[talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia

[Ian Sergeant]

On 3 September 2012 01:42, Chuan <fcclists at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. How do you know whether a road is a primary, secondary or tertiary road?

There is nearly always (particularly in the non-Alphanumeric route
states) some interpretation required.  I think the guidelines in the
Wiki are a good start

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Road_Tagging

If there is a particular road that is causing an issue, feel free to
discuss it here.

> 2. How should cycle paths be tagged, with regards to lcn, rcn, or ncn? I have read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#LCN

> Should these be tagged in relations, or should ways themselves be tagged directly with rcn=yes?

We are superimposing the (rather pathetic) Australian cycleway network
onto a more developed schema for local, regional and national
cycleways.  Some discretion is required.

In Sydney/New South Wales, we're trying to build a consensus on the
wiki as to what is regional, etc.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sydney_Cycle_Routes

If there are multiple mappers in Canberra mapping cycleways, I'd
suggest that as a reasonable collaborative way forward.

As to whether to use a relation, or tag the street, I'd say that if
the route incorporates several ways, and it is a point-to-point route,
then a relation is the way to go.  But I'd avoid creating a route for
what is just a collection of cycle friendly streets, because relations
aren't categories, and route relations definitely aren't.

> 3. Regarding the redaction earlier, does it matter if some remaining data is marked as "contributor terms declined"? e.g. the building named Fenwick in http://osm.org/go/uNlFb5phy--

The reason that this object

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/30032151/history

Was left alone by the redaction process was that there are seven edits
done to the object, and then a final edit by a mapper who declined the
CTs to delete a single node.  It was decided that the removal of
information (as opposed to the addition or change of information) was
not subject to redaction.

If you want to discuss the legal theory behind this philosophy, I'm
sure you'll be welcome at legal-talk! :-)  However, I think it is
unlikely the redaction process will be run again on this object.

> 4. Lastly, in either reconstructing huge areas of redaction, or mapping unmapped areas, where are people getting street names from? Street signs?

Yep.  Street signs, local knowledge, historical sources, other free or
out of copyright sources in a particular area we are allowed to use.

Ian.