Re: [talk-au] Track route names used to name paths

[Warin]

Hi,


I'm specifically talking of hiking paths.




Highways I think are already mapped correctly ... digging one out now ..

The Great Western Highway exists as a route of 682 members

Most of the members carry the same name as the route. But some carry 
other names



Such as;

Way: Stewart Street (176174126)     "alt_name"="Great Western Highway"

Way: Durham Street (228061611)    "alt_name"="Great Western Highway"

Way: Sydney Road (375627444)     "alt_name"="Great Western Highway"


The DCS Base Map  agrees in that  'Great Western Highway' does not 
appear in these sections but the name now appearing in OSM is used.


I checked Coles Express Bathurst - their address is given as Durham 
Street not Great Western Highway ... so Durhams Street is used in 
preference to Great Western Highway here.




On 16/5/24 20:23, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Warin

I would expect the highest order entity, the longest or biggest 
entity, to be the primary name. For example the Hume Highway will 
include a lot of High Streets, Station Streets or Main streets of 
country towns. In my mind its first the Hume Highway and secondly High 
Street wherever. I havent given it a lot of thought, its just how it 
feels.


Tony


HI,

On some paths route signs have been used to 'name' the path.


One example is the 'Great North Walk', a Sydney to Newcastle walking
route, where many of the paths existed before the route was created. I
think this is a combination of mistaking the route signage as the track
name and route relations not rendering.


In the Blue Mountains some paths have more than one OSM way - each with
different 'name', at least some of these are routes that may, I repeat
may, not be the true path name.


Example

Way 1199677262 - 'Grand Clifftop Walk'

Way 22761613 - 'Overcliff Track' Note NPWS route 'Overcliff-Undercliff
track' .. the over cliff track is mapped separately in OSM. A route
relation could be made with both these tracks and a website link..

--

In the Blue Mts where there are overlayed ways and one of them is a
route I think it would be best to remove that way and include the
remaining way in a route relation .. I think most of this is the 'Great
Cliff Top Walk' route and that would then remove the double overlayed
ways. .


Thoughts/comments ???



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

_
This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning







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

[talk-au] Track route names used to name paths

[Warin]

HI,

On some paths route signs have been used to 'name' the path.


One example is the 'Great North Walk', a Sydney to Newcastle walking 
route, where many of the paths existed before the route was created. I 
think this is a combination of mistaking the route signage as the track 
name and route relations not rendering.



In the Blue Mountains some paths have more than one OSM way - each with 
different 'name', at least some of these are routes that may, I repeat 
may, not be the true path name.



Example

Way 1199677262 - 'Grand Clifftop Walk'

Way 22761613 - 'Overcliff Track' Note NPWS route 'Overcliff-Undercliff 
track' .. the over cliff track is mapped separately in OSM. A route 
relation could be made with both these tracks and a website link..


--

In the Blue Mts where there are overlayed ways and one of them is a 
route I think it would be best to remove that way and include the 
remaining way in a route relation .. I think most of this is the 'Great 
Cliff Top Walk' route and that would then remove the double overlayed 
ways. .



Thoughts/comments ???



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

Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

[Warin]

On 29/4/24 18:31, Andrew Welch via Talk-au wrote:


Considering there's also a "hanger" there that doesn't seem to be 
visible on any aerial imagery I just checked, I'm in favour of 
deleting it. It just doesn't seem to actually exist, and I question 
where the name came from.





Way: 1156139112
  Edited at: 2023-03-21T20:21:19Z
  Tags:
    "aeroway"="runway"
    "surface"="grass"


I agree, it does not seem to exist - there are 2 fence lines running 
through it and a tree growing in it... don't see any near it either.



The mapper has made few edits, looks to be making helipad edits now...

Looking at his edits they do not look to be based only on imagery ... 
and they are widely spread across the country.


I have asked for the source on one of the more recent edits.


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

Re: [talk-au] farm airstrips

[Warin]

On farms I only map the runway as a runway not an airport. I have not 
resorted to an access tag...


They would be used by the RFDS when required.



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

Re: [talk-au] Mass Edit Proposal - South Australia's Arterial Traffic Network

[Warin]

On 3/3/24 23:19, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 3/3/24 09:13, Daniel O'Connor wrote:

Can't be stuffed registering to add comments on that thread.


Please do. 


That thread is now closed... 'personal attacks'.


I don't think the gov data will have 'all roads' ... some of them are 
'private' but still present in OSM.



There is considerable variation between what people think is a 
particular road classification is. Having said that .. most people are 
not too worried about the variation as outback road conditions change so 
much with traffic and weather.



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

Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests

[Warin]

On 7/1/24 17:03, Little Maps wrote:

Thanks folks, I’ll use just leisure=nature_reserve, as suggested. 
landuse=forest will probably only be needed for plantations now I guess. Ewen, 
many of the OSM State Forest boundaries in Vic are ‘guesstimate’ boundaries 
that were first mapped many years ago. Some are really rough and very 
approximate. The Wombat SF boundary includes lots of obvious private land in 
many places. At least it’s a lot easier to see the problems when the admin 
boundary is mapped separately from the vegetation patterns, after 
landuse=forest is replaced by nature reserve and a separate wood layer.



+1 on separation of land use and land cover being a 'good thing'.


The Vic Forests ban on logging is 'only' for native forests, so any 
radiator pine would still be landuse=forest? Don't know about the blue 
gum plantations, probably excluded from the 'native' bit due to being 
'plantations'.


Possibly the native forests presently under the control of Vic Forests 
might be moved to some other government body... wait and see for the 
changes.



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

Re: [talk-au] Road corridors with no road - what access?

[Warin]

On 11/12/23 22:55, Tom Brennan wrote:
In NSW these are known as Crown Roads, or 'paper roads' (where they 
are not constructed). They are administered by the state government, 
and in theory, access is public. It can be hard to tell just by 
looking at parcel data whether something is a Crown Road or not.


There has been a program in recent years of selling these off to the 
adjacent landholder.


In some cases these provide access to parks and reserves, and letters 
have needed to be written to the Dept of Planning to protest the 
relevant sale.


I assume Victoria probably has a similar system to NSW



Queensland too has similar 'gaps' between land allotments. Some of them 
used by the Bicentennial Trail.





cheers
Tom

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

On 11/12/2023 5:40 pm, Adam Horan wrote:
When comparing satellite imagery and various maps on Vic Maps, you 
can find
what seem to be road corridors that don't have roads in them. (I'm 
looking

on https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/ and
https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/mapsharevic/ and when you show parcel 
data you

can see these linear areas that extend off the end of roads, usually in
rural areas. These linear areas do not show parcel information, 
unlike the

surrounding blocks)

They tend to be visible in sat imagery too as scrubby or rougher land
compared to the fields and paddocks around them.

I would love to be able to legally (and safely) use these as walking and
running routes in my  surrounding countryside, and also allow others 
to do

so. They're attractive as they're traffic free.

I'll link to some examples below, but I'll ask my questions here:
1. How can I validate if these are unbuilt roads, and how can I check 
what

the access is?
1a. I guess as these aren't main roads that they belong to the local
council?
2. If a path is already present then I can map that as a simple path, 
but

how could I map and tag the land?

Cheers,

Adam

Example 1 :  Lambert Road, Pearcedale
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-38.1829/145.2334
If you look on VicMap you can see the corridor extends to the west to 
meet

with Middle Road.
https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-2TIhhoK5rNdNfc4m2WxVtMMraiG
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=-38.182821%7E145.233097=17.8=h
This one seems pretty clear to me as there's a nice clear wooded 
line, when

I recently passed this on Middle Rd you could see an unfenced section.

Example 2 : NW extension of 'Favorite Hill Rd' to North Road

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-38.17566/145.23470
https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-5PIrhAi6EP5M1ivchIyH9lfyGxF
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=-38.174379%7E145.236276=17.3=h

This one is visible on sat imagery, however it does seem to be fenced 
off

from the established road.


___
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] Road corridors with no road - what access?

[Warin]

Some of these could be 'traveling stock routes' used in the old days to 
drive cattle to market.


Those are administered locally and 'public access' can be dicy depending 
on past activities (eg littering) by 'the public'. Local land owner can 
be 'defensive' from past livestock theft.


Use with caution, possibly best to talk to the local council.

On 11/12/23 19:15, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
In SA, there are a number of "Unmade Road Reserves". Where it gets a 
bit interesting is when someone either illegally fences it off; or 
applies for it to be transferred to them via something like Roads 
(Opening and Closing) Regulations 2021.


Generally, I've mapped these were there is a path, track or similar 
made by people, and where there are gates/restrictions/similar; 
modelled what is seen on the ground + left a note/sent email to 
various councils, who tend to be terrible at replying.


You/ could/ map some of these as "highway: proposed" but there may not 
be much value in it, since a lot of these have been around for decades 
and never turned into roads or other access because it is impractical.


The UK has a similar problem.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/35408/rights-of-way-mapping-united-kingdom



On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 5:15 PM Adam Horan  wrote:

When comparing satellite imagery and various maps on Vic Maps, you
can find what seem to be road corridors that don't have roads in
them. (I'm looking on https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/ and
https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/mapsharevic/ and when you show parcel
data you can see these linear areas that extend off the end of
roads, usually in rural areas. These linear areas do not show
parcel information, unlike the surrounding blocks)

They tend to be visible in sat imagery too as scrubby or rougher
land compared to the fields and paddocks around them.

I would love to be able to legally (and safely) use these as
walking and running routes in my  surrounding countryside, and
also allow others to do so. They're attractive as they're traffic
free.

I'll link to some examples below, but I'll ask my questions here:
1. How can I validate if these are unbuilt roads, and how can I
check what the access is?
1a. I guess as these aren't main roads that they belong to the
local council?
2. If a path is already present then I can map that as a simple
path, but how could I map and tag the land?

Cheers,

Adam

Example 1 : Lambert Road, Pearcedale
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-38.1829/145.2334
If you look on VicMap you can see the corridor extends to the west
to meet with Middle Road.
https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-2TIhhoK5rNdNfc4m2WxVtMMraiG
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=-38.182821%7E145.233097=17.8=h

This one seems pretty clear to me as there's a nice clear wooded
line, when I recently passed this on Middle Rd you could see an
unfenced section.

Example 2 : NW extension of 'Favorite Hill Rd' to North Road

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-38.17566/145.23470
https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-5PIrhAi6EP5M1ivchIyH9lfyGxF
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=-38.174379%7E145.236276=17.3=h


This one is visible on sat imagery, however it does seem to be
fenced off from the established road.



___
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: [OSM-talk] GPX route to bus route

[Warin]

On 5/12/23 22:36, Frank via talk wrote:


Hi all

I hope you are doing fine.

I would like to convert an existing GPX track into a bus route 
(relation) on OSM. Does anyone know how to achieve that, i.e. to 
create a relation for all involved ways along this very same GPX track?


I would have created that GPX with the help of OsmAnd for example, so 
it would match the existing ways of OSM 1:1.


Basically, I am looking for an easy way for creating bus routes 
instead of selecting and adding each and every way (and annoying 
bridges) along the route manually to create such a new bus route 
(relation).





Bus routes also include bus stops.

I'd look at the GTFS system - see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GTFS and see what that does.


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

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

[Warin]

On 17/10/23 08:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 22:50, Ian Steer via Talk-au 
 wrote:



https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187347278#map=15/-31.9089/127.0839=




Should it be layer=1?



Err no.


There are some 9 aeroway=hightway_strip in Australia... they do not 
render on the standard map. Some 120 world wide.


The aeroway=runway does render hence there would be some who would use 
it in preference.



My thoughts are to map the area cleared for the aeroplane wing as an 
aerodrome .. this renders.



Present location of highway_strip...

https://overpass-turbo.eu/?w=%22aeroway%22%3D%22highway_strip%22+in+Australia


There are more than these 9. Searching for runways gives a great number 
.. many of them on outback stations.


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

Re: [talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

[Warin]

On 17/10/23 08:24, Andrew Davidson wrote:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dhighway_strip



Thanks Andrew. That tag is not on the aeroways page .. I have added it

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aeroways

It was out of sequence on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:aeroway - now corrected. But I 
wounder how I missed it here?



I'll keep the area mapping (aeroway=aerodrome) so as to indicate the 
cleared area




On Mon, 16 Oct 2023, 20:18 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi

How do we tag emergency highway airstrips, as used by the RFDS? I
thought this was documented on the Australian tagging guidelines
but I
cannot see it..

I have used this as an example

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146070

for a rough area cleared for the wings and a turning area.

aeroway     aerodrome
military     airfield
name     Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
wikipedia     en:Highway strip#Australia


together with


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146071

for the centre line of the runway itself. Note the highway exists
as a
separate way.

aeroway     runway
ref     13/31
source     survey
surface     asphalt


-

Anyone have thought on this? I'm not certain of

military     airfield .. may not always be military though this
area is
surrounded by it.

name     Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart
Highway
.. more of a description possibly operator???


Once this is discussed .. then I'll put it in the Aust. Tagging
Guidelines thingy.


___
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] Overpass question

[Warin]

On 12/10/23 16:14, Bob Cameron wrote:

A question for an overpass expert.

I am cleaning up a lot of the parking tags I have created so they 
follow the same rules etc. I have successfully generated a text list 
of nodes where I can cut/paste the co-ords into the ID editor to 
research/fix as needed. This was done with a gpsbabel command line on 
the exported gpx into unicsv.


Way/area tags are not so simple. gpsbbel yields zero output. Is there 
function in overpass that will just extract the first node of the way, 
or possibly the centre co-ords of the polygon? That will be good 
enough to get me close enough.





No expert ...

Question: why only get the node when you can have the whole thing? I 
think that just adds complexity?



Me? I'd simply get all of it .. For a way (closed or open)

[out:xml][timeout:90][bbox:{{bbox}}];
(
  way(user:"bobC")["amenity"="parking"];
);
(._;>;);
out meta;

For relations - replace 'way' with 'relation' ...


Replace 'bobC' with the user name that you want..



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

[talk-au] emergency highway airstrips

[Warin]

Hi

How do we tag emergency highway airstrips, as used by the RFDS? I 
thought this was documented on the Australian tagging guidelines but I 
cannot see it..


I have used this as an example

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146070

for a rough area cleared for the wings and a turning area.

aeroway     aerodrome
military     airfield
name     Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway
wikipedia     en:Highway strip#Australia


together with


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493146071

for the centre line of the runway itself. Note the highway exists as a 
separate way.


aeroway     runway
ref     13/31
source     survey
surface     asphalt


-

Anyone have thought on this? I'm not certain of

military     airfield .. may not always be military though this area is 
surrounded by it.


name     Royal Flying Doctor Service Emergency Airstrip Stuart Highway 
.. more of a description possibly operator???



Once this is discussed .. then I'll put it in the Aust. Tagging 
Guidelines thingy.



___
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?

[Warin]

On 16/10/23 14:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

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



No.



Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 12:23, Yuchen Pei  wrote:

On Tue 2023-10-03 19:51:13 +1100, Warin wrote:

> On 3/10/23 14:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:

> [... 12 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.

The osc file[1] generated in Stage 2 is compatible with JOSM.

[1] https://ypei.org/assets/tmp/unitFromNumber-1.osc

I spot checked a few nodes and they look correct too. See also the
attached screenshot.


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.

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

I will check the scripts that generate this file, to find out whether
the logic indicates the file has full coverage corresponding to the
datasets.

> [... 5 lines elided]


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

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

[Warin]

On 11/10/23 16:22, Andrew Davidson wrote:


The first thing to keep in mind is how concentrated the AU population 
is. Sydney and Melbourne both have 20% of the population living in 
them. If we add on Brisbane we reach the 50% mark, which means the 
majority of people live in one of three cities. As a result there is 
not much to go around for the rest.


If we adopted 50,000 as the cutoff for a city we're going to more than 
halve the number of currently mapped cities. 50,000 might work for the 
US (and is also the value the UN has adopted for global comparisons) 
but it's too big for AU. At the other end 15,000 is too small, we'd 
end up creating an additional 25% of cities.


I would suggest that we adopt the ABS's threshold of 20,000. This is 
the population level at which they consider a settlement starts to 
have "gravity" and pulls in surrounding urban areas. It used to be 
30,000 back in the early days of their methodology but I assume they 
think people are more mobile so the "pull in" starts earlier now. 
20,000 also has the benefit of not changing the number of cities we 
have by much. 10 currently mapped cities would become towns and 13 
current towns would become cities.


