> Also if I add a node to a way and tag that node as a highway:crossing
> positioned by nearmap imagery, should I just add source:nearmap to
> that new node? I ask because I came across I crossing node with no
> source tag, so I'm not sure if this implies the source was the same as
> the way that t
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:27:19 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> On 27 July 2010 22:54, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> > I'd be cautious about changing anything that is source=survey (gps or
> > otherwise) though to source=nearmap. I have done this in a couple of
> > places but it&#
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 06:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Simon Biber wrote:
> If there's a way tagged:
>
> highway=residential
> name=Leigh Street
> source=survey
>
> And the positioning is obviously sub-standard (such as a single node for a 90
> degree turn, where the street actually curves with a radi
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:06:58 +1000
Craig Feuerherdt wrote:
> How have people been tagging show grounds?
> Some show grounds can be tagged as landuse=recreation_ground however there
> are some cases when they aren't used for recreation.
> The one I am thinking about is the Bendigo show grounds whi
> I had thought the latter was the standard? I also ask because
> technically there's a conflict with the "power:*" proposals, one of
> which was "power:source=*".
JS got it wrong ;)
Don't know for sure but I've been changing them to source:maxspeed as per here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wik
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:33:32 +1000
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> > Don't know for sure but I've been changing them to source:maxspeed as per
> > here:
>
> Cool, surely they could be changed en masse though.
>
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:15:12 +1000
Andrew Harvey wrote:
> FYI. As per
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM-object
> I've removed a whole bunch of nodes where the same feature was mapped
> out as a way. I made sure not to loose any tags in the process.
> Chang
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:15:12 +1000
> > Do you really think this was a good idea before discussing it on the list?
>
> I did ask on the newbies list before about what to do here, I was told
> that deleting the nod
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:47:16 +1000
Andrew Harvey wrote:
> The OSM Mapnik style used on the main page renders names on the way
> (so we see duplicate names).
Does not show up here. I see only one name "Campbell Primary School".
Cyclemap and Osmarender show both names at maximum zoom.
> Nomin
> Welcome to talk-au
> I don't subscribe to the newbies list, so have no idea who is preaching what
> on that list.
> Thanks for letting us know here what you did, so that we can discuss and
> provide our point of view.
> Aussies of course revel in being different
> :)
Sarcasm switch firmly on.
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> > Does not show up here. I see only one name "Campbell Primary School".
> > Cyclemap and Osmarender show both names at maximum zoom.
> Often the node name is rendered on top of the way name, so you only
>
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:16:35 +1000
Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:14 PM, John Smith wrote:
> > URL?
>
> http://c.tile.openstreetmap.org/18/239684/158567.png
>
> > Is your browser caching old tiles?
>
> No.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailin
> On 31 August 2010 19:16, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:14 PM, John Smith
> > wrote:
> >> URL?
> >
> > http://c.tile.openstreetmap.org/18/239684/158567.png
>
> I was after the perm link
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-35.290188&lon=149.156265&zoom=18&layers=M)
>
> A
Neil Penman wrote:
I could be wrong about this but It looks to me like Rosscoe added the
street names for Marree. Most of the information in the changeset you
referenced is for Coober Pedy. As far as I can tell the guy was on
holiday in Aus mapped Coober Pedy then traveled on through Marree
referenced is for Coober Pedy. As far as I can tell the guy was on
holiday in Aus mapped Coober Pedy then traveled on through Marree adding
the pub as he went.
The Coober Pedy ones look suspect as well.
If you compare the "Golf Cource" (their spelling) with the mentioned
commercial maps then
Neil Penman wrote:
Yes the Coober Pedy golf course is almost identical to the google maps
representation. Using google earth it does however seem to me that the
golf course in that area (no grass of course) but the area marked on the
maps only covers a small part of the total course, maybe the
Kevin & Ruth Sheather wrote:
It’s not a full sized golf course from what I saw of it when I was
through there in June this year.
The problem is that as depicted it is appears as a direct copy from the
commercial map.
According to here:
http://www.iseekgolf.com/courses/1557-coober-pedy-golf-
Ian Sergeant wrote:
As far as street names are concerned, we could just pick up the names
for the streets currently unnamed by survey from the Atlas of SA, and
attribute appropriately.
