Re: [Talk-GB] British Waterways

[Andrew Black]

On 07/12/2020 10:33, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


TBH there's only 170 operator=British Waterways tags according to 
taginfo, so it could be polished off pretty quickly with an Overpass 
query and a manual edit.



Agreed.

But (correct me if I am wrong) that is still an automated edit.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Eat out to help out data

[Andrew Black]

On 20/08/2020 12:28, Andy Townsend wrote:


Perhaps "opening_hours:covid19=open"?

Even that's a bit tricky - if an establishment is registered with the 
scheme I guess it doesn't guarantee that it is _currently_ open.


This is (IMHO) part of  a bigger problem that opening times are changing 
more quickly than we can map.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Map the path + motorways

[Andrew Black via Talk-GB]

*> According to Nick's MapthePaths site*
*> (which incidentally also uses newer OS raster data) *
*> there are quite a few missing PRoW in the area too.*

Ho hum - some paths south of Croydon I thought of mapping but they were a
bit too close to the M25 for comfort.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Facebook Map Query - Thames rendered as Thanames

[Andrew Black]

I have seen similar but can't recall where or which tile provider.  To
state obvious, it only occurs at certain zoom levels.
Once i realised it was probably transient I lost interest.


On Fri, 26 Oct 2018, 01:44 Steve Doerr,  wrote:

> A user on the Facebook group 'UK Places Editors' has commented on the
> fact that some maps on Facebook pages in the vicinity of Putney Bridge
> (London) show the River Thames as 'Thanames'. See, for example,
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/Putney-Bridge/103150243057869
>
>
> A bit of browser debugging shows that it's accessing the URL
>
> https://external-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/static_map.php?v=1013_provider=2=324x160=15=51.46701240%2C-0.21317368=en_GB=2
>
>
> Note the parameter _provider=2
>
>
> Can anyone shed light on what tile service is being used here and what
> could be causing the Thanames name to appear? I can see that adjacent
> tiles rendered at different times, so that the label 'Thames' occurs in
> a different position, could cause something that looks like 'Thanames'
> when they are joined together, but I can't produce any evidence of this.
>
>
> --
>
> Steve
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Andrew Black]

There is a very big difference

- ceremonial counties exist now and so are in scope for OSM.  As you say
here are differences between them and admin counties when unitary
authorties are involved
 - traditional counties are an attempt to recreate the past
So I don't think these trad counties have any ceremonial existence any
more.  Which means they are just causing confusion.

I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of London
since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in Surrey.



>
>
> I'm not sure what the difference is between boundary=ceremonial and
> boundary=traditional (I believe the ceremonial counties generally include
> the districts which were in the county but now are unitary authorities so
> not in the boundary=administrative).
>
> Ed
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Andrew Black]

Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to decide
whether it is wanted.
Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards.



On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale  wrote:

> I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome. It is obvious there
> is not an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, and as usual the
> debate just fizzles out with no conclusion. If we do nothing, the data
> stays in the database because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it
> can't be documented for fear of legitimising it.
>
> Is this the best we can do?
>
>
>
> On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black 
> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They
>> are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant.
>> They add no quality to the database.They should be removed."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some options...
>>>
>>> 1) remove them all
>>>
>>> 2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them
>>>
>>> 3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are
>>> controversial, to say the least
>>>
>>> Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things that are in OSM to
>>> be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki
>>>
>>> Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
>>> maybe we can go for option 3?
>>>
>>>
>>> Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then I
>>> think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
>>> determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.
>>>
>>> On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant to
>>> OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is
>>> irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed.
>>>
>>> DaveF
>>>
>>> On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:
>>>
>>> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
>>> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
>>> historic county boundaries being in OSM.
>>>
>>> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.
>>>
>>> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing 
>>> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Andrew Black]

I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They are
neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant.
They add no quality to the database.They should be removed."





