Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a single Royal Mail mailbox with two references
Here is an example to copy from. Note post_box:apertures tag and the semi-colon (no spaces) in the ref. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8172063557 Stephen On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 13:49, Mat Attlee wrote: > > What's the most appropriate way to map a single physical Royal Mail mailbox > with two signs and references? I recently stumbled upon such a mailbox and > created a POI for each sign / reference: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8214997322 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8215022917 > > However given the collection times are the same and it is just one physical > mailbox would it be better to have a single POI with two references? > ___ > 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] Tagging of shared use paths
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 12:42, Ken Kilfedder wrote: > highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as at > present. > highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at > present. > highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe > blue long dash interspersed with red short dash) > highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe > red long dash interspersed with blue short dash) > With segregated=yes - possibly, at higher zoom levels, show blue dashes in > parallel with red - the right way round if possible. Something like this would be a big step forwards IMO. "highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line" this one in particular. I'm with Richard https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 , highway=path is meaningless. I think highway=cycleway is something designed and built expressly for bicycles, typically smooth, wide, signed. Thus I'd mark a public footpath as highway=footway always, adding bicycle=designated if necessary (it is a footpath for pedestrians with added permission). Similarly, I'd mark a sidewalk as highway=footway, footway=sidewalk, adding bicycle=designatedy, segregated=no if it is a shared space (again, it is an area for pedestrians with added rights for bicycles). The tough case is a sidewalk with a segregated cycle lane (designed and built as such). I'd prefer highway=footway for all sidewalks, but the segregation implies highway=cycleway, segregated=yes, footway=sidewalk I don't think highway=path is much use at all really. Stephen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?
As a side note to the legal aspect, the house numbers can be horribly inaccurate. I compared Oxted to a ground survey, and the old map simply numbered the houses consecutively, which isn't reality on the ground. One possible explanation is that brand new estates (1940s) were done this way, as the final house number hadn't yet been chosen. Anyway, be careful when trusting these maps. Stephen On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 09:33, Ken Kilfedder wrote: > > SO, > > It turns out - we cannot use these images until the scanner's copyright > expires at the end of next year. Happily, it seems like there will be > GB-wide coverage available at that point, not just the > London-Southend-Brighton area. > > However, I have been happily using these images for a bit less than a year > now, so I'm looking for advice on How to redact. I've tagged all the relevant > changesets with the name of the TMS, so it should be possible. > > 1. Is there an overpass syntax that would let me download (to JOSM) - all > ways with addr:housenumber added or changed via a changeset with a certain > source tag? (and not updated by something else later) > 2. Could I then wipe all such addr:housenumbers and re-upload? > 3. Could I keep a JOSM session file around to reupload the addr:housenumbers > once the scanner's copyright has elapsed? > > > > This has come to light thanks to IpswitchMapper's tireless efforts to set up > a tasking manager for adding housenumber, and thank to Rob-from-OSMF's > communications with NLS. > > --- > https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain > spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk > > On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, at 10:55 AM, Ken Kilfedder wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > If there is absolute confidence in that, can it be added to the wiki page > > here: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland > > > > And can it be added to the default set of old maps in JOSM? > > > > If it is available for use, not point in keeping it a secret. > > > > --- > > https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain > > spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk > > > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 6:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org: > > > > > > > > It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967 > > > > in NLS is available freely. > > > > > > > > What are its licensing terms? > > > > > > > > "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license" > > > > > > It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving > > > data from it. > > > > > > I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for > > > wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey. > > > House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets > > > are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number > > > in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still > > > the same. > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > ___ > > > 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] Footways bikes can go on
I'm of the view that if it is fundamentally a footway then it should be tagged as highway=footway. If bicycles are allowed, then add bicycle=designated. If the question is here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.545389,-0.2770973,3a,75y,234.69h,79.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.41411%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 then this is just a footpath across a bit of grass that someone has decided to allow bikes on. Looks like a footway, rides like a footway, tag like a footway Stephen On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 13:48, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic authority > over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of the number of > different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, highway=residential > permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & pedestrians.Who has right of way > is specific to certain locations. > > If it's definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in GSV) > then I'd tag it as > > highway=cycleway > bicycle=designated > foot=designated > segregated=no > surface=asphalt (in this case) > width=* > > If you know it's a public footpath add: > designation=public_footpath > > If you know the footpath's reference add: > prow_ref=* > > Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no? > > The only place a rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome. > > Cheers > DaveF > > On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote: > > Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but > designated foot and cycles shared? > > Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974 > > There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't > feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag > nonetheless? > > Thanks. > > > > ___ > 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] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?
