Re: [Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries and OS OpenData BoundaryLine
Hi all, I was just wondering whether, beyond the obvious use of having accurate boundary data in OSM, the Boundary Line data could also be used to align aerial imagery, particularly at the closest zoom levels? For instance, I map in South London, close to multiple borough boundaries. As a test, I downloaded the (more accurate) 2010 data last night and opened it in JOSM as a layer along with downloaded OSM data and Bing imagery. In certain places the Bing imagery shows obvious geometric shapes such as building outlines or fences/hedges, which it could reasonably assumed that the boundary would follow (and of course the more you look along the boundary line, the more features you can use to make the fit). It seems to me to be a valid useful approach, but I just wondered what others thought? Thanks, David. On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 30/05/2012 16:11, Jason Cunningham wrote: This suggests the original Boundary Line data is superior, but would need to be compared to 2012 releases to check boundaries have not moved. Does anyone have the original Boundary Line release? and would they be able to make them available? The previous releases of Boundary Line data are available here: http://parlvid.mysociety.org:**81/os/http://parlvid.mysociety.org:81/os/ http://os.openstreetmap.org/**data/ http://os.openstreetmap.org/data/ __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Hello everyone, Some good news! As from yesterday, Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of Way data under the OS OpenData licence. Details here: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/communications/mediacentre/mediareleases.htm?newsid=534104 Slippy map, and downloadable raw data (shp or kml format) at: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm I think we can import OS OpenData stuff into OSM can't we? If so, I'd imagine what we need to do is: - convert this data to .osm files with OSM tagging, and - manually (not automatically!) add any paths not already in OSM to OSM. I could develop a tool for the former, and do some, at least, of the latter though in other areas of the county it would be better done with people with local knowledge. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Tagging maxwidth Except for access
Hi, Maybe I am just having a blond moment but I can't see any way of capturing access restrictions except for access. Loads of country roads are signposted as max width 6'6 - except for access which implies a wider vehicle will fit (just). There are other restrictions which are sometimes qualified in this way, like No HGVs except for access but when they specify a class of vehicle then the tagging is obvious - in this case hgv=destination. But this can't be done simply with maxwidth (and maxweight, maxheight). As I can't see any direction on the wiki I thought I would let up a balloon here to see if anyone has come up with a tagging solution for this (in my experience) typically British phenomenon. Colin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Nick Whitelegg wrote: Some good news! As from yesterday, Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of Way data under the OS OpenData licence. \o/ If so, I'd imagine what we need to do is: - convert this data to .osm files with OSM tagging, and - manually (not automatically!) add any paths not already in OSM to OSM. I could develop a tool for the former If you use Potlatch 2 there's probably no need to develop a special tool: you can load shapefiles directly as a background layer (including reprojection from OSGB), and use MapCSS to remap tags. Details at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/16951 cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Hampshire-Rights-of-Way-Data-released-under-OS-OpenData-licence-tp5710823p5710833.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
On 31 May 2012 10:46, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: I think we can import OS OpenData stuff into OSM can't we? We can certainly use OS's OS OpenData products (with the exception of CodePoint Open) in OSM because LWG obtained explicit permission from Ordnance Survey to do so. [1] The OS OpenData License consists of the Open Government License (OGL) together with an additional attribution clause. The OGL itself is compatible with both CC-By-SA and ODbL, since it mentions them explicitly. However, my understanding is that the OS OpenData License itself isn't compatible with ODbL because of the additional attribution clause. The attribution requirement means that any derived works need to maintain the attribution. But ODbL allows users to give away Produced Works which can then be re-used without any attribution requirements. Hence we have an incompatibility. This argument was disputed by some people during the license change debate, but LWG still felt is necessary to get explicit permission from OS to use their OS OpenData [1]. More importantly, LWG have explicitly stated that we cannot use CodePoint Open (since Royal Mail refused permission) even though it too is licensed under the OS OpenData license [2]. So I think we have to take it that LWG's position is that the OS OpenData License itself isn't enough to guarantee ODbL compatibility. Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data (going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the Open Government License. :-( Robert. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/011995.html [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-January/012688.html -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging maxwidth Except for access