On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale  wrote:

> I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some options...
>
> 1) remove them all
>
> 2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them
>
> 3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are
> controversial, to say the least
>
> Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things that are in OSM to
> be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki
>
> Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
> maybe we can go for option 3?
>
>
> Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then I
> think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
> determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.
>
> On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:
>
> No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant to
> OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is
> irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed.
>
> DaveF
>
> On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
> historic county boundaries being in OSM.
>
> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.
>
> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] FHRS Errors was Re: Updates to 'Survey Me!' tool

[Andrew Black]

I did manage to get the council to remove a long closed pub from FHRS.

I have cases where both old and businesses are listed. Worried that an
armchair mapper will revert an update to OSM.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018, 10:24 Gregrs,  wrote:

> Hi Colin,
>
> >Oh and another where the fhrs listing has the wrong postcode!
>
> Please add the wrong postcode using not:addr:postcode and add a note to
> say that the FHRS postcode disagrees e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/391878897. The comparison tool will
> recognise this and will no longer list it as a postcode mismatch.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
> --
> Twitter: @gregrs_uk
> http://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org
> PGP key ID: 64907C8A
> Fingerprint: EBD1 077F CCDD 841E A505 3FAA D2E8 592E 6490 7C8A
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton

[Andrew Black]

And calling city council officers idiots is not the most helpful of
changeset comment.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, 16:39 Martin Wynne,  wrote:

>   > And, since that also matches what's on the ground,
>
> What's on the ground is that a property in Avenue has a postal address
> in East Street, so maybe Avenue is simply a part of East Street and
> should be mapped as "East Street"?
>
> It is in the normal run of East Street numbers - 60 not 60A:
>
>   http://www.cutemedia.com/contact/
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Documenting prow_ref formats (Was: MapthePaths & Lancashire)

[Andrew Black]

Surrey seems ot have a format of " Banstead NCP 123A".  But existing
entries in OSM are "FP 37".

What does NCP mean. I will enter then as  f " Banstead FP 37" unless told
otherwise!




On 14 July 2018 at 17:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 July 2018 at 19:26, Andrew Black 
> wrote:
> > I am pondering a similar but simpler question. I would like to add a
> table
> > listing each authority at https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Key:prow_ref
> > describing the conventions used.
>
> I've been working on something like this already as part of my PRoW
> Progress/Comparison tool at
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ . The tool needs to know
> the format that's used in each area in order to correctly parse the
> prow_ref values use in OSM, and to generate Right of Way numbers to
> display. The formats are stored in my database as a regular expression
> for parsing and a sprinf format string for generating the output. I've
> been displaying the formats on the county and parish pages for some
> time, but I've now added a page showing the formats for each county
> where one is defined:
>
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/ref-formats/
>
> These are the formats currently used by my tool. They may not always
> be the best one, as sometimes there didn't seem to be a consistent
> format in use (either by the Council or in OSM), and so sometimes I've
> just opted for my default "[Parish Name] [Type] [Number]" style. I can
> add other counties on request. I'm also more than happy to amend any
> of the formats already there if there's a consensus amongst local
> mappers to use something different.
>
> One thing to be aware of though, is that the GIS data provided by the
> councils is usually not the official Definitive Map, but just a
> working representation of it. Often the council will assign reference
> numbers to parishes, and segment numbers to the ways that are just for
> internal convenience, and don't form part of the official PRoW number
> as defined in the Definitive Map and Statement. My philosophy in the
> above is to try to stick to the official numbering as used in the
> Definitive Map and Statement.
>
> I plan to add a download of the data at
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/ref-formats/ (probably in JSON
> format) at some point so anyone else who wants to can make us of this
> data more easily. I also have CSV files containing parish IDs and
> names for the counties where it's necessary to do this translation,
> which I can make available. For those using rowmaps data, sometimes
> you'll find the parish name in the INFO field, but the presence and
> format of this varies from county to county.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapthePaths & Lancashire

[Andrew Black]

I am pondering a similar but simpler question. I would like to add a table
listing each authority at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref
describing the conventions used.
With a subpage if there is a lot of info such as Toby's list for Lancashire

I have added the first prow_ref for Bromley (outer london and not OGL). As
there are no parishes, I have adopted the same convention as Croydon which
is  *LB Bromley FP 120B*
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41799727