For towns the US threshold of 10,000 is way too crazy high. There are 
1,000+ things currently mapped as towns. If we adopted 10, this 
would drop to 101. Even 5,000 would only get that to 198.


I was thinking that we would just use the ABS's UCL list. This divides 
settlements into urban centres and urban localities. If a settlement 
is on the urban centres list and its population is over 20,000, then 
that's a city, otherwise it would be a town. In effect this is a 
cutoff of 1,000, which the ABS has used for more than 50 years 
suggesting that it's getting relatively smaller over time.


The urban localities would be villages (a lower cutoff of ~200) and 
settlements not on the list hamlets.



Agree with the basics of the above...
The bigger shifts are going to be in the towns and villages. The UCL 
has (using the rules above):


72 cities
657 towns
1080 villages

but we currently have 1,000+ towns and 1,800+ villages. It is hard to 
be very precise, as these will include place nodes nested inside other 
urban centres and localities.


I looked at the ratio of CTVs from the US/CA/NZ on the assumption that 
being new world settlements the ratios should be similar. The 9 towns 
for each city in AU is similar to the others 7/9/8. What is different 
is the ratio of villages to towns. AU is 1.6 the others 2.4/4.0/2.3, 
which suggests:


1. There are a lot of villages in CA
2. Settlements in AU are more thinly spread.


I'd expect some similar thin spread of settlements in CA too... but I 
have not looked.


3. 200 might be too high. The problem being it is a lot of work to get 
population numbers for places too small to register on the UCL.




I think that the population figures can be the 'best guide' but where 
the population figure is not in OSM then a fall back on to the 
facilities measurement would be a guide lacking anything else... however 
unfortunate that maybe. If cities and towns all have OSM population 
figures than it is only towns that need this fall back guide?



Oh .. hamlets ... I'd not tag a farm as a hamlet no matter how large it 
may be. Farm populations fluctuate with activities, I'd just leave them 
as farms.



___
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

[Warin]

While 'removing it now' might seam like a good idea.. some map renders 
do not up date for 1 year.


So some will still show what you are attempting to remove. And then if a 
solution is found those removals will simply have to be reverted where 
possible.


Rather than removal how about retagging them with some thing that 
retains the past history .. was:highway=path for instance. I note the 
railway people are most resistant to the removal of railways that no 
longer exist ...


On 8/10/23 18:29, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Yes Ewen, I agree

The OSM mission statement is at 
https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement


I would like to see it also include something like Google's "don’t 
be evil"*

Or doctors' "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere"

Tony Forster


* Google changed "don’t be evil" to “do the right thing” in 2015 
and finally dropped it in 2018 
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393





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.

Ewen

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

So far I count 5 people in favour of reversion, and 2 or 3 against (I
wasn?t sure about the third!)

Here?s my proposal:
Partial revert of ways
Way 29415025 - leave this deleted (as it was difficult to find at my
survey in early 2022)
Way 1052666246 - access to an informal lookout - leave this deleted
Other two ways 29415022 and 630040313 reverted with addition of 
access=no

(as NWPS don?t want people going there), and probably a note=* tag to
describe the reason for the access tag
(Possibly disused:highway=* as an alternative - this will prevent it
appearing on the map. Unfortunately we don?t have a new survey of this
area. The NPWS ranger doesn?t appear to want this showing on the 
map, but

hasn?t given any indication on the actual status of the path. Is it
officially closed? Other paths that have been closed in other locations
have previously been marked access=no e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347707596/ )
Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
mailing list discussion).

It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn?t planning to go 
back to

this location any time soon to do one.

Mark P.

On 2 Oct 2023, at 2:12 pm, Ben Ritter  
wrote:


(I'm a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents.) I
agree with Tom's take and have commented below:

On Mon, 25 Sept 2023, 8:26 am Tom Brennan,  
wrote:



Tricky one.

I have sympathy for Land Managers. There can be many reasons why they
don't want people visiting a place, and why they don't want tracks 
on a

map which might encourage it.

But simply deleting the tracks from OSM is not the best way to go 
about

it unless the "tracks" were simply bushbashing routes, and were never
real tracks in the first place.

As others have said, it just makes it likely that the track will be
added as a new track at a later date, assuming it does exist on the
ground.

Some basic signage at the trackhead, and formal closure 
(announcement on
the NPWS alerts page) would be enough to set the various tags so 
that it

shouldn't appear on downstream maps.



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

It sounds like the access=no tag is less clearly 

Re: [talk-au] Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

[Warin]

On 6/10/23 14:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Thanks Ian & Steve

Looking at the numbers from a Qld perspective, I'd go inbetween the 
two samples!


e.g.

Hamlet <250
Village 250-1000
Town 1000-15000
City 15000<

Which would produce https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Bup

It also becomes obvious that there are quite a few places with no 
population listed!



OSM does not appear to have access to ABS data.

Other than population signage on physical entry to the feature I don't 
think OSM has access to any other population data..


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

Re: [talk-au] Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

[Warin]

On 5/10/23 14:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

So coming back to this ...

I like the idea of adding "numbers" per extra facility :-)

Calling each of them is worth 100, if a place has Police, Fire & 
Ambos, do they get +300 or just +100?


& another "important" thing that I thought of - the community Hall, 
home of public meetings, dances etc!



I don't think the facilities are all worth the same 'points'.

But they should all add to the score.

A hospital should be 'worth' more than a store... ???


I'd start with a sore of 10 and go up from there?

Community hall, Police, Fire say 10 each

Store, fuel, mechanic say 20 each

Nurse medical facility, RFDS clinic say 30

Doctors say 40

Hospital say 100


Ambos tend to be 'attached' to hospitals/nurse medical centers so I'd 
not add them.







Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 09:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 wrote:



On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 18:45, Andrew Davidson 
wrote:

apply the Fitzpatrick adjustment:


I like it! :-)

Although Fizzie Fuzziness has a better ring to it :-)

Talk more later - I'm just reverting stuff atm!

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] Classifying settlements (Was Re: Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size))

[Warin]

On 3/10/23 19:41, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 2/10/23 21:53, Little Maps wrote:

As I understand your message, we have and/or can get population data
for a small proportion of places in Aus (probably with comprehensive
data for most larger places and less data for the many smaller ones).


There are two classes of problems:

1. Urban centres that have gown so much that they have coalesced with 
neighbouring urban centres. Some of these are easy to assign the 
population to a single place node (Gold Coast, Nowra - Bomaderry, 
Shepparton - Mooroopna). Others are not clear where you would put the 
population (Central Coast, Blue Mountains, Ocean Grove - Barwon 
Heads). There are about 90 of these out of 1800.


2. Settlements that are so small that the ABS doesn't consider them 
worthy of their own mesh block (the smallest geographic unit they 
report on). If a settlement doesn't rate a single residential mesh 
block I'd say it's not really a candidate for anything above hamlet.



This means that, if we develop a guideline based primarily on
population data we then have to develop a simple way to extrapolate
the guidelines to places without pop data. Yes?


If you can't get population data that kinda suggests it's either tiny 
or, grown so big that you have to start worrying about how to 
subdivide the urban area into suburbs etc.



As a simple starting point, I’m curious whether it’s possible to
first try to get agreement on general cut-offs for
villages/towns/cities etc using only the places that have pop data
(i.e. those you’ve mapped). We could present some different scenarios
so that everyone could see the implications of different decisions
for areas that they know.


The ABS uses a threshold of 1000 people in an urban area to identify 
an urban centre. In OSM speak this would be a town or city.


At the small end the old Natmap standard was not to show any 
settlements smaller than 200. Maybe that's the threshold for 
hamlet/village. Although I get the impression people would like to 
adjust that for the level of services available. Perhaps we could 
apply the Fitzpatrick adjustment:


add on or take off 50 people for each one of the following is or isn't 
available:


pub
shop
servo
a government service (PO/Hospital/Police)

So a settlement with pub, shop, servo, and school with a population of 
4 would be a village. A rural residential development with no services 
and a population of 750 would be a hamlet.


The cutoffs are going to be arbitrary. The important thing is to just 
choose some and make sure that there's some reasoning behind them.





The 'government/community services' might be ordered by there total 
numbers?


PO (including local PO agents)

Police

Doctors (theses seam scarcer than Police?_

Hospitals


Outliers?

The Ilkurlka Roadhouse is on the Anne Beadell Highway. Next fuel .. east 
771 km Coober Pedy or west 550 km Laverton.


Population? 1? ... ~200 at Tjuntjuntjara. the nearest aboriginal community?

https://www.ilkurlka.org.au/


Possibly these kind of places only go on certain types of map .. Hemma 
does a good job with highlighting such places with fuel/store symbols 
... and usually some contact details.




___
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?

[Warin]

On 3/10/23 14:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:



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.



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.
___
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?

[Warin]

On 1/10/23 18:08, 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.



I'd take it that someone is working on the software to do the job. Note 
that the person may have a real life to be getting on with too.


Someone else was doing NSW. Sorry I tend to forget names and just work 
with the data.


Tassie .. got to read the 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Tasmania


and then sort out "Only datasets where the metadata indicates Land 
Tasmania is the custodian"


Most people live in NSW + Vic so having those done would be good. Then 
simply the major cities of Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth , Hobart and Darwin 
would get most  of the population.



---

I have been adding addr:street to those places with addr:housenumber 
where possible. If you are adding addr:housenumber then it is not much 
more work to add the addr:street data. There are a few that are 
uncertain so I lave them alone. Australia has 98% of addr:housnumber 
with addr:street where as on a world scale only 90% of addr:housnumber 
have addr:streettoo.



-

So Yuchen Pei what are your thoughts/skills for adding address data to OSM?


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

Re: [talk-au] Filling in blank space (Was Re: Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size)

[Warin]

On 1/10/23 18:25, Bob Cameron wrote:


To be honest Graeme I look at key services specific to my need. Kind 
of like a weighted value that only applies to me. The use of a macro 
label hamlet, village, town are kind of too open ended. Population 
does roughly track with services so I tend to use that as  rough 
start, but never a decision.


I would actually rate the local mobile phone signal/bandwidth as the 
most important service. 


The problem is how to define what is most useful for the end data 
consumer that doesn't want to line up the details for comparison. How 
does one define "most useful" that suits most? (This having been 
mentioned in prior posts)


Bob




Most useful to most, most of the time? Pubs? Source of refreshments and 
information. Maybe there should be a tag for pub population?


Windorah has one. Is the blind fellow still serving in the petrol station?

Only one Pub in Stonehenge .. Queensland. The one in Tassie is a farm .. 
no pubs etc.



Today medical services are scares. Might even have to list the regular 
RFDS visits as being useful to some. Easier to find wielders .. the 
bigger outback stations have them, oil/gas fields have mobile ones.



I did have to look up Birdun Northern Territory, most of the others I've 
either been to or been past at some time. Somewhere I have a tee shirt 
from Rabbit Flat (no longer there) and Giles (no longer allowed to sell 
them)...




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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Warin]

On 28/9/23 20:31, Michael Collinson wrote:

On 28/09/2023 11:18, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 28/9/23 08:21, cleary wrote:

Windorah Qld and Ivanhoe NSW are both currently shown as "town" in 
OSM but neither has more than rudimentary health service (if any), a 
hotel, small primary school and service station. I couldn't buy a 
coffee in either place last time I visited. 


That is the general problem, most people want to inflate the 
importance of a place so that it renders. Windorah has a population 
of 76 and Ivanhoe 202. If it's lucky Ivanhoe might rate a village but 
Windorah is most firmly in the hamlet class.



Perhaps this apocryphal Ireland solution should be used? :-)

A house - building

A house and a church - hamlet

A house, a church and a pub - village

A house, a church and two pubs - town




In olden times Australia rated places by the number of pubs. I still do, 
3 or less pubs and I am comfortable security wise. More than 3 pubs and 
I take care to lock stuff up. Most communities will try to hold on to 
their last pub, once it is gone the community tends to die off too.


I did meet some English 4WD world travelers that had a world map. In the 
north west corner of Australia was Carnegie on that map .. it is a 
cattle station, has fuel and might do some food if you ask. It is a fair 
way to the next places with fuel. It was on their map so they went. Such 
is the power of 'filling in the blank spaces'.



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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging towns by relative importance, not just population size

[Warin]

On 28/9/23 17:04, Michael Collinson wrote:


TL;DR: We need to get a systematic measure of population density into 
OSM to act as a guideline for mapping software to vary what goes at 
what zoom level.



Off topic:

On a global scale that does not work due to the population densities 
changing over the world. When adjusted for Europe to have a 'good map' 
then using the same software rules the map goes blank in various places 
like central Australia.


My thinking is the map generating software should fill the map at a zoom 
with data until the map density reaches a certain level and then stop. 
This way the map would not be blank nor over crowed, but what is 
displayed adjusts to suit the data available. There could be limits on 
what detail could be displayed in both directions - minimum data and 
maximum data but what it uses is simply between the two limits and 
adjusted for data/map density ... Of course there is a lot more to this 
.. like the tiles being sized to suit the data density rather than an 
arbitrary lat/long size.



___
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

[Warin]

On 22/9/23 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.


So my view is…

  * If you *cant* see the track on the imagery – delete it.
  * If you can see the track in imagery – then tag it appropriately to
discourage use as per the managers desire. Also work with the
managers to actively close the tracks if you desire. Obviously if
you are concerned on the tagging then its also likely that the
area is a favourite place for you. Work with the managers!
  * Work with and encourage app developers to ensure suitably tagged
tracks do not appear on public maps

Cheers – Phil (aka tastracks)




A path near me has a sign saying track closed... been there for quite a 
while. Some bicycle riders have taken to that track, modifying it for 
their use since that sign was put up. The sign is now being vandalized 
and will soon be gone. The sign is at the top, there is no sign at the 
bottom, the bicycle riders come down hill at speed, I like to walk up as 
it suits a circuit I do. I have removed a centre section of the track. 
In other places there are signs stating bicycle riders are to stick to 
management trails (ie for motor vehicles, not walking paths) and the 
fines are ~$3,000 ... yet to see any effort to really close that track 
nor any policing.. If they had taken action to actual close the track 
with barricades I'd have more respect and would map it as 'disused'.. 
but this is simple stupidity and I'll be leaving the path in OSM.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Possible mechanical edit of address names

[Warin]

On 22/8/23 14:32, Ben Ritter wrote:
Doing small targeted mechanical edits like this sounds like a good 
workflow to me.


My recommendation would be to structure the program in two steps:
1. The first script calculates all of the changes that it wants to 
make, and writes it to CSV, with all of the details required for step 2.

2. The second script reads the CSV and prepares the edit.

The primary benefit is that you can inspect the proposed edits in 
Excel and post them on a wiki page for others to see.




There are more steps than that now...

Run the render .. that generates a number of error files in text format.

Select the general error file you want to work on and put it into 
'excell' (or libreoffice cal) and convert the text to columns


Remove the errors you are not targeting this time, Get the 
nodes/ways/relations into a single sheet and save that as .csv


Now open JOSM and download the nodes/ways from that csv data .. This 
gives you the complete OSM data for the things you want to change. Save 
that .. it is an .osm file



Now open the .osm file make the changes and change the node/way/ header 
to signify that these are to be chang4ed - save that flie as the change 
file and save the one that the program is not changing to another file 
for checking and possible manual change..


Now open JOSM and open the change .osm file and download to OSM...

That is 5 steps .. checking can be done using JOSM. Looking at them from 
the csv file only gives you the osm reference number nothing else... 
you'd need to refer that number to the osm data base to see the full data.






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

Re: [talk-au] Possible mechanical edit of address names

[Warin]

HI

I have jumped thegun here.

Now looking at the data in JOSM.

Total 3,814 individual addresses but

The streets are only 221 so many of these are simply repartitions in the 
same street - much easier to deal with.


I may simply do these manually after all. It was only the initial 
individual item numbers that frightened me. But 221 is fine.



Note: There are more of these 'errors' I am simply picking the ones I 
can fix without resorting to the wiki for detail. Once these are done 
I'll look at the other 'errors'. While the map maker reports these 
'errors' some of them to my human eye look to be fine... so I am not 
'correcting' them all.



