --
> *From:* Mark Rattigan 
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 February 2022 1:16 PM
> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org ; Graeme
> Fitzpatrick 
> *Subject:* Re: Strange Street type (Pltn)
>
> My guess would be Plantation, given the pine forests in the area.
>
> Cheers
> Mark
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:55:32 +1000
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> To: OSM-Au 
> Subject: [talk-au] Strange street type
> Message-ID:
>  54eid+...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Another question re Notes!
>
> On https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1688984#map=19/-33.93526/116.02726,
> the OP commented "Southampton Pltn".
>
> I asked what that meant & they said it was what was on the sign?
> https://postimg.cc/TpwrMCRZ
>
> Any thoughts on Pltn?
>
> The only thing I can think of could be Platoon, but that's usually only Pl,
> or sometimes Pln / Plt.
>
> There is a group of buildings & a water tank just down the road the sign is
> pointing to which "could" relate to Rural Firies, which "could" then relate
> to Platoon, but that's definitely a bit of a stretch!
>
> Any thoughts, especially from you Sandgropers? :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220221/0ae7a137/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
>
> ___
> 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] Shared Zones (Or, Living Streets in car parks?)

[Andrew Harvey]

Yeah I tend to agree that sometimes the road is more appropriately tagged
based on it's hierarchy (eg. highway=service + service=parking_aisle,
highway=service + service=alley, etc) rather than living_street just
because it's signed as a shared zone.

For shared zone signs you should always add foot=designated +
motor_vehicle=designated (possibly bicycle=designated depending on the
sign) which reflect the shared and designated access modes.

I think the existing designation tag
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation is the most appropriate
in this case, so designation=shared_zone.

I think there is still a case for some highway=living_streets but agree
just because there is the sign doesn't mean it should always be
highway=living_street.

If there's no disagreement here then we can update the tagging guidelines.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Sydney bus stops

[Andrew Harvey]

I like the idea of local_ref for the stand letter and ref for the bus stop
number.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 15:38, Stéphane Guillou via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Here from Meanjin/Brisbane, I've often struggled with naming bus stops,
> and I'm keen to learn more.
>
> I've switched between using what's on the sign (seen from afar), or on the
> timetable (often longer form). And using differing keys like: name,
> alt_name, short_name. So would love to have a better idea of what to do and
> what the de-facto or agreed-upon convention is...
>
> On thing that I noticed and that might factor in - although it's bordering
> on mapping for the renderer: the Transport Map layer on the OSM website
> visually "joins" bus stops that share the same name, which I find is a very
> helpful hint on the map. It looks like:
>
>- It does it by exact name match, like here:
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.48698/153.01086=T
>- But not by reference, like here (Raven St - 12 stop):
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=20/-27.48591/153.00169=T
>
> Probably something that the renderer could be improved on, but thought I'd
> mention it here because it makes me wonder if there are other data
> consumers who rely on bus stop name matches, and then make use of a
> separate tag like local_ref for the precise stand/platform (if needed).
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:local_ref
>
> Cheers
> On 2/2/22 19:01, Warin wrote:
>
>
> On 2/2/22 18:24, cleary wrote:
>
> I suggest leaving the bus stop ID number in the format that Andrew
> initially stated, ref=20 (rather than ref:stand=A)
>
> As a regular used of buses (pre-covid), I think "Stand A" etc needs to be
> part of the name.  At some locations, the stands are a block or more apart
> (such as the multiple Martin Place and Town Hall bus stops in Sydney and
> the many different stops at major suburban transport interchanges).   Each
> "stand" needs to clearly identified as a separate stop.
>
> Each stand has its own ID number.  While the signposts at stops generally
> give greater prominence to "Stand A", "Stand B" or sometimes "Stand B1",
> Stand B2" etc, the six or seven digit reference numbers seem to be more
> prominent in the public transport apps and have a necessary place in the
> OSM database.
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
> I think the 'Stand *' should come before the location. Why? Because the
> location can be determined by the lat/lon in the data base or its location
> on a map. The 'Stand x' though is not something that can be determined by
> lat/lon/location.
>
>
> The reference number is handy in getting a route from the web route
> planner - the from and too fields can be used with the ref number rather
> than typing the name.
>
>
> I recall having this conversation before on this list.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022, at 2:24 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1128912626 is an okay example, with
> ref being the Stop ID, and name being the stop name with the stand
> number appended to the end.
>
> So in your case,
>
> ref=20
> name=Kings Cross Station Darlinghurst Rd, Stand A
>
> I don't think this is perfect but probably the best compromise
> currently. We could consider something like ref:stand=A.
>
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 11:49, Mat Attlee 
>  wrote:
>
> What is the convention for tagging Sydney bus stops? I stumbled upon one
> but not sure how to tag the stop number and the stand letter so put those
> details in the note field
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9465614221
> ___
> 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
>
> --
> Stéphane Guillouhttp://stragu.gitlab.io/
>
> You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 
> is available on the keys.gnupg.net server.
>
> Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page: 
> http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/
>
> ___
> 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] Bus stops shelter and cover