On 11 July 2018 at 18:38, Tony Shield  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Love MapthePaths; in Lancashire the path is presented as "Public footpath,
> ref 9-8 18", I have manually translated this to the prow_ref of "Charnock
> Richard FP 18". I have performed this conversion by looking at Barry
> Cornelius's data file and extracting District and Parish ID's and matched
> them to the 9-8 element of the ID. I have a spreadsheet of the DIstrict and
> Parish combinations - is there somewhere I can place it to help others?
> Alternatively could MapthePaths be modified to use the parish name instead
> of the District/Parish ID numbers.
>
> I noted there are 231 parishes and unparished towns, some with only one
> footpath. Some of the parish names are mis-spelt eg BYRNING-WITH-WARTON
> should be Bryning . . .
>
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Shield
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

[Andrew Black]

I am getting "your editing session has timed out, please log in again."
despite having logged in less than a minute earlier.
Chrome if it is relevant

Thanks

On 7 July 2018 at 19:45, Nick Whitelegg  wrote:

>
> 401 would mean you're not logged in.. when you login it stores your OAuth
> token in a session, which expires after a certain time (15 minutes I think,
> need to check the configuration).
>
>
> I'll modify the code when I have a moment so that if it gives a 401 it
> comes up with a more friendly message to tell the user they need to log
> back in.
>
>
> I have changed the code slightly to reduce the risk of caching old
> versions of the JavsScript.
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Rob Nickerson 
> *Sent:* 07 July 2018 18:20:15
>
> *To:* Nick Whitelegg
> *Cc:* Talk-GB
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and
> prow_ref
>
> Still having issues.
>
> I was getting the correct message box but now I just get "OpenStreetMap
> returned an error: code 401".
>
> BTW: I am adding designation but no prow_ref. For now I will continue with
> JOSM.
>
> *Rob*
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 17:38, Nick Whitelegg 
> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Rob,
>
>
> To add to Martin's comment, try using Ctrl+F5 on MapThePaths itself as you
> might be using a cached old version of the scripts.
>
>
> When you add a designation and/or prow_ref, an alert box reading 'Way NNN
> successfully updated in OSM' should appear. Does this appear?
>
>
> The way you mentioned doesn't seem to have any edits even after refreshing.
>
>
> Nick
>
>
> --
> *From:* Rob Nickerson 
> *Sent:* 07 July 2018 12:37:26
> *To:* Nick Whitelegg
> *Cc:* Talk-GB
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and
> prow_ref
>
> In that case it is not working for me. Username is RobJN (with
> capitalisation). Tried to edit a few ways including this one:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/454674177
>
> Anyone else having success? problems?
>
> Thanks,
> *Rob*
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 at 11:10, Nick Whitelegg 
> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Rob,
>
>
> Should be immediate: for example I've added a number of prow_ref tags in
> just the last few minutes. See:
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60485630
>
>
> One update today BTW - formerly each edit had a separate changeset, which
> wasn't ideal. Now multiple edits in one session are grouped into a single
> changeset.
>
>
> Let me know if you're still having problems; let me know what edits you're
> trying to do and I'll try and reproduce them.
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Rob Nickerson 
> *Sent:* 06 July 2018 23:42:41
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org; Nick Whitelegg
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and
> prow_ref
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> How long does it take for the edits to go through to OSM? I expected it to
> be live but this doesn't seem to be the case.
>
> Thanks,
> *Rob*
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] House of Fraser

[Andrew Black]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2018, 01:57 Andrew Black,  wrote:

> If you are going to do it use fixmes, much more likely to get noticed than
> notes IMHO.
>
>>
>> Apologies. Might be better stated as "there are advantages both ways".
Round me there are LOADS of unresolved notes. Some it's not quite obvious
where it's talking about . Don't get me started on notes created
maps.me.


 To the extent I have sometimes changed things and later discovered they
were covered by notes. Hence I am loathe to worsen the situation.
But I accept a note plonked in the middle of a soon to close House of
Fraser is pretty unambiguous.


Note to self (pun accidental): when making an edit check for any notes in
that vicinity.