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

[talk-au] Possible mechanical edit of address names

[Warin]

Hi

I'm considering doing a mechanical edit of address names.

There are over 3,000 conflicts between address names and the local road 
names. The mechanical edit would target capitalization of, for example, 
'street' to 'Street'.


Source of the conflicts comes from rendering errors which are then made 
into a comma delimited list and the features downloaded by JOSM and 
saved in to a .osm file. The text to change would be limited to a list 
of words with the text starting with a space character and ending with a 
' - this removes the possibility of changing a word that contains the 
searched for text as part of an actual word.


The words to search and change would be those common such as 'street', 
'road', 'highway', 'drive', 'crescent' etc.


I'm intending to write it in Python though I am not a python programmer 
so there will be a learning curve delay.


Any thoughts particularly if you think this is a "bad idea" or some 
possible improvement.


I did write a similar program in another language, copyright so I cannot 
share it) that had echoed the change to the screen and required a 
keyboard confirmation to complete the change.. I found that to be both 
exhausting and to have found no errors. That only involved a few 
hundred, this one looks to be much larger. Of course that will be checks 
performed to ensue it does as intended.



-

I have already done some 100+ of these, a good proportion are the above 
capitalization problem. Some are things like O'riely that should be 
O'Riely .. and some are the Mc or Mac problem that does not have a set 
rule. Of course some don't fall into a category. But if 1,000 or more 
can be fixed mechanically then I'd prefer to go that way.


As for the Mc/Mac problem I'd go with the OSM road name as that is 
displayed where as the address name is hidden so the road name is more 
likely to be corrected and therefore more likely to be correct, however 
this would be done manually so is not the main topic here.



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

[talk-au] Coast line NSW Hawkesbury

[Warin]

Hi,


The present coastline for the Hawkesbury goes from Box Head to Barrenjoey.

See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/557825041

This is also use to define 'Broken Bay', both relations are correct in 
OSM terms.



I have just corrected a shared segment for this way ... so my attention 
was attracted to where it should be.


The PSMA boundaries run Box Head to West head then to Barrenjoey. I 
think may be done so to have some legal thing applied to water craft 
leaving Pittwater?


But a transport NSW document does state "Broken Bay entrance from 
Barrenjoey Head to Box Head" which would suggest that the present 
version is correct at least in a general sense if not precisely.


https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2022/hawkesbury-pittwater-brisbane-water-regional-boating-plan.pdf

Note The coastline does not render in this area. The coastline carries 
the name 'Mainland Australia'. There is probably a choice here - I think 
OSM says something abut running from one headland to another, the issue 
hear is there are 3 'headlands'.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed bulk removal of service=driveway2

[Warin]

On 5/9/22 17:10, Minh Nguyen wrote:

Vào lúc 09:57 2022-09-03, Tomas Straupis đã viết:

2022-09-03, št, 19:17 Mateusz Konieczny via talk rašė:
as sole user of service=driveway2 declared that they are using it 
for all

highway=service where no other service=* value fits, it can be cleanly
removed fully automatically without any review


   If so and "driveway2" was added manually, then "driveway2" means
"checked, no value fits".



The value 'driveway2' does not convey this 'information'.

Possibly the value 'unknown' would be better.

However it would be best if new values that convey the truth would be best.


Example a parking entry/exit road (not within the parking area)? 
service=passage ??? In fact this value looks like it may fit the 
driveway2 description ...



However I normally just extend the parking_aisle to cover it - less work.



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

Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Warin]

Possibly a router confusion with driving on the left... most drive on 
the incorrect side of the road and get confused when faced with the 
reverse. ??



Only thing I can see other than various offsets is the begining of the 2 
lane section heading north west .. happens a little further along.



But everything in OSM  looks ok for routing...


On 7/6/23 12:46, Josh Marshall wrote:

Hi Ian,

You can copy+paste the URL when you’re looking at the section in 
question on openstreetmap.org .


https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=menang%20drive#map=18/-34.96511/117.82114=D 



I’ve turned the data layer on so you can just click on the nodes and 
ways to see their details, and then you can copy that URL to reference it:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/853070680

So on to the question, I suspect it’s a router issue, but quite 
possibly something to do with Menang Drive having tagging with 
bicycle=yes cycleway:left=yes etc, but the Albany Highway ways not 
having anything of the sort, not even lane quantity.


Probably not relevant, but that greater intersection looks like it’s 
been mapped with a variety of aerial sources but without imagery 
offsets being taken into account. The Maxar layer looks like the most 
recent, and once I aligned that best I could (5.24, -9.89), there are 
still a number of roads that are well off the imagery.


And the little bike diversions for merging across aren’t mapped… but 
good riddance, they’re definitely designed by someone who thinks that 
it’s fine for cyclists on major highways who could be doing 35 km/h to 
slam on the brakes to take a 90º  turn to cross a lane… ugh.



On 7 Jun 2023, at 12:00 pm, Ian Steer  wrote:

My Garmin GPSMAP 66i gives misleading routing instructions at a new 
intersection on Albany Highway near Albany when using OSM data.  I 
have looked at the OSM data through JOSM and it all looks good.  I 
wondered if anyone else can see what might be causing the strange 
routing instructions.

The explanation really needs pictures, so I’ve put them in Dropbox:
Screenshot 1 shows the first OSM way of the section in question 
(highlighted in red) plus some annotations about the points where the 
GPS has instructions for the two misleading manoeuvres:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mk7pmpucvp9y5q6/screenshot%201.jpg?dl=0
Screenshot 2 just shows the other OSM way that covers the section in 
question:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wpfaip74htzbnyw/screenshot%202.JPG?dl=0
Screenshot 3 shows the routing instructions on the GPS:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4hy8r91c5syvq4d/screenshot%203.JPG?dl=0
I don’t know how to give OSM way references, but the intersection is 
at S34.9647 and E117.8205 (Menang Drive and Albany Highway)

Has anyone got any clues why the GPS would be doing what it is doing ?
Thanks
Ian
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



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

Re: [talk-au] Streams and dams

[Warin]

On 5/6/23 08:47, Little Maps wrote:

I don’t know if there’s a “correct” method as at least 3 different methods are 
(or were) common in Vic, where I map. (1) continue named stream through dam, 
(2) continue stream through dam but with no name tag, and (3) stop stream at 
dam edge and start again the other side. Method 2 means dam name is rendered 
but not stream/river as well inside the dam. If the stream/river is in a 
relation this isn’t a problem as the whole named stream can be found using the 
relation.



The river/stream 'needs' to be mapped continuous for those that care 
about waterways. (That is not me.)



Ideally the thing would be mapped ;

(for the reservoir area) where ever the water flows if the dam is 'low' and

(dam area) where the water would overflow past the dam, if you don't 
know then through the dam would be the next best thing.





I prefer continuing the waterway through the dam as it makes it a lot easier to 
find gaps in waterways and to show connected watersheds, etc. If dams are often 
dry or rarely full, it also shows where waterway is at low lake levels. 
Logically, also the Murray River flows through Lake Hume. It doesn’t stop at 
one side and start again on the other.

I’ve been editing heaps of streams in Vic over past few months, and it’s common 
for waterways to cross dams but not actually connect with them. It’s important 
that they share a node at each place they cross a dam. Lot’s don’t (or didn’t). 
The same thing applies on the coast, where many streams cross the 
natural=coastline polygon but don’t connect with it.

If all streams that connect with the coast connect properly you can easily do 
an overpass query to find all watersheds that drain into a section of coast. If 
all streams properly cross and connect with dams, it’s easy to find all streams 
that enter the Murray - Darling Basin, for example.

A fine-detail issue on your query below is that, on the ground, streams don’t 
normally pass over earthen dam walls. If they did the wall would erode. 
Instead, there’ll be a side route where water will flow beside the dam when the 
dam is full. Sometimes this can be seen on imagery, often not. IMO this is an 
issue of mapping scale, and it’s fine to map a stream waterway as passing 
through a dam. If someone wants to add the fine detail later they can, while 
still maintaining the connectivity of the waterway.

So, broadly, yes, I think it’s much better if waterways pass through 
constructed reservoirs.

Cheers Ian


On 4 Jun 2023, at 9:48 pm, Tom Brennan  wrote:

Quick question on streams and dams/reservoirs.

If a stream has been dammed, the centreline of the stream should still be 
mapped as a waterway. Correct?

cheers
Tom

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

___
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] Dual naming in NSW

[Warin]

On 6/6/23 17:06, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Does anyone know of examples overseas with dual naming?



Wales will be full of it. :)  Example

Way: Craig Cerrig Gleisiad a Fan Frynych National Nature Reserve (374428119)

name= Craig Cerrig Gleisiad a Fan Frynych National Nature Reserve
name:cy=Gwarchodfa Natur Genedlaethol Craig Cerrig Gleisiad a Fan Frynych


Yes... after you.

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

Re: [talk-au] Dual naming in NSW

[Warin]

Naming for Ayres Rock/Uluru was discussed in talk-au on October 2019...

We need to put this on the Australian tagging guidelines once some 
consensus is determined.


Presently ---

alt_name:en=Ayers Rock
alt_name=Ayers Rock
name:en=Uluṟu
name=Uluṟu

official_name:en=Uluru / Ayers Rock
official_name=Uluru / Ayers Rock

-

I don't think Uluru is 'english'. And I'd not use old_name for 'Ayres 
Rock' as I'd think 'Uluru' would be older.



Note: One of the past names was 'Uluru (Ayers Rock)'.


On 6/6/23 14:26, Ian Sergeant wrote:
I think including a "slash" character in a name tag is really ugly.  
That's not the way that the GNB record them.  Unless someone can find 
some information on the ground that records it that way?



'Uluru / Ayers Rock'  used to be the signage there, I have no idea if 
'Ayres Rock' has been removed.


.



I understand the desire to not diminish either name when they are dual 
named, but I think it's wrong to think of alt_name as a "lesser" 
name.  Alternative means just that, it's an equally valid, but 
alternative name.  It's looks like exactly the type of scenario 
envisioned by the tag.


IMO it's a bad outcome to end up with multiple names in one tag 
separated by a slash.




I am for


name:en=Ayres Rock

name:aus=Uluru  If the language code is known then use that .. possibly 
use both for redundancy ???



The name= tag should be what is 'on the ground' if there is a slash then 
there should be a slash.



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

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Warin]

On 29/5/23 08:11, Joseph Crowell via Talk-au wrote:


Regular area shapes have a node limit that is quickly reached when 
mapping rivers/lakes.



As a guide:

2,000 nodes to a way, 300 members to a relation...

Islands/islelets are also not properly cut out when they are created 
within a water body.


The solution to both of these issues is creating a multipolygon with 
relations.


On a side note, this is a nightmare to work with within iD and one of 
the main reasons people switch to another editor.


Regards,

Joseph Crowell

*Software Development Manager**,*

*Computerlink Logo***

**

*Unit 24 115 Dollis Street Rocklea Qld 4106.
T: +61 7  3211 5662  | F: +61 7 3211 5663*

*/email: /**/_supp...@computerlink.com.au_/**//*

*//*

Disclaimer:
The email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may 
be subject to copyright. They are intended solely for the use of the 
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received 
this message in error please notify Computerlink Pty Ltd immediately 
by return email or by calling +61 7 3211 5662. The republication and 
re-dissemination are strictly prohibited without the express prior 
consent of Computerlink Pty Ltd.


Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent those of Computerlink Pty Ltd 
except where an authorised sender specifically states them to be the 
views of Computerlink Pty Ltd.


It is your responsibility to verify this email and any attachments for 
the presence of viruses. Computerlink Pty Ltd accepts no liability for 
any damage caused by any virus transmitted.


On 26/05/2023 5:42 pm, Tom Brennan wrote:

On 26/05/2023 1:54 pm, Josh Marshall wrote:
> But I’ve also made relations for all of our local streams and creeks;
> go to the Newcastle area and search for Ironbark or Cottage Creek for
>  instance… it used to just return a single hit on one small section
> for almost every creek. My interest here is because much of the area
> was uninhabitable swamp until there was a huge effort to put in some
> monster drains in the 1890s. And yet it will still occasionally flood
> and people complain about council not doing anyway…

Just asking out of interest - what's the reason for using relations? 
Or is it specifically for the search that you mentioned?


> Do note, the DCS map can be quite wrong in places… I’m pretty sure a
> lot of it was done once and then never updated.

Yes, I don't like the current DCS stream layer - streams going up and 
over ridges in some places!


I understand that DCS is in the process of bringing the stream data 
up to date post the LIDAR scans of all of NSW. But it sounds like it 
is bogged down in some non-technical issues (ie nothing related to 
the actual dataset). So no idea when it will be released!


I'd be interested if anyone knows anything definite about the data - 
my info is hearsay.


cheers
Tom

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


___
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] Putting streams into OSM

[Warin]

On 27/5/23 16:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Sat, 27 May 2023 at 16:34, Tom Brennan  wrote:


But while useful, the question is really whether a full stream
import is
worthwhile.


I would say yes (if it's not too much effort required to do so?)

Thanks

Graeme



I too would 'like' the data.

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

Re: [talk-au] Putting streams into OSM

[Warin]

On 26/5/23 14:51, Tom Brennan wrote:

DCS Base and Topo don't distinguish between perennial and non-perennial

That information is available in the NSW Water Theme data eg:
https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/home/item.html?id=7b0e959effd749c788d304a4179abf8a 



That data is licensed under CC BY 4, which I think we have permission 
to use. (I haven't used it, but if allowed, it would make sense rather 
than tracing individual lines).



CC by 4 by it self is not usable for OSM...

With an OSM waiver .. it is usable.

If the data set to be used is listed as having a waiver here 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#New_South_Wales, 
then it is usable.



(Doting i's and crossing t's so others won't be mislead.)



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

Re: [talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?

[Warin]

On 22/5/23 16:09, Little Maps wrote:

Hi folks, just checking to make sure I'm not missing something here...

There's a large relation called 'Murray River' which covers all of 
Lake Hume, plus an upstream section of the Murray. This is a 
natural=water 'riverbank' relation, not a waterway relation.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8327459#map=11/-36.1129/147.3280

There's also another, nearly identical, relation called 'Lake Hume' 
that covers Lake Hume only. This only covers the lake, not the river 
upstream, and looks fine.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531635#map=11/-36.0960/147.2417

Are there any objections if I severely truncate the Murray River 
relation so it excludes Lake Hume, and includes only the river 
upstream of Lake Hume, where it will join the eastern edge of the Lake 
Hume relation?


The southern arm of Lake Hume is fed by the Mitta Mitta not the 
Murray, so calling the entire lake the Murray River is problematic. 
Again, this relation covers the boundary of the lake, not the central 
waterway.




That sound good to me. I have posed a simpler question on the wiki ..

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:water%3Driver#Conflicts_between_river_bank_mapping_and_a_lake%2Freservoir

See what the 'experts' come up with.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] bot proposal: shop values cleanup (low use values only, 1 used 250 times, three over 100 times, many used less)

[Warin]

On 18/5/23 04:48, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:




May 16, 2023, 19:22 by ajt1...@gmail.com:

On 24/04/2023 16:57, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:



Apr 22, 2023, 14:10 by ajt1...@gmail.com:

More generally, anyone with half a brain consuming OSM shop
data (or actually, _any_ external data from _anywhere_) will
look at the values contained in it***.

And that is exactly what lead to proposing this edits - I was
writing code to handle OSM
data and researched tagging situation. And one of[1] effects was
discovering numerous
cases of tags that seem to be exact duplicates of more standard
ones, and retagging
them seems to clearly improve OSM data as far as I can see


Your continued tagfiddling here is making it much harder for local
mappers to find problem values in OSM data.

No-one's going to complain about you changing "shop=shoe" to
"shop=shoes" - they clearly have the same meaning, so changing the
less common form to the more common form is a net benefit.

However, your recent changes have gone much further than this,
included changing shops with values you don't understand into
"shop=yes".

For start: no such changes will be made, if requested I can revert changes
of shop=fixme to shop=yes if it is disputed.

---

But I do not really agree with some claims made here and want to 
explain why.


For start there is a long list of shop values which meaning I do not 
understand

(for example, from start of list of exactly such values:
shop=grossery, shop=towing, shop=showroom, shop=salon, shop=garage,
shop=pond, shop=consignment...)