On 31 May 2012 11:23, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Maybe I am just having a blond moment but I can't see any way of capturing access restrictions except for access. Loads of country roads are signposted as max width 6'6 - except for access which implies a wider vehicle will fit (just). There are other restrictions which are sometimes qualified in this way, like No HGVs except for access but when they specify a class of vehicle then the tagging is obvious - in this case hgv=destination. But this can't be done simply with maxwidth (and maxweight, maxheight). As I can't see any direction on the wiki I thought I would let up a balloon here to see if anyone has come up with a tagging solution for this (in my experience) typically British phenomenon. Where I've come across these exceptions to the restrictions, I've used something like: maxweight:exception = loading;permit_holders The other sensible way of doing it that I can think of would be to have a separate key for each class of user taht has the exception. So something like maxweight = 7.5 T maxweight:loading = no maxweight:permit_holders = no The first approach better reflects the reality of the signs -- it's not a case of multiple restrictions; it's one restriction, with a list of exceptions. The second second approach is more flexible though, and is more consistent with the documented maxspeed:hgv tag. However, I think the second method is slightly ugly, in that we have to have a no value to remove the original maxweight. With either method, it would be good to document a list of simple words to express common exceptions. Neither approach had been particularly heavily used though, as far as I can see from taginfo. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 10:46 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Some good news! As from yesterday, Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of Way data under the OS OpenData licence. Good news indeed. This must be the reason why they've been too busy to answer my licensing query despite me chasing them about it! ;) Details here: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/communications/mediacentre/mediareleases.htm?newsid=534104 Slippy map, and downloadable raw data (shp or kml format) at: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm I think we can import OS OpenData stuff into OSM can't we? I think that the general consensus is that we can. If so, I'd imagine what we need to do is: - convert this data to .osm files with OSM tagging, and - manually (not automatically!) add any paths not already in OSM to OSM. I could develop a tool for the former, and do some, at least, of the latter though in other areas of the county it would be better done with people with local knowledge. While I believe that this data release is a good thing may I take this opportunity to remind people that legality is not always reality. If you intend to use this dataset then please do a ground survey to ensure that the path actually follows the route recorded in the definitive map. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data (going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the Open Government License. :-( Any other opinions on this or is this definite? The guy I've been in contact with at Hants CC was giving the impression it was OK, I could ask him explicitly if that's any help. Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 13:16 +0100, Andy Street wrote: While I believe that this data release is a good thing may I take this opportunity to remind people that legality is not always reality. If you intend to use this dataset then please do a ground survey to ensure that the path actually follows the route recorded in the definitive map. Everyone knows (at least *should* know) that rights of way aren't the same as paths. There are lots of examples in OS maps where the right of way diverges from the path. Henry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Andy Street wrote: ... do a ground survey to ensure that the path actually follows the route recorded in the definitive map. ... or use a source tag to make it clear where it's come from and that a ground survey hasn't been done there? I'm sure that there'll be places where a right of way does one thing and the path on the ground another. Just last night I found a designated bridleway (also explicitly signed for cyclists at one end) that from point A goes into a field of barley to the field boundary, then left for a similar distance to point B, rather than using an existing gravel track that goes direct from A to B. Clearly everyone (excepting the odd pedant) uses the gravel track, but it's not where the sign points. I'll add both when I add them, but it'll be the mostly unused one that gets the designation added. In some parts of the country you could put the difference between council data and a path in OSM as less than accurate path recording in OSM, but thanks to Andy and Nick in Hampshire I don't think that's likely to be the case much there. Cheers, A different Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries and OS OpenData BoundaryLine
I have just refreshed the GPX files. The changes are: *file names changed - replacing spaces with underscores to minimise any possible issues with spaces in filenames *attribution added - referring back to the OS OpenData source data and associated licence *for admin areas which consist of multiple polygons, each polygon (a trkseg in the GPX) is marked in the cmt (comment) tag as outer or inner. I know this can be derived from the data as outer polygons are clockwise, but it might save someone time/effort to have this immediately available in the GPX. Does OSM have any facility for hosting these files? They are about 500MB all together, but they compress very nicely. Someone suggested I make a wiki page for this. I will try to do that at the weekend. Colin On 30/05/2012 00:59, Colin Smale wrote: Having just taken a look at ogr2osm I think that is probably the best way of achieving OSM-data with a view to a bulk import. However there are lots of disadvantages and gotcha's on that route as several people have pointed out. If we were to take that route there would not be any point in going further with the GPX files. I have prepared a set of GPX files (one per admin area) from the main OS shapefiles. What would be the best way to get these into OSM? I guess it will be a manual process to split the boundary, create a relation, transfer the tags from any existing data, and link everything up. Can someone who has experience with such things suggest a workflow? Personally I tend to work with Potlatch2, but please let us all know if there's a better way. I assume (as someone else already suggested) the OS is probably the best source available for this data. So any existing admin boundaries (counties/regions etc) will need to be adjusted by hand to connect up with the district boundaries from this OS dataset. I am currently uploading the GPX files to the following (temporary) location: http://csmale.home.xs4all.nl/os/boundaryline/ Please let me know if you find any anomalies in these files! Colin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries and OS OpenData BoundaryLine