>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, 21:31 Michael Booth,  wrote:
>
>> If you are going to do it use the notes feature, much more likely to get
>> noticed than fixmes.
>>
>> On 07/06/2018 20:53, Andrew Hain wrote:
>>
>> House of Fraser today announced today that half their branches are to
>> close, listing which ones. Although shops should not yet be removed does it
>> make sense with this announcement (or others like it in the future) to put
>> notes or fixmes in the 31 locations involved?
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing 
>> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] House of Fraser

[Andrew Black]

If you are going to do it use fixmes, much more likely to get noticed than
notes IMHO.

On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, 21:31 Michael Booth,  wrote:

> If you are going to do it use the notes feature, much more likely to get
> noticed than fixmes.
>
> On 07/06/2018 20:53, Andrew Hain wrote:
>
> House of Fraser today announced today that half their branches are to
> close, listing which ones. Although shops should not yet be removed does it
> make sense with this announcement (or others like it in the future) to put
> notes or fixmes in the 31 locations involved?
>
> --
> Andrew
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Andrew Black]

On Sat, 5 May 2018, 12:00 Rob Nickerson,  wrote:

> And for the balance: I disagree with Frederik on this one.
>


A crap map could also put people off - "why bother, OSM is so far behind,
> I'll contribute to/just use Google maps instead"
>
> I think i agree with this.

The external view needs to be kept up to date.
A tag the indicates approx date it closed would be nice (leave it someone
else to suggest a syntax).


>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

[Andrew Black]

Thanks everyone
The pub I was looking at has a FHRS reference under its new name as
"awaiting inspection". This is useful confirmation that its old inspection
is not valid.


On 21 January 2018 at 15:58, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I don't think it has been mentioned, but having the link to FHRS is one
> way of keeping on top of changes in places where we have fewer active
> mappers. That is, by monitoring for changes in FHRS we can identify
> closures, takeovers, new cafes etc (assuming a detectable change in the
> source data). In a way this is similar to the ref:navads tag that was added
> to Shell petrol station data -> it is now a much simpler task of finding
> out what has changed by comparing to third party data thus allowing mappers
> to hone in on relevant areas.
>
> If anyone wants to have a go at building something that would be amazing.
> Similarly we still have the idea of visualising a "crap data" map floating
> around (e.g. map of Lloyds TSB, map of Total petrol stations, BHS etc..).
>
> *Rob*
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

[Andrew Black]

If a pub has been taken over by a chain (and changed name), should one
delete FHRS info.
My gut feeling is yes but. ...
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] BT phoneboxes

[Andrew Black]

Do we know what a proportion are going to be left.  Is it going to be close
to none.


On 3 Jan 2018 17:49, "Brian Prangle"  wrote:

> Happy New Year everyone
>
> BT are planning to remove thousands of phoneboxes, many of which we will
> have mapped.I understand that for every two they remove they will be
> installing one  InLink 
>
> These street "pods" have free wifi, free calls, free device charging  and
> an information tablet: all financed by the inbuilt advertising screens.
>
> In London and Leeds the rollout has already started and the next city to
> start is Birmingham
>
> So how to tag this installation?  Has anyone mapped one yet?
>
> The only online source for locations is based on Google Maps, so good for
> a guide as to where to look but not suitable as a data source. I have a
> contact in Business Development in BT and I have asked for a suitable source
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Andrew Black]

On 17 Nov 2017 04:14, "Andrew Black" <andrewdbl...@googlemail.com> wrote:

"  I believe we need to be very clear about the licencing. All we have is
Ilya's word (and I don't dispute it but it is hardly verifiable) that Shell
has instructed a third party to map its petrol stations on various
platforms using a dataset it supplied'

Agree



I think we need assurance from Shell's legal department (or ay least
management we believe to be reasonably aware of licencing issues.)

An analogy  I was  once in a confused situation when I was volunteering
for org A.  An employee org B (sponsoring the project) said org C had said
it was ok to do print extracts their maps.  I suspect they had permission
to publish certain extract on website.  Org A printed extracts with no
attribution.As a volunteer my concerns were ignored.