This change was made because it was carrying no real info and was 
obscure value

unlikely to be found and handled by mappers.

As an example, consider
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353944525 .  It was previously
"shop=retail", an unusual and rare tag that would likely flag up
the interest of a passing local mapper.  You changed it to
"shop=yes", of which there are 180,000 of in OSM.

Except people using JOSM validator*, iD, StreetComplete and other 
tools with special
support for shop=yes as feature tag. Note that this tools are more or 
less proactive

while shop with unusual values will be spotted solely by manual checks
(as listing all unusual shop values is far from helpful and requires a 
long
filtering to skip undocumented values, aliases, confusing values 
carrying some info)


*and therefore also Osmose, though I would not recommend this QA tool

No-one is going to spot that as an "unusual" shop at all.

Thousands/tens of thousands were fixed already, at least 10 000 would be
definitely not spotted and not fixed if they would be just one of 
10237 rare shop values.




A render finding an unexpected value could simply handle it as 
'shop=yes' and carry on.



If you want to flag these to mappers?Then contact the relevant mapper 
then failing a contact add a fixme/note. ???



shop=garage .. A shop that sells garages...

https://www.totalspan.com.au/residential/garages/garages-with-workshops/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map

[Warin]

On 14/5/23 09:47, cleary wrote:

I agree with much of what you wrote, but not all. Your final sentence implies 
that you think that where OSM and the DCS NSW Base Map are different, then the 
latter must be correct and OSM wrong. I have been frustrated when I have 
visited locations and mapped features such as road names or road class 
(secondary/tertiary/unclassified etc) noted during my survey and then have 
someone change my contributions because they were contradicted by the DCS NSW 
Base Map. When I have subsequently investigated (usually by revisiting the 
location or by contacting the local council), I have found that the DCS Map 
contained outdated information that had not been updated - sometimes for many 
years. I think I did previously mention the OTC Overseas Telecommunications 
structure at 744 Carnarvon Highway at Moree - still on the DCS Base Map more 
than 30 years after it was decommissioned and the building re-purposed. Some 
things just do not get updated on the DCS Map.

As I once mentioned on talk-au, when I visited Lake Mungo, the indigenous guide said that 
the lake had not been covered with water for about 15,000 years. My subsequent reading 
supports that claim. Nevertheless, DCS Base Map shows it no differently to lakes that are 
always full of water. I have come to see the DCS NSW Base Map as generally more accurate 
in "legal" matters such as surveyed land lots, boundaries etc but I would 
suggest that OSM can do a lot better in mapping natural features such as lakes, wetlands, 
and various forms of land cover.



Excuse for 'Lake Mungo'.. ?

Lake Mungo ... some sources say is is a 'dry lake' ... just that it has 
been an exception time between drinks?


I have noticed that the DCS Base Map has 'Marine Rescue' stations 
rendered as SES - square peg in a round hole as they are not SES. I 
think 'Lake Mungo' may be the same rendering issue .. how do you show it?


VRAs don't get a high level symbol on the DCS Base Map and have to be 
hunted out at fine zoom levels. Some with libraries and other things. 
I'd not be too hard on the DCS about 'lake Mungo' .. square peg in a 
round hole situation I think.




I agree that the DCS NSW Base Map is a wonderful resource and has been very 
helpful. However it contains errors. It should not necessarily be considered as 
more authoritative than other sources, especially survey by individual mappers. 
I value the DCS NSW Base Map but, if there are differences in information, it 
should not be presumed that the DCS Map is to be preferred.



On Sat, 13 May 2023, at 4:52 PM, Warin wrote:

In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map? Some have criticized the DCS Base
Map .. a response below.



“We don’t want OSM to be a copy of the DCS Base Map”? Umm OSM has
capability of far more than the DSC Base Map e.g. pubs, petrol
stations, farm fields, vineyards etc. So it should be far more than the
DCS Base Map. Where OSM is missing stuff that is in the DCS Base Map
why should it not be copied? That is a gain for OSM.

“The DCS Base Map is out of date”? So is the OSM data! I don’t see that
point of this ‘argument’ at all. If something in OSM is ‘out of date’
then correct it. If something is missing from OSM but is in the DCS
Base Map then copy it. Those who know it is out of date can correct it,
arguing that it should not be added because ‘it may be out of date’
could be applied to all sources other than those sighted in the last
day. Should any data that ‘may be out of date’ be rejected? I have
found some things in the DCS Base Map to be more upto date than the DCS
imagery having to resort to Maxar to confirm the existence of the
objects. So the DCS Base Map maybe ‘out of date’ for some things but
more ‘upto date’ for other things. Such are the joys of our changing
world.



“On the ground truth” Some take the view that they have been there and
seen X. Ok, the DCS Base Map says Y.. Humm. Where this is some land
form or land cover I take it the mapper involved has more expertise
than those that contribute to the DCS Base Map to determine that land
form or land cover. I would not put myself in that category. As an
example the ability to determine an area is an arid wetland, I have no
expertise to determined that and would take DCS Base Map as more
authoritative than my poor observations.



---

Me?

I have added libraries (those facilities that lend books) from the DCS
Base Map .. using a list from a copyright source to direct me to the
area and then searching the DCS Base Map for it. The location and name
comes from the DCS Base Map not the copyright source. This is not all
the libraries as some are ‘private’ e.g. schools. But it has got at
least most of the public ones into OSM. I call that a win for OSM.



Mangroves. These are well defined by the DCS Base Map. I have been
questioned as to how reliable they are .. well on 5 that I gone to
those all appear to be accurate .. and others can be seen on imagery.
So I am quite

Re: [talk-au] In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map

[Warin]

On 14/5/23 09:47, cleary wrote:

I agree with much of what you wrote, but not all. Your final sentence implies 
that you think that where OSM and the DCS NSW Base Map are different, then the 
latter must be correct and OSM wrong. I have been frustrated when I have 
visited locations and mapped features such as road names or road class 
(secondary/tertiary/unclassified etc) noted during my survey and then have 
someone change my contributions because they were contradicted by the DCS NSW 
Base Map. When I have subsequently investigated (usually by revisiting the 
location or by contacting the local council), I have found that the DCS Map 
contained outdated information that had not been updated - sometimes for many 
years. I think I did previously mention the OTC Overseas Telecommunications 
structure at 744 Carnarvon Highway at Moree - still on the DCS Base Map more 
than 30 years after it was decommissioned and the building re-purposed. Some 
things just do not get updated on the DCS Map.

As I once mentioned on talk-au, when I visited Lake Mungo, the indigenous guide said that 
the lake had not been covered with water for about 15,000 years. My subsequent reading 
supports that claim. Nevertheless, DCS Base Map shows it no differently to lakes that are 
always full of water. I have come to see the DCS NSW Base Map as generally more accurate 
in "legal" matters such as surveyed land lots, boundaries etc but I would 
suggest that OSM can do a lot better in mapping natural features such as lakes, wetlands, 
and various forms of land cover.

I agree that the DCS NSW Base Map is a wonderful resource and has been very 
helpful. However it contains errors. It should not necessarily be considered as 
more authoritative than other sources, especially survey by individual mappers. 
I value the DCS NSW Base Map but, if there are differences in information, it 
should not be presumed that the DCS Map is to be preferred.

I should have said .. where I come across a difference I usually either 
contact the mapper or seek another source.


I have found mappers generally like to keep their idea of the land cover 
rather than the DCS one. Not something I am going to fight over. If 
someone wants to map a flood plain (DCS) as a swamp in OSM  .. well it 
does render. Looks very pretty.


For other things I usually find another source, some times it confirms 
the DCS sometimes not .. sometimes the other source is not clear...




On Sat, 13 May 2023, at 4:52 PM, Warin wrote:

In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map? Some have criticized the DCS Base
Map .. a response below.



“We don’t want OSM to be a copy of the DCS Base Map”? Umm OSM has
capability of far more than the DSC Base Map e.g. pubs, petrol
stations, farm fields, vineyards etc. So it should be far more than the
DCS Base Map. Where OSM is missing stuff that is in the DCS Base Map
why should it not be copied? That is a gain for OSM.

“The DCS Base Map is out of date”? So is the OSM data! I don’t see that
point of this ‘argument’ at all. If something in OSM is ‘out of date’
then correct it. If something is missing from OSM but is in the DCS
Base Map then copy it. Those who know it is out of date can correct it,
arguing that it should not be added because ‘it may be out of date’
could be applied to all sources other than those sighted in the last
day. Should any data that ‘may be out of date’ be rejected? I have
found some things in the DCS Base Map to be more upto date than the DCS
imagery having to resort to Maxar to confirm the existence of the
objects. So the DCS Base Map maybe ‘out of date’ for some things but
more ‘upto date’ for other things. Such are the joys of our changing
world.



“On the ground truth” Some take the view that they have been there and
seen X. Ok, the DCS Base Map says Y.. Humm. Where this is some land
form or land cover I take it the mapper involved has more expertise
than those that contribute to the DCS Base Map to determine that land
form or land cover. I would not put myself in that category. As an
example the ability to determine an area is an arid wetland, I have no
expertise to determined that and would take DCS Base Map as more
authoritative than my poor observations.



---

Me?

I have added libraries (those facilities that lend books) from the DCS
Base Map .. using a list from a copyright source to direct me to the
area and then searching the DCS Base Map for it. The location and name
comes from the DCS Base Map not the copyright source. This is not all
the libraries as some are ‘private’ e.g. schools. But it has got at
least most of the public ones into OSM. I call that a win for OSM.



Mangroves. These are well defined by the DCS Base Map. I have been
questioned as to how reliable they are .. well on 5 that I gone to
those all appear to be accurate .. and others can be seen on imagery.
So I am quite confident that these can be transferred from the DCS Base
Map into OSM.



And I have copied other stuf

[talk-au] In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map

[Warin]

In defense of the NSW DCS Base Map? Some have criticized the DCS Base 
Map .. a response below.



“We don’t want OSM to be a copy of the DCS Base Map”? Umm OSM has 
capability of far more than the DSC Base Map e.g. pubs, petrol stations, 
farm fields, vineyards etc. So it should be far more than the DCS Base 
Map. Where OSM is missing stuff that is in the DCS Base Map why should 
it not be copied? That is a gain for OSM.


“The DCS Base Map is out of date”? So is the OSM data! I don’t see that 
point of this ‘argument’ at all. If something in OSM is ‘out of date’ 
then correct it. If something is missing from OSM but is in the DCS Base 
Map then copy it. Those who know it is out of date can correct it, 
arguing that it should not be added because ‘it may be out of date’ 
could be applied to all sources other than those sighted in the last 
day. Should any data that ‘may be out of date’ be rejected? I have found 
some things in the DCS Base Map to be more upto date than the DCS 
imagery having to resort to Maxar to confirm the existence of the 
objects. So the DCS Base Map maybe ‘out of date’ for some things but 
more ‘upto date’ for other things. Such are the joys of our changing world.



“On the ground truth” Some take the view that they have been there and 
seen X. Ok, the DCS Base Map says Y.. Humm. Where this is some land form 
or land cover I take it the mapper involved has more expertise than 
those that contribute to the DCS Base Map to determine that land form or 
land cover. I would not put myself in that category. As an example the 
ability to determine an area is an arid wetland, I have no expertise to 
determined that and would take DCS Base Map as more authoritative than 
my poor observations.



---

Me?

I have added libraries (those facilities that lend books) from the DCS 
Base Map .. using a list from a copyright source to direct me to the 
area and then searching the DCS Base Map for it. The location and name 
comes from the DCS Base Map not the copyright source. This is not all 
the libraries as some are ‘private’ e.g. schools. But it has got at 
least most of the public ones into OSM. I call that a win for OSM.



Mangroves. These are well defined by the DCS Base Map. I have been 
questioned as to how reliable they are .. well on 5 that I gone to those 
all appear to be accurate .. and others can be seen on imagery. So I am 
quite confident that these can be transferred from the DCS Base Map into 
OSM.



And I have copied other stuff, missing in OSM, from the DCS Base Map. 
There is a lot of it! I plan on continuing to do so. The DCS Base Map is 
a great resource that we should use. I have even found errors in OSM 
from the DCS Base Map.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] bot proposal: shop values cleanup (low use values only, 1 used 250 times, three over 100 times, many used less)

[Warin]

On 21/4/23 04:50, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
bot proposal: shop values cleanup (low use values only, 1 used 250 
times, three over 100 times, many used less)


For quite long time I am trying to use OSM-based products as Google
Maps replacement. One of major issues are POIs (in many apects). Small
part of that are POIs marked but in way that makes them unusuable
anyway.



A rendering issue.

Why not have a generic symbol for 'shop' and use that for any value of 
shop that you don't have a specific symbol for?




This is also problems for mappers, especially newbies, confused
for example why nice icon is not appearing on some (and problem is for
example shop=hair_dresser vs shop=hairdresser).


For start I want to propose to people to review shop tags in their area
with undocumented shop values or ones documented as problematic.

See http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1u2o

For each case either shop should be either


(1) retagged and shop=* changed
(2) such shop value should have its value documented at OSM Wiki (I
documented some, see for example
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcatalogue ) (3)
sometimes new value should be invented, documented and shop=* retagged
to it


https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/general/tagging/70 may be useful
for discussing new shop=* values (local discussion channel may be also
useful, but I strongly recommend asking wider community about new
values to avoid avoidable confusion). Some people go through
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process - but
discussion/review step is the most useful one and you can use just this.


Tagging mailing list also exists and can be used for discussing new
tags.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Creating_a_page_describing_key_or_value
may be also useful.


But some of shop values can be safely automatically replaced by another
shop value. For example shop=shoe can be safely migrated to shop=shoes
without human review.


-


Getting to the bot edit itself (and I want to note that I am more
excited about finding missing shop values and documenting them and
adding them to presets/documentation than I am about retagging):


So I am proposing to extend
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/fixing_malformed_shop_tags
by adding more tag replacements.


Please let me know if any of replacements here are dubious and values
require human review/survey to be replaced or are actualy valid. I know
that list is long, so if someone wants to review but needs more than 2
weeks - please write and I can wait for longer.


Also, let me know if anyone would want to get list of affected objects
for review or manual retagging or listing of edits that added this tags
and so on.


tags with highest use, among ones that will be retagged
shop = chandler with 113 uses
shop = stationary with 116 uses
shop = hardware_store with 60 uses
shop = lamps with 250 uses
shop = knife with 60 uses
shop = unattended with 87 uses (see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130756523 - this mapper added
all* of them and is fine with such change
*including one as a typo, that is why another mapper may
be credited with it)
shop = local_shop with 53 uses
shop = retail with 145 uses

shop = chandler → shop = ship_chandler
shop = chandlery → shop = ship_chandler
shop = chandlers → shop = ship_chandler



A 'chandler' is a person who posses a shop that is a 'chandlery'. Boats 
are smaller than ships and more numerous.


I would think 'shop=chandlery' is best as it applies to both boats and 
ships.



shop = stationary → shop = stationery
shop = hardware_store → shop = hardware (Note: there are weird clusters of
shop=hardware in some places, but that is a bit different story -
I suspect some systematic mistake or bad mapping, unless there are African
towns where 1/4 of all shops are really shop=hardware - though either way
local on the ground survey seems needed)
shop = vaping → shop = e-cigarette
shop = vape_store → shop = e-cigarette
shop = vape → shop = e-cigarette
shop = Vape_Store → shop = e-cigarette
shop = lamps → shop = lighting
shop = lamp → shop = lighting
shop = Lighting_Shop → shop = lighting
shop = knife → shop = knives
shop = collectibles → shop = collector

No, shops these days do not sell people.

shop = unattended → shop = vacant
shop = for_rent → shop = vacant
shop = unused → shop = vacant
shop = vacancy → shop = vacant

These could be tagged disused:shop=* and retain the past use.

shop = local_shop → shop = yes (though looking at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6771559662/history and other - maybe
this import should be reverted due to dubious quality?)
shop = retail → shop = yes
shop = Retail → shop = yes
shop = Retails → shop = yes
shop = generic → shop = yes
shop = ??? → shop = yes
shop = retailer → shop = yes
shop = retails → shop = yes (again
"SUZA Indusrtial training Resillence Academy" but this suspect data
will be more detectable as shop=yes - see say

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

[Warin]

On 1/4/23 09:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Don't know if this helps. or makes it worse!