On 31/05/12 13:37, Colin Smale wrote: Does OSM have any facility for hosting these files? They are about 500MB all together, but they compress very nicely. Sure - just ask for a dev serv account: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_the_dev_server Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 13:29 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data (going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the Open Government License. :-( Any other opinions on this or is this definite? The guy I've been in contact with at Hants CC was giving the impression it was OK, I could ask him explicitly if that's any help. While HCC could theoretically include any odd request they like in their licence (all members of your organisation must dance the fandango every Friday?) I can't see that they'd want us to enforce attribution of a third party for any other reason than to satisfy licence conditions imposed on them. Since the OS has already given us the green light to include OS OpenData in ODbL then I don't see this as a problem. If the terms stated that we had to enforce attribution of HCC too I'd be more concerned. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Unclassified Country Road (UCR)
Hi All, Now that the Public Right of Way documentation [1] has settled down a bit, I have had a chance to pick up some of the other comments received in the last few weeks. One of which was on Unclassified Country Roads (UCR). A quick google reveals that UCR is: An obsolete term, created by the Local Government Act 1929 and abolished in the Local Government Act 1972, but still used by several Highway Authorities. All that can be deduced from the term is that it is a highway (including public right of way) maintainable at public expense, other than an ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘third class' road. It is no indication that it carries vehicular rights. [2] The line about no indication of vehicle access goes against the advice of Warwickshire CC: In general it is presumed that all UCRs (whether they have a tarmac surface or not) carry public pedestrian, equestrian and vehicular rights unless: - Anyone is able to present strong evidence to show otherwise; - Following a review of the evidence, the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/definitivemap shows a lower status; OR - A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) restricts use [3] --- Question: --- How would we tag them? One suggestion was as probably highway=track, designation=unclassified_highway and motor_vehicle, vehicle, horse, pedestrian tags as appropriate, but if the surface is good then why not use highway=unclassified? And do we really need to mark them with the designation tag if the term was abolished in the 1972 act? (which begs the question why does Warwickshire CC use the name and waymark them!) All feedback appreciated as always, RobJN [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions [2] http://www.gleam-uk.org/explanation-of-terms/ [3] http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/unclassifiedroads ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Unclassified Country Road (UCR)
Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi All, Now that the Public Right of Way documentation [1] has settled down a bit, I have had a chance to pick up some of the other comments received in the last few weeks. One of which was on Unclassified Country Roads (UCR). I was wondering when this one would crop up! I've gone with designation = unclassified_county_road in Lincs where I've come across them (because, basically, that's what the sign says). An example is here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/75316181 The fact that I didn't put any access tags on that was by accident rather than by design - I'd have thought various=yes would be appropriate in this case, as I'm interpreting Lincs' use as yes, you really are legally allowed to drive down here. I also added note = Unsuitable for Motors because that's signed too, implying ... but don't try it in a Ford Mondeo. Follow the track north and you'll get to http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/162729207 which has new bridleway signs saying to the trail bikers but keep off this bit. Of your links, from reading http://www.gleam-uk.org/our-aims/ it looks like they definitely have an angle on this - ... objective is to ensure that unsurfaced highways in the countryside carrying public rights of way are preserved from damage caused by inappropriate use, particularly by recreational off-road motor vehicles of all kinds.. I'm sure that there's a similar website somewhere representing trail bikers and other off-roaders but with a very different spin on the use of the term. There have been examples in the OSM database recently of designation tags that would prevent off-road vehicle use disappearing following what appears to be armchair editing (I've mentioned it previously on this list). I don't have a particularly pro- or anti- view as regards off-road vehicle use, but do want to see a map that accurately reflects what's there on the ground (however complicated English and Welsh law contrives to make it). Traffic Regulation Orders (something your Warwick CC link also mentions) is something that we might also want to think about - I don't know of a good way of representing them. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
Fantastic news about Hamps PRoW data :-) Anyone else contacting their local council can use this as an example case. Q: Do we need to have a suggested way of tagging the reference numbers in ref=* ? So far I have seen the following in use: * Parish / path no. / link no.== For example: 417/26/1 (where the parish is a number code) * Area RoW_type Path_no.== For example: North Tawton Bridleway 18 Delimiters seen include ' ' , '/' and '-'. A: Can I throw out the suggestion that we use: * Parish-RoWType-PathNo-LinkNo. (where the bit in brackets is optional). I assume that use of '-' is allowed. Regards, RobJN ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
I guess the thing to do is just use the most common reference. I am aware of several schemes: Hampshire uses parish plus number e.g. Tichborne Footpath 5, West Sussex uses a county-wide, 3 or 4 digit number (e.g. 1263, 2005) and I've also seen XXX/YY (in Wrexham borough, Wales) and very large, 6-digit numbers (Cumbria). We should probably just make it free form rather than enforce a particular format. Nick -Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: - To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com Date: 31/05/2012 06:04PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence) Fantastic news about Hamps PRoW data :-) Anyone else contacting their local council can use this as an example case. Q: Do we need to have a suggested way of tagging the reference numbers in ref=* ? So far I have seen the following in use: * Parish / path no. / link no. == For example: 417/26/1 (where the parish is a number code) * Area RoW_type Path_no. == For example: North Tawton Bridleway 18 Delimiters seen include ' ' , '/' and '-'. A: Can I throw out the suggestion that we use: * Parish-RoWType-PathNo-LinkNo. (where the bit in brackets is optional). I assume that use of '-' is allowed. Regards, RobJN ___ 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] Unclassified Country Road (UCR)
On 31 May 2012 17:10, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Now that the Public Right of Way documentation [1] has settled down a bit, I have had a chance to pick up some of the other comments received in the last few weeks. One of which was on Unclassified Country Roads (UCR). Whether the term is obsolete or not, there are certainly roads that appear on a Council's List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense which are not classified as primary, secondary or tertiary. It would seem natural to term these Unclassified. We already have the OSM tagging highway=unclassified which will work for most of these. However, I think highway=unclassified brings with it the implicit assumption that the route will be suitable for motor traffic, and (in the UK at least) will have a metalled surface. This is not true of all these Unclassified Highways in the UK, some of which will have the appearance of dirt farm tracks. In the spirit of duck tagging, I would suggest that even if these roads are technically Unclassified Highways, we tag them with highway=track if that's what they most resemble. This should also help routing software avoid using such ways for motor traffic, even if it's technically legal. Nevertheless, such routes will generally include a public right of way (probably full vehicular rights) and I believe it's important to tag this fact. Given that we use the designation tag to classify other rights of way, I would suggest continuing to do so here. My preference would be for designation=unclassified_highway as it seems to be the simplest statement of the status. Whatever we decide on, I'd strongly suggest and that for consistency we use a single tag value on all such ways regardless of what the individual council happens to call them. (Of course, I would only suggest using this designation tag at all on ways that aren't already tagged with highway=unclassified.) As with any public right of way, I'd also suggest adding appropriate access=* tags to help data users make the right decisions in routing algorithms. (Sometimes these access tags will be crucial since Traffic Regulation Orders can restrict some classes of traffic that would normally be permitted on a particular public right of way.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
On 31 May 2012 18:03, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Q: Do we need to have a suggested way of tagging the reference numbers in ref=* ? So far I have seen the following in use: * Parish / path no. / link no. == For example: 417/26/1 (where the parish is a number code) * Area RoW_type Path_no. == For example: North Tawton Bridleway 18 Delimiters seen include ' ' , '/' and '-'. A: Can I throw out the suggestion that we use: * Parish-RoWType-PathNo-LinkNo. (where the bit in brackets is optional). I assume that use of '-' is allowed. I think this is going to be complicated by the fact that different councils use different schemes for their numbering. I believe that the traditional method would be for paths to be numbered with a sequential number within each parish. The Definitive Statement forms often make use of the abbreviations FP, BR, RB and BY for the four classes of right of way, so I've been using the following format: ref = Parish Name Type Number where Parish Name is the name of the parish (which may itself contain spaces), Type is one of the strings FP, BR, RB and BY, and number is the path number (usually an integer, and without any leading zeros, and without any spaces). I've used spaces as separators, as it's the simplest option, and the one typically used on the definitive statements themselves. I don't see any reason to artificially introduce something different. Some councils seem to have adjusted their numbering schemes in recent years, possibly as part of the process of creating digital mapping. I've seen an example where the parishes are given a numerical ID, and where a council has given each path a new number that is unique within the whole county. (This is Worcestershire, and at the same time, they've also split the paths up at every junction so that no path has two routes leaving a junction, i.e. a path always ends at the first junction of rights of way it comes to, and its continuation is now a separate new path. I think this may have something to do with geometries in GIS software.) I'm not sure what's best to do for for an overall format. I think we may probably have to consider things on a county by county basis, trying to keep things as consistent as possible. I would have thought for those using a traditional numbering we could agree on a single format. I'm not so sure about new variants though. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging maxwidth Except for access