Chinese whispers (is there a better phrase) are common in large
organisations.


I realise my example is a bit abstract but I don't want to break confidence.

On 16 Nov 2017 17:35, "Brian Prangle" <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is something that could be done officially by the UK OSM chapter
>
> On 16 November 2017 at 13:05, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 16/11/17 12:48, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>> >> Here's a strawman to start the discussion:
>> >>
>> >> Use Harry Wood's improved visualisation as a progress checker, with a
>> colour
>> >> change for  missing filling stations to red
>> >> Get active mappers to add/amend data around their localities or
>> journeys
>> >> Change marker colour for filling stations that are "complete" with
>> Shell
>> >> data where it is correct to green
>> >> Watch the map turn green as we make progress
>> > That sounds good to me. The one issue I have with the import though is
>> > the reference numbers being proposed. As I think someone already noted
>> > in the previous discussion, these seem to belong to the third-party
>> > rather than being an official branch number assigned by Shell.
>>
>> Anybody asked Spar if we can use THEIR list of 1054 forecourts to add
>> even more detail to this. Certainly many Shell and BP forecourts are
>> owned and run by Spar and not Shell or BP ...
>>
>> --
>> Lester Caine - G8HFL
>> -
>> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
>> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
>> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
>> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
>> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] The OSM UK map - signed walking routes

[Andrew Black]

My request. Signed walking routes such as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6084014

Can i ask about context. Are we talking abou a layer or a website that
could potentially have optional overlays. If the latter could routes be
such an overlay. I appreciate they ate not everyones taste.


>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] overpass query involving pubs

[Andrew Black]

I am confused by this.
I understood ( x; y; ); to be the union of x and y.  Rather than x passing
its results onto y. What am i missing.


On 25 Oct 2017 11:58, "Roland Olbricht"  wrote:

While i'm here, can anyone tell me why http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/szG does
> not return nodes and ways-and-their-nodes? It is very similar to the example
>

Thank you for asking. As I will explain below, this is an opportunity to
improve the documentation.


area[name="Brighton and Hove"][admin_level=6];
> (
>node(area)[amenity=pub];
>way(area)[amenity=pub];
> );
> (._;>;);
> out body;
>

In line 3 we have only nodes as a result. In line 4, we ask for ways that
are inside the areas from the previous result (the one from line 3). Thus,
line 4 can never have a result.

Hence, please change it to

area[name="Brighton and Hove"][admin_level=6]->.a;
(
   node(area.a)[amenity=pub];
   way(area.a)[amenity=pub];

);
(._;>;);
out body;

This way, we store the result of line 1 in a set named "a". And in lines 3
and 4 we now ask for nodes resp. ways that are in areas from "a". "a" could
be an arbitrary name (composed of letters, digits, and underscores,
starting with a letter; names are case sesitive).

By the way, I suggest to replace lines 5 and 6:

area[name="Brighton and Hove"][admin_level=6]->.a;
(
   node(area.a)[amenity=pub];
   way(area.a)[amenity=pub];
);
out center;

This makes both nodes and ways into a point with a single location. For the
purpose of viewing the objects in Overpass Turbo, this means you need to
transfer and process fewer data.

I thought there were an explanation at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_API_by_Example
but it isn't. I will add the example and the explanation there.

For the question whether it was different before: No. I am a strong
proponent of backwards compatibility. It will rarely or never happen that I
change existing language semantics.

- Roland


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Andrew Black]

What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down and
rebuilt.
Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back and
add them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
I have added a note  #1077006

I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] Importing fuel stations in UK and future similar imports

[Andrew Black]

> the "fair use" clause.
Which specific legislation are you referring to.