More data = good.

The fact that the data is confusing, to me, simply means that a simple 
assumptions of using the high tide as the boundary for all is a problem.





Had a thought so looked at Gold Coast Council's online city plan, 
where I know that a National Park touches the shore:
https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/eplan/property/41NPW429/0/184?_t=property 


compared to what we have
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/-28.09018/153.45895

Darker green on Council map is NP, bright green is Council Public Open 
Space, patch of ocean is Council "ground", which we show as being 
within the Admin Boundary of Gold Coast City based on PSMA Admin 
Boundaries, but which is also "outside" the Australian "coastline"?


Other spots on the GC show similar, in that there is a discrepancy, & 
often an overlap, between Council & State boundaries.





Umm State seaward boundaries should be 3 nautical miles seaward from the 
'coastline' (~5.5 km). I forget if that 'coastline' used is high or low 
tidal stuff.


You should be able to see the OSM state boundary here 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13056696#map=13/-28.0814/153.5054


Council boundaries should be a lot closer to the coast(which ever one 
you chose)?




On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 18:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 29/3/23 14:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:



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.



Are there any links to these boundaries linked to the high water
mark???


I would have though that CAPAD data would be accurate as it should
come from the National Parks people using the gazette.


My trove searches only turned up low water mark stuff - but I only
looked in NSW.

___
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] Why set coast line to nation park or, administrative boundaries?

[Warin]

On 29/3/23 14:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:



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.



Are there any links to these boundaries linked to the high water mark???


I would have though that CAPAD data would be accurate as it should come 
from the National Parks people using the gazette.



My trove searches only turned up low water mark stuff - but I only 
looked in NSW.
___
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?

[Warin]

On 29/3/23 14:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:



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.



In Victoria, from a very interesting document "THECOAST AND THECADASTRE" 
AReport for the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council August 2019"


Unfortunately it is a PDF download only .. and I cannot get a direct 
link so search for the above "Victoria the Coast and the Cadastre"


I quote from here on from the document, I do recommend reading all of it 
if your interested in these 'ambulatory boundaries'.


-

Detail of the plan defining Cape Conran Coastal Park2.
The inland boundary follows geometrically well-defined lines, and is 
fixed in position.

North of the inland boundary is freehold land.
The seaward boundary of the Park is ‘Low Water Mark’ and hence is 
ambulatory.

South of the seaward boundary (i.e.Bass Strait) is unreserved Crown land.

Topographic features may move, and ambulatory boundaries may move in 
response under the common law doctrine of accretion. The doctrine is 
well established internationally, but has resulted in very little 
Australian case law, so we have come to accept Surveyor Generals’ 
rulings as beingde factoexpressions of the common law.


TheLocal Government Act 1989, section 3(3A) states:
“if a boundary of a municipal district is described by reference to the 
seacoast (regardless of whether it is referred to as the Sea shore or 
the waters of the sea or a bay or in any other way) that boundary is to 
be taken to be the line for the time being of the Low Water Mark on that 
sea coast”.


the surveyed sea boundary is defined only at that date. The sea boundary 
is still subject to change due to gradual and imperceptible movement.


The fundamental concepts

(snip)


1The legal boundary between tidal waters and adjacent land is the High 
Water Mark (except where the sea boundary is otherwise defined).


(snip)


6Land below high water mark (or other sea boundary) belongs to the Crown

-

There are statements about;

the high water mark being used for both private and 'public' land

the 'foreshore' being council land

The report suggest that climate change will make things difficult and 
that the government should 'make changes'. My pessimism says that they 
will make no changes until things get much worse.



___
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?

[Warin]

On 28/3/23 20:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

I would advise caution with this.

Government bodies will typically hold their own GIS data for park 
boundaries or administrative boundaries, and the GIS data they have 
will never fully align with the coastline.


However, it is not our job to be an agent for publishing government 
data. We have to look further and ask for the actual situation.


If the national park boundary is mostly along the coastline



The problem arises that OSM uses the high tide mark for the coastline 
... there is the possibility that National Parks use the low tide mark - 
so they cover anything washed up on the beach.


The official government data looks to me to use the low tide mark. I 
have sent an inquiry to the National Parks people in the state of interest.



As for the administrative boundaries .. the present official view is 
that local councils cannot now sell 'land' between the high tide and low 
tide, however they have in the past.


What the state of this 'land' between high and low tide is now I'm not 
certain of.



___
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?

[Warin]

On 28/3/23 22:06, Little Maps wrote:
Slightly different issue… but the accuracy of governmental admin 
boundaries can vary a lot depending where you are in Aus. In regional 
NSW, allotment boundaries (and associated park, state forest and local 
gov boundaries) as shown on the NSW gov base map (and as often used in 
OSM) are often inaccurate by 20-50 m and sometimes lots more. This 
inaccuracy is clearly stated on the Six Maps FAQ page (see Q 6&7).



I too have found inaccuracies with respect to their own imagery. Where I 
have come across it I have used whatever data is present in OSM and 
offset the base map to match that. This could have been sourced from 
bing or any other imagery but at least the map will be consistent in 
what ever offset it has in that area.




___
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?

[Warin]

On 29/3/23 14:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:



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.


I believe this is wrong. For example in NSW...

From 

https://rg-guidelines.nswlrs.com.au/deposited_plans/natural_boundaries/consents_naturalboundaries

"However Crown Lands is not the only owner of land below MHWM. Where 
Crown Lands is not the owner of land adjoining the foreshore, consent 
must be obtained from the appropriate authority. Some of these include:


 * National Parks and Wildlife Service (where tidal waters have been
   included in land resumed for state or national parks)"



This is my first time responding on talk-au, lmk if I've messed up
any formatting to link to the original question.



Welcome!

The content looks fine to me.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate Buildings

[Warin]

On 11/3/23 23:35, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

I think an automatic fix of the problem is possible, however it would 
be a good idea to try and find out what the root cause of the problem 
is - bad software, bad imports, bad instructions?



I have duplicated an entry the following way in JOSM;

save the data locally

download the data to OSM

exit from JOSM .. without a save locally after the upload.


Later, open the saved file in JOSM, possibly make further 
changes/addition and upload the date to OSM...


--

The locally saved file data indicates that the data has not been 
uploaded to OSM (even though it has) .. thus the second upload will 
duplicates all the changes made in the file..



I did catch this some time ago (years?) and have been careful since. But 
it is a way of doing it..


I think JOSM now has a warning for this?



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

Re: [talk-au] NSW Bridle Track

[Warin]

On 6/3/23 20:59, Mark Pulley wrote:

One question I forgot to ask yesterday - what do I call the track?

When I did my original survey in 2009, I called it ‘Bridle Track’. At 
some stage it was changed to “The Bridle Track” as that is the name 
used on the DCS NSW Base Map.


All the road name signs I saw on this trip have “Bridle Track” 
(without the “The”)


The signs on the camp areas had “Bridle Track” at the top near the 
reserve name, but “The Bridle Track” on the map on the signs.


Should I remove the “The” from the name?



Thanks for the survey!

Yes please to remove 'The' if that is not how it is signed locally. 
Maybe alt_name=The etc?


I expect the bull dust is due to traffic and no watering of the road as 
it was constructed. When it gets rain there maybe washer ways where the 
bull dist now exists..


I expect further deregulation with more traffic until it gets bad enough 
to discourage many.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed automatic replacements of multiple surface=* and shop=* values (review welcomed!)

[Warin]

On 28/2/23 02:09, Dave F via talk wrote:

On 25/02/2023 21:44, Andy Mabbett wrote:

shop = watch → shop = watches

This could plausibly mean watch as in "monitor" - in other words
"please watch for developments".


No it can't.



Well, it should not in OSM terms.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed automatic replacements of multiple surface=* and shop=* values (review welcomed!)

[Warin]

On 27/2/23 20:30, Philip Barnes wrote:


On 26 February 2023 09:09:53 GMT, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

shop=map -> shop=maps
or maybe it would be better to change in opposite direction?
it is not too late as it is a rarely used tag

There are few shops selling maps these days .. unfortunately.


Specialist shops selling only maps are rare, although they were never common. 
Maybe one or two in a large city.

Shops selling maps are still common however. They are still sold in bookshops, 
garages and small shops still stock the local Ordinance Survey map as they have 
always done.

Phil (trigpoint)



'Hiking' shops usually sell maps too but I did mean the specialist map 
shops such as Stanfords.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed automatic replacements of multiple surface=* and shop=* values (review welcomed!)

[Warin]

On 26/2/23 20:59, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:




Feb 26, 2023, 10:20 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:


On 26/2/23 06:08, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

shop = opał → shop = fuel



Opal is also a gemstone, Australia being a leading source. It is
also a fuel in Australia ... but that would not be sold in shops
but petrol stations.

note that it is not opal, it is opał with 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%81 at the end


Not in Australia. Opal with an L.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7145645423

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7145645424

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7145645443

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3298293637

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2016079949

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7145645475

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7145646105

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3298279023

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4822177921


and on and on..



shop=map -> shop=maps
or maybe it would be better to change in opposite direction?
it is not too late as it is a rarely used tag

There are few shops selling maps these days .. unfortunately.

still, managed to find and map two :)



https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5421309165

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed automatic replacements of multiple surface=* and shop=* values (review welcomed!)

[Warin]

On 26/2/23 06:08, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

I proposed some time ago to replace some surface values.

The initial script run was recently done, after waiting for a 
potential feedback.

Edit is documented at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/fixing_malformed_surface_tags

I propose to expand this by replacing also surface and shop tags 
listed below.
Shop edit would get own wiki documentation page, surface replacements 
would

be added to existing page and it would link to both discussions.

Please comment if any of proposed replacements are dubious in any way and
do not qualify for a replacement with an automated edit.
List previously was really short, this one is longer - let me know if 
either format is preferred.

Either way, I will not make any bot edits before 11 III in my time zone.
(I wait for about two weeks after proposing bot edits, as usual).





--





proposed migration of shop=* values:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1rLI for current listing of objects - 1117 
right now



shop = opał → shop = fuel



Opal is also a gemstone, Australia being a leading source. It is also a 
fuel in Australia ... but that would not be sold in shops but petrol 
stations.









If you reached here: I have some question about shop values that I am NOT
proposing to edit right now.

shop=eggs -> shop=food food=eggs
maybe such migration would be a good idea?
having top value for every single shop type specializing in a given food
seems hopeless - we would need shop=pumpkin, shop=apples, shop=basil,
shop=pierogi...
That is nighmarish for data consumers.
If not shop=food - what would be a good shop value for myriad shops
selling some specific food, that are clearly neither restaurant nor 
fast foods?
Not all foods are as commonly sold in dedicated shop to get shop=rice 
or shop=cheese



??? produce=eggs ??? And there could be ??? sells=eggs???

I prefer produce as it can be used on more than shops.


shop=snacks -> shop=snack
or maybe it would be better to change in opposite direction?
it is not too late as it is a rarely used tag

shop=map -> shop=maps
or maybe it would be better to change in opposite direction?
it is not too late as it is a rarely used tag

There are few shops selling maps these days .. unfortunately.


shop=religious -> shop=religion
or is it not a safe replacement

shop=fireworks -> shop=pyrotechnics pyrotechnics=fireworks
maybe it would be clearly superior?



I'd leave is as fireworks - more easily translated? And more restrictive 
than pyrotechnics.




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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tracks from Strava heatmap

[Warin]

On 26/2/23 18:19, Tom Brennan wrote:
Do people have a view on the armchair mapping of tracks from Strava 
heatmaps?


I can see a bunch of tracks in Kanangra-Boyd NP that have been mapped 
by an overseas mapper off Strava heatmap.


They almost certainly don't exist on the ground. They are known 
bushwalking routes (off track), but would be very unlikely to have a 
track even in good times, let along after the fires and 3 years of La 
Nina!


Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952248376




Remove them. Only 2 edits of a year ago .. You did leave a message for 
them a month ago, so unlikely to get a response now from the mapper.



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

Re: [talk-au] NSW Bridle Track

[Warin]

On 22/2/23 08:27, Mark Pulley wrote:
On 21 Feb 2023, at 2:42 pm, Josh Marshall  
wrote:


Australian road tagging guidelines at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads arguably 
override the general OSM guidelines, and they read:


highway=track: "Service and access roads that aren't part of the 
general road network. Generally not paved, often not public access 
for vehicles."... in rural "Fire trails, forest drives, 4WD tracks, 
and similar roads.


highway=unclassified is: "Minor roads that are neither tertiary or 
residential roads. Not generally through routes."


Given that, I'd argue =track is the right option.


When I surveyed the Bridle Track back in 2009 (I think this was the 
year before the landslide) I picked highway=track as it was very 
rough. I don’t remember if it was signposted four-wheel-drive only, 
but I can still remember the look of shock on the face of the tourist 
information lady at Hill End when I mentioned I had arrived via the 
Bridle Track in my two-wheel-drive vehicle!


The new section bypassing the landslide at Monaghans Bluff looks good 
in the photos I’ve seen of the construction, but whether it remains 
good is another question. There was no work on the remainder of the track.



I have a report Feb 6th halfway down the first hill from Hill End, the 
council had dozers and graders on the road getting it looking good...




If the classification was changed to highway=unclassified, it will 
definitely need the addition of 4wd_only=recommended


highway=tertiary is wrong. I would not use the DCS NSW Base Map as a 
source for the highway classification. I’ve seen too many errors in 
this map to trust this. (As an example, in Armidale NSW, Boorolong 
Road comes in from the west as a tertiary road. As it enters Armidale, 
the main road then follows Handel Street / Queen Elizabeth Drive, but 
the Base Map takes the road classification across the train line and 
along Shambrook Avenue, a minor and narrow road.)


I’ll have a look at the new road when I can (if not this weekend, then 
the weekend after), as I live close by.



Thanks, I think it will be busy, take care.



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] NSW Bridal Track

[Warin]

On 21/2/23 14:42, Josh Marshall wrote:
Australian road tagging guidelines at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads arguably 
override the general OSM guidelines, and they read:


highway=track: "Service and access roads that aren't part of the 
general road network. Generally not paved, often not public access for 
vehicles."... in rural "Fire trails, forest drives, 4WD tracks, and 
similar roads.


highway=unclassified is: "Minor roads that are neither tertiary or 
residential roads. Not generally through routes."


Given that, I'd argue =track is the right option.



The Bridal Track is open to the public, part of the general road network 
and a through route. It would never have been reopened if it was not for 
public money. at lest not reopened to the public.


So from that you could say tertiary. I'd not go that far.



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.



On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 09:23, cleary  wrote:


The name should not constrain the classification of the highway 
(e.g. Dowling Track, Ooodnadatta Track). And, as I've commented
previously in other threads, the DCS NSW Base Map can be quite
outdated.

However, a quick look at a YouTube video suggests that the Bridle
Track should still be tagged as 4WD only (it was signposted as
such and probably still is). Wikipedia reports that part of the
route is new, apparently a diversion around the landslide that
blocked the old track at Monaghans Bluff. I'd prefer not to change
the OSM tags etc until someone surveys the route.



The Bridal Track has been brought up to a very high standard ... so the 
pollies would have no trouble opening ! It will not stay that way - I 
have been told no water truck was used in the constructions ..


I'd agree with 4WD recommended, if coming from the south most camp sites 
can be accessed with little trouble in a reasonable vehicle. The problem 
is the hill going upto Hill End .. t6hat can get lost of erosion .. and 
it is narrow with blind corners.


I do know the Track fairly well from a number of trips. The diversion 
looks to be less of an obstruction compared to the more difficult bits, 
at leas until it is weathered..






    On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, at 9:17 PM, Warin wrote:
> Hi
>
> This track is now continuous having been closed due to a rock
fall and
> road collapse at Monaghans Bluff.
>
>
> Given the importance of the road and that it is not really a
'track' in
> the OSM sense (Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses)
... and
> that the DCS Base Map places it at least tertiary level I would
think
> that all of this 'track' be classified in OSM as 'unclassified'.
>
>
> Thoughts?


___
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] NSW Bridal Track

[Warin]

Hi

This track is now continuous having been closed due to a rock fall and 
road collapse at Monaghans Bluff.



Given the importance of the road and that it is not really a 'track' in 
the OSM sense (Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses) ... and 
that the DCS Base Map places it at least tertiary level I would think 
that all of this 'track' be classified in OSM as 'unclassified'.