Having surveyed thousands of addresses in SW London, I've done a quick compare and it looks pretty good to me. Sure there are the odd case here and there where buildings have changed, but for the many parts of London with Victorian to 1930s housing stock, this will be mostly accurate. Just comparing the general order from low to high odds/evens is useful. Plus for hard to access private streets its great. As a warning though, it does not align perfectly with the Bing offset I'm using. Is there anyone with "authority" that can state this is OK to use, and what source tag to use? Stephen On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 18:48, Mark Goodge wrote: > > > > On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > > > > > > > > Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org: > > > > It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967 > > in NLS is available freely. > > > > What are its licensing terms? > > > > "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license" > > It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving > data from it. > > I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for > wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey. > House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets > are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number > in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still > the same. > > Mark > > ___ > 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] Tagging modal filters and school streets
Here is the outline proposal: """ The traffic_intervention tag is used to identify locations where roads have been closed to general traffic for the purpose of preventing undesirable through traffic. The traffic_calming tag covers many use cases where the road is open but something physical has been added to slow down traffic. Sometimes however, the local traffic authority goes further and closes a road to through traffic - traffic_intervention is used to record these interventions. Mappers should ensure that all normal tags are still applied to the relevant road segment, traffic_intervention is intended to be used in addition to existing tags to capture the semantic meaning. traffic_intervention=modal_filter A modal filter is a road closure that is designed to allow certain modes of transport through, typically bicycles and pedestrians. It is intended for short sections of road that used to be open to general traffic and are no longer. The standard modal filter that allows cycles should be mapped as follows: * A way representing the section of road that is closed to general traffic: highway=cycleway, traffic_intervention=modal_filter, other tags as necessary, especially including the road name. * A barrier in the middle of the way representing what is being used to close the road. For example: barrier=bollard, foot=yes, bicycle=yes traffic_intervention=bus_gate A bus gate is a short section of road that has been closed to general traffic but is open to buses, bicycles and pedestrians. It should be mapped as a bus road would be, but with the additional traffic_intervention tag. * A way representing the section of road that is closed to general traffic: highway=service, bus=yes, bicycle=yes, foot=yes, traffic_intervention=bus_gate traffic_intervention=school_street A school street is a section of road near a school that is closed to general traffic, often only at certain times of day. The access restrictions are normally mapped using motor_vehicle:conditional. Simply use traffic_intervention=school_street to add the additional semantic meaning. Mappers may additionally specify the year, month or full date when the road was restricted if known: traffic_intervention:date= traffic_intervention:date= traffic_intervention:date= """ Example modal filter: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/851872727 Example bus gate: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/851872729 What do people think? Should this be put forward to the tagging list? Would anyone here use this scheme? Stephen On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 18:20, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > Given we have hundreds of existing and new modal filters* and school > streets**, I think we could do with having a *high level* tag for them > that captures the concept. > > Currently, these are hard to find as they can be represented in many > ways. eg. for modal filters: > - highway=cycleway > - highwat=footway > - highway=service/residential with motor_vehicle=no > - plus potential associated barrier=xxx > > School streets are no more than a motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (xxx) > which again loses the semantic meaning. > > What I'd like is a new tag that captures the high level concept. It > would be a bit like traffic_calming, but I don't think that adding > more values to that is appropriate. Any new value would go on the way > that is no longer open. These are generally verifiable on the ground, > even for filters that were added in the 1970s. > > Unfortunately, I don't have a great name. "traffic_restrictions" is > taken as is "traffic_control". My best suggestion is > "traffic_intervention=modal_filter"/"school_street", as they are > essentially interventions by local government to better manage the > street space. > > Any thoughts? > Stephen > > * a "modal filter" is a place where the road is closed, or made one > way for the purposes of controlling traffic, such as to stop rat > running. It is commonly linked to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) > but they have been around for 50 years, and are generally easy to > spot. > > ** a "school street" is a street that is only accessible by residents > at school drop-off and pick-up time ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging modal filters and school streets
