Queensland to classify roads based on bylaw data

PineappleSkip’s Diary | Classification of Queensland Roads | OpenStreetMap

just wanted to post this here, it has nothing to do with me. Based on this being allowed by the DWG I am going edit south australia with the same policy.

1, bylaw data aligns with OSM wiki policy
2, bylaw data removes human error
3, bylaw data keeps the map factual

The DWG doesn’t “allow” anything, however they’ve specifically said that classifications straight from the DataSA roads dataset shouldn’t be imported into OSM on a 1:1 basis.

For Queensland, do we even have permission for that data to be used as a source in OSM?


Was changing the road classifications to align with South Australia’s bypass law really an import? - Communities / Oceania - OpenStreetMap Community Forum
I made a topic last week which you commented on that highlights the difference between the wiki and the guideline that the unique policy of not allowing bylaw data was based on. The truth and fact is the wiki definition of classifying a road rules over the Australian guideline because it keeps the map in form with the wider worldwide community’s and how they edit the map. The Australian guideline and the wiki can not practically work together so the wiki is the most important rule to follow. This is highlighted in my recent post which nobody has disagreed with. The DWG cant allow bylaw data to rule in queensland and “whats on the ground” in south Australia as it goes against the policy of keeping the map confirmative with itself.



The Australian Guidelines are part of the wiki, and the first paragraph of the AU guidelines specifically talks about this, that there are occasionally local differences.

The DWG hasn’t allowed anything, the community is who allows in OSM. There’s community consensus against using DataSA for highway classifications, and it’s also not a by-law, so unless you can produce some kind of legislation for highway classification, using it does still go against both the wiki and community consensus.

And as a general point, lack of comments on something is not a yes or a no. However, people have previously commented and provided you feedback, in the form of changeset comments, responses to diary entries, and replies to forum posts, all telling you that what you are doing is not what the community agrees with.


I’ll also add an excellent quote from the wiki page How We Map

OpenStreetMap values community cohesion over data perfection.

thankyou and I completely agree with these key point

Contributions to OpenStreetMap should be:

  • Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have invented.
  • Legal - means that you don’t copy copyrighted data without permission.
  • Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for themselves if your data is correct.
  • Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to others how to re-use the data.

that is the very definition of verifiable bylaw data

the AU guideline doe not rule over the wiki, and please link the discussion where you are seeing this

That quote has nothing to do with AU guidelines. It says that the community is what allows in OSM, not the DWG.

Can you provide any actual bylaws or legislation regarding classification, because DataSA’s dataset is not either of those. It may be based from them, but you’d need both to actually have anything usable in that regard.

You’d also need to discuss with the community regarding how those classifications map to OSM ones, something which has been asked for but not provided when previously requested in changeset comments.

I am simply asking where the sentence is documented, and if you could provide a link.

DataSA is exactly a representation of bylaws, in terms of road classifications datasa is constantly updated from data sets provided by either the state for state maintained roads or local councils for council maintained roads.

please elaborate on this as I am not understanding this on face value.

the OSM wiki provides the OSM world wide community policy of the importance of using bylaws. and the How We Map page posted above emphasises the importance of using bylaw data when contributing to the OSM project.

This very topic is that discussion and I am open to answering any questions here. and thankyou for your questions so far, I am more than glad to answer anything here.

If you can’t provide the bylaws or legislation from which those classifications are derived, you can’t claim they’re based on bylaws or legislation. Just because it’s government data doesn’t mean that’s what it’s based on. You’ve also got to consider whether that actually is a reasonable reflection of road classification, since there’s been cases that have already been brought up where those classifications don’t match reality.

Nothing on the How We Map page talks about bylaws, it talks about “on the ground” mapping, it talks about community cohesion over data perfection, and it talks about working with the community.

Please actually listen to what the community is saying instead of just constantly arguing. You’ve been told several times that just blindly bringing in road classifications from DataSA is wrong. There’s nothing stopping you from using it as part of trying to detemine a classification, and there’s definitely roads that you’ve changed to match it where the change is honestly an improvement in my opinion, but above all, you need to work with the community.


bylaws and legislation are different things

Then provide the bylaws. A dataset is not a bylaw.

quote “The portal contains open datasets released by South Australian Government Agencies and Local Councils.”

there is absolutely no question that the data sets provided by government operated data sa are bylaws.

About | Data.SA

No, that just tells who you provided the data, not how they’ve made those decisions.

1 Like

I dont quite follow, who is “they” local councils or the state government? road classification decisions are researchable if you know where to look.

All I’ve been trying to ask for is the actual bylaws you’re using to classify highways, since that’s what you’re claiming to be using. The dataset in question is not a bylaw, but can be used to bridge the two. You also need some kind of mapping between the two (which really needs community consensus too).

If you can’t provide either of those, then using DataSA to classify highway is not using bylaws to classify highways.

1 Like

the data set is directly from Department for Infrastructure and Transport About - Department for Infrastructure and Transport - Organisations - data.sa.gov.au , the DIT provide 58 datasets for DataSA Department for Infrastructure and Transport - Organisations - data.sa.gov.au

Again, that just tells you who provided the data, not how those roads are classified. It’s still not by-laws.

ok I got it now, the classifications are part of the metadata from the roads dataset Roads - Dataset - data.sa.gov.au you can download the shp file to get the classification data. Sorry for the confusion mate

The metadata doesn’t expand on what each class means, and again, it isn’t bylaws.

The Australian equivalent of bylaws would be some kind of legislation, that for this would provide what each classification means, and would allow for discussion around what each of those classifications would map to an OSM one for a general rule (that could and should still be just part of what’s considered when classifying roads).