Thoughts?


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

Re: [talk-au] NSW Fire Station names

[Warin]

On 12/2/23 21:02, cleary wrote:

In principle, I agree with Warin. My problem is relying on the Base Map as an 
authoritative source for names when there is other information.
What 'other information' that is OSM compatible for copyright? Note 
'other information' can be used to find stuff but not for entry into OSM 
but as a means to find it and then use OSM compatible sources to make 
the entry.


I just looked at Lane Cove Fire Station which has been recently re-tagged. It 
looks good to me.



The 'name' I think is ok.


The 'alt_name' I think should be 'official_name' ...


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.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] replace some obviously mistaken surface values by their clear intended meaning

[Warin]

On 12/2/23 04:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

I propose to replace following surface tags by doing an automated edit:

obvious typos:

`surface=paving stones` → `surface=paving_stones`
`surface=Paving_stones` → `surface=paving_stones`
`surface=paving_stones:` → `surface=paving_stones`

different form than standard surface value:

`surface=wooden` → `surface=wood`
`surface=cobblestones` → `surface=cobblestone`

Polish name to English one:

`surface=żwirowa` → `surface=gravel`
`surface=kostka` → `surface=paving_stones`
`surface=gruntowa` → `surface=unpaved`

English vs very close to English but actually different:

`surface=asfalt` → `surface=asphalt`

Edit would be automatic,



Yes, please do it.


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

Re: [talk-au] NSW Fire Station names

[Warin]

On 12/2/23 09:30, cleary wrote:

I have one further comment about obsolete information on the DCS NSW Base Map.  
Located at 744 Carnarvon Highway, just north of Moree is a building that is 
labelled on the Base Map as OTC Satellite Earth Station. As far as I could find 
out, it ceased to have that purpose about 35 years ago but it has never been 
changed on the Base Map . That is the most obsolete item that I have identified 
but it is a reminder that names on the Base Map are not necessarily current.



Not a question of current but the normal, common, format of these 'names'.


Fire Station:

I gave one link to a table with 'names', and 'station numbers' from Fire 
and Rescue NSW that has the same names as DCS.


Press reports state the name in the same format;

Bombala Fire Station - 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-08/bombala-fire-rescue-inspiring-female-firefighters/12741618 
- Later in the report there is a link to 
https://www.facebook.com/bombala230?fref=mentions and that uses 'Fire 
and Rescue NSW Station 230 Bombala' but in their text they use 'Station 
230' and 'FRNSW Bombala'.


Dungog Fire Station 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-07/fire-and-rescue-nsw-investigating-claims-at-dungog-fire-station/11566342



Rural Fire Brigade:


"The NSW RFS comprises almost 2,000 rural fire brigades " 
https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/about-us


Press

Silverton Rural Fire Brigade 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-08-20/firefighters-fear-station-closure/482634







On Sun, 12 Feb 2023, at 8:54 AM, cleary wrote:

The DCS NSW Base Map is a great resource but some aspects do not seem
to get updated e.g. roads that were once public but are now private may
still appear on the map to have former status (e.g. parts of
unincorporated area in western NSW), re-named roads may still show old
names, waterways show names contrary to those signposted at locations
(e.g. in Murray River LGA). As far as I can ascertain, there is no
regular process for updating the Base Map and it seems to depend on
each particular agency such as the local government body, Roads and
Maritime Services, Rural Fire Service or Health Service to instigate
changes of details for their assets. It does not always happen.

In the past I have contacted local councils about some conflicting
information and always have been given information that the Base Map
showed obsolete information. In regard to fire stations, I would think
the operators, Fire and Rescue NSW or the Rural Fire Service would be
the most authoritative sources regarding names for their facilities.

The Base Map is a wonderful resource that I have used extensively but I
have learned that if there is contradictory information from another
source, especially survey or the operators of the facilities, then the
information from the other source should prevail.



On Sat, 11 Feb 2023, at 9:58 PM, Warin wrote:

Hi,

I came across this while separating amenity=fire_station from their
building=*. The object is to map the amenity with all the name,
operator, etc tags on the amenity and leave the building alone.

The names on the DCS Base Map do not match some of the names on the OSM map.

For Fire and Rescue NSW the DCS base map has, for example ‘Lane Cove
Fire Station’ while OSM has ‘Fire and Rescue NSW Station 167 Lane Cove
(in the tagging guidelines). The number appears to be a ‘station number’
– seehttps://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/station_list/  The names there on the
station list comply with the DCS Base Map … and it is how I would ask
for them at the pub/in the street. I think the number may be best
entered under the tag ‘ref=*’ and the name as per the DCS Base Map. So
I'd like to change the names to comply wit the DCS Base Map.

Additional notes?

The name tag is for 'the common name'.

The long winded name looks to be some 'public service' name for pollies
to use  ..

And we have official_name ... "Useful where there is some elaborate
official name, while a different one is a common name typically used"


The quoted text comes from the OSM wiki.. honest.

--

For the Rural Fire Service some names are ‘Nowhere Rural Fire Service’
where the DCS Base Map would have ‘Nowhere RFB’ (‘Nowhere’ is an example
– don’t have one to hand). I take ‘RFB’ to be an abbreviation of ‘Rural
Fire Brigade’, where as  Rural Fire Service is an abbreviation of the
operator.

   I think ‘Nowhere Rural Fire Brigade’ is the correct name.

Thoughts??


___
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@ope

[talk-au] NSW Fire Station names

[Warin]

Hi,

I came across this while separating amenity=fire_station from their 
building=*. The object is to map the amenity with all the name, 
operator, etc tags on the amenity and leave the building alone.


The names on the DCS Base Map do not match some of the names on the OSM map.

For Fire and Rescue NSW the DCS base map has, for example ‘Lane Cove 
Fire Station’ while OSM has ‘Fire and Rescue NSW Station 167 Lane Cove 
(in the tagging guidelines). The number appears to be a ‘station number’ 
– see https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/station_list/ The names there on the 
station list comply with the DCS Base Map … and it is how I would ask 
for them at the pub/in the street. I think the number may be best 
entered under the tag ‘ref=*’ and the name as per the DCS Base Map. So 
I'd like to change the names to comply wit the DCS Base Map.


Additional notes?

The name tag is for 'the common name'.

The long winded name looks to be some 'public service' name for pollies 
to use  ..


And we have official_name ... "Useful where there is some elaborate 
official name, while a different one is a common name typically used"



The quoted text comes from the OSM wiki.. honest.

--

For the Rural Fire Service some names are ‘Nowhere Rural Fire Service’ 
where the DCS Base Map would have ‘Nowhere RFB’ (‘Nowhere’ is an example 
– don’t have one to hand). I take ‘RFB’ to be an abbreviation of ‘Rural 
Fire Brigade’, where as  Rural Fire Service is an abbreviation of the 
operator.


 I think ‘Nowhere Rural Fire Brigade’ is the correct name.

Thoughts??


___
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

[Warin]

On 10/2/23 12:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:

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.



I too think it is a legal cop out for liability.

I think there are some emergency services in Europe using OSM data 
already .. so if I am correct then it is possible (as it should be in a 
reasonable world).


See https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/06/map-for-emergency/

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


 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] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"

[Warin]

On 8/2/23 16:07, Andrew Hughes wrote:

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the quick responses!

Andrew Harvey: traffic_sign=AU:R6-22,G9-83 seems better than 
traffic_sign=AU:R6-22;AU:G9-83  but I can see why you say both would 
be valid.
Q: Let's say there is also another sign "Zombies Ahead" that doesn't 
have a NTC code at the same location. Would that be separated with a 
semi-colon? and tagged as  traffic_sign=AU:R6-22,G9-83;Zombies Ahead


Graeme, ideally the "7km" is recorded in the tagging... mostly because 
some juro's do this so they don't need to place "end of  signage". 
But on that subject
Q: lots of signage such as G9-82 (see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia ) also includes 
the % slope. This is perhaps similar to the "7km" supplementary 
information on the sign and perhaps the same convention could apply to 
both. For example 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-35.0542594599=138.5349290306=19.9%5B%5D=all=OpenStreetMap=798881551059257=photo=0.49105747415321865=0.5517154385592334=0





The '% slope' would be the key 'incline' that can simply be applied to 
the road way.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Brisbane City Bike Racks

[Warin]

On 31/1/23 14:38, James via Talk-au wrote:

Hi All,

I'm relatively new at OSM and wanted to map the bike racks in 
Brisbane, of which I am a resident. A few members on the osm discord 
graciously pointed out the data is available at 
https://www.data.brisbane.qld.gov.au/data/dataset/bicycle-racks, is 
under CC BY 4.0, and there is a waiver to OSM 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:BCC_OSM_Waiver_-_Signed_30Aug2018.pdf. 
I have read the import guidelines, and I'm prepared to spend a lot of 
time making sure there are no duplicates and making sure the locations 
match up with the map.


Does anyone have anything they'd like to add, any advice, or any 
reasons I shouldn't go ahead with this?


Thanks,
James



Do, say, 10 local to you and see how it goes. Making a mistake with 10 
is not too much of a problem, making the same mistake with 10,000is much 
more of a problem.



Good luck.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we be mapping transformers and powerlines?

[Warin]

On 19/1/23 14:03, john whelan wrote:
Apparently you can do a lot of expensive damage by firing a rifle 
bullet through them as happened more than once in the US and given the 
situation in Europe at the moment is there a risk that something 
similar could happen there?


Should we have a process that says some things should not be mapped?

I seem to recall that the location of the pipeline that supplies 
aviation fuel to airports is considered an official secret in the UK.


Thoughts?




The major ones appear on the government topo maps, so they are not 
'secret'.


There is lots of 'infrastructure' that has vulnerability yet is mapped. 
My mother was concerned when she saw a map of the snowy mountains scheme 
when she first went there, concerned that so foreign power would obtain 
that information for use in a war... Both the Rusian and American mapped 
the world with their own topo maps for potential military use years ago, 
some of them are available on the web.


If they don't appear on OSM maps people will simply change to other 
sources. I see no point in there removal.




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

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

[Warin]

On 16/12/22 09:54, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Thanks folks,

 a consumer of EV chargers is unlikely to be using OSM as their 
primary source for charging information. Its more likely to be an app 
or in car service.



I believe the apps also give information on 'out of service' chargers ...

With a bit more effort they could also tell if any are 
vacant/available.. but that does not look to be the case as yet.


Possibly the apps give connection method (plug type/s) and charging rate 
(both $ and kWh)



OSM might still be a preferred method of navigating to the charger, just 
not the best method of getting real time charger information.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Warin]

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

My thoughts:

I wouldn't remove the names. It's a big call to say that this thing 
definitely does not have a name, when someone else says it does, 
especially if 50% have a name.



"Tesla supercharger" is not an individual name, probably a brand. And 
there would be many that have that "name" in the world. It would be like 
tagging some petrol stations with 'name=Shell'.


The easiest thing to do is change the key 'name' to 'description', that 
way OSM looses no information.


Then add tags for brand/operator/ref/*.




 - Ben.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 14:24, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

Hi Folks,

Thoughts on 'named' EV chargers? Around 50% of chargers in Oz have
some 'name'.

Most look to be adding the either the location or name of the
operator etc (ie Freds Shop, XYZ carpark, Tesla supercharger etc),
I suspect so it gets rendered on the map.

Are folks happy if I remove the names. I will ensure that no
details are lost by making sure any operator or network details
gets added to the correct tags.

(I will also post to Oceania Forum and Discord)

[Overpass query](https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1p4u)

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: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[Warin]

On 6/12/22 06:39, Mike Thompson wrote:



On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:22 AM Minh Nguyen via talk 
 wrote:


Vào lúc 09:55 2022-12-05, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
> That is a good summary, though "Once the OSM available satellite
imagery
> does not show the feature"

1) There are other sources that an armchair mapper can use other than 
imagery, such as the Strava Global Heatmap, the USGS 3 DEP data (in 
the US), and GPX data that has been uploaded to the OSM server.
2) The term "satellite imagery" also excludes street level imagery, 
such as Mapillary
3) Technically some of the imagery we refer to as "satellite" is 
really "aerial."


"Once the feature truly no longer exists and is no longer evident in 
any of the available remote sources commonly used to edit OSM, 
including overhead imagery (satellite/aerial/drone), street level 
imagery (e.g. Mapillary), GPS traces/heatmaps (e.g. Strava), and 
elevation data (e.g. USGS 3DEP) the feature can be deleted"






I have abbreviated the above to be;

"The following tags function is to reduce the possibility of a mapper 
remapping the feature from existing available sources used to edit OSM, 
e.g. satellite or aerial imagery, that shows the old state of the 
feature. Once the OSM available sources do not show the feature, the 
feature can safely be removed from OSM. Renders cannot rely on OSM 
preserving physically vanished history. "



I don't want to use too many words .. so as not to obscure the basic 
intention. Listing all the possible sources is not necessary...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[Warin]

I have placed what I believe is a summary of this discussion on the OSM 
wiki for lifecycle


It reads

"The following tags function is to reduce the possibility of a mapper 
remapping the feature from existing satellite imagery that shows the old 
state of the feature. Once the OSM available satellite imagery does not 
show the feature the feature can safely be removed from OSM. Renders 
cannot rely on OSM preserving physically vanished history."


There after follow the tags 'demolished', 'removed', 'destroyed' and 
'razed'.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay


If there are any further thoughts or even corrections to my text above 
then please post them here.



My own thoughts?

I have not placed any warning about mechanical edits to seek these out 
as enough warning is evident in the requirement for it to be not shown 
in the OSM satellite imagery, which would discourage me so I think it 
will work with others.






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

Re: [OSM-talk] Jhulto Pul/ Morbi bridge

[Warin]

On 9/11/22 20:26, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 07:46, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:



On 8/11/22 01:18, Andy Mabbett wrote:

Le 06.11.22 à 20:25, Andy Mabbett a écrit :

Someone has deleted the way for the pedestrian bridge at Morbi, India.

the bridge

If I knew how to revert the edit I would do so; I do not. Can someone
do the revert, please?

Done

Thank you.



The reverting changeset is now full of comments on 'my source' for 
'highway=construction' ...


I have replied .. but am now done with it.

See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128671925



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Jhulto Pul/ Morbi bridge

[Warin]

On 8/11/22 23:53, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 08:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 8/11/22 01:18, Andy Mabbett wrote:

Le 06.11.22 à 20:25, Andy Mabbett a écrit :

Someone has deleted the way for the pedestrian bridge at Morbi, India.

the bridge

If I knew how to revert the edit I would do so; I do not. Can someone
do the revert, please?

The news imagery suggests it is no longer usable.

There have been 6 edits of it by locals after its collapse, well I
recognize some of them as locals.

The deletion does not appear to be by a local.


News reports with imagery suggesting it is not a usable bridge ..

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/morbi-bridge-collapse-generations-wiped-out-in-disaster/article66083435.ece

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-63445154

Indeed so - but there is still  structure bridging the river, as I
said in my original post.


Andy .. what reports do you have suggesting that it is now usable?

None. Did you read my original post? I am not asking for it to be
mapped as usable. I wrote "The way had been marked as impassable. Can
someone restore that, please?"


Arr .. I see it now.


Done... Left message on the mapper changeset.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128563384


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Jhulto Pul/ Morbi bridge

[Warin]

On 8/11/22 01:18, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 13:48, Marc_marc  wrote:

Le 06.11.22 à 20:25, Andy Mabbett a écrit :

Someone has deleted the way for the pedestrian bridge at Morbi, India.

the bridge

[...]

is currently deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/604295549/history

Indeed; that was my point.

If I knew how to revert the edit I would do so; I do not. Can someone
do the revert, please?




The news imagery suggests it is no longer usable.

There have been 6 edits of it by locals after its collapse, well I 
recognize some of them as locals.



News reports with imagery suggesting it is not a usable bridge ..

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/morbi-bridge-collapse-generations-wiped-out-in-disaster/article66083435.ece

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-63445154


Andy .. what reports do you have suggesting that it is now usable?


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

Re: [talk-au] Import Telstra Payphones

[Warin]

On 28/10/22 09:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Hi Marc

Have just commented on the changeset that looking on their website 
shows: https://www.telstra.com.au/terms-of-use#copyright, which would 
certainly seem to say that we can't use this info?