[Andrew Harvey]

Going by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter I would say yes.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 14:31, Mat Attlee  wrote:

> Whilst surveying around Sydney I've noticed that many bus stops are
> already tagged as having a shelter. However many of these don't have a
> dedicated bus shelter though they are covered by a roof from an adjacent
> building. Would it be better to tag them as shelter=no and covered=yes?
> ___
> 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] NSW Fire stations

[Andrew Harvey]

The tag suggestion is done by iD from the entry in the name suggestion
index (NSI) at
https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/3563775a990e3bc4e57d1656c87807124e39c3bc/data/operators/amenity/fire_station.json#L555-L568

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 13:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Just working on fixing some tagging I did a while back on NSW Fire
> Stations (I tagged the buildings as building=fire_station, but then
> obviously hit "Q" to square them, because they're shown as =fire_stationq
> :-()
>
> The fire-station tag is wanting to do an auto upgrade to include the
> operator:wikipedia=Fire and Rescue NSW, which is fine, but then it's also
> trying to update that again to Fire and Rescue New South Wales, but it
> won't, I guess because the wikidata code is already there?
>
> Where is this sort of auto-update done from - iD / Carto / Somewhere else?
>
> 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] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

[Andrew Harvey]

I think either awtgs= or hiking_scale:awtgs= are fine, I'd say just pick
one and start a wiki page describing the tag and how it's used.

As I raised before I'm still not sure about how it would apply to
individual ways vs route relations and if it's only tagged based on
officially assigned values or if mappers can evaluate and decide the value
on their own.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 10:23, Ian Steer  wrote:

> G’day all,
>
>
>
> I’m trying to recall where we got to (if anywhere) on a consensus of how
> to tag walking tracks with the Australian Walking Track Grading System
> (AWTGS) scale??
>
>
>
> I originally tagged then with awtgs=x.  A well meaning guy in Germany then
> deleted them thinking someone had made a typo in entering a tag and
> suggested:
>
> - using “hiking_scale:awtgs:  (as there were “hundreds of hiking_scale:”
> tags in use in the European Alps”)
>
> - entering it into “the Wiki”
>
>
>
> I would like to get a consensus so I can reinstate my tags.
>
>
>
> regards
>
>
>
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Sydney bus stops

[Andrew Harvey]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1128912626 is an okay example, with ref
being the Stop ID, and name being the stop name with the stand number
appended to the end.

So in your case,

ref=20
name=Kings Cross Station Darlinghurst Rd, Stand A

I don't think this is perfect but probably the best compromise currently.
We could consider something like ref:stand=A.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 11:49, Mat Attlee  wrote:

> What is the convention for tagging Sydney bus stops? I stumbled upon one
> but not sure how to tag the stop number and the stand letter so put those
> details in the note field
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9465614221
> ___
> 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] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 15:27, stevea  wrote:

> But to conflate two wholly different semantics into one key, mmm, not
> generally a good idea.
>

But that's exactly what the AWTGS does, it conflates a bunch of independent
variables together, it generally works where the harder trails are longer
and steeper and more remote, but breaks down for long walks which are flat,
easily accessible, easy to navigate and not remote. However, it's in use as
an official grading system, so it's fine to map it at least in the case
where it's officially assigned. Data consumers can decide if they want to
use it or use more attributes for each specific trail difficulty variable.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Andrew Harvey]

The awtgs= tag looks fine on it's own, a simple wiki page with basic info
about the tag would help people know how to use it and less likely someone
will misunderstand it like your German friend.

1. Would the tag be reserved for tagging officially assigned AWTGS values?
Or when not officially assigned a value left to mappers to decide the grade
value? If the latter, how would you separate those officially assigned from
those not? Perhaps awtgs:operator= with the organisation who assigned the
grade?

