Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
- Original Message - From: Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com To: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: David Groom wrote: However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath sign showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road, and the definitive map shows this as a footpath. I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage. Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer. The problem in the stated case, is that there is potentially a footpath ref and a road ref. I would want to suggest something like footpath:ref=B64 or prow:ref=B64, but I don't think either is used or documented anywhere. Thanks everyone for the comments I like the idea of prow:ref. I think footpath:ref a bit too specific, we'd then need bridleway:ref, not to mention boat:ref (for byways open to all traffic) which could be just TOO confusing! I've also found one instance of where the problem mentioned by Andy, of a way needing both a road ref and a prow ref, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28919456 which currently is tagged ref = A49;Cuddington FP 24 Certainly here on the Isle of Wight, I think the use of the reference number has gone beyond just administrative purposes. A large majority of the footpath/bridleway signs have the ref on them (and I think all the more recent ones do). Walking guides and trail leaflets commonly refer to paths by using their reference number. In the UK at present there seem to be 7,004 ways tagged with designation =* and ref = *, of which 941 are on the Isle of Wight. I'd be quite confident about changing the relevant Isle Of Wight ways to prow:ref , but would not want to mass change all the UK ones. It would be good to hear comments from user mikh43, and Robert Whittaker, as the three of us account for 80% of the users who last edited those 7004 ways Regards David Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ 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] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
On 20 June 2012 12:44, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: I like the idea of prow:ref. I think footpath:ref a bit too specific, we'd then need bridleway:ref, not to mention boat:ref (for byways open to all traffic) which could be just TOO confusing! [snip] In the UK at present there seem to be 7,004 ways tagged with designation =* and ref = *, [snip] It would be good to hear comments from user mikh43, and Robert Whittaker, as the three of us account for 80% of the users who last edited those 7004 ways If we decide that we need to have a key other than ref for PRoW numbers, then prow:ref seems to me be the best option from anything that's I've seen suggested here. And I can't think of anything better myself. Given that there is a potential clash with road reference numbers (which rightly should take priority) and there are definitely cases where this arises, then perhaps it would indeed be better to use a different key for the footpath etc numbers. If we do make a decision to go with prow:ref, then I think we should try to bulk change the existing uses of ref for PRoW numbers. It would probably be relatively easy to semi-manually review all 7,000 uses of a ref value on a way with a designation. For example, we should be safe with any values that contain only letters and numbers (so is unlikely to be a combination of two different refs separated by ; or /) and ends in FP n, BR n, RB n or BY n where n is any number (so looks like a PRoW number). This will probably cover any that I've added, and I'd be happy for them to be changed automatically. If there were any other common formats, we could probably match them too, and then only have to manually review the much smaller number that's left. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
Merging this data I see that some ways that just lead to an NCN route (but are not actually part of the continuous route) are still marked with the ncn=yes;ncn_ref=xx tags for the route the lead to. What's the feeling on this? I'm a bit torn: - On the one hand they are not the route, as in the signed route that goes from A to B. They are simply access ways leading to the route. Including them in the route could be misleading. - But on the other hand, the on the ground situation is that roads/paths near NCN routes often have signs pointing towards the route and these seem (to me) to be indistinguishable from the signs along the route. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108p5713603.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] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
On 20/06/2012 14:57, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote: Merging this data I see that some ways that just lead to an NCN route (but are not actually part of the continuous route) are still marked with the ncn=yes;ncn_ref=xx tags for the route the lead to. What's the feeling on this? I'm a bit torn: - On the one hand they are not the route, as in the signed route that goes from A to B. They are simply access ways leading to the route. Including them in the route could be misleading. - But on the other hand, the on the ground situation is that roads/paths near NCN routes often have signs pointing towards the route and these seem (to me) to be indistinguishable from the signs along the route. I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs: the ncn ref in the red block with brackets round it: http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/29870/cyclestreets29870.jpg I think we could do well to do the same in the ncn_ref tag. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were recorded in 3 categories: 1) 1.5m 2) 1.5=x2 3) =2 So the values in the data (1.25 and 1.75 mostly) are spuriously accurate and quite often overstated. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
David Earl wrote I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs That would be sensible. I think Newcastle Council must have run out of parenthesis :) David Earl wrote I think we could do well to do the same in the ncn_ref tag. Hmm... would make a degree of sense - but as noted earlier, most NCNs (and other routes) are stored as relations. I guess that ways signed as leading to an NCN could still use ncn_ref=(xx), but we'd probably want to carefully note this approach somewhere on the wiki (probably http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes ) -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108p5713607.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] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
On 20 June 2012 15:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were recorded in 3 categories: 1) 1.5m 2) 1.5=x2 3) =2 So the values in the data (1.25 and 1.75 mostly) are spuriously accurate and quite often overstated. That's true, and that's why I arranged to have these widths in the est_width tag rather than the width tag. For the curious, here's the numbers across the database: est_width | count ---+--- 0 | 6 1 | 9 1.25 | 9505 1.5 | 4 1.75 | 25209 2 |18 2.5 | 27090 3 | 2 4 | 3 6.5 | 1 If there's any other questions regarding the data, feel free to ask! Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
