[talk-au] Discussion of state regulation and planing issues for OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

+1 to what Andrew and Seb have already said. This mailing list is a great
place for this kind of discussion (including 1-5). It ensures the
discussion is publicly documented for reference, everyone is included (no
private discussion) and accessible regardless of where you based, and
unlike slack/irc you people can reply at the time of day or week that best
suits them.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines for
regional standards.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix for lifecycle
tagging of proposed, planned, construction, disused, abandoned, demolished,
removed etc.you could map proposed/planned greenfields, nature reserves etc.


On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:43, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> 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?
>
>    1. 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.
>    2. 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.
>    3. 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.
>    4. 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.
>    5. 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 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/20190919/87a571b1/attachment.html>