On 12 May 2017 17:10, "Ilya Zverev"  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> First, I was amazed at the response. Thanks for constructive feedback,
> which I answer below, and no thanks for toxic responses, including asking
> for money (what money? We — as in maps.me — get none out of this) and
> imposing impossible restrictions (manually investigate context for each of
> thousands of points?). No import is perfect, and I cannot make this one too
> good for you. But it is pretty okay to me.
>
> I have refined the tag processing script. Removed name tags, changed
> postal_code to addr:postcode and formatted phone numbers according to the
> wikipedia table. "Navads" is appended to the source tag if present. I am
> not sure if I should add the brand:wikidata=Q154950 tag, and for now
> decided against that.
>
> You can see the updated result here: http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/
> ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/ (with OpenStreetMap and Satellite
> layers).
>
> Also I have started the wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Navads_Imports
>
> * Geocoding and accuracy: as I see on the map, all points in the dataset
> are placed properly on top of the fuel stations. The error based on OSM
> data is mostly inside 10 meters. I will ask NavAds for coordinate source
> for further datasets, but since most points are already in OSM, I think
> that would fall into the "fair use" clause. In this import, only 125 points
> are added as unmatched.
>
> * Other fuel stations inside 50 meters: I have found only one instance
> where the brand was changed. It is here: https://goo.gl/maps/9GLTVg1EWR82
> . The Street View from 2015 shows the BP station, but the map lists both BP
> and Shell. I assume the fuel station was overtaken in the past two years.
>
> Then I filtered fuel stations with the ref_distance > 30 meters (there are
> eight) and placed them on satellite imagery. Looks like that all of these
> are correct, and the big distances come from placement errors in OSM.
>
> * Official information vs on the ground: five objects have their opening
> hours changed. I assume Shell knows how their fuel stations work. Regarding
> other tags, only phone and addr:postcode replace OSM values (11 and 9
> changed); other tags, including operator, are preserved. In the Frederik's
> hypothetical example, the number of rooms will be added only if there are
> no such tag on the already existing hotel.
>
> * Freshness: Navads will update the data when Shell provides the update.
> It is as fresh as can be, but your changes to OSM won't be overwritten: if
> you saw opening hours changed, do update these. By the way, Robert's
> example about mismatch between opening hours on the Shell website and in
> the data is incorrect, I checked it and they match.
>
> * Five Ways Roundabout issue: I have forwarded that to NavAds. Also I
> asked them about links to branches (I cannot find any on the Shell website
> though) and names.
>
> * "The general view seems to be against IDs like this": what has happened
> with the principle "any tags you like"? Did we saturate the key space and
> not accepting new keys anymore? Can I read that "general view" documented
> anywhere? The "ref:navads_shell" key is the only one that is not verifiable
> on the ground, and is clearly added so the further updates do not have to
> rely on matching.
>
> Ilya
>
> > 12 мая 2017 г., в 1:22, Frederik Ramm  написал(а):
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 05/11/2017 05:39 PM, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> >> Together with the NavAds company, we plan to import a thousand Shell
> >> fuel stations to the United Kingdom. The source is official, which
> >> means, Shell company specifically shared the dataset to put them on
> >> maps. Do you have any objections or questions?
> >
> > There are a couple other "we make your business visible on the map"
> > SEO-type businesses active in OSM, some better, some worse.
> >
> > Typical problems include:
> >
> > * Geocoding. We will want to know how the lat,lon pairs they use for
> > import have been generated. Sometimes the "official" source will
> > actually be based on measured GPS coordinates (good). Sometimes the
> > "official" source has simly geocoded their address with Google or HERE
> > (not admissible, license violation). Sometimes they have geocoded their
> > address with OpenStreetMap which is also bad because it can reinforce
> > errors or imprecisions - for example, if OSM has an address
> > interpolation range along a street, and a POI is placed with a specific
> > address at the computed interpolation point, then it looks like a
> > precise address but isn't.
> >
> > * Ignoring the area around the imported information. We want imports to
> > match the existing data; automatic conflation is often not enough. A POI
> > can end up in a house, a lake, or in the middle of a road, and if that
> > is not just a one-off but a systematic problem (of 

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Andrew Black]

Is there a distinction between PSV and "local buses only". I heard a saga
about a heritage bus where driver had PSV Licence in a bus lane. Can't
remember details.

( Reply all this time!)

