Bushwalk Australia

A video for the geeks in the forum. Interesting talk on spatial technologies and the role of volunteers for data gathering etc, especially in emergencies plus heaps of other interesting spatial stuff. Also a bit of history on OSM mapping.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_videos.jsp ... 69&org=NSF

I have done a bit on OSM.

What's extremely frustrating is having to reinvent the wheel. Spatial data collected by government is withheld from the public in the effort to make a buck.

To add insult to injury, in Vic a lot of that data is collected by CFA volunteers and then handed over by the government to Spatial Vision to be exploited commercially. We have to pay $90 each for map books comprised of data we compiled ourselves with the help of government departments we have already paid for with our tax dollars .

IMO all products of government bodies should be in the public domain.

I used to support OSM maps in a big way, I've done lot's of mapping over the years, but I've gone of doing that now, for the reasons you posted above. So many restrictions imposed on mapping now.

Phillipsart wrote:I used to support OSM maps in a big way, I've done lot's of mapping over the years, but I've gone of doing that now, for the reasons you posted above. So many restrictions imposed on mapping now.

Hold on there Phillip.

OSM is not the same as paying for CFA maps you helped compile. OSM is not a government enterprise, and so far it remains free to edit, free to view and free to download. The restrictions are that if you put tracks up or edits, OSM has a right to publish them under the license you agree to when you become a member.

I think what Russell is complaining about is that the CFA data collected by volunteers is not released by the government into OSM (correct me if I'm wrong Russell) and therefore the data has to be collected and uploaded again if you want to see it in OSM.

photohiker wrote:

Phillipsart wrote:I used to support OSM maps in a big way, I've done lot's of mapping over the years, but I've gone of doing that now, for the reasons you posted above. So many restrictions imposed on mapping now.

Hold on there Phillip.

OSM is not the same as paying for CFA maps you helped compile. OSM is not a government enterprise, and so far it remains free to edit, free to view and free to download. The restrictions are that if you put tracks up or edits, OSM has a right to publish them under the license you agree to when you become a member.

I think what Russell is complaining about is that the CFA data collected by volunteers is not released by the government into OSM (correct me if I'm wrong Russell) and therefore the data has to be collected and uploaded again if you want to see it in OSM.

Oh, I misunderstood it. I used to spend a lot of time on the OSM maps.

photohiker wrote:I think what Russell is complaining about is that the CFA data collected by volunteers is not released by the government into OSM (correct me if I'm wrong Russell) and therefore the data has to be collected and uploaded again if you want to see it in OSM.

Yes, but more broadly - all data collected using public money (or labour volunteered to government agencies) should be available to the public for any use.

By the letter of the law, even if I walk along a track, use the GPS trace to put it in OSM, and then refer to a government map for the name of the track, and then put that name in OSM, I am violating the government's copyright. I have to make sure I note down the name of the track when I see it signposted. That's just ridiculous! But it's only slightly less ridiculous that I can't just go and download GIS files of the government spatial data directly and import them into OSM for further refinement.

In the USA at least all publications (including maps) of the federal government are in the public domain. I don't know whether they go as far as providing downloadable data, though.

russell2pi wrote:By the letter of the law, even if I walk along a track, use the GPS trace to put it in OSM, and then refer to a government map for the name of the track, and then put that name in OSM, I am violating the government's copyright.

I don't think that's true. Even if track names were copyrightable, what evidence does the government have that it owns the copyright? Why do you think it's true?

russell2pi wrote:In the USA at least all publications (including maps) of the federal government are in the public domain. I don't know whether they go as far as providing downloadable data, though.

People in the USA can (and do) apply for mapping data at other levels of government using the FOI (freedom of information) and GIPA style legislation. We have it here too. I know .nsw.gov.au were going to amend the legislation to take copyright into account, but again ... establishing who owns (rather than merely asserts) copyright could be an interesting process.

Spatial data collected by government is withheld from the public in the effort to make a buck.
I tend to agree and it certainly applies in my area of work.
We (my industry) supply what makes up the backbone of all geographical data and that is paid for by the ordinary bod on the street, when they come to us for work.
It is then taken at a fee mind you, by the Government and then sold on and back to the public. Hmph!!

Sorry Phil, got side tracked.
Thanks for posting the info.

colinm wrote:

russell2pi wrote:By the letter of the law, even if I walk along a track, use the GPS trace to put it in OSM, and then refer to a government map for the name of the track, and then put that name in OSM, I am violating the government's copyright.

I don't think that's true. Even if track names were copyrightable, what evidence does the government have that it owns the copyright? Why do you think it's true?

Not evidence as such but here's where I got that impression from:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki ... reet_Names

I guess it comes down to the street names being protected as part of a copyrightable compilation

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSMF ... _.28Cth.29

Have a look at a Vicmap map - it will say "Copyright State of Victoria" (Topos) or "Copyright Spatial Vision Innovations" (map books).

russell2pi wrote:By the letter of the law, even if I walk along a track, use the GPS trace to put it in OSM, and then refer to a government map for the name of the track, and then put that name in OSM, I am violating the government's copyright.

russell2pi wrote:I guess it comes down to the street names being protected as part of a copyrightable compilation

A portmanteau copyright. For a collection of facts to be subject to copyright, the authors must have exercised some kind of intellectual or literary effort applied to the collection. Merely collecting facts isn't sufficient.

You may have heard of the Sensis case (http://bit.ly/WZoNiR) ... Telstra claimed it owned the white and yellow pages, but lost (in part) because:

None of the Works were original. None of the people said to be authors of the Works exercised “independent intellectual effort” or “sufficient effort of a literary nature” in creating the Works. Further, if necessary, the creation of the Works did not involve some “creative spark” or the exercise of the requisite “skill and judgment”. I accept that production of the directories is a large enterprise populated by many contributors (ignoring for the moment the determinative difficulties with authorship outlined above).

However, these facts are not relevant to the Applicants’ claim and, as explained at [20(6)] above, substantial labour and expense is not alone sufficient to establish originality. The evidence established that the “system” by which the directories are produced is designed to limit originality, not provide for it.

In this case, the name of a street represents a simple fact, "This street is called X." Merely collecting that fact alongside all the other similar facts pertaining to an area doesn't make the collection a copyrightable thing. Firstly, the author of the name (assuming one could argue that naming something was a creative act) isn't usually known. Secondly, the purpose of a name is to be copied, when you use it to refer to the thing named, so copyright on names is just never going to work (unless you're going to have "The street formally known as Prince Street" for example.)

Amusingly, the collection would be copyrightable if the street names in it were original ... so if you made up a bunch of names out of the blue, that'd be a creative/literary work ... but of course it would be so original that nobody else would ever have heard of them, which would sort of defeat the purpose of having a name.

So anyway, I think the OSM collective wisdom is being overly conservative in this.

russell2pi wrote:Have a look at a Vicmap map - it will say "Copyright State of Victoria" (Topos) or "Copyright Spatial Vision Innovations" (map books).

Yeah, well, anyone can put that text on anything, even including the little © symbol. It's not necessary, under the Berne convention, to mark an "original work in fixed form", rather copyright subsists ab initio in the author of such a work (short form: if you really made it up, you own the copyright.) It would come into play if copying the work were found to have been contrary to law ... then you could show it was an intentional act. It doesn't prove that the work is copyrighted, or that the State of Victoria owns the copyright.

It gets more interesting when you come to geomorphological features like cliff lines, swamps and land cover, because someone had to sit over a stereoscopic image and 'exercise judgement' as to whether there really was a cliff line there. That would be copyrightable, I think. A walking track *might* be copyrightable (but it could be argued that the person/people cutting the track were the owners of the copyright ) But the mere *name* of a feature can never be copyrighted, in my opinion.

colinm wrote: But the mere *name* of a feature can never be copyrighted, in my opinion.

Thanks for your thoughts colinm,

One of the things I learned from OSM was that other mapping sources deliberately put errors in their maps to trap people making copies so as to have evidence that the map is copied without permission should the copyright owner wish to defend their copyright.

You may be right that OSM is being overly conservative, but probably better to be conservative than too lenient.

photohiker wrote:

colinm wrote: But the mere *name* of a feature can never be copyrighted, in my opinion.

One of the things I learned from OSM was that other mapping sources deliberately put errors in their maps to trap people making copies so as to have evidence that the map is copied without permission should the copyright owner wish to defend their copyright.