I don't think it can be a barrier value because we need to record what kind of barrier it is, such as gate, swing gate or bollard (or planter which is undocumented but in use) Two of the modal_filter are mine, and some people are objecting in comments. I do think modal_filter=yes is too narrow, as I'd really like to cover school streets. I don't think it can be traffic_restriction because a road could be "no stopping" and a school Street for example. Stephen On Mon, 21 Sep 2020, 19:16 Dan S, wrote: > Hi > > That could be a good idea. > > How about barrier=modal_filter? Using barrier=* we might expect it to > be on the barrier itself (e.g. a row of bollards/planters), perhaps > less appropriate if a whole street area with camera-based enforcement. > But, after all, they're all intended as a barrier to some forms of > traffic. > > In what sense is traffic_restriction "taken"? I see there are plenty > of "traffic_restriction=no_stopping" tagged. Could this sit alongside? > > BTW, according to taginfo, in the UK there are 4 "modal_filter=yes" > and various notes/descriptions mentioning "modal" that could be a good > way to find examples: > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=modal#keys > > > Best > Dan > > Op ma 21 sep. 2020 om 18:21 schreef Stephen Colebourne < > scolebou...@joda.org>: > > > > Given we have hundreds of existing and new modal filters* and school > > streets**, I think we could do with having a *high level* tag for them > > that captures the concept. > > > > Currently, these are hard to find as they can be represented in many > > ways. eg. for modal filters: > > - highway=cycleway > > - highwat=footway > > - highway=service/residential with motor_vehicle=no > > - plus potential associated barrier=xxx > > > > School streets are no more than a motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (xxx) > > which again loses the semantic meaning. > > > > What I'd like is a new tag that captures the high level concept. It > > would be a bit like traffic_calming, but I don't think that adding > > more values to that is appropriate. Any new value would go on the way > > that is no longer open. These are generally verifiable on the ground, > > even for filters that were added in the 1970s. > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have a great name. "traffic_restrictions" is > > taken as is "traffic_control". My best suggestion is > > "traffic_intervention=modal_filter"/"school_street", as they are > > essentially interventions by local government to better manage the > > street space. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Stephen > > > > * a "modal filter" is a place where the road is closed, or made one > > way for the purposes of controlling traffic, such as to stop rat > > running. It is commonly linked to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) > > but they have been around for 50 years, and are generally easy to > > spot. > > > > ** a "school street" is a street that is only accessible by residents > > at school drop-off and pick-up time > > > > ___ > > 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] Tagging modal filters and school streets
Given we have hundreds of existing and new modal filters* and school streets**, I think we could do with having a *high level* tag for them that captures the concept. Currently, these are hard to find as they can be represented in many ways. eg. for modal filters: - highway=cycleway - highwat=footway - highway=service/residential with motor_vehicle=no - plus potential associated barrier=xxx School streets are no more than a motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (xxx) which again loses the semantic meaning. What I'd like is a new tag that captures the high level concept. It would be a bit like traffic_calming, but I don't think that adding more values to that is appropriate. Any new value would go on the way that is no longer open. These are generally verifiable on the ground, even for filters that were added in the 1970s. Unfortunately, I don't have a great name. "traffic_restrictions" is taken as is "traffic_control". My best suggestion is "traffic_intervention=modal_filter"/"school_street", as they are essentially interventions by local government to better manage the street space. Any thoughts? Stephen * a "modal filter" is a place where the road is closed, or made one way for the purposes of controlling traffic, such as to stop rat running. It is commonly linked to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) but they have been around for 50 years, and are generally easy to spot. ** a "school street" is a street that is only accessible by residents at school drop-off and pick-up time ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery
I'm glad I started a discussion, even if there aren't any real answers. It is going to be an increasing problem I fear and one I think OSM needs a solid answer to. In SW London, I've just checked against "OS OpenData StreetView" and all my edits (and thus Esri World Clarity Beta) all match pretty much exactly. The imported boundary data is less clear, but again it favours the current data where I can actually determine a difference. So. I do think Bing is out. Does anyone have any contacts with iD developers? From reading their threads it seems like they want to design a brand new perfect system from scratch, rather than adopt the offset DB. Since JOSM is generally more savvy users, it is iD I care more about. I'll contact the Amazon mapper and see if I get anywhere... Stephen On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 16:00, Colin Smale wrote: > > At least it sounds soluble. Given the right transform and corrections a "definitive" OS point in Easting/Northing format can be translated accurately to WGS84 lat/long. However you look at it, I would expect a purely mathematical transformation should have less error than a transformation involving "tracing" from imagery whose rectification has probably also involved some of these transformations each with their own error terms. But I suppose that it at least partly depends on your definition of "perfection." > > > > > On 2020-08-19 16:34, SK53 wrote: > > This isn't necessarily true. If you open any OS Open Data product in QGIS one is now confronted by a bewildering array of ways of converting from the OSGB national grid co-ordinates to WGS84. > > The optimum one currently uses the 2015 file of detailed offset corrections to the basic projection transformation. There was an earlier set of similar data released in 2002. If one doesn't download this correction data then it falls back on the basic transform using OSGB36 which can be anywhere between 1 and 5 m off-true. In addition there has always been the slightly obscure behaviour of OSGB projections specified in proj4 or WKT formats with respect to the Helmert Transformation parameters (in early days of Open Data Chris Hill & I found these were essential). At least part of the problem is that EPSG:27700 appears to relate to several very slightly diverging projections, whereas, for instance, Irish Grid changes are handled by EPSG:29001 through EPSG:29003, and Swiss Grid CH1903 is EPSG:4149, CH1903+ is EPSG:4150 and the newest CH1903+/LV95 is EPSG:2096. > > I don't know what transformation JOSM uses when reading EPSG:27700 so unless one is very cautious it is not possible to be certain that one is anywhere near the RMS 25 cm accuracy of OS data (especially as products, including Boundary Line, may be partially generalised. > > Like Jass I've been looking at various data sets which can be pulled into editors to help with alignment. I initially used OS Open Roads, but this is just too generalised to be usable in many areas. Larger buildings from OS Open Local, although generalised, will often have corners in the right place. Perhaps what we need is an equivalent of TIGER Line as a GB specific overlay layer showing selected alignment friendly features from either OS Local or Vector Map. If we could borrow styling from either TIGER Line or the US Forest roads it might be feasible to make such a layer. > > Jerry > > On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 13:58, Colin Smale wrote: >> >> On 2020-08-19 12:17, Andy Townsend wrote: >> >> On 19/08/2020 10:11, Stephen Colebourne wrote:And now I can see Amazon mappers using an iD variant >> that doesn't have the offset and moving all the roads as a result: >> https://osmcha.org/changesets/89549551?aoi=758c7f2b-faca-44e5-acd2-0cb8c33034bd >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89549551 >> If that's happening at all, please comment on the changeset explaining the problem. In English urban areas OS OpenData StreetView is a pretty good guide for alignment and if people (especially people doing a lot of editing) are not taking into account different imagery offsets then that's just wrong. >> >> Possibly even better that StreetView imagery is data that has been imported directly from OS, such as OS Boundary-Line for the admin boundaries. This is probably the closest we can get to cm-level accuracy - even though they don't give us the full resolution, the base points such as tripoints where boundaries meet are likely to be pretty damn accurate. I would recommend using these as a kind of calibration point to sanity-check imagery alignment and other data based on less accurate GPS positioning (e.g. from any consumer-grade GPS kit). >> >> ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery
So, I followed the links below and added an offset. But this simply isn't a viable solution to the problem because it only works for JOSM and not iD. I managed to convince one mapper to type in the offset manually in iD every time, but that is a horrible thing to ask new mappers to do, very offputting. And now I can see Amazon mappers using an iD variant that doesn't have the offset and moving all the roads as a result: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89549551?aoi=758c7f2b-faca-44e5-acd2-0cb8c33034bd https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89549551 This is going to keep happening so long as OSM has multiple image sources and multiple editors. Frankly I'm amazed that this isn't a solved problem. Having done some mapping across the country recently, it seems like Bing is offset to the previous best imagery across the country, but by varying amounts. Is there really no solution that can be applied to the source Bing layer? Or should we all just accept Bing as golden? Having added thousands of buildings and fixed roads to align to the previous best imagery, I don't have a good solution to the problem, and it is demotivating to think that others are going to come along and move individual roads/buildings to align without considering the bigger picture. The only solution I can think of is to move all nodes in the area I've worked on to match the new Bing (ie a mass edit). Any other suggestions? Stephen On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 23:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Imagery_Offset_Database/Quick_Start > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database > (I think that nowadays it is built in - is plugin installation still > necessary?) > > > No idea about iD support - > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/search?q=imagery+offset > > Jul 13, 2020, 00:21 by scolebou...