If someone gets updated names from survey, they can update. Until then
the temptation to just add them from
It would be nice if people passed on the info as per here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Vandalism
That way these could have been reverted easily.
Looking at them most will have problems as they have been modified by
others.
Please don't touch them, I'll arrange to have the r
On 06/09/11 10:50, Ian Sergeant wrote:
On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com>> wrote:
In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name
when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will
often be signposted with the route num
On 06/09/11 11:26, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Hi Richard,
Welcome to OSM.
A few observations.
Nearmap is no longer an acceptable source for OSM, since they do not
allow traces from their imagery to be re-licensed. I notice at least
one of your edits sourced nearmap, and that isn't allowed any more.
On 06/09/11 11:43, Ian Sergeant wrote:
On 6 September 2011 13:21, Ross Scanlon mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
No. The route is still the Princes Highway as per here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Australian_Tagging___Guidelines#Route_Numbers
Just came across this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-32.651744&lon=115.86618&zoom=18
There is no way in the world that this is a mini roundabout.
Here is the nearmap imagery for it, I know it can't be used now for osm
but using it here for reference:
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-32.65094
As per here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction
mini_roundabouts are rendered by default as anti-clockwise so if they
existed in Australia we would have to add direction=clockwise.
Cheers
Ross
On 03/11/11 12:37, Ian Sergeant wrote:
On 2 November 2011 23:54, Ross Scanlon
Just reading this:
https://docs.google.com/a/osmfoundation.org/document/pub?id=1zMm5p70Hd6dalxte42DVCGAW-C9Muy0pjHCZ8xWJT4w
While people still continue to map garbage like these intersections:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.882577&lon=145.276362&zoom=18
then people will not want to use
nd do some correcting around there tonight.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:55 PM, John Henderson mailto:snow...@gmx.com>> wrote:
On 27/11/11 11:59, Ross Scanlon wrote:
Just reading this:
https://docs.google.com/a/__osmfoundation.org/document/__pub?id=__1zMm5p70Hd6d
Ok lets look at one intersection:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=-37.757227&lon=145.354724&zoom=18
This will open in potlatch 2 or you can view it here on the map:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.75735&lon=145.355389&zoom=18
ways 136173430, 13673431, 13673419, 13
I've forwarded their comments to my question to the list and to the data
working group.
Cheers
Ross
On 28/11/11 21:07, Nick Hocking wrote:
Luke Wrote
"I've backed you up on that one. All removed! I have no idea what their
logic is behind (wrongly) mapping non-separated turning lanes in the
fi
On 29/11/11 09:59, Supt_of_Printing wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something or don't have a full understanding
> of the OSM applications.
> By the way, I am not trying to be difficult, and certainly not
> "payback" as Nick seems to suggest, just simply wanting
> to get an accurate reflection of featu
ng to fix it
but the pre licence change lockout prevented this "
Ross, that's not my understanding of the situation at all.
"On 25 August 2010 14:40, Ross Scanlon http://4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
> John are you going to do this?"
JohnSmith replied
"I'm stu
That's fine so long as you are not transferring any tags from the
original way.
See Frederik's comments to NE2 re this, on the osm-talk list.
Mind you, you've got a lot to do in AU.
Cheers
Ross
On 14/12/11 13:56, John Henderson wrote:
As time and opportunity arises, I've started re-entering
Problem with this is that you are breaching copyright.
This is the same as what the user did with the data in Sydney and it was
removed by the data working group.
It's also what Frederik was discussing on the talk list in regards
to NE2.
You are not resolving the issue of the original data be
polite
and required.
Ian
On Dec 15, 2011 5:16 PM, "Ross Scanlon" mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Wait for an import of the oficial gazetted boundaries.
There's been many a discussion of this over the years and boundaries
should not be attached to roads etc as these can change and the
boundaries do not necessarily change.
Cheers
Ross
On 18/12/11 13:43, El Segundo Can't win wrote:
I del
On 18/12/11 16:43, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Where do these "official gazetted boundaries" come from?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
Wait for an import of the oficial gazetted boundaries.
Australian Bureau of Statistics
C
On 18/12/11 17:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
Yes, I've often wondered the same: if they're officially defined as
following particular roads etc. and then those roads move, do the
boundaries move also?
No. Do a search through the archives of the list and you'll find this
somewhere.
Also, there seem
Yep, quite true.
That said, given the complete failure of the most other government
agencies to release the real gazetted boundaries under a free license,
having the ABS data I think is better than nothing, unless you can
obtain more fine grain data from on the ground surveys.
Licensing aside (a
On 19/12/11 08:38, Ben Kelley wrote:
What happens where the current boundaries have been edited since the
initial import?
e.g. Where the boundary follows some geographical feature that is
difficult to survey, like a river.
Often the river tags have been added to the ABS data way. Removing the
b
On 19/12/11 19:24, Ian Sergeant wrote:
On 19 December 2011 11:50, Ross Scanlon mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
As I said and it's been said many times before other items should
not be attached to boundaries.
If a boundary IS a coastline, sharing a way isn't wrong.
The nodes would be fine if not from a ct-declining contributor. If not
then they need to be replaced.
Cheers
Ross
On 23/12/11 14:31, Ben Johnson wrote:
Thanks Ben that's a great idea. I'll keep whatever nodes I can and
extrapolate from there.
I really didn't want this raising old wounds, no
Hi,
Although you are probably correct, I'd suggest you don't modify this
until someone with local knowledge looks at it and/or confirms with you
this is correct.
It also looks that this may be some more vandalism by Q4004.
Cheers
Ross
On 31/12/11 01:25, Michael wrote:
Hi all,
at present,
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Mark Pulley wrote:
How should I mark 4wd trails? Thanks,
highway=track; surface=unpaved; if 4wd only then also add 4wd_only=yes
From experience I've found this is really hard to determine. Often the
road quality varies and I don't really want to subdivide 30km
On 05/01/12 18:47, Sam Couter wrote:
Ross Scanlon wrote:
To me this is really odd. If the track is 30km long and there is
1km of 4wd only then is not this track all 4wd_only. As without a
4wd you will not be able to go from one end to the other in a 2wd.
Only if the track has no other
But not what constitutes a 4WD-only track, or how to indicate the
difference between 4WD-only signposted and "I don't think a 2WD can
drive here", which as I've pointed out isn't accurate, or how to
indicate only modified vehicles with diff locks, upgraded suspension and
winches are suitable, or h
On 06/01/12 17:05, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
Ok so if your mapping every 10m and the first 10m is 2wd and then the next
is 4wd the remainder of the track becomes 4wd_only.
What about coming from the other end?
Well imaging driving 29.980 km
On 08/01/12 08:20, Nick Hocking wrote:
David wrote
"I can always retag from my records after the split"
Hi David,
It does seem that most of your work will survive.
Those maxspeed edits done by bots (under the userid of
JohnSmith or Rosscoe) will disappear without harm in April.
A lot of them ar
On 08/01/12 11:11, Peter Watson wrote:
If a way is cut to add a bridge or whatever the second part becomes
yours as V1 but the nodes will still be the original contributors. Hence
a seemingly good way with red nodes. This is outlined on the wiki under
remapping.
This is new information, ie the
I've removed the maxspeed tags from about 1000 roads in Redcliffe
(Brisbane) with changeset
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10338587
Hi,
Can you just explain this a little bit further? My understanding is it
is a pretty specific set of these maxspeed changes we are cu
On 09/01/12 11:51, Richard Weait wrote:
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote:
On 9 January 2012 13:12, Richard Weait wrote:
I've removed the maxspeed tags from about 1000 roads in Redcliffe
(Brisbane) with changeset
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10338587
Hi,
On 09/01/12 13:47, Richard Weait wrote:
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
On 09/01/12 11:51, Richard Weait wrote:
Shall I revert?
I think it would be best if you reverted.
Done. You want to take a go at clearing some of these up?
Are they maxspeed:source?
I just
On 25/01/12 19:14, Don Thomas wrote:
1/ In our area there are a number of small sections of road subject to
flooding, generally they are at small bridges/ causeways and the like. I
can't work out how they should be marked, can some one advice me please?