2. Does the AWTGS system apply more to routes than way segments? For
example a longer route loop might have a higher grade than a shorter loop
even if they overlap for parts. Would you then only apply AWTGS on a
route=hiking relation, or do you also tag on each way but only set the
higher grade to the parts of the walk which go beyond the easier shorter
sections (based on the example)?

The main reason I don't like the AWTGS is because it conflates
independent measures like surface, gradient, distance, navigational
difficulty, remoteness/preparedness. I think the ideally tagging system
would tag these attributes independently and then you could automatically
calculate an overall grade based on the highest value.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:45,  wrote:

> I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading
> System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire
> Management -
> https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system).
> The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.
>
>
>
> It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, QLD
> and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.
>
>
>
> I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a
> “Class”) as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted those
> tags without reference to me!)
>
>
>
> Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1:
> Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to read
> the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the AWTGS.  Other
> documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as having 6 levels
>
>
>
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Address corrections

[Andrew Harvey]

I would be fine with this kind of bulk edit, so long as you confirm each
value and you're sure it's really a suburb and not a city (you can just
select all with the same value, then check that). As far as I'm aware
Australia only uses suburb / locality for addressing and not the city.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:24, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> I am just checking addresses in Tasmania and have found many with
> addr:city versus the correct addr:suburb. I suspect this is from early ID
> editor prior to defining AU settings on address values. Is it OK to do
> suburb by suburb bulk edits of this key? Tasmania only has a few cities and
> the details are not used in addressing.
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
> ___
> 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] Consistent addr:state format?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> & to clarify, we only need to include the street address for anything, &
> not the suburb / town / city?
>

Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they
should not be Australia wide from an import), then data consumers can infer
the rest of the attributes. Check out Nominatim,
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=6496603926=place
it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, postcode, state.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 16:53, tabjsina  wrote:

> In this case I intend to specifically only update tags that already have
> a state field defined, rather than populating the empty ones. Andrew, do
> you think that adjusting the existing tag values to match the VIC
> majority would go against the coming data import plans you mentioned?
>

That's fine, anyone can still add them manually for new addresses or you
can tidy up existing ones, the discussion only meant that I won't be doing
a bulk addition or upgrade of addr:state as part of the import. Any
existing addr:state tags are ignored as far as the import code goes so no
issue there.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Andrew Harvey]

Many people would be mapping because iD has a template which includes
state, so people see an empty field and try to enter more complete
information. Many people new to OSM don't know that addresses inherit state
and suburb from the existing boundaries.

>From the VIC address import work there was opposition to including
addr:state so this hasn't been included (I'm hoping to finalise that with
the final import files and import date very soon), and it was proposed
removing the suburb and state fields from the address template in iD. Also
in that thread there were a few reasons given for also including the
state/suburb tags (easier to obtain this info when querying specific
addresses, saves further processing work).

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 10:30, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Is there any advantage to tagging addresses with the state when the
> state is already well defined in OSM and the state for a given address
> location can be obtained from existing map data?
>
> I'm not criticising Justin's work - improved consistency is good. I'm
> asking the open ended question: is there a better way of recording this
> data that avoids duplication?
>
> Regards,
> Kim
>
> On 29/1/22 23:56, tabjsina wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies
> > if I'm doing it wrong :)
> >
> > I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to
> > confirm updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia
> > to "WA", if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already
> > "WA", 9% were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase),
> > and the remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a
> > suburb/city name.
> >
> > Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed
> > that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym,
> > NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full
> > name.
> >
> > Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the
> > rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes
> > sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD,
> > VIC, SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital
> > Territory, etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise
> > this value at all.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Water tanks as buildings?

[Andrew Harvey]

In JOSM you can select by tag using Search, and then update tags bulk
accordingly (after checking to make sure you're only modifying those
intended), not sure if you can do this in iD.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 15:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Just working on notes & one of them took me here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-35.73637/137.59784
>
> Started wondering what the little "reservoirs" were along the beach?, then
> noticed that the same mapper who did them, has also tagged all the
> rain-water tanks around the houses as man_made=storage_tank, but also as
> building=yes.
>
> All done a year ago as part of the HOT Fire project, & they apparently
> haven't mapped since.
>
> Backyard water tanks definitely aren't buildings, so is there any easy way
> of fixing this, without just deleting the buildings one by one?
>
> 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