In that case, it may be safer to revert all of this until we have 
further info?



+1


From their website

You are authorised to view the Telstra websites and its contents using 
your web browser or, where expressly invited to do so, to share certain 
content on social media. You must not otherwise reproduce, transmit 
(including broadcast), communicate, adapt, distribute, sell, modify or 
publish or otherwise use any of the material on the Telstra websites, 
including audio and video excerpts, except as permitted by statute or 
with our prior written consent.


The text, photos, graphics, audio and video works are only for personal 
use anticipated by this service and the arrangements with the Copyright 
Owners (“*the Permitted Use*”) and must not, directly, or indirectly, be 
published, rewritten for broadcast, communication or publication or 
redistributed in any medium.






Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 at 22:12, Marc Zoutendijk via Talk-au 
 wrote:


Hi All,

Marc Zoutendijk from the DWG here.
Today we received a report from a user about what might seem to be
an import from a non-allowed source.
All the details can best be seen in this changeset discussion:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128084911
Both involved users are cooperating well and there seems to be no
need to take immediate action.
What I would like to know from you is if the reported source is
indeed allowed, as it is freely available.
If that is true, the case can be closed without further ado.
On the other hand, if the import is not allowed from that source
then a revert needs to be performed.

Possibly Andrew Harvey (who is also in the DWG) can take over here.

Thank you for your input,
Marc Zoutendijk.


___
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

[OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[Warin]

Hi,

Question:

If OSM is about mapping what exists today .. why have the tags that mean 
there is nothing left of it?



demolished:*=*
    Not existing anymore because of active removal
 removed:*=*
    Not existing anymore because of active removal (possible duplicate 
of demolished:*=*)

razed:*=*
    Not existing anymore because of active removal (duplicate of 
removed:*=*, possible duplicate of demolished:*=*)

destroyed:*=*
   Destroyed by an event other than active demolition

I think these tags would be of use in Open Historic Map (OHM) and that 
is possibly why they are in the OSM wiki?


Possibly the OSM wiki should recommend that the data with these tags be 
moved to OHM?



The argument for mapping these things from the 'old railway' people is that;

1) it does not render on the 'standard map' so it is not a problem.

2) it is used by Open Railway Maps (ORM)


My contention is;

1a) This is a problem when people try to map new things, the old things 
lead to mapping things that never existed like railway=crossing where a 
new footway/highway is also mapped over a now non existent railway line.


1b) People mapping new things may not see the old stuff on the new 
imagery .. and simply delete it, leading to edit wars.


1c) People map things like an old embankment for old railway lines .. 
right through existing roads


3) Old data should be mapped into OHM so it can be preserved .. together 
with the start and stop dates .. these 2 tags are fairly well ignored in 
OSM.


2) ORM should take current data from OSM and old data from OHM. This 
would add the start/end dates that could be used in ORM to select the 
time period. Thus those only interested in the present could have that, 
and those interested in some past date could have that.





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

Re: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell

[Warin]

On 24/10/22 17:16, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Many thanks Sigurjon

I don’t suppose you have accessibility data as well? That would be 
great to know as well.


  * wheelchair=yes/no – suitable for wheelchairs?



They were put in for things like wheelchairs.. so yes they take 
wheelchairs, and prams and bicycles



 *


  * tactile_writing:braille:lg=yes/no?



I'll have a look next time .. but I think they have tactile things on 
the buttons too..



 *


Cheers - Phil

*From:*Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson 
*Sent:* Monday, 24 October 2022 3:37 PM
*To:* Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* Phil Wyatt ; OSM Australian Talk List 

*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to 
description elevator shell


Hi Warin,

Apologies for not getting back to you and acting on this.

We will revisit all these locations and update in the coming days.

Below is how we plan to tag the two typical scenarios:

*inside a building *

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900>


highway=elevator



The highway=elevator already exists within these ways as a single node. 
See example 2 below .. where someone has used it like this.



building:levels=2

That would mean it only is on building level 2.. and it would not go 
from another building level.


indoor=room


That would mean it is within a larger building...


room=elevator



For pedestrian navigation the highway=elevator as a single node and the 
connected highway=footway should work..



Indoor mapping is not my thing .. I don't think many here have tried it.


Some examples may help?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/281120247

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/350884415 note here the duplication 
using https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3566114780 and the node is what 
the footways connect to.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3446811813

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/534454027

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4037948794


*outside building (stand alone) *

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993533793 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993533793>


highway=elevator

building:levels=3

building:yes

description=elevator shell

That would mean it only is on building level 3.. and it would not go 
to/from another building level.


Please let me know if you are not happy with this approach.

Regards,

Sigurjon

TfNSW

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 at 22:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 23/10/22 21:46, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> Hi Warin,
>
> Both of those examples were previously build:part=elevator. Its
probably
> worth asking why they changed them to building:levels=elevator.
That seems
> to be a more appropriate tagging.


building:part should be a 'part' of a building .. not the entire
building .. they are both tagged with building=yes.

One example

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524/history

has no past history .. so no previous key of building:part.


I'd have no problem with building=elevator_shell, but they are
building=yes. I am happy to change that too, if acceptable?

I have been using building=silo with man_made=silo (key building for
rendering the area .. man_made just does a symbol).


>
> Cheers - Phil
>
    > -Original Message-
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2022 8:41 PM
> To: OSM Australian Talk List 
> Subject: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to
description elevator
> shell
>
> Hi
>
> There are ~260 of closed ways with the tag
'building:levels=elevator'.
>
> This tag should have numbers as the value not text, the number
being the
> number of levels.
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels.
>
>
> These object all are associated with railway stations around
Sydney and
> appear to have been added by members of TfNSW team. I have left
a message on
> one of their members changeset but have had no reply.
>
> There are no other uses of this tag elsewhere in the world.
>
>
> My thoughts are to change the tag to 'description=elevator
shell' as these
> look to be the walls around the outside of the moving elevator
that is
> presently mapped as a node in these cases.
>
>
> Examples
>
> Way 993829900 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900
>
> Way 996164524 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

___
Talk-au mailing

Re: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell

[Warin]

On 23/10/22 21:46, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Warin,

Both of those examples were previously build:part=elevator. Its probably
worth asking why they changed them to building:levels=elevator. That seems
to be a more appropriate tagging.



building:part should be a 'part' of a building .. not the entire 
building .. they are both tagged with building=yes.


One example

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524/history

has no past history .. so no previous key of building:part.


I'd have no problem with building=elevator_shell, but they are 
building=yes. I am happy to change that too, if acceptable?


I have been using building=silo with man_made=silo (key building for 
rendering the area .. man_made just does a symbol).





Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2022 8:41 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator
shell

Hi

There are ~260 of closed ways with the tag 'building:levels=elevator'.

This tag should have numbers as the value not text, the number being the
number of levels.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels.


These object all are associated with railway stations around Sydney and
appear to have been added by members of TfNSW team. I have left a message on
one of their members changeset but have had no reply.

There are no other uses of this tag elsewhere in the world.


My thoughts are to change the tag to 'description=elevator shell' as these
look to be the walls around the outside of the moving elevator that is
presently mapped as a node in these cases.


Examples

Way 993829900 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900

Way 996164524 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524


Any thoughts?



___
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] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell

[Warin]

Hi

There are ~260 of closed ways with the tag 'building:levels=elevator'.

This tag should have numbers as the value not text, the number being the 
number of levels.


See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels.


These object all are associated with railway stations around Sydney and 
appear to have been added by members of TfNSW team. I have left a 
message on one of their members changeset but have had no reply.


There are no other uses of this tag elsewhere in the world.


My thoughts are to change the tag to 'description=elevator shell' as 
these look to be the walls around the outside of the moving elevator 
that is presently mapped as a node in these cases.



Examples

Way 993829900 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900

Way 996164524 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524


Any thoughts?



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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging fire stations

[Warin]

On 10/10/22 10:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 09:27, Mark Rattigan  wrote:


There are also plenty of minor RFS brigades which operate out of
buildings that weren't originally built to be fire stations.


But how then do we tag all of those where the firies operate out of a 
tin shed?


Is it a building=fire_station, as that is what it was built as, or a 
building=shed, because that's what it actually is?




Most 'sheds' are adapted for the use to which they are put.. they are 
fairly easy to adapt from one use to another are most of them are just a 
steel structure.


Changing to a large door to accommodate a fire engine .. easy. Adding 
whatever they need also easy... I think it is a building=fire_station... 
or soon will be. ???
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project

[Warin]

On 10/10/22 10:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 19:14, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

Should it always be the case that the ‘plot’ on which the fire
station building resides is the ‘amenity’ and the ‘building’
should be separate within the plot? To me, its not 100% clear in
the wiki’s.


That was the way I thought it was supposed to work?



That is 'ideal'. However the 'plot' may not be obvious, in that case I 
use a node within the building. In NSW there is the DCS Base Map .. but 
even then some of them have no obvious bounds for the plot.



The name of the station/brigade/* goes on the 'plot' not the building.


I'm not certain of the operator tags - I think only on the amenity/plot 
not on the building .. ?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Warin]

On 8/10/22 18:08, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

Hi Sebastian Azagra,

Thank you for joining in the discussions. Michael Collinson wrote "I 
continue to welcome him (Sebastian) in our OSM community". I second 
that. Though I have some problems with your bicycle edits, I am very 
appreciative of the hard work you do to support OSM.


I have feedback from Ewen Hill, Michael Collinson, Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
Ian Steer and Warin which appear to support my position. Only Ben 
Kelley might support Sebastian's position, he writes "In NSW by 
default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a shared path). I assume 
Victoria is the same".


Ben, I would like to ask you some additional questions to tease out 
your opinions. You are more familiar with NSW law, I am happy for you 
to assume Victorian and NSW law to be the same for the purposes of 
this discussion.


1) Was Sebastian justified in removing bicycle=yes from way 1008258040 ?
2) Are no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted sufficient 
evidence that bicycles are disallowed?
3) For the following 3 examples assume there is no signage, would 
addition of bicycle=no or deletion of bicycle=yes be justified?


3a) A typical footpath in the sidewalk sense:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.89676470=145.28943507=17=428476962255750=photo 



3b) A path with almost no access to residental properties, parallel 
with a freeway or arterial road:


https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.9975583299=145.1662444005=17=469416987632807=photo 



3c) A path not associated with a road:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.924151150055=145.32763449=17=494613405004623=photo 






NSW bicycle laws: 
https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/roads-safety-and-rules/bicycle-safety-and-rules/cyclist-road-rules



Almost at the bottom of that page are the footpath exceptions .. under 
16 for NSW .. Vic is under 14?



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

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

[Warin]

On 8/10/22 09:28, Ben Kelley wrote:

This very much differs by state.

In NSW by default it is not allowed (unless signpost as a shared 
path). I assume Victoria is the same.


   - Ben.



Details.

NSW law allows children (under a certain age) to bicycle on the 
footpath. Adults accompanying children are also allowed.




--
Ben Kelley
This message was sent from my Olivetti typewriter

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022, 09:21 Graeme Fitzpatrick,  
wrote:



So, it would appear that officially, footpaths can be used for
cycling!




Some 'Australian Road Rules' are incorporated into state/territory laws. 
Some are not.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

[Warin]

as there is a restriction OSM would use a conditional tagging .. not 
just 'bicycle=yes'.  Possibly:


access=no

foot=yes

bicycle:conditional=yes @ (max_age=13)


There is also the case that an adult can accompany a child... in NSW, 
possibly in other places too.



No I'm not tagging what should be a default value.


On 8/10/22 12:51, Ian Steer wrote:

I see that cyclists up to the age of 13 are permitted on footpaths in
Victoria, so technically, "bicycle=yes" is true, but to be pedantic, some
age restriction should be added.  I would have thought the default position
should be that bicycles are permitted.

My guess is that the other user does not ride a bike and does not like
bicycles sharing his/her path, and is on a bit of a crusade and no reasoning
or logic will be adequate to stop their mapping activities.

Ian


Hi
I have been monitoring the edits by a user who still "changes shared paths

to

footpaths as no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted" in

Victoria

Australia.

Most of these changes are small ways where there are unlikely to be

serious

consequences, its not worth the petrol (or electricity in this case for my
Nissan Leaf) to go out and inspect the way and I have said nothing.

I have commented on way 1008258040 in Changeset: 126886850 where
bicycle=yes by the previous editor has been removed because there were
"no signs present to indicated bikes are permitted"

There is good street level imagery. It is not a footpath in the sidewalk

sense.

It looks OK for bicycles to me. Sorry to bother but I request a clear
community consensus again on whether "no signs present to indicated bikes
are permitted" is of itself  sufficient evidence that bicycles are

disallowed.

Sorry to bother you all
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] AFL goal post tag

[Warin]

Basketball courts have the capability of tagging the hoops .. but only 
as secondary tags on the pitch not as separate things.


Possibly the 'goalposts' as tagged the same way - as secondary tags on 
the pitch not as separate things.



If I were to use something then

man_made=poll (would apply to all polls)

poll:orientation=vertical (some posts are horizontal between 2 other polls)

poll=goal_post

height=whatever - AFL ones change according to location

colour=white

On 4/10/22 09:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
65 uses of "goalposts", but I'm not sure how they would actually be 
tagged?


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/goalposts#values

Turns out, purely as goalposts=2, at least in a couple of samples!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/962060329

Lots of them around Hong Kong, so possibly only one mapper?

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 18:18, Nev W  wrote:

Is there a suitable tag for the AFL goal posts. They are
quite large  and imposing, and also indicate the orientation of
the game as does the oval shape. Rendered goal posts would
complement the mapping of pitches.
https://abelsports.com.au/afl-goal-posts/

I have not found tag for posts except in a fence or lamp/light
posts/poles.

I have used man_made=flagpole but is not really suitable
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dflagpole
___
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: [OSM-talk] Automated Populate/Update Problem

[Warin]

G'day,

Yes to contacting the Ozies on au-talk.

In general I'd be careful on changing the 'old' data as some of it maybe 
better than the departments data, needs a judgement call. I'd think 
adding to it is fine - reference numbers that are missing, that kind of 
thing.


Adding new stops should be fine - assuming that the data is reasonable 
location and quality wise.



Best .. talk to the locals, enter a few examples, say 20, of the new 
data and state some of the conflicting stops differences between OSM and 
the departments data - say 10? This would give a small sample 
demonstration of what is intended and is easier to correct than 27,000 
of them.


On 28/9/22 20:38, Andrew Harvey wrote:
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:

  o Currently in the state there are ~9,100
highway:bus_stop
  o our GTFS - stops.txt has ~27,000 stops
  o the current accuracy of highway:bus_stop needs
review.
  o 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___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Adding intermittent to water south of Alice Springs.

[Warin]

There are a few 'permanent' water sources in central Australia .. but at 
best they would be mapped as nodes. And you may have to did for it.


On 23/9/22 19:45, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Thanks Andrew,

That's a great resource - someone should show that to Googlemaps! They have
hundreds of 'lakes' in Tassie that don't exist.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-43.4647476,146.1809558,15z



Google probably heard 'Tasmanian, water everywhere'  :)



-Original Message-
From: Andrew Davidson 
Sent: Friday, 23 September 2022 7:36 PM
To: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Adding intermittent to water south of Alice Springs.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

HI,

I have just add the tag intermittent=yes to several water bodies south
of the approach road to Ayres Rock (A4 Lasseter Hwy).


Almost every hydrological feature in Australia is intermittent=yes. GA has a
satellite product that shows how often a water body has water in
it:

https://maps.dea.ga.gov.au/#share=s-j1nHpeX2mVRcfFHm3crnBuGUR7u

only the blue and purple areas are "perennial".

___
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] Adding intermittent to water south of Alice Springs.

[Warin]

HI,

I have just add the tag intermittent=yes to several water bodies south 
of the approach road to Ayres Rock (A4 Lasseter Hwy).


Most of these were mapped some 3 years ago by the Microsoft Open Maps team.


While some water is visible in various imagery there is also large 
reductions of water areas in other imagery, this plus various travels in 
the are suggest that these water bodies, particularly the larger ones 
are at best intermittent.



Any comment/objections?


-- For those interested...

I have been mapping around 'Lyndavale Station'. 10 miles away in 1936 a 
school teacher lost their life having fallen from their motorcycle and 
died from lack of water, plenty of fuel and oil though. Water could be 
found some 4 miles from where he was found.. his grave is there where he 
died. The motorcycle is at Curtin Springs .. though like most things 
that old and used has had various parts replaced, some with 'alternative 
parts'.





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

Re: [talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, Australia

[Warin]

+ 1 for the name without state, country. Those can be found by the 
enclosing features, there is no need to add tags 'is_in'.



Careful with populations.. they might be for the town and not the area.. 
would need checking?



On 21/9/22 22:03, Nev wrote:

Thanks Alex,
that’s very helpful to me.
Nev



On 21 Sep 2022, at 9:55 pm, Alex Sims  wrote:



Hi,

In general abbreviations and commas are avoided in tagging 
OpenStreetMap wide, so no don’t add a comma but add an appropriate tag.


The Australian  tagging guidelines 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries 
don’t have an example using a node as a label, but the suburb of 
Cremorne, NSW does, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5655122


So in the case of Scarborough, the relation 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11677688 should have the node 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421 added as a “label”. This 
will then show up as the “centre” of Scarborough.


The node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421 should have the 
name changed back to just “Scarborough” and the population tags moved 
to the relation.


Alex

*From: *Nev W 
*Date: *Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 8:22 pm
*To: *talk OSM Australian List 
*Subject: *[talk-au] Place name as name=Scarborough, Queensland, 
Australia


Hi

I have noticed that place names are altered to add the state, or 
country, city in OSM.


Here is an example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268549421/history

I have tried correcting what I see as incorrect tagging.

But on reflection, is it ok to define the place with the addition of 
a comma and further definition?


Is there something on the wiki to point these mappers to that 
clarifies this?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb



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

Re: [talk-au] "Wrong" phone numbers

[Warin]

I too would ignore the marketing.

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


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

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

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


So how do we map it?

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


Thanks

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

Re: [OSM-talk] I need your help please

[Warin]

On 19/9/22 19:38, Fakhreddine Azzouni wrote:
Good afternoon, I started using OSM for a tourism project. The idea 
is make a tour's road map with places from OSM. But some places are 
not on the map so I added them yesterday. I am using a WordPress 
Plugin to get locations From OSM. Unfortunately I couldn't find any of 
the locations I have recently added.

As this matter is urgent, I would appreciate a reply as soon as possible.



Very few are paid here. Tell us who or where in the world to look ... 
and what to look for..


A link to yourself? e.g https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Hb-

Or to your changeset? e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126311224


I am not a wordpress user .. I don't think that allows you to add stuff 
to OSM .. just to down load stuff from OSM.


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

Re: [talk-au] add boundary=forest tag to Qld State Forests and Timber Reserves

[Warin]

On 13/9/22 19:56, Little Maps wrote:

On 13 Sep 2022, at 6:01 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

There are some 'private' forestry areas too, at least in NSW ... these are 
visible as they are not native and in organized rows, so easy to identify.

Heaps in W Vic too. As state govts move from timber harvesting in native 
forests to plantation based forestry it’ll become increasingly important to 
have a robust tagging scheme to differentiate native forests from plantations. 
The informal tag “plantation=yes” is widely used in SW WA and W Vic, albeit by 
a small number of editors. I’m not aware of a formal tag that conveys the same 
information.



Usually the type of tree - not a native to oz = Radiata pine and 
Southern Pine.



Apparently some are using Hoop Pine .. native to oz ... so not 100% 
accurate .. but would get most of them?



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

Re: [talk-au] add boundary=forest tag to Qld State Forests and Timber Reserves

[Warin]

On 12/9/22 19:34, Little Maps wrote:

Nev, great initiative. I’ve been contemplating how the new boundary=forest 
could be used in Vic and S NSW. Rather than view it a tag to use in addition to 
land use=forest, I saw it as a useful replacement.
By replacing landuse=forest with boundary = forest, we could generate State 
Forest (SF) tenure boundaries, similar to conservation reserves, and remove all 
ambiguity about whether landuse=forest infers a vegetation type (forest/wood), 
a landuse (forestry) or a tenure (State Forest). (It means all 3 things to 
different people). We could then accurately map SF tenures independent of 
vegetation type and (perhaps?) the finer-scale mapping of actual landuse.
We could also more accurately map vegetation types in SFs, whereas atm, it’s a 
complete mess to map scrub, grassland, etc in SFs, especially where they cross 
SF boundaries. Also, it clearly acknowledges that only a small part of many SFs 
is actually used (and can be used) for timber production.
It seems to me we have a fantastic opportunity to greatly reduce the horrendous 
vagaries that are implicit in landuse=forest across Aus SFs if we use 
boundary=forest to apply to tenure, and natural=wood, scrub, etc to apply to 
the vegetation type, within SFs. In reality, we have little way of mapping 
which parts of many SFs are available for logging unless we import far more 
detailed datasets from gov agencies.
I look forward to other thoughts on the matter. Cheers Ian



There are some 'private' forestry areas too, at least in NSW ... these 
are visible as they are not native and in organized rows, so easy to 
identify.



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

Re: [talk-au] add boundary=forest tag to Qld State Forests and Timber Reserves

[Warin]

On 12/9/22 14:57, Nev W wrote:
Hi, I want to check the boundaries of the Qld State Forests and Timber 
Reserves which are included in the Protected areas of Qld dataset of 
2022 which we have explicit permission to use.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources#Queensland
Both boundaries are legislated under the Forestry Act 1959.

The tags I intend to use are as follows, and introduce the new 
boundary=forest tag which will hopefully be rendered on the Standard 
layer with more use:


attribution=Queensland Department of Environment and Science
boundary=forest
governance_type=government
landuse=forest
name=xx State Forest or Timber Reserve
operator=Queensland Department of Environment and Science
protection_title=State Forest or Timber Reserve
ref:paoq:sysintcode=3406TBF001
source=Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries - 2022
type=boundary (for the multi-polygons only)



If intended to produce timber then

produce=timber

Also consider a duplicate with landuse=forestry ... see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforestry This is an 
attempt to get away for the 'tree cover' use by others.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Warin]

On 10/9/22 11:34, Ewen Hill wrote:

Hi Ian,
   Firstly, thank you to you and the Munda Biddi (MB) elves for 
providing an amazing 1000km cycling route, mainly off-road, sometimes 
on ball bearings, other times on sand and the rest mainly on fire 
trails and single track. It is an amazing asset and something that I 
will cherish completing.


   I have been thinking of this with the new Collie township spur and 
the other oddities and especially the huts that scatter the route 
which apart from one amazing hut that is smack bang in the middle of 
the trail, are normally just off the trail on short spurs. Please note 
that this route is not set in stone and sections are replaced on a 
regular basis.


  Where it started with two relationships of MB-Main and 
MB-Alternative, I believe a master MB would be preferable containing 
all the huts, spurs, winter/summer variations and the main route. 
Where there is a spur like Collie (~16km?), an additional 
MB-Collie-Spur might be worthwhile.


Having a single master would allow users to easily extract the entire 
route and huts in one go and prepare them for their garmin and 
whatever GIS software they use.It would also give councils, emergency 
services, tourism operators etc. easy access to all of the relevant 
data.  I don't see the need to maintain any other spur relationships 
unless the spur is ~> 2km as it's probably overkill and makes it more 
complex to maintain.



The waymarker trails website uses the relation/s to generate a GPX file 
and an elevation display .. quite handy.


If all the huts are in there too .. I think it ignores nodes .. other 
than guide posts? Possibly it ignore them too.


It would be nice to have, yet more, roles for huts/campsites, toilets, 
water and a role for the trails leading to them.. At the moment these 
are not included in the relationship instructions .. so lack any support 
or organized thinking.


I don't know how easy it is to have all that in a simple GPX file .. the 
newer ones do have more features...


Ideally the GPX file would have at least the trail as a contiguous conga 
line ... with the 'extras' off to the end ... that used to make 
following it easier?



I would think that one file will all the variations (north/south bound, 
season winter/summer) would be quite hard for the users to use and the 
maintainers to maintain... ???



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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Warin]

On 6/9/22 11:23, stevea wrote:

I forgot to say earlier, so I add here and now:  on really huge routes like 
this — thousands of kilometers long — it makes it more manageable for humans 
(and OSM software like JOSM and other tools / end-use cases like renderers and 
routers) to break up the route into logical sub-components.

I'm thinking of examples I know in the USA, like Pacific Crest Trail or Appalachian Trail, where 
there are either "by state boundaries" kinds of "chunking," or designated by 
Trail Management (I think the PCT uses letters of the alphabet to denote segments).

For Munda Biddi, you may want to inquire whether something like this "chunking" of the 
whole trail into smaller segments is already going on "officially," and mimic that in 
OSM.  I will say that dealing with a single relation that contains thousands of elements (over 1500 
things slow down and get unwieldy) are hard to deal with and do recall that there is a 2000-item 
limit for some data structures in OSM.  I don't recommend putting more than 2000 ways into any 
single relation under any circumstances.

I hope all this helps.



The Bicentennial Nation Trail is broken by states (and that is a horse 
trail, a mtb trail and a hiking trail). It is not well mapped.


The Overland Track is broken into segments - the 'normal' day lengths 
for hikers.



The Munda Biddi could also be broken into segments -


For example

First relation: Perth to some point where the trail separates into a 
choice. This would be common for all variations.



Second and third relations: from the above relation until they join


Forth relation: common bit from the above to the next separation.


Then I'd have 2 or 4 master relations:


North, South  etc.


This makes changes to it easier as you have to change one section and 
that is then incorporated into each mater relation.



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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Warin]

On 5/9/22 17:41, stevea wrote:

On Sep 5, 2022, at 12:23 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Be careful with the automated tool .. you can end up with the route comprising 
some 'north bound' bits with some 'south bound bits'.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the automated tool," Warin.  I'm only suggesting to use 
JOSM's relation editor window's "sort" button.



Yes, those 'sort' buttons are automated tools ... and they don't always 
'get it right'.





Roles 'forwards' and 'backwards' refer to the direction of travel with respect 
to the direction of the way - not 'north', 'south' 'east nor 'west'.

Yes, I know.  I'm not sure whether Ian does, though thank you for pointing this out, as 
perhaps I wasn't clear.  My intention was to convey my methodology (which works well) and 
to inspire Ian to discover (using wiki, practice and experience) whether it might work 
for him.  Some Contributors DO add cardinal directions as role tags in relations, and 
that is NOT correct, let's be clear about that.  (Sometimes they do this as 
"placeholders" during route construction, but this is not recommended as it is 
confusing to other human editors as these role tags are encountered).



I'm guilty of adding 'constructional roles' to help me organize, 
understand and edit these kind of relations. I usually delete the roles 
.. sometime it takes a second try.





Route roles are...
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=hiking?uselang=en#Roles

Yes, specifically for HIKING routes, this wiki and these role tags are crucial 
resources to read and use where appropriate.  Ian, it is essential that you 
read, understand and apply this wiki as appropriate to the Munda Biddi route 
relations in OSM.



I'd use the same for bicycle and horse routes .. as that would make sense?


The one web render I use is 
https://mtb.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=5810814=relation=8.0/-33.4621/117.7741 



I think that uses the same tools for all the routes.





You may find that the renders of hiking/bicycle and horse routes will take no 
notice of 'forwards' and 'backwards'.

Right:  as the OP mentioned not "know(ing) enough about the potential consumers of route relation data..." it 
wasn't clear to me whether this included knowledge of humans as consumers or software like renderers and routers as 
consumers.  Some renderers have "weak" support for role tags, but again:  it is most important to get the 
data "OSM correct," not "pretty for a particular renderer" (or router).


Thinking about this .. and coming from 'public transport' routes ...

Use 2 relations

One from 'x' to 'y' (and public transports uses keys 'from' and 'to')

The other from 'y' to 'x'.

So you'd have 2 Munda Biddi Trail route relations.. similar to the India 
Pacific train - one from Perth the other from Sydney.

This would make clear the north only and south only routes...

Yes, I agree, this is another workable solution, thank you, Warin.


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

Re: [talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Warin]

On 5/9/22 15:52, stevea wrote:

BTW, I very much recommend using JOSM as your preferred editor when editing relations, especially route 
relations.  IMO, the route relation editor in JOSM is superior to all others.  Don't forget to click the 
"sort relation" button as a last step in the relation editor window before you close it, that 
"neatens up" the elements so they connect with each other as best they can (the set of elements 
that are in the relation when you click it), and identifies any remaining gaps visually and readily.  JOSM's 
relation editor also pays attention to forward and backward directional role tags, presenting them (after a 
click of the sort button) in a visually clear way.  With practice, once you "get it," you won't go 
back to any other way of editing (especially route) relations!




Be careful with the automated tool .. you can end up with the route 
comprising some 'north bound' bits with some 'south bound bits'.



Roles 'forwards' and 'backwards' refer to the direction of travel with 
respect to the direction of the way - not 'north', 'south' 'east nor 
'west'.



Route roles are

'main'

'excursion'

'approach'

'connection'

'alternate'

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=hiking?uselang=en#Roles


You may find that the renders of hiking/bicycle and horse routes will 
take no notice of 'forwards' and 'backwards'.





Thinking about this .. and coming from 'public transport' routes ...

Use 2 relations

One from 'x' to 'y' (and public transports uses keys 'from' and 'to')

The other from 'y' to 'x'.

So you'd have 2 Munda Biddi Trail route relations.. similar to the India 
Pacific train - one from Perth the other from Sydney.


This would make clear the north only and south only routes...








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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping surf breaks

[Warin]

On 25/8/22 15:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 11:43, Josh Marshall 
 wrote:



I tasked the kid with drawing the ideal surf map, and he’s really
stuck into it… and it’s given me more to think about how the
features should be drawn.


Please do share when ready, as I am also well & truly /not/ a surfer! 
(I'm actually a boatie so I'm / they're the enemy! :-))


I like the idea of separate tags too:
- some may be more necessary than others
- better than trying to cram them all into one
- can be added to over time, rather than a formalised :conditional=


Yep.

Always feet. When surfers talk about wave size, it’s much like
fishing aficionados talking about the size of their catch, if you
know what I’m getting at.


Perfectly!

But “size” is variable, what would need to be tagged is “minimum
swell size” for a break to be rideable… which is a more scientific
measure and reported formally.


Hmmm, wouldn't that then vary concerning the board? You often hear the 
news say "it'll only be a couple of feet / knee high (& does that 
option need mentioning?), so break out your small wave board & head on 
down"



I found this article to be the most succinct and detached summary
of conditions required for particular breaks:
https://unravelsurftravel.com/understanding-waves/


Yep, good article, but one bit there made me think?

" To surf the best waves possible you need to know how different swell 
directions impact upon a particular surf spot"


How do we say that the ideal, best conditions are "this", but usual 
conditions are "that"?


Earlier I mentioned about the Kirra Superbank that only occurs a "few" 
times per year. While the rest of the year is perfectly acceptable, 
those few times are exceptional! (Think rides over 1 km long! :-))


Can you think of any way of tagging normal v ideal?



Ssurfing_typical=*

surfing_exceptional=*


??



  Thanks

Graeme


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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping surf breaks

[Warin]

On 24/8/22 20:45, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

non-Australian and non-surfer here but please remember that stuff you 
map in OSM must be reasonably verifiable.


If you map a great surf spot which only exists when some external 
conditions align, then it might be hard for others to verify (they'd 
have to wait for the conditions to align).


As a non-surfer I would assume that "the wind and waves are just 
right" is something that could make a perfect surf spot nearly 
everywhere, and surfers would not be helped by a map showing lots of 
spots that might be great if "the wind and waves are just right" ;)



Mapping the typical would be what interest most as that would be the 
more frequent thing and therefore the most usefull.


Using conditional tagging it should be possible to specify the right 
conditions.???


Something like

waterway:conditional=surf_break @ NE swell

surf_break=right

I'd assume that the local swell is more important than the local wind?

Verifiable ... well non surfers won't be that interested particularly if 
it does not render on common maps. That also reduces the number of non 
surfers who would use the tags to get something on the map. So I think 
only the surfers will be looking at these and they should understand the 
verification of them and if they are infrequent then they may not be of 
much interest unless significant enough to have a reputation, and that 
reputation should be enough to verify the mapping.





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