On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
The corresponding categories may be better held in a software ruleset, and
the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite that they are aware
of.
Agreed.
___
Talk-au
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
It could be compared to using highway=.
Yes, and highway is terrible ;-)
Truth is, we like to classify things, places and people into groups, it
is how we handle the complexity of the world, we do it unconsciously
Its not mapping for the renderer but is about mapping in such a way that
the data is usable.
Agreed that we should map in such a way that makes the data most usable. I
think raw data is more usable for app designers. You seem to think
composite tags with fuzzy definitions are more usable. I
I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that represent
composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower + power). Over
time, the definition of such values becomes more and more convoluted (e.g.
how do I tag a campsite that is standard + shower? Introduce another
bloody
The Australian Tagging Guidelines says to tag them highway=path, foot=yes.
I think surface=unpaved or dirt or ground should be included too.
Yup. I've long argued that objectively verifiable tags, like surface, are
very useful.
___
Talk-au mailing
Sounds good to me David.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:42 AM, David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
I probably should clarify, I'm really talking about paths that have
been tagged highway=path without including any other tags. I'm sure with a
bit of direction and encouragement people would
My only requirement being to understand where the qroti:surveyed is from
(a government employee survey date or a morb_au survey date?) My thinking
is that morb_au didn't survey 6,000 bus stop across Brisbane and that this
was information held in a dataset that he had access to.
This:
Ah goodo, sorry, my incorrect impression was that you hadn't seen that
page. Bummer that you can't get in contact with morb_au...But regardless, I
reckon the best solution would be to facilitate and encourage locals to
grab a MapCraft slice and merge the data in themselves by local
Exciting to have you on board, Garth. I'm in Brisbane but would be happy to
help with 'armchair' tasks if and when they arise. Hope you get a good
response from SA mappers.
Cheers,
Roy
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Walker, Garth (DPTI)
garth.wal...@sa.gov.au wrote:
Hi all,
I was lucky
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
Waldo, you suggest that people mapping dirt roads (and others?) need to
record every relevant characteristic of that road.
No, no one NEEDS to record EVERY characteristic (though that would be
great, obviously). All I
For a subjective tag, verifiability is more difficult and would normally
be statistical e.g. Recommended or Yes could be defined as, say, 95%
of the target population successfully pass through. Assuming of course
such information is avaialble.
If such information is available, then the
4wd tracks ? There are simply too many factors at play here for us to
measure, should we measure the height or spacing of corrugations, the
'softness' of sand, the depth of run outs, the narrowness, the slope, the
wetness of the mud, the effect of weather on the track ?
Well, what
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Ken Self kens...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Just jumping in here with some ideas. If you have an objective tag it is a
function of the track. But if you have a subjective tag then it is a
function of the user of the road/track.
A tag that is true for some and
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes people think that it's better to slice up information into
lots of little objective facts, like (in the case of mountain bike
trails), width, surface, grade, etc, rather than a subjective fact
like trail
use it !
So, at the risk of being called politically incorrect, I think we need
to collect data that can and will be used.
David
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 07:58 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
wrote
Hi all,
Brisbane City Council has just released a new interactive map with a
plethora of layers available (too many to list!).
Please 1) check it out
herehttp://draftnewcityplanmaps.brisbane.qld.gov.au/CityPlan/ and
2) find out if we can use it for OSM. I haven't looked into license, etc.
Would suggest contacting BCC directly. They are quite responsive via their
Facebook page. Sorry don't have time myself right now.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.comwrote:
haven't looked into license, etc.
Hey,
Just weighing in here.
Ben, you listed several tricky situations, and gave detailed definitions
of the situation on the ground. I suggest tagging according to what is on
the ground, rather than getting caught up in how to summarise all this nice
information in a single overarching tag. For
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi.
For the moment the cycle map still has the pre redacted data, which will
give some tips.
snip
Could you clarify what you mean by give some tips, please? This is a
sensitive issue, right?
Hey, I'll be back in the country in August, looking forward to helping out
in Brisbane. Nice job so far :-)
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm amazed at the progress being made in some regions as per the task
manager at http://rebuild.poole.ch/
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM, John Inkson jink...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
Hi from another newbie
Hey John, great to have you on board :-) For your questions on relations,
the holy bible is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations.
Copying other existing relations as a start may seem
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com
waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Show of hands - Who's going to 1) stick around and help fix the Australian
OSM map, and who's going to 2) jump ship and contribute to a fork (and if
so, which one)?
I'd love to stay with OSM but we gotta
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Of course there are few suburbs that will just need a comprehensive survey.
I've done one or two this morning, and I'll enter them over the next couple
of days.
Just a reminder about Simon's task manager that
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com wrote:
...
However, we need to break these rules in order to put small but important
isolated townships on the map, so it's a case where tagging for the
renderer is accepted, ...
Well it's not accepted by me - IMHO you
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote:
Richard, is it possible to simply forward the communications you have
from data.gov.au to this list, or otherwise make them publically
available? That should put the matter to rest one way or another.
+1. Surely forwarding
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote:
...
Making the licence negotiation details public could hand to those who
do not have good intentions towards OSM, potential tools to try and
damage the project.
Wow. If this is true, then the situation is worse than I
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
After long email correspondence data.gov.au have viewed the
text of the attribution page[1] and they find it terrific.
[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
1) I generally take yes to mean yes rather than looking for reasons why
it should mean no.
Just so you know, this kind of statement may be interpreted by some as
go away, don't ask for details, I don't care if you have
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
So - what do we do now?
Ignore the trolls (meaning troll-like messages, not troll-like people).
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than
nearmap?
On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
...I believe we should spend energy
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the
community, Australia being a good example ...
Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of Australia to filter
bullshit.
I just want to:
1) be able to
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait
for them to catch up)
Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped
contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote:
Are you going to stop contributing data altogether? Or are you putting you
efforts on hold at the moment.
My efforts are on hold at the moment. Still disillusioned...
___
Make a new specific tag (unsuitable_for_caravans=yes;
source:unsuitable_for_caravans=survey), and document it on the wiki (with a
photo of a sign). At least that's explicit and clear.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:58 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
Saw a couple of roads signed
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
flood_prone=yes
Need to expand it a little to cover how often that level is likely to
occur etc and/or height above the normal river level.
Jan 2010 added to it somehow would be adequate?
I think it would be
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Something like:
flood_prone=yes
flood_prone:height=*
Obviously, we'd need to carefully define height (is it normally with
respect to some marker, or with respect to sea level, etc.?) Anyway,
the idea is that
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Craig Feuerherdt craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Would it not be better to map the extent of the flood plain rather than tag
individual road segments?
But within a flood plain, some roads may be prone to flooding while others
may be protected (e.g. raised,
37 matches
Mail list logo