Yes, they do that, but they can't do it with things like street names. Let's take a hypothetical case: UBD or MapGovCo print a map in which they falsely name an existing street ... they wouldn't do it for an extant street/track ... but if they did ... you would be perfectly within your rights to call the street by that name without them alleging copyright infringment. You would also, therefore, be at liberty to record on your map the name you have heard people use for that street ... again, no copyright infringement, because no copying.

What they do is add non-existent streets or other similar features to the map in order to poison the data source (to watermark it against copying.) It has nothing to do with naming.

Furthermore if (when) someone writes a program to turn an aerial photograph into a set of street vectors, it will be very hard to argue that making a street map is a creative exercise. Of course, on that day you wouldn't want to copy their streets anyway, you'd have a whole 'nother set of copyright issues (derivative work from the photograph.)

photohiker wrote:You may be right that OSM is being overly conservative, but probably better to be conservative than too lenient.

I think the naming thing is a non-issue, but it is tricky terrain.

This discussion has prompted me to write a bit of a screed on copyright overreach: http://bit.ly/WZuVaE

Thanks colinm - it is good to know the situation might not be quite as bad as I thought.

Although, on "overreach" - the way the legal system is set up to protect he who has the deepest pocket, virtually no-one can afford to take the risk of testing such theories on what you may or may not get sued for. See e.g. some of Lawrence Lessig's stuff on the uselessness of US "fair use" copyright clauses.

http://www.authorama.com/free-culture-11.html
http://www.authorama.com/free-culture-16.html

Any information taken from a government data set must be acknowledged. Here in Tasmania ie.
Even if it's used for purely personal use for the benefit of others.
I recently queried something with them and was assured that is the case.

Any purchase of data from tasmanian government is preceded by a10 +- page document listing copyright and end user details.

I expect a casual misuse may slip through. Prolonged misuse would eventually get caught up in red tape.

Colinm. The name had to derive somewhere.
The Nomenclature board here seems to control those matters. It would be an interesting debate if it took place.

Place names in the private domain are subject to legalities.
Black Stump is a common Aussie generic name. I know one local business here that had that name for yonks, but a business expansion triggered a legal spat with a place on the mainland.

Goodness knows where all this will end up in the future?
Black Bog! Where great uncle Ebenezer got his T model bogged on Christmas day.......
No. You can't use that name. It belongs to his heirs and descendants

Taswegian,

taswegian wrote:The name had to derive somewhere. The Nomenclature board here seems to control those matters. It would be an interesting debate if it took place.

We have something similar in NSW for geographical names. There's a statutory procedure for naming stuff at the state level.

You can't give a thing a public name and then expect to be able to prevent the public from using it, and that's all copyright is. If geographical place names could be copyrighted, it would be possible that someone could charge you a fee every time you used your home address.

taswegian wrote:Place names in the private domain are subject to legalities.
Black Stump is a common Aussie generic name. I know one local business here that had that name for yonks, but a business expansion triggered a legal spat with a place on the mainland.

Those are business names, and business names aren't place names, and are regulated by the commonwealth. The relevant right is not copyright, but trademark - which is the right to be uniquely named. The intent of trademark is to prevent others passing-off their goods as yours. Pepsi, for example, can (rightly) stop me from putting the name "Pepsi" on a carbonated drink, but they can't stop me saying the word "Pepsi" to refer to their company or product. Interestingly, they also can't stop me starting up (say) the Pepsi Car Wash, because there's no likelihood that people would confuse a car wash and a soft drink.

These days maps are derived from GIS and stored in layers, where each feature is a vector and each vector is (usually) tagged with metadata about the provenance of the data (who created it, how, how reliable is it, etc.) That stuff is mashed up to produce a printable map.

In my opinion names are not the interesting issue as far as getting geographical data into the public domain. The interesting questions arise from things like tracks, rivers and cliff lines.

I have already written up why I think tracks *are* subject to copyright (http://bit.ly/WorJcx) but that the authors (and hence the copyright owners) are the people who made the track, not the mapping authority. People should be *very* careful what they sign when a mapping authority takes data from them ... they should not assign an exclusive license, for example ... there's no good reason for doing so. Meanwhile, if each person who walked a track put the GPX into OSM, we'd pretty quickly have all the data.

Water features like rivers and creeks are a different matter: in the old days they were derived from stereographic aerial photographs. These days they are derived from DEM data + hydrological software. It is possible to generate these without copying from a map using open data (the DEM) and software. Roads, too, should be able to be generated by software from aerial photos.