@joda.org: > > Wow, the imagery is really good. But in my area the imagery is about > 3-4m east west and 3-4m north south out of alignment with Esri World > Imagery (Clarity) Beta, which is what I've been using up until now > (for thousands of buildings). > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.39886/-0.24940 > > Is there any way to unify the alignments? > > Stephen > > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 06:41, Gareth L wrote: > > > I’ve noticed patches of vastly improved bing imagery since December, but it > is really patchy. > Gareth > > > On 6 Jul 2020, at 23:21, Cj Malone > > wrote: > > > > I was splitting houses in Portsmouth/Southsea this morning. The imagery > > is great, I don't know if it was part of this update, or if it's been > > like this for a while. > > > > > > ___ > > 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery
Wow, the imagery is really good. But in my area the imagery is about 3-4m east west and 3-4m north south out of alignment with Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta, which is what I've been using up until now (for thousands of buildings). https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.39886/-0.24940 Is there any way to unify the alignments? Stephen On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 06:41, Gareth L wrote: > > I’ve noticed patches of vastly improved bing imagery since December, but it > is really patchy. > Gareth > > > On 6 Jul 2020, at 23:21, Cj Malone > > wrote: > > > > I was splitting houses in Portsmouth/Southsea this morning. The imagery > > is great, I don't know if it was part of this update, or if it's been > > like this for a while. > > > > > > ___ > > 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] Paths on Wimbledon Common
Hi, I'm the changeset commenter, I added the foot=yes on the common based on it being a registered common with definite legal access. I also add foot=yes to signed public footpaths. I would only add foot=designated where there is a blue person sign or similar (not a green/wooden public footpath sign) and where doing so adds some value over just using the default. And I'm not sure I've ever actually used it. In general I'm wary of the legal aspect of the tag, as in most cases a mapper has no idea of the legal status. My approach (SW London urban areas) is based on a less legalistic interpretation: * foot=private if it looks private * "customers" if it is obviously for customers * "destination" if it is obviously just for those going somewhere in particular, such as a path to a school or church * "permissive" if it is likely to be private land but it is known or almost certainly used by others, paths on housing estates being an example * "yes" if I'm confident of the legal status, such as common land and public footpaths * nothing otherwise, and this includes sidewalks Stephen On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, 17:02 Adam Snape, wrote: > Hi, > > It's worth pointing out that if Wimbledon Common is (as I assume) > registered as common land then there would normally be a legal right of > access on foot under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, so > foot=yes would be correct. > > Kind regards, > > Adam > > > ___ > 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] UPRN Locations Map
I'm not convinced this data should be pulled into OSM. It would add a lot of clutter that users would be tempted to move around or delete. In areas like mine where I've added thousands of buildings and addresses from surveys, it would be making matters worse not better. It would be a disincentive to adding more buildings with addresses as the additional nodes would get in the way of editing, and because they represent a semi random set of things. Because the dataset is fixed I would think it should be a layer used alongside OSM by those tools that think it adds value. Ideally, OSM itself should support layers, but AFAIK it doesn't. Stephen PS. Thanks for the slippy map! On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:38 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), < robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not completely sure if/how we can best make use of the new OS > OpenData (UPRNs, USRNs and related links) in OpenStreetMap, but as a > first step I've set up a quick slippy map with the UPRN locations > shown: > > https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ (zoom in to level 16 to show the > data) > > The UPRN dataset literally just contains the UPRN number and its > coordinates (both OS National Grid and WGS lat/lon). There are some > additional linking datasets that link these ids to other ids (e.g. > USRNs, TOIDs). But no address information is available directly. (You > may be able to get street names by matching to OS Open Roads via TOIDs > though. Coupled with Code-Point Open, you might be able to assign > quite a few postcodes in cases where there's only one unit for a whole > street.) > > The UPRN data has already helped me find a mapping error I made > locally though -- it looks like I'd accidentally missed drawing a > house outline from aerial imagery, and also classified a large garage > a few doors down as a house. The two errors cancelled out when the > houses were numbered sequentially, so I didn't notice until now. Today > though I spotted a UPRN marker over some blank space on the map, and > no marker over the mapped house that's probably a garage. > > Now a few initial thoughts on the data that I've explored so far: > > I believe that the UPRNs are assigned by local authorities, so > conventions may vary from place to place. I don't know who actually > assigns the coordinates (authority or OS). Looking at those for rows > of houses around me, they don't seem to have been automatically given > coordinates from the house footprint, it looks more like someone > manually clicking on a map. > > The UPRN dataset should include all addressable properties. It is also > ahead of reality in some places, as it includes locations for houses > on a new development near me that have yet to be built yet. For blocks > of apartments/flats, the UPRN nodes may all have the same coordinates > or may be displaced from each other, possibly in an artificial manner. > > Other objects also appear to have UPRNs. Likely things I've noticed so > far include: car parks, post boxes, telephone boxes (even after > they've been removed), electricity sub-stations, roads and recorded > footpaths (the UPRN locations seem to be at one end of the street, so > usually lie at a junction), recreation grounds / play areas, > floodlight poles (around sports pitches), and allotments. There's no > information about the object type in the UPRN data unfortunately. > > Anyway, I hope some of this is useful / interesting. I hope to be on > the OSMUK call on Saturday to discuss things further. Best wishes, > > Robert. > > -- > Robert Whittaker > https://osm.mathmos.net/ > > ___ > 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] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 00:29, Martin - CycleStreets wrote: > Speed bumps: > https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=bumps_road/#14.98/51.47101/-0.02755 There isn't a "bumps_new" filter at present, so it is hard to see what is to be added. I've already added a lot of traffic calming in my area, so would want to see what is to be changed. In general, the work here is amazing, although I can definitely see a few issues/mismatches. Stephen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] COVID road changes
Hi, It seems that COVID is likely to result in some rapid changes to road networks, which OSM will need to capture. I saw a tweet today of the area around the Bank of England, and a road is now one way with a cycle lane the other way. Obviously I can't survey that right now, but Google Maps traffic layer is showing it. Really it needs someone to do a survey (unless we can use the City of London documentation). More generally, I guess we will all need to keep an eye on proposals from each council. For example, here is a tweet from last month about 50 modal filters (road closures) in just Croydon and Lambeth: https://twitter.com/MeristemDesign/status/1260339305261785088 showing the scale of the task here. Stephen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 09:02, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > Maybe we should develop some sort of (crowd-sourced?) service which looks > > up parishes based on parish codes to allow easy contribution of descriptive > > prow_refs? > > I've started an effort in that direction at > https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/ref-formats/ . FWIW, in Merton (London Borough) I'm using the format "Merton FP 86". The numbering seems to be unique across the borough, not parish. Stephen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Valuation Office Agency council tax data (was postcode mapping (was Re: Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only))
What about the Valuation Office Agency council tax data? http://cti.voa.gov.uk/cti/inits.asp I found this recently, and it allows you to lookup from a postcode to the individual addresses (presumably in their standard recognised form). I've not used the data, although I'd love to because it is so good. Is it open data? Well, it has "Crown Copyright" at the bottom, so maybe? I'd love to know if this dataset has been considered before, as it can turn a postcode into something wereally need. If I've understood the rules, the data could be used in reverse ie. to use as clues to try and confirm when surveying, so long as only the things you see on the ground are added? Stephen On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 14:54, David Woolley wrote: > > On 30/07/2019 14:19, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Is it typical for post codes to be posted like housenumbers? Either on > > buildings or postboxes? > > Postcodes almost never. The only time you would normally find them is > where the building is a company's registered office. > > Housenumbers seem to be only on (gut feeling) about 30% of houses these > days, and maybe 5% of commercial premises. (When they are on houses, > they are typically unreadable after dark. Almost no-one has front gates > any longer, which might have carried them in the past.) > > What appears on street signs and post boxes is the outbound postcode (up > to the end of the first number). > > Businesses are required to provide an address for service in > advertising, including web sites. This may well be their accountant's. > Electronically, they need to provide a geographic address, but, on > paper, I think a PO Box number is acceptable. Non-compliance is > endemic, e.g. businesses only contactable over mobile phone numbers. > > ___ > 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] Gates open/closed by default
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 11:59, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2019-07-26 12:26, Gareth L wrote: > This was discussed on the wiki > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate with the > suggestion of using a status tag. And was also discussed (9 years ago?!) > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, there was no resolution to the discussion AFAICT. > Access=* denotes the legal position, not the presence or absence of physical > obstacles. Access=permissive is just as wrong as access=private as a proxy > for gate=normally_open etc. Don't tag incorrectly for the renderer (or > router!) I get that might be the official rule, but in many cases you can't determine the *legal* position without being a lawyer and doing lots of research. When doing ground surveys like I am, all I can say is "can I go here", unless there is an explicit "private" sign. I strongly suspect that most mappers use the access tag to mean "can I go here" to some degree. I'd also suggest that it is much more interesting to users of the data than the legal status. I'd prefer to see a legal_access tag for those cases where the legal position is clear (public footpath or "private" sign), with the access tag treated as the more practical "can I go here". WIth that approach, access=permissive vs access=private would cover open gates vs ones where you have to buzz to go in. It would also cover an open pedestrian gate alongside a closed vehicle gate without the need for a second pedestrian-only highway/gate. I see legal_access as a little like the designation=public_footpath tag, useful when you really know the legal status. eg something like: - legal_access=private, access=private: privately owned, can't get in, eg gated/locked - legal_access=private, access=permissive: privately owned but nothing stops you going in (refined by foot/bicycle etc) - access=yes: you can freely access it - legal_access=public, access=yes: can freely access it and legally public, eg public footpath or park The previous thread suggested: - status=open - status=unlocked (to mean closed but unlocked) - staus= locked which isn't terrible, although it would need agreement to make it worth tagging. (I don't personally buy into Warin's need to document a locked open gate, but if it was needed, the status scheme would be insufficient.) Otherwise, I guess opening_hours is a possibility, but doesn't feel quite right. Stephen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default
I'd like to distinguish between two kinds of gate on private roads: - those where the gate is closed by default (eg automatic closing) - those where the gate is open by default (the gate exists, but is rarely if ever closed) Currently I'm marking both as barrier=gate & access=private, but I can't see an obvoius way to mark the open/closed by default aspect. One thought was to use access=permissive on those that are open (with the highway still access=private). Any suggestions? Stephen PS, I do want to mark the gate on the map even if it is always open ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Not my patch, but why's this a tertiary_link
I know that area. That road is a typical minor country road. The A27 is divided at that point by a central barrier. It can only be entered from Lewes, and exited to Beddingham. Stephen On 26 June 2012 10:00, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/114413014 My guess is that it should be a highway=unclassified, but maybe someone in Brighton/Lewes can provide some local knowledge? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Not my patch, but why's this a tertiary_link
I believe it is wide enough for two cars, and is used to access Glynde IIRC. Stephen On 26 June 2012 11:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Sounds like it needs a turning restriction, not to be a tertiary_link. Do you have a view on whether it should be a tertiary (ie clearly wide enough for two-way traffic, and forming a clear link between places) or an unclassified? Richard On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote: I know that area. That road is a typical minor country road. The A27 is divided at that point by a central barrier. It can only be entered from Lewes, and exited to Beddingham. Stephen On 26 June 2012 10:00, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/114413014 My guess is that it should be a highway=unclassified, but maybe someone in Brighton/Lewes can provide some local knowledge? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Cycle lanes cycle tracks - my findings and a proposal
On 22 May 2012 11:13, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Personally I think we are reaching the point in a lot of areas where representing a complex road as a single way simply because it's easier for the renderers and routers is becoming a hindrance generally. Adding tags for sidewalk, cycletrack and other details such as barriers between carriageways is something that should just happen automatically from the real mapped features? Not something that needs to be created manually ignoring the features themselves ... I agree with this. The way dual carriageways are mapped feels flawed to me, same with complex junctions. I wonder if a sub-way concept might be the answer, where detail can be added into a single way, for lanes at junctions, dual carriageways, cycle tracks/lanes, pavements etc.That way, the way itself can be used to draw basic maps, but renderes might want to look at any sub-ways for more detail. Stephen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
As a relatively new mapper, two things stand out to me. 1) What Potlatch offers will be used. That means h=footway/cycleway/bridleway/track will be used over h=path 2) The footway/cycleway/bridleway classification scheme makes perfect sense to me. Any path I see I in town I can easily classify into one of the three - most are footways, some are dedicated cycleways, and on somewhere like Wimbledon Common there is a dedicated bridleway. Thus h=path is something I would perceive as a fallback. Note that at no point am I caring about designated rights of way. That is a much more complex thing to determine it would seem, and not something that a casual or new mapper would be bothered by. Tag the broad view of what you see. The PROW or other stuff is *detail*. Let normal mappers add the basic footway/cycleway/bridleway/track, and expert mappers add the detail later. Stephen On 7 May 2012 13:10, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: On 07/05/12 10:34, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 06/05/12 17:22, Andrew M. Bishop wrote: Andy Streetm...@andystreet.me.uk writes: On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path, designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe without an explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value. As the author of a consumer of OSM data I for one would prefer it if there was a single set of tags worldwide. In my case the consumer of the data is Routino a router for OSM data (http://www.routino.org/). That makes sense - but the question is, should tagging be optimised for mappers/map editors, or for map consumers, if those things conflict? My personal opinion is that the biggest risk to OSM's future is if we don't agree on a subset of tagging rules to be used worldwide. The idea that there could be a pre-processor to handle local laws and customs is impractical. There are literally hundreds of regions that might use their own tagging rules each of which needs to be defined by a geographical region and list of rules. Each consumer of data then needs to implement the full set of pre-processor rules. No; only consumers of data who want worldwide coverage (and who care about the tags that vary around the world) would have to do that. And I think that would still be easier than getting mappers worldwide to conform to a rigid tagging system. I'm not sure what I think is the biggest risk to OSM's future but I think attempting to impose an unwieldy system of tags on contributors is right up there. I think a large part of OSM's success so far is due to its simplicity and informality. With a single set of rules a way can be taken from an OSM XML file and it will be immediately apparent who is permitted to use it. With a pre-processor it is necessary to take the way from the file, search through the whole file to find the nodes that are referenced by it, search through all defined regions to determine which one the nodes belong to and then apply the selected pre-processor. One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is that each item in OSM is created once and edited a few times by a small number of editors but used many hundreds of time each day by many dozens of data consumers. Since the number of times the data is read far exceeds the number of times the data is written (by orders of magnitude) the complexity should be in the writing side and not the reading side. I disagree. Consumers of OSM data should embrace Postel's Law. Besides, rule-based processing is just CPU cycles. Those are far less valuable than OSM contributor brain power. Also, there's no reason data consumers have to use raw OSM data. Someone could post-process OSM to produce dumps that have normalised rights of way information, and publish those files for the benefit of that subset of consumers who happen to care about rights of way being consistent around the world. I think that's a much better way to go than laying down rigid rules for mappers, or running bots that try to bash OSM into the shape needed by a particular consumer. + 1 Mappers are far too precious to lose by making tagging schemes that suit data consumers and not mappers. OSM has grown partly because free tagging has allowed the base of tags to grow as people who are interested in a subject add tags that suit that object. The consensus over tagging is pretty good, just by good sense and a common purpose. I am certainly in favour of using tags that everyone agrees with, but certainly not a restricted list whether that is driven by data consumers, some committee or wiki editors. Even worse are bots or mass edits that flatten diversity from
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Hi all, I've just managed to track down a contributor ScottDay in Caterham and he has just accepted the license which should greatly help that area. I've also done a fair bit of fixing/enhancing myself in a few places (centred around the areas I know - Wimbledon, Horsham and Seaford), although I did manage to delete the NCN relation (no idea how, sorry about that...) Stephen On 17 March 2012 13:20, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/motorway: http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very little red left now! I've started intermittent work on Manchester; any help there would be appreciated. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Vandalism
Hi, I'm a relatively new user, still trying to find my way on OSM. I found that user islandmonkey has made a mess/vandalised the Borough area in London http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10514767 I reverted some of this manually, but probably didn't get it all. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10672017 This page suggested emailing here, so I did... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log thanks Stephen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