Are these fords or just sections of road
The positional accuracy seems to be excellent. I have already used the
imagery to add a few missing railway line sections in Western
Australia. It takes a little while to get used to the imagery being
grayscale. In JOSM I’ve found it helpful to add some colour to the
imagery by overlaying the imag
All none odbl data will be removed from the database.
They items may not have been deleted and recreated they only have to
have been modified by a user that is declined to be non-compliant.
Cheers
Ross
On 28/03/12 07:20, Ben Kelley wrote:
Hi.
I see there are dates now on the OSM blog for th
Maybe you need to send them a message directly and point them to these
pages:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
Cheers
Ross
On 08/04/12 07:01, Michael James wrote:
I would have introduced myself normally but
On 20/07/12 09:43, Simon Poole wrote:
As all probably know we have two large areas where data had to be
removed, Poland and Australia besides a number of smallish hotspots.
I would think it would be a really good idea to set up a HOT tasking
server (no idea about it inner workings and if it ma
On 29/07/12 00:58, Andrew Allison wrote:
Hello:
I'm doing some arm chair mapping of Broome and surrounding area from
Canada. I'd appreciate a quick review from someone more familiar with
the local area. I might be mistaking dirt tracks for dried creek beds.
Any mentoring would be
They are not mini-roundabouts if you can not drive over them.
Look here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout
Also read the Australian Tagging Guidelines here:
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
mini_roundabout is not determined by size.
Aus
something that will enable me to check my Garmin 62s' accuracy and give
the ability to align Bing when I find them on the ground providing that
they can be seen from Bing. Be great if they are in nice circles of
I doubt if you'll see them on bing as most survey points are way too small.
You'd p
On 19/09/12 19:28, Michael James wrote:
On 09/19/2012 04:35 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
They are not mini-roundabouts if you can not drive over them.
Look here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout
Also read the Australian Tagging Guidelines here
On 20/09/12 18:37, Stephen Hope wrote:
On 20 September 2012 09:41, Ross Scanlon mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
Yes it is a small roundabout as you can not legally drive over it
unless it is impractical to do so.
The vehicle in the street view is clearly about to drive
On 20/09/12 22:30, Stephen Hope wrote:
I'm not saying that a mini-roundabout isn't a roundabout, it is, and all
the normal signs and laws apply. What it also is, however, is
traversable. If you have a vehicle that cannot go around it, because it
is too large, then you're allowed to go over it.
Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes.
An example of 4wd_only=yes here:
http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14&lat=-20.73023&lon=116.99701&layers=B0F
The 4wd_only=recommended is similar but shows "4WD Recommended".
It is a trivial matter with Mapnik 2 to use text subs
I'm happy for you to use that link as a reference.
I'll refrain from commenting on the remainder of that para.
When the 4wd_only tagging was introduced it was attempted to get this
included in the mapping but there was reluctance to do so.
Like most proposals it did not have a rendering propo
On 26/10/12 08:43, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On 22/10/12 11:20, Ross Scanlon wrote:
Mapnik 2 will allow tagging of 4wd_only=recommended and 4wd_only=yes.
An example of 4wd_only=yes here:
http://map.4x4falcon.com/?zoom=14&lat=-20.73023&lon=116.99701&layers=B0F
The 4wd_only=recommende
On 27/10/12 18:52, Chris Barham wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Li Xia mailto:lisxia1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
1. Can anyone suggest tags other than the following?
name:
place:locality
source: © Commonwealth of Australia (GeoScience Australia) 2006.
2. Using JOSM
You point out the problem with this:
tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track
You would have to modify this in the rendering anyway.
As 4wd_only can apply to any highway= tag it is more appropriate.
From memory this was part of the original discussion when 4wd_only was
proposed
And the only area it's done like this is in Melbourne.
Cheers
Ross
On 03/11/12 17:03, John Henderson wrote:
"Steer" wrote:
I have been trying to find the accepted practise for mapping traffic
lights where dual carriageways interest. There is much discussion
on various sites, but most seems t
For rendering, no surface= or surface=asphalt/concrete/paved would
produce the current rendering. Any other surface= would produce a dashed
line/casing. To me that's a relatively simple distinction that would be
more appealing to those maintaining the renderers.