Finally, Cliffs are features which bushwalkers really care about. Cliffs are, again, mostly derived from someone sitting down with an aerial photograph and recording what they see. That data/layer *is* copyrightable. There's no doubt someone had to do something creative to get data on where cliffs are. The http://wikimapia.org system provides a facility to record this kind of judgement/creative-act in an open way. DEM+aerial-photo+software might be able to assist.

The bottom line here, though, is that something like OSM can do a lot better in producing maps than the mapping authorities have been able to do, especially for bushwalkers. Have a look at the difference in detail between the track as recorded on the topos (black dashed line) and the track as walked (green line,) and particularly see how the official track leads you straight off a cliff (red coloured background + contours.)

We have the tools to do a lot better.

I read, above, that some people have given data to one of the victorian mapping authorities (or companies, I don't know.) russell2pi mentioned it, and Phillipsart seemed to know what he meant.

I would be *very*interested* to read a copy of whatever the MA gave those people to sign, because it would indicate what rights they have signed away. It may well be possible to argue that the agreements were unconscionable, or inequitable.

Personally, I don't think people should be giving data to the MA without expecting to be able to share the data in return. I don't think it's a decent business model for the MA to ask volunteers to do what the MA can't afford to do, and then expect to charge the public for the fruits of that volunteer labour.

I think this stuff has to be carefully negotiated, because it's going to come up more frequently in the near future.

I agree business names can be different, but in say Black Bog Creek example. If I used that for a business name for my cafe at Black Bog Creek and an heir and decendant appeared that thought he could make a buck then the person with the deepest pockets and the greater legal access would obviously be the winner.
Then the generic and very public and very specific geographic location name is suddenly not so public.

taswegian wrote:I agree business names can be different, but in say Black Bog Creek example. If I used that for a business name for my cafe at Black Bog Creek and an heir and decendant appeared that thought he could make a buck then the person with the deepest pockets and the greater legal access would obviously be the winner.
Then the generic and very public and very specific geographic location name is suddenly not so public.

The issue is one of trademark, regarding the name of a business. If you named your hypothetical cafe "Black Bog Cafe" or "Black Bog Creek Cafe" they would have no standing to even bring a suit unless they had already registered a trademark which could be argued to be confusingly similar to your cafe's name. The question of whether a local name or registered place name existed has no bearing on the matter of whether your Black Bog Cafe could be confused for their Black Bog B&B, and that has absolutely nothing to do with a map maker claiming copyright over a named locality on their map.

All this really has nothing to do with the question of who owns names in general, or geographical names in particular. Names, for all the reasons given above, are not subject to copyright. Just read the act (cited above, I think, or readily available on the net) and see if you can possibly construe a name as a literary work. You can no more copyright a proper noun than I could copyright the word 'is.'

It's probably worth dragging this 'naming' spur back to the main-line conversation: Yes all maps (including mapping authority maps) are subject to copyright. No all of the features on the map aren't necessarily copyrighted, and No the mapping authority does not necessarily own the copyright to all the features on the map, even if they own the copyright to the map in toto.

So: You definitely can't just scan in a map and submit it to OSM, but I am (personally) certain that you can refer to a map for the names of features, because that information is not (and cannot be) the subject of a copyright infringement case, because those features cannot themselves be copyrighted.

More importantly, though: the features of a published topo which I am certain you can't legally copy (such as, for example: tracks, clifflines, rivers) are also those features which authoritative topographic maps often get *completely* wrong. So you would not *want* to copy them.

In the case of tracks (which are the obvious and easiest features a bushwalker can capture): by signing a GPX track over to a mapping authority, you may have given them an exclusive license to reproduce and use your (I would say) 'performance' of the track (whose copyright owner is, I say, the person who cut the track in the first place) to the mapping authority.

Incidentally: It would be interesting if, in the act of signing over your copyright to performance of a track, you have inadvertently claimed that you own copyright to the actual track on the ground. On my reading, there is a difference, in law, between the track and a recording of walking that track. I would certainly want to read any such agreement carefully before signing it. I am almost certain that any such document would contain some verbiage like "the Assigner warrants that he/she is the owner of all copyrights in the Material." Giving a warranty like that, for free, would make me anxious.

