Country: Australia, Language: English, Topic: Regulation
This AU email forum is the best there is, but I wish there was something more.
So, I will bring this topic up here where there may be community support for
something extra. From the header above this user group is already specific but
is it specific enough? This group discusses mostly detail, but the details
revolve around a concept and that is what I am interested in here. The recent
Wollongong discussion bought this to light. The fundamental assumption is that
OSM represents the real world.
What is covered?
- Database design: The OpenStreetMap is a database and use is restricted by its
design, key types and permitted values. There is however much scope in actual
use that depends on interpretation.
- OSM standards: Some of this ambiguity is resolved in the best practice
outlined in the OSM Wiki and worth knowing, as it is an attempt at
standardisation and actively enforced by some members of the community.
- Regional standards: The AU email forum serves as a regional discussion forum
to get some sort of consensus of how Australia issues are to be dealt with in
Australia, i.e. adapting OSM to Australian requirements.
- State laws and regulations: Australia is a federation and each state has its
own laws and regulations. Local government is another level. This autonomy
shows up in OSM particularly in terms of permissions: who can do what. In this
context, we need to consider private/public property, military and secure
zones, and finally nature reserves and national parks with restricted access
but special rules.
- Planning codes and zoning: This last one has got to do with how land is used
over time which arises in OSM as life cycles and featured also in the
Wollongong discussion as “regeneration”. It commonly arises with the rezoning
of land, release of land for public use, leases on land for grazing and private
use (parking). I have an interest in greenfield public land developments:
rezoned or planned. Once it has funding (parliament) the project passes the
hurdle that something changes in OSM, even though at this stage it may not be
anything visible. There is community interest to see this on a map. There are
many examples of this that include nature reserves and new suburbs. End of life
issues are track regeneration but also track realignment which is common for
mountain biking single track management. It is not uncommon to hide but keep
old track realignments.
This AU email forum does not seem the pace for the last two items, but the
Wollongong discussion shows that awareness of these things is important for the
OSM maps to make any sense. Particularly if the maps are for navigation
(autorouting) or when render specialist maps (mountain biking or walking), then
such information is critical. There may be a discussion for a track or area how
to best define the permissions on paths and tracks.
There is a lot of information on the web about this sort of thing on government
and official websites. I have further written to state government departments
requesting clarification and improvements. Local tensions are not uncommon with
competing claims. This tension can be seen in the OSM community with certain
keys toggling between individual preferences. Mappers are people and advocate
their interests on OSM and sometimes join OSM specifically for this purpose.
Are there any suggestions where matter 4 and 5 could be discussed and links
provided so that the OSM community can communicate, negotiate and formulate a
direction for these things?
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
