[talk-au] Possible illegal imports in Western Australia (Andy Townsend)

Mon Jul 18 13:13:23 UTC 2016

I am reasonably local.  Both areas have had recent road building.  But I 
think they are now complete.  I will divert when I am close and resort 
to a gps trace.

It may take a week or so, but when I am close I will divert.

Warren

On 18/07/2016 8:00 PM, talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> 	talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: Possible illegal imports in Western Australia (Andy Townsend)
>     2. Re: Possible illegal imports in Western Australia (Warin)
>     3. Re: CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA
>        Administrative Boundaries (Australia) (Reuben)
>     4. Almost finished LPI Post Offices (Frank)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:31:45 +0100
> From: Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com>
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Possible illegal imports in Western Australia
> Message-ID: <578BDD21.3020507 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> For info, I've just finishing reverting the remaining nodes from these
> imports.  The last one was
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40792543 .  As previously
> mentioned upthread, many of the objects had already been removed but
> some of the nodes from some of the larger changesets remained.
>
> Two issues that I spotted on the way through I've commented on on:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40195315
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40195392
>
> It'd be great if a Perth local could have a look at those.
>
> Best Regards,
> Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse), on behalf of the Data Working Group.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:32:34 +1000
> From: Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Possible illegal imports in Western Australia
> Message-ID: <3a43c7ef-2eb2-b5f0-3caa-a25785e1db63 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 7/18/2016 5:31 AM, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> For info, I've just finishing reverting the remaining nodes from these
>> imports.  The last one was
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40792543 .  As previously
>> mentioned upthread, many of the objects had already been removed but
>> some of the nodes from some of the larger changesets remained.
>>
>> Two issues that I spotted on the way through I've commented on on:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40195315
> Using Strava cyclist heat map it looks to me like the roundabout (way
> 361673628) should be  a smaller diameter.
> The other roundabout (north western side) way 351188658  has used the
> same diameter, that too may need to be reduced?
>
> Bing, AGRI and Mapbox imagery are not upto date in this area so cannot
> be used.
>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40195392
> Similar situation - not available in the present imagery.
> Way Arthur Street 37451474
> Way Lord Street 346140242 and part of way 318945115.
>
>> It'd be great if a Perth local could have a look at those.
> Might take some time.
> In the short term would it not be 'better' to;
>
> 1) Reduce the roundabout diameters and remove the kinks (probably a more
> truthfull representation of what is there)
>
> 2) Reduce the portrayed importance to the sections of these roads?
>
> And then place fixmes on the ways?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:38:21 +1000
> From: Reuben <reuben_p at yahoo.com>
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA
> 	Administrative Boundaries (Australia)
> Message-ID: <8939a6e0-8a4f-9fd0-74c8-db7266e7ee8e at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Perhaps someone should make a submission to the Productivity Commission
> inquiry if it is the former:
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[talk-au] The Australian Productivity Commission public
> inquiry on Data Availability and Use.
> Date: 	Sat, 16 Jul 2016 15:35:35 +1000
> To: 	OSM Australian Talk List <Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>
>
>
> for info…
> The public inquiry will investigate ways to improve the availability and
> use of public and private sector data.
> The Australian Productivity Commission has released an issues paper and
> is asking for feedback.
> Initial submissions are due by Friday 29 July 2016.
>
> http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/data-access
>
>
> Reuben
> On 16/07/16 13:38, Paul Norman wrote:
>> On 7/12/2016 1:50 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
>>> - the additional requirement to adhere to the AUS privacy regulations
>>> was not addressed in the response, which in itself would be a killer.
>> It depends if it's part of the license or a reminder that in Australia
>> there are other laws that may effect what you can do with the data.
>>
>> If it's the former, the data is not available under CC BY 4.0 or an
>> open license and they're falsely advertising that the data is
>> available under an open license. If it's a reminder then it doesn't
>> add any new requirements.
>>
>> If they want it to be a reminder, I'd suggest wording like
>>
>> Users are reminded that the Australian Privacy Principles under the
>> Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) may impose additional restrictions on how they
>> use the data.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20160718/a931e690/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:48:44 +1000
> From: Frank <Sundowner61 at optusnet.com.au>
> To: talk-au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [talk-au] Almost finished LPI Post Offices
> Message-ID: <100bd62d-56d2-5225-bc91-f9c26784d8b4 at optusnet.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Hi,
>
> I have almost finished including the LPI Post Offices.
>
> I have completed country NSW and ACT. These were checked with the Ozie
> post website to 'see' if they were still current.. where not I tagged
> them obsolete:amenity=post_office ... so they won't render but still be
> in the data base for others to see. I have yet to complete the Sydney,
> Wollongong and Newcastle areas. I have added addresses from the LPI base
> map where I could determine it, a few of these differed from the Ozie
> post data .. but either not significantly, or if there is doubt then I
> included a fixme tag. All of my additions have a source tag.
>
> I did notice that the past OSM post offices entries had some short
> comings - no name, name=Australia Post .. and almost certainly no
> address. Of course I did not replace these .. even where the LPI data
> indicated a displacement of over 80 metres .. I regarded that as close
> enough for walking distance. One was tagged source survey .. but it is
> over the road in another building .. connected by a covered bridge ..
> left that one there too .. but added name.
>
> Once completed I will go back over my obsolete:amenity entries to
> confirm that they are in fact obsolete ... I have noticed some
> exceptions due to the way the Ozie post web search operates. :-!
>
> --------------------
>
> So once I finish .. then there are lots more to do.
>
> Libraries, tourist offices, police stations for example.
>
> If you want to do areas .. then parks, as in city/town parks?
>
> For addresses then adding that to the major population centres streets
> would be helpfull.
>
>
> What will I add next to the map?
>
>   From the LPI data .. something of use to me (i.e. none of the above :-) ).
>
> For 'housekeeping' on the map? sport=football sport=multi and
> sport=hockey still annoy me but they have little impact on the map. Yet
> to clarify the city/town/hamlet problem for Australia... I need to work
> on the data, particularly the population data. Yes, I know some think
> that services is a better way .. but I still think that the population
> gives a very good indication and can be used as a primary iteration of
> the classification. And will identify those that need 'looking at'.
>
> For the OSMwiki ..
>
> Document sport=long_jump, tipple_jump, discus_throw and hammer_throw.
>
> Clarify the words on the Australian tagging guide lines for 'access=no'
> problem, probably more important than the sports documentation?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 109, Issue 16
> ****************************************