I am writing a proposal to the Land and Property Information organisation in my state government that they release GIS data pertaining to wilderness (and other similar) areas to the mapping community. I would appreciate comment/criticism of the proposal. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0PI7wNVRyT9T0k4M1JqRjhaZXM/edit

taswegian wrote:

All this really has nothing to do with the question of who owns names in general, or geographical names in particular. Names, for all the reasons given above, are not subject to copyright.

It seems like some think differently which was the concern I had earlier that geographical names don't hold any special privileges when it comes to ownership.
"It's a street name, it's descriptive," he said. - Hill St butchers comments.

I fully appreciate its a business application, but wonder what bodes in other areas as the street was full of 'Hill Street....(name)' before the grocer decided on exclusive use.

Unfortunately this now sets a precedence.
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/02/25/373126_tasmania-news.html

Is "some people think differently" a euphemism?

It certainly doesn't set a precedent. The text itself says the businesses "have been obliged to make name changes to avoid a Federal Court battle" ... a non-court case can't give rise to a precedent. They may well have won their case, had they been prepared to argue it.

Why are people so confused about this stuff? It's pretty simple really. Three monopolies granted by the state are commonly (improperly) called 'intellectual property' and are subject to what you call ownership:

Trademark - a monopoly on the use of a name used to carry on a business.

Patent - a monopoly on a process used to produce something of value.

Copyright - a monopoly on the copying, performance, recording of a creative work.

Except in the loosest of language, you can't own a name. You can't 'own' any of the things to which trademarks, copyrights and patents apply, you can only own the rights conferred by trademark, patent and copyright law.

The above case was about a trademark (and not a name, even though the thing trademarked happened to be a name, it could equally have been a drawing, or even a colour.) Although it's irrelevant to this discussion, I'll add that merely owning a trademark doesn't mean you can stop people saying or writing down the thing trademarked (a name, in this case) ... it only means you can stop them conducting business under it. You might choose a geographic name under which to carry on business, and if that name were similar to another's name, that might be in breach of their monopoly right to use the name to carry on trade in their area of business.

Still this has *nothing*whatsoever* to do with copyright.

And still: You can't own copyright in a name, because if a name can't be 'copied' or 'performed', it can't be a name, can it, because one can't use a name which can't be uttered or written down ... and then it's not a name, or it's a name which nothing can ever be called (which amounts to the same thing.)

G'day Colinm
I deleted that post but not soon enough. (Well Admin did on my request) as it isn't pertinent to the original topic.
I was merely wanting to highlight the issues out there that place 'names' (common ones) be it what ever purpose come under increasing scrutiny as users pick up and run with them as exclusively as this person thinks they have the right to.
And how the general public perceive them to be.

I wasn't interested in furthering anything so deleted my post, or its contents. Hence my not answering this on line.

regards

Richard

Hi

Good to see more and more people picking up the OSM batten. Due to the change in OSM licence and rather bitter redaction (removal of data) process the community is hyper-sensitive over copyright laws so tends to be very cautious. Can make mapping a pain as you can use Bing and trace in a lake but then say have a Tasmap sitting open and entering the name could be considered breaching Tasmap’s intellectual property by some. I take the cautious approach simply as that is what is recommended by the leaders of the OSM community despite personally thinking it is rather excessive. Remember volunteers drive OSM so there is no centralised legal department to debate the merits of different jurisdiction definitions of copyright.

OSM is free for anyone and maps made can be loaded into many Garmin models. The tracks and paths may have errors but frankly so do all commercial maps. Tasmap as many know have incurred my rants due to their slowness of updating them especially that they actually have the up-to-date data. Frustrating again Tasmap have walked away from their promise of releasing the maps electronically. It is clear that the best mapping data is been withheld at least in Tasmania for a variety of reasons. I still believe that a bushwalker is well advised to have the most recent paper Tasmap despite OSM’s progress as Tasmap has “acceptable” quality. For the tech savvy it is better to buy the most recent paper map and scan it into a mobile device as the quality of current electronic maps is terrible for many areas.

It is pleasing though that many people’s contribution to OSM has resulted in some impressive data to use. Also, I would argue that it is often much more accurate than the commercial products. It is a slow but steady process the accumulation of data. The main users are vehicle owners so in Tasmania many of the roads have been entered into the database. Many still need to be named and the surface identified along with speed limits. A growing number of walking tracks are appearing and pleasingly now rivers.