I've been working on this render
On 16/12/12 16:50, Russell Edwards wrote:
Could I ask a newbie question on this topic?
I want to update some roads that are 4wd-only in certain sections.
Any "new approach" aside, what is the best way to do this -- a) what tag
do I use, and b) how do I handle the changing traversibility - separ
Hi
I am all to aware of the 2000 node limit with OSM but when using JOSM to
create lakes as multipolygons from multiple ways it is easier to create
the ways, link them a multipolygon relationship, tag properties and
upload. JOSM then creates a change set and gives five tries and fails so
if you h
large multipolygon lake in JOSM creates a
> > similar problem. So I align lakes in Polatch 2 and all works well.
> >
> > Finding JOSM very powerful but still very much a newbie with it.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Brett Russell
> > PO Box 94
> >
Australia
0419 374 971
On 25/06/2013, at 1:25 PM, "Ross Scanlon" mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I am all to aware of the 2000 node limit with OSM but when using
JOSM to
>> create lakes as multipolygons from
Did they confirm with Geoscience that the "Creative Commons Attribution
3.0 Australia" is compatible with ODBL?
This is one of the reservations that some of us had with changing to ODBL.
Also you will find it's not that easy. It takes a significant amount of
time and effort to include this da
Sounds more like the caching within JOSM.
Cheers
Ross
On 12/09/13 23:15, Grant Slater wrote:
Hi Ian,
The api.openstreetmap.org map data servers send "no-cache" headers and
proxy/caches should therefore NOT be caching the results...
But some ISPs are too aggressive with their caching.
Make su
Cut the data into small chunks (0.25 x 0.25 deg).
Load each chunk it into josm.
Download the relevant area to a separate layer.
Compare with what is already there.
Expect to spend a least 2 hours with each chunk depending on what data
your adding.
Cheers
Ross
On 11/10/13 06:37, Li wrote:
g>
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
Revert to java 6
The message on the start up screen has been there for ages and it's
sometime soon.
I'm using ubuntu 12.04 as well and have no problems running josm with
java 6.
Cheers
Ross
On 27/10/13 11:27, Arthur Geeson wrote:
Hi,
Firstly a thank you to the replies I got about the mi
·Street Address Limitations ( missing streets and street numbers)
Make a dataset like this available for inclusion in openstreetmap
http://www.data.vic.gov.au/raw_data/vicmap-address/4875
Would resolve the above fairly rapidly.
Cheers
Ross
·walking paths data not included across many of
ake away
the integration pains - so there are clear examples of both the public
and commercial sectors benefiting from this sort of open data.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Ross Scanlon mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
·Street Address Limitations ( missing streets and stree
Andrew beat me to it.
There is a speed restriction associated with the "Must use low gear
signs" under the road rules.
It states:
"you must drive in a gear that is low enough to limit the speed of your
vehicle without using the foot brake."
Unfortunately it's not a defined limit although i
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:36:23 +1000
Andy Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tend to be quite lazy in tagging the source for the changes I make.
> How bad a person am I? :)
>
> When I add streets, I do it from gps traces so there is that evidence in
> the database that the data was original.
But
choice A.
Mark all source.
--
Regards
Ross
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:27:56 +0930
Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:48:47 +1000
> Liz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Ben Kelley wrote:
> > > Yes I feel similarly. If I add a street where my
Agree with Liz.
Two forums I do visit usually only get a visit once every two to three weeks
yet I check emails and answer/reply daily.
Cheers
Ross
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:58:34 +1000
Liz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Luke Woolley wrote:
> > Am I the only one who believes
Easily fixed then.
Upgrade the road to your trace.
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:23:26 +0900
"Andrew Laughton" wrote:
> Hi All
>
> This might be just a survey with long gaps between points, but my
> Whereis based GPS also has the same road layout.
> I am a little worried that someone has copied ano
> In some areas the ABS data does not line up with the existing coastline
> which has come from yahoo or landsat., e.g
>
> * Yowie Bay in sydney which I assume comes from Yahoo
> * The Whitsunday islands that I assume comes from landsat
>
> Once the upload is done I am inclined align the the ex
o go about it, tag etc.