The exception to maxwidth is not for a class of vehicle, but for a purpose, i.e. reaching a property along that road. I'm not sure of the actual legal meaning of access in this case but it's probably something like that. So loading would also be in this category, but permit_holders would not as I think this would refer to the specific driver, or possibly the specific vehicle. Tagging it as maxwidth=6'6 and ignoring the qualification is IMHO a good starting point on the grounds that routers tend to ignore all sorts of restrictions in the initial and final bits of the route anyway. But then we should be able to add the qualification to the tagging in some way that the cleverer routers can make sense of. So something like maxwidth:destination=no or maxwidth:exception=destination would both fit the bill. I think I would prefer the second option as it seems more versatile; the first option includes redundant information (the no is redundant unless anyone can think of some other useful value which might come here). We also gain a tagging pattern which would lend itself to many situations. Colin PS: in Holland it's possible to get a permit to ignore just about anything...I know a street which is one-way except for permit-holders. It's not signed as such at the normal start of the road (only on the No Entry signs at the other end), so you have no idea you can expect oncoming traffic. On 31/05/2012 13:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 31 May 2012 11:23, Colin Smalecolin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Maybe I am just having a blond moment but I can't see any way of capturing access restrictions except for access. Loads of country roads are signposted as max width 6'6 - except for access which implies a wider vehicle will fit (just). There are other restrictions which are sometimes qualified in this way, like No HGVs except for access but when they specify a class of vehicle then the tagging is obvious - in this case hgv=destination. But this can't be done simply with maxwidth (and maxweight, maxheight). As I can't see any direction on the wiki I thought I would let up a balloon here to see if anyone has come up with a tagging solution for this (in my experience) typically British phenomenon. Where I've come across these exceptions to the restrictions, I've used something like: maxweight:exception = loading;permit_holders The other sensible way of doing it that I can think of would be to have a separate key for each class of user taht has the exception. So something like maxweight = 7.5 T maxweight:loading = no maxweight:permit_holders = no The first approach better reflects the reality of the signs -- it's not a case of multiple restrictions; it's one restriction, with a list of exceptions. The second second approach is more flexible though, and is more consistent with the documented maxspeed:hgv tag. However, I think the second method is slightly ugly, in that we have to have a no value to remove the original maxweight. With either method, it would be good to document a list of simple words to express common exceptions. Neither approach had been particularly heavily used though, as far as I can see from taginfo. Robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
- Original Message - From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 13:29 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data (going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the Open Government License. :-( Any other opinions on this or is this definite? The guy I've been in contact with at Hants CC was giving the impression it was OK, I could ask him explicitly if that's any help. Nick I have to admit that as soon as I read your first email, I had excatly the same concerns as Robert Whittaker. While HCC could theoretically include any odd request they like in their licence (all members of your organisation must dance the fandango every Friday?) I can't see that they'd want us to enforce attribution of a third party for any other reason than to satisfy licence conditions imposed on them. Since the OS has already given us the green light to include OS OpenData in ODbL then I don't see this as a problem. However OS OpenData specifically excludes Rights Of Way information. So it would be difficult to draw any inference from the prior agreement between OS OSM as to how that might apply to ROW data from HCC. In effect you seem to be saying that since we have an agreement to use some specific OS data under the terms agreed between OS OSM, then we have permission to use any OS data under that agreement. David If the terms stated that we had to enforce attribution of HCC too I'd be more concerned. Cheers, Andy ___ 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] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OSOpenData licence
I've had some additional thoughts on this, but will now be discussing these on legal talk rather than here David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Hi Nick, Whilst the legal side is being discussed, I notice that the press release makes no reference to the Definitive Statement. Did you ask about this? / Have you had any direct response from the Council? Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging maxwidth Except for access
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 20:49 +0200, Colin Smale wrote: Tagging it as maxwidth=6'6 and ignoring the qualification is IMHO a good starting point on the grounds that routers tend to ignore all sorts of restrictions in the initial and final bits of the route anyway. I hope they never ignore this one http://goo.gl/maps/hnDP Phil ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