On 20 June 2012 15:21, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: David Earl wrote I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs I guess that ways signed as leading to an NCN could still use ncn_ref=(xx), but we'd probably want to carefully note this approach somewhere on the wiki (probably http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes ) For the link routes as they are known within Sustrans, they should indeed have brackets around the ref on the signpost. They can go into OSM as route relations in themselves, e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1920622 Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
On 18 June 2012 12:05, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: One last comment for now. When looking at a project page, such as: http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/projects/78/ tagged_ways It would be good to have a link to edit a relevant area, or failing that at least a latitude/longitude so you can find the way. I've just added a stack of functionality to the site, so now you can see maps showing where the features are, along with the coordinates. It's not perfect, but it works! Feedback welcome, and/or patches for the technically minded. See https://github.com/gravitystorm/snapshot-server Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
On 18 June 2012 10:11, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Are there any notes I'm missing about how to access and deal with nodes in the DfT data? e.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/edloach/7392860104/in/photostream Nope, you're not missing anything - it simply appears to be broken. I'm investigating what's going on. It should, of course, just work(tm) in the same way as for ways. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
David Earl [mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com] wrote: Sent: 20 June 2012 15:05 To: Graham Stewart (GrahamS) Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging On 20/06/2012 14:57, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote: Merging this data I see that some ways that just lead to an NCN route (but are not actually part of the continuous route) are still marked with the ncn=yes;ncn_ref=xx tags for the route the lead to. What's the feeling on this? I'm a bit torn: - On the one hand they are not the route, as in the signed route that goes from A to B. They are simply access ways leading to the route. Including them in the route could be misleading. - But on the other hand, the on the ground situation is that roads/paths near NCN routes often have signs pointing towards the route and these seem (to me) to be indistinguishable from the signs along the route. I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs: the ncn ref in the red block with brackets round it: http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/29870/cyclestreets29870.jpg I think we could do well to do the same in the ncn_ref tag. That's how I'm tagging. The bracketed NCN number is a relatively new thing from Sustrans. Basically any route to or deprecated braid should have a bracketed number, though in many locations this may not have happened yet. The number alone without brackets should only be used along the primary NCN route itself. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
Thanks both Andys :) As an example of somewhere this hasn't happened look at the current mapping around St Peter's Basin in Newcastle. It shows and extra spur of the NCN72 along Bottlehouse Street, but actually the NCN72 runs along a parallel road to the north (Saint Lawrence Street). http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.96592lon=-1.57369zoom=17layers=C I suspect the original mapper was misled by the NCN signs in Bottlehouse Street, which don't have brackets on them. I'll survey it sometime soon and fix it as suggested. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108p5713631.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] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
Andy Robinson wrote: Basically any route to or deprecated braid should have a bracketed number, though in many locations this may not have happened yet. There's a slight tagging ambiguity when a link route connects two numbered routes, of course: often these will be signed as, say, '(5)' in one direction but '(51)' in the other. For the example in my group's 'patch', I chose to switch over the tagging at the railway station roughly halfway: http://osm.org/go/eutSPzu?layers=C cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108p5713637.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] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
Sorry Richard for spamming you - one day I'll remember this replies to the person rather than the group by default - argh! On 20 June 2012 15:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were recorded in 3 categories: 1) 1.5m 2) 1.5=x2 3) =2 So the values in the data (1.25 and 1.75 mostly) are spuriously accurate and quite often overstated. Ah Ha, that explains why many of the 1.25m ones seam very generous - more like 0.6m on the ground (with a wall to one side and water to the other) for about half a dozen of them! *On 20 June 2012 15:21, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: * *For the link routes as they are known within Sustrans, they should indeed have brackets around the ref on the signpost. They can go into OSM as route relations in themselves, e.g.* I've a few LCN's called (6) to change to NCN's then! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
On 18 June 2012 10:11, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Are there any notes I'm missing about how to access and deal with nodes in the DfT data? e.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/edloach/7392860104/in/photostream Did this get an answer? I've tried, and failed, to click on the underlying DfT vector for this node: http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/projects/40/nodes/266169 I can select the OSM node, but not the DfT vector in order to merge/mark complete. Any hints much appreciated! Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
One thing I have noticed with the data is that in a number of places the DfT data claims there is an LCN on a major road which I know has no LCN signage (except the odd crossing) - e.g. London Road - or claims that both the main carriageway AND the adjacent cycleway (well footpath with some wobbly painted lines) are LCN - the most obvious being here on the ring road http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-app/editor.html?lat=52.99199lon=-1.14147- i.e. both the cyclepaths on either side of the 40mph ring road are marked as being in the LCN (which tallies with the on the ground situation) but also the main 40mph carriageway (well actually a single line in the DfT data) which has no on the ground signs or even things like ASLs - in these cases is the road really supposed to be marked as LCN? Where it's on a residential road but unsigned on the ground I've been adding it in (most of these fill in the various missing links you get from surveying the signs) but on these major roads I've left it incomplete for the time being. Also, does anyone know when the OpenCycleMap data is last from (is there a page showing this?) - I notice that stuff I added LCN tags to on the 9th still hasn't been rendered dispite the tiles being updated on the 18th and currently marked as clean? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