OSM’s weakness is waterways as they are largely non-existent while commercial GPS data is very good. Still it is interesting to note rival products having the same error such as a water course stopping mid stream so despite the marketing bravado there is common data source and that being government.

In the short time I have been contributing to OSM I have seen significant advance and the beauty of it if you find an error you can correct it. I notice occasionally people have revisited my data and cleaned up some aspect. Also some have stuffed it up so a degree of tolerance is required. Indeed, the OSM community is noticing that the like of Google are “borrowing” OSM’s work to update their maps. This is identified as errors in OSM are now found in Google maps!

Personally it is a buzz trundling across a snow covered landscape and then rejoining a track you plotted back in summer and countering down the metres until you get to it. It makes life easier and more certain especially in this day and age of tight deadlines to be back by a certain day and even time. Also, it is interesting looking at tracks for ideas of bushwalks. I nowadays enjoy using tracks to “express” to a point of interest and then heading off track to join up with another track a couple of days later. OSM is brilliant for this especially if snow is obscuring a track.

Cheers

WRT waterways ... one could possibly use a hydrographic algorithm over DEM to put in the courses, mark them as non-perennial, and correct later.

Ent wrote:In the short time I have been contributing to OSM I have seen significant advance and the beauty of it if you find an error you can correct it. I notice occasionally people have revisited my data and cleaned up some aspect. Also some have stuffed it up so a degree of tolerance is required. Indeed, the OSM community is noticing that the like of Google are “borrowing” OSM’s work to update their maps. This is identified as errors in OSM are now found in Google maps!

QFT

Used some of the results of your OSM mapping efforts in the WOJ (and added to it) Thanks!

hope I didn't stuff any of it up for you

photohiker wrote:

Ent wrote:In the short time I have been contributing to OSM I have seen significant advance and the beauty of it if you find an error you can correct it. I notice occasionally people have revisited my data and cleaned up some aspect. Also some have stuffed it up so a degree of tolerance is required. Indeed, the OSM community is noticing that the like of Google are “borrowing” OSM’s work to update their maps. This is identified as errors in OSM are now found in Google maps!

QFT

Used some of the results of your OSM mapping efforts in the WOJ (and added to it) Thanks!

hope I didn't stuff any of it up for you

No stuff ups that I have noticed and glad that you find it useful. One of my favourite areas to walk. Trouble is you wander an area and then realise that the GPS batteries have gone flat so miss a track or two.

The usual issue with mapping is what is a recognised track versus a well-trodden path. Always a matter of conjecture and one that the individual mapper needs to resolve themselves.

The great thing with OSM mapping is you realise and better understand map making constraints so less inclined to fall for even contour lines masking cliffs and other issues when navigating on the ground. One of the highlights was watching our group’s resident navigator in action using Tasmap, satellite imaging, and cross referencing to my OSM mapping efforts when doing a substantial off track walk.

Certainly made for an easier walk as scrub and other obstacles could be skirted. A very impressive feat compared to mindless scrub bashing that otherwise would have happened. The challenge with OSM is to add the vegetation data. Trouble is this information once entered does not come up on my Garmin 62s.

Hi Collinm. You have a level of mapping knowledge way above mine but it makes sense that a water course would generally follow the path of least resistance, hence contour lines. I have been looking long and hard at Garmin electronic maps and I tend to think that their water body identification is the result of some satellite water recognition-mapping trick by say radar as I have noticed a tendency to identify swampy land as a lake. I would love to add more watercourse data to OSM as a few minor creeks I recorded between lakes has been rather challenging to do on foot and marking them in from photographs can be more creative than ideal due to the low quality of photographs.

I like to walk an area and get reference points to features that show up on satellite and then align Bing to it before tracing features in. I then attempt to use the absolute precision on points but then strike occasionally at times being halfway round and using up the 2000 maximum points that an object can have or OSM falls over so lose what you have done. I do enjoy then when visiting area finding stuff is where it should be. Refined a track from many plots and when in snow it was very impressed that “go right five metres” instruction found it.

In Australia we have a massive amount of work to do but we have received a lot of help from overseas armchair mappers that using Bing photographs have traced in coastlines and some major rivers plus put up towns. It is nice human trait of helping out with no personal reward that many OSM mappers have. Weird but true you could be travelling to a bushwalking starting point following a road that has been marked in by someone in England that has run out of local features to map so decided to pick on that area. This can be very handy in third world countries where maps simply do not exist.

Cheers