On 15 Oct 2016 16:26, "Philip Barnes"  wrote:

> On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 16:38 +, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
> > That was my understanding, yes. PSV is a wider-ranging mode than just
> > bus.
> >
> My understanding is psv is public service vehicles, so it is only buses
> that are on public routes, so will not include a bus that is privately
> hired and psv also includes taxis (as in hackneys), but not private
> hire.
>
> My brother in law once received a penalty for driving in a bus lane in
> London, they had just looked at the type of vehicle assuming all
> hackneys are black cabs. He got it cleared as his was a hackney
> license.
>
> There can also be ructions if a private hire car has the word Taxi on
> it, even if it is the company name. Hence if I had a firm called Wem
> Taxi's, only the hackneys could display that name. The private hire
> cars would just display Wem. Again that happened to the firm my brother
> in law works for.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project (Health): Pharmacies and Defibrillators

[Andrew Black]

I notice the list of registered pharmacies includes hospital pharmacies.
Not sure these are worth adding as the area should already be marked as a
hospital. And i don't believe the process GP prescriptions.
On 9 May 2016 7:36 p.m., "Rob Nickerson"  wrote:

> Nice work Robert.
>
> Out of interest how does that data compare to the healthcare data is all
> available at:
>
> http://systems.hscic.gov.uk/data/ods/datadownloads
>
> For example, do the reference numbers match?
>
> *Rob*
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Anybody a member of CAMRA?

[Andrew Black]

My concern is the quality of their location data - they suffer from the
well known myth that a postcode defines the location.  I have helped in a
few specific cases but the local branch didn't seem interested in for
example checking the locaion of pubs before uploading.
This then leads to concerns that the licence is  problematic as presumably
googles geocoder has been used.


On 16 Sep 2015 14:11, "Dave F."  wrote:

> Hi
>
> http://whatpub.com/pubs/MAN/9899/eagle-inn-salford
>
> Considering CAMRA's What Pub? website is volunteer, crowd sourced, I was
> mildly disappointed to see it using Google maps. I've just this minute
> written an email to them explaining some of the advantages of using OSM. I
> thought if any actual CAMRA members here could also chip in it might
> persuade them to swap over. ca...@camra.org.uk. 
>
> It might even be possible to share databases to improve the quality of
> both.
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo] 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com 
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Allegedly named motorways

[Andrew Black]

There is some evidence of these names being used when the roads were built
eg

  http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C1459443

   South Wales Motorway (M4): Chiswick to Langley Special Road; contract
for Boston Manor Bridge

But I don't think they are useful now.
On 18 Nov 2014 23:49, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 18/11/2014 23:06, SomeoneElse wrote:

  There's a similar issue a bit further out, the Slough-Maidenhead
 By-Pass:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/81517663
 http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=18177

 Again that sounds like a description; I've never seen that sign on the M4.


 Slough By-Pass is used on OS maps from 1964 to 1975:
 https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/498008/178760

 --
 Steve

 ---
 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
 http://www.avast.com


 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] addressing (was addr:place)

[Andrew Black]

 In my local area all addresses within a postcode district share the
 same post town.

.. Which is the norm.  Wikipedia says :

In a minority of cases a single number can cover two post towns - for
example, the WN8 district includes Wigan and Skelmersdale post towns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcodes_in_the_United_Kingdom
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Boundaries for Forestry Commission land

[Andrew Black]

On 29 January 2011 17:40, Steve Chilton s.l.chil...@mdx.ac.uk wrote:
 Not open, but available at magic.defra.co.uk:
 http://magic.defra.gov.uk/datadoc/metadata.asp?dataset=24
 http://magic.defra.gov.uk/datadoc/metadata.asp?dataset=25

Excuse my ignorance - if the data is not open, how can it be used for
OSM (or have I missed the point of the question)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Definitions of regions

[Andrew Black]

Not strictly an OSM question but people here might be able to help me.
I have a list of places with outwards postcodes (eg N1). 
I would like to group them into regions - London, North East, Midlands.

Does anyone know a suitable list of regions to use. I suspect the
regions and postcode boundaries don't exactly align but that doesnt
bother me for the purposes I need.

Thanks
Andrew

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb