Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
On Mon 09/11/09 12:01 , David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com sent: ... [snip] Longstanton to St Ives has the final surface, not tarmac, and will formally open with the guideway, but I think it is already accessible. It still needs surveying, along with the PR car parks and revised connections into the existing road system at St Ives, plus the additional traffic lights at each of the guideway/road crossings. If anyone's planning on doing any of those surveys, might be nice if you send an email here so we don't duplicate effort (two of us surveyed the Milton PR site on the day it opened within minutes of each other!) David ... I cycled Swavesey - St Ives yesterday afternoon, and entered some of the data last night. I did the bridleway rather than the actual busway, but have added some detail for the St Ives PR. It's a bit messy in places because of the historic stuff that's on the map from before the construction work, and I'd be grateful for thoughts on whether things should be deleted (e.g. line of disused railway?) Incidentally, I have tagged it as bridleway, because that's what it is (I encountered a horse!), but note that the Swavesey - Cambridge bit has been tagged as cycleway. Any thoughts? Can anyone advise how accurate the naptan bus-stop positions are? Looking at the PR site, either they need to be moved north-east a bit, or my four traverses of this stretch are wrong. Richard ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
On 09/11/2009 15:15, David Earl wrote: Their page doesn't call it a bridleway either Actually, following the link in the corner to http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/community/rights/ it then says: New bridleway and cycleway: To make sure people can still enjoy this route [the busway] a new bridleway and cycleway next to the track will be ready to use within eight weeks of The Busway opening. This will make sure there is easy access to the countryside on foot, by bike or horse. So they call it both things! David ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Cambridgeshire Guided Bus
There are signs for the destinations, and distances. I honestly can't recall if there were bike symbols on them - there may well have been. I clearly remember that the sign had a picture of a walker, a cyclist and a horse rider on it when I was at the Swavesey station. However when I went back to photograph the signs, they were covered up again - possibly as a result of an email conversation I had with the guy from the council concerning its status. Donald ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-GB] A pitch in a common
Ian Caldwell wrote: On part of the Malvern Common there is a football pitch which is notable as it flat and mowed, unlike the rest of the common but on Mapnik they are shown as the same colour. Any suggestions? Leave it be? Seriously: You've got the tagging right, so there's no need to change that. You could request a change in the main Mapnik renderer, but the problem with that is that elsewhere on the map the colouring is correct, and changing it will probably have adverse effects. If you can find/draw a small football graphic that could be used as a background in the Mapnik render (see nature reserves/cemetaries for how it looks), but I don't think the colour should change, and even with the graphic the pitch may not be obvious. On a more philosophical note, if the only difference between the pitch and the surrounding common is that it's kept mown, there actually *isn't* any real difference between the two. Should the man with the mower stop, nature will reclaim the pitch very quickly. Is the pitch really permanent? What *is* permanence? -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Underground Pipelines
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: Brian Prangle wrote: Sent: 09 November 2009 11:14 AM To: Talk GB Subject: [Talk-GB] Underground Pipelines We have several oil terminals just to the E of Birmingham and wandering around the countryside I come across loads of pipeline markers. In places there are enough to join them up with man-made=pipeline ways. My problem is how to tag the direction of flow. The oil pipeline markers have the direction of flow indicated on them ( gas ones don't). I've tagged the pipelines as oneway=yes which results in mapnik rendering little blue arrows in the countryside. Whilst this is to me ( who's mapped them) a good indicator of the presence of a buried pipeline it will probably be meaningless to any one else. Any opinions out there? That exactly how I'd tag them. The rendering engine needs to be a little cleverer and not just blindly render all oneway=yes tags. Cheers Andy Pipelines explicitly work in only one direction, why not just require a pipeline way's direction to be that of flow and not bother with the redundant oneway=yes tagging? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Underground Pipelines
Brian Prangle wrote: We have several oil terminals just to the E of Birmingham and wandering around the countryside I come across loads of pipeline markers. In places there are enough to join them up with man-made=pipeline ways. My Excellent. I've done this at a really small scale as well, and even made up tagging for these nodes as well, including ref=*, operator=*, and various other pertinent bits of information for those markers, and connected the odd ones into a pipeline way. problem is how to tag the direction of flow. The oil pipeline markers have the direction of flow indicated on them ( gas ones don't). I've tagged the pipelines as oneway=yes which results in mapnik rendering little blue arrows in the countryside. Whilst this is to me ( who's mapped them) a good indicator of the presence of a buried pipeline it will probably be meaningless to any one else. Any opinions out there? Don't worry that much about what mapnik shows. I would've used oneway=yes tagging as well, I think. Either that, or possibly flow=forward/backward. Mapnik currently renders oneway arrows for *every* way with the oneway=yes tag, and that could probably be limited to highway/railway/waterway=* without serious impact to the map. Speak up if you think this is a bad idea, else this change can go in soon. -- Lennard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Underground Pipelines
2009/11/9 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: Brian Prangle wrote: Sent: 09 November 2009 11:14 AM To: Talk GB Subject: [Talk-GB] Underground Pipelines We have several oil terminals just to the E of Birmingham and wandering around the countryside I come across loads of pipeline markers. In places there are enough to join them up with man-made=pipeline ways. My problem is how to tag the direction of flow. The oil pipeline markers have the direction of flow indicated on them ( gas ones don't). I've tagged the pipelines as oneway=yes which results in mapnik rendering little blue arrows in the countryside. Whilst this is to me ( who's mapped them) a good indicator of the presence of a buried pipeline it will probably be meaningless to any one else. Any opinions out there? That exactly how I'd tag them. The rendering engine needs to be a little cleverer and not just blindly render all oneway=yes tags. Cheers Andy Pipelines explicitly work in only one direction, why not just require a pipeline way's direction to be that of flow and not bother with the redundant oneway=yes tagging? I bet that is not true. I can think of at least one case where a pipeline will flow in both directions. Not at the same time, obviously. :-) -- Philip Stubbs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] A pitch in a common
John Robert Peterson wrote: If you look at the use cases -- 2 spring to mind: some people looking for somwhere to play football; somone out with a mobile device trying to work out where they are on a common (if they can use the football field as a frame of reference, they will know exactly where they are) Hopefully they'd use some kind of search to find their nearest football pitch, in which case the existing data will take them straight to it. It's correctly tagged, a In both these cases (and frankly in general) having it rendered would an advantage, and I can't really think of a disadvantage (orther than hastle in getting it done) The original post complained about the colour of a football pitch being the same as the surrounding common, and hence not distinct. My objection was to changing the rendered colour of pitches for this one example, since elsewhere on the map people would expect to see either of those things in green. I did suggest a background with a football icon as a way of distinguishing the two, but I think it won't particularly help, since you'd have to be at quite a high zoom for this to show up. I don't think there's *any* change we could make to rendering that would make a football pitch stand out at low zoom. From the example we're discussing (http://osm.org/go/euwjlzeC--), I think z15 is the lowest where it would stand out, and that's far enough in that you'd have to know it was there anyway. As I said, I think this is a job for search, and the data is fine for that. other points being: we have the data, why isn't it getting rendered; while perminence is an argument of sorts, that's what updating the map is for, (a housing estate can become brownfield site with the aid of a bulldoser) The permanence thing was, as I said, more of a philosophical discussion. So while i understand your point to some extent, I do think it's worth doing somthing about, even if it's not a huge priority I don't think there's a need to do anything with the data -- that's correct as is, and if someone uses a search tool to find football pitches in OSM, it'll show up. Rendering? Happy to see some change, but not just for this one example at the expense of all others. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Google Wave
Hi, I have just been watching the presentation on Google Wave http://wave.google.com/help/wave/about.html I was wandering if in the future if this would be a useful tool for us, I was thinking along the lines of helping organising meetups and mapping parties for a local area. Any thoughts? cheers Bob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] A pitch in a common
On 08/11/2009 18:41, Ian Caldwell wrote: On part of the Malvern Common there is a football pitch which is notable as it flat and mowed, unlike the rest of the common but on Mapnik they are shown as the same colour. Any suggestions? A pitch is rendered a different shade of a green to a common (in Mapnik). Its just that tile hadn't been rerendered yet. I have noticed some delays in Mapnik rendering over the last few days. I've marked that tile as dirty, and its now been rendered, so the pitch now shows up clearly: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.09667lon=-2.32785zoom=17layers=B000FTFT Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postboxes Payphones
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Mike osm-talk...@... writes: I've been looking at the Dracos postbox list http://www.dracos.co.uk/play/locating-postboxes/ I have recently started work on importing this, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dracos_import. So far I have just done the E10 and E17 postcodes near where I live. After a bit of consultation I will start importing the rest of the country. Please don't. Imports are a real, real annoyance. There's no indication that anyone using the dracos site has located these with any accuracy or personal knowledge - I wouldn't be surprised to find many just somewhere near the road in question. I'd rather have a partially complete, high quality map than a bodge of crap data (NAPTAN, anyone?) that just encourages more people to add crap data and get the community to fix it. Let real mappers, in the real world, do the mapping. That's what we do best. Leave the automated imports of sub-standard data to our colleagues in the US. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postboxes Payphones
Chris Hill o...@... writes: Please don't import the Draco database into OSM. The quality is very dubious in places. The original FoIA data that it is based on is very, very general. They have to be surveyed on the ground to confirm that they are even within 200m. I acknowledge your and Andy Allan's concerns. I will do some auditing on the data (by comparing non-OSM-based Dracos data with what's currently in OSM) and report back. There are several different components to the Dracos data which can be imported separately. Where a Dracos user has simply added info such as collection times to an existing postbox node that came from OSM, this is more likely to be reliable. If a postbox exists in the Dracos list but is not in OSM at all, then at a minimum this indicates an area to be surveyed. I do not propose to uncritically suck all the Dracos postbox data into OSM but rather to reconcile the two with plenty of sanity checks. In my test import of E10 and E17, almost all of the changes were adding information to existing OSM postbox nodes, with only a handful of missing postboxes to add (which I am happy to survey myself). Where Dracos and OSM disagree, the OSM data is left alone. Anyway, I'll let you know the results of the audit; if the location data really is as bad as you say, I won't enter it into OSM. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Underground Pipelines
Isn't this analogous to the flow in rivers? In some cases the mapper will know which way the water flows and can make the way point downstream and tag it somehow. In other cases the river may have been drawn by tracing a satellite photo or old map over a small area, and the person doing the tracing doesn't know which way is downstream. (With pipelines there is a third case: known to be used in both directions.) I agree that it might be best to keep the tag 'oneway' for legal restrictions, and use a different one for the direction of flow. After all it is usually legal, if more difficult, to row a boat upstream. In rivers, we know that there must be some fixed direction of flow, the only question is whether the direction of the way can be trusted to give it. This argues for having a tag whose presence (as 'yes') would confirm that this river's direction has been surveyed and matched with OSM. If the tag is not there, then you don't know one way or the other whether the direction of the way matches the flow of the river. For pipelines, the possibilities are one-way, two-way, and don't know. Again it is cleanest to represent don't know as the absence of a tag. There are also canals and other long stretches of water which do not have a current at all (or only a negligible one). Perhaps 'flow' could be used, with the following convention (missing) direction of flow, if any, not known flow=yes direction of flow follows the direction of the way flow=two_way can flow in either direction (pipelines only) flow=no there is no significant flow or current in this body of water (I'm not sure if flow=no would ever get used, it's already implied by waterway=canal, but perhaps there are waterways which are not canals but aren't flowing streams either.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postboxes Payphones
Hi, Andy Allan wrote: automated imports of sub-standard data It is probably wishful thinking to hope that they will go away. But one thing we could do to limit damage is to have something like layering in the OSM data base; not thematic layering like in traditional GIS, but source layering. Stuff that gets imported gets onto a layer of its own, and then it can be transferred to OSM proper by a click of a button somewhere in an editor. Continuing that line of thought, every user could have his (or any number of) own layers where he could work on stuff. - Of course, lots of technical issues especially if what you're importing is somehow connected to what's already there. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