--
Ross Scanlon
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:46:44 +1100
Franc Carter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The upload has completed (much faster running from dev).
>
> There were a couple of problems:-]
>
> * Gruyere and 'Wandin North - Bar' in V
>
>> So what is the problem you are having, if not with the
>> location or the tag?
>
> Making a river look like a river...
Put more nodes in the way that shows the river. Had a look at what you
have done but given the lack of hi-res images from yahoo there is not much
else that can be done.
>>
> --- On Tue, 19/5/09, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>
>> The source tag is part of the OSM data not part of the GPS
>> information,
>> have a look at the source tag on Glen Innes Road.
>
> I thought information could be included in the GPX files that would be
> imported
>> AFAIK it is only lat, long and elevation data. How
>> did you enter the name
>> and surface tags for the ways. The source tag is the
>> same.
> GPX files can contain a lot of data and meta data, the schema for GPX 1.1
> can be found here: http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1
Well aware of that,
> I've drawn, probably wrong, at least one round about already, but that isn't
> what I meant, I meant for uniform round abouts a few different round about
> sizes would make less work for people.
>
I gather you mean the way at the intersection of Gwydir Highway and Byron
Street.
A few thing
On Wed, 20 May 2009 02:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Delta Foxtrot wrote:
>
> --- On Wed, 20/5/09, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> > You could also probably half the number of nodes in the way
> > as well, generally you only need 8 nodes to create a
> > suitable roundabout on the map
On Fri, 22 May 2009 20:52:47 +1000
Liz wrote:
> > > Having said that I have since found a mini-roundabout in
> > > Mackay, next time
> > > I'm there I'll take a photo and post it to the mailing
> > > list. It is just
> > > "a low dome" approximately 1m in diameter with appropriate
> > > signage.
On Sun, 24 May 2009 08:15:41 +1000
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009, Delta Foxtrot wrote:
> > > > > Have a read of this:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roundabouts
> > >
> > > there are separate tags for traffic calming devices
> > > and no, we don't have mini-r
On Sun, 24 May 2009 09:42:07 +1000
Matt White wrote:
> There's a current position?
>
> I just re-read the roundabout thread, and I couldn't see any actual
> consensus - plenty of decent argument, which is good as it didn't
> degenerate into a free for all - but no actual outcome.
>
> No real
On Sun, 24 May 2009 11:42:48 +1000
Matt White wrote:
> >> There's a current position?
> >>
> >> I just re-read the roundabout thread, and I couldn't see any actual
> >> consensus - plenty of decent argument, which is good as it didn't
> >> degenerate into a free for all - but no actual outcome.
On Sat, 23 May 2009 23:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Delta Foxtrot wrote:
> The way I see it everything is relative, I notice a discussion on the use of
> villiage/city/hamlet/town etc and applying it to Australia, you can't apply
> UK/US definitions to Australian places based on population simply because
On Sun, 24 May 2009 17:05:51 +1000
Ross Scanlon wrote:
> And just for info based on the current Australia.osm file there are 5218
> roundabouts and 3779 mini_roundabouts, of these mini_roundabouts 1401 have a
> FIXME tag requesting someone to change them to a real roundabout.
That sh
On Sun, 24 May 2009 04:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Delta Foxtrot wrote:
>
> What's the best way to tag causeways, I've only managed to find a couple of
> non-official references, and nothing on this page.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features
>
>
Perhaps
highway=ford
Cheers
Ross
_
On Sun, 24 May 2009 05:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Delta Foxtrot wrote:
>
> --- On Sun, 24/5/09, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> > Perhaps
> >
> > highway=ford
>
> I did see that earlier but for some reason thought it was different, just
> looked at the full sized photo and i
>
> Why are you using the source tag survey? There have been a number of
> arguments that it should not be used as a tag unless you are actually
> using survey equipment. It is suggested to use GPS instead, if that
> is what you are getting your readings from. (These where on the talk
> list, not
201 - 300 of 352 matches
Mail list logo
