Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode data
On 16 January 2013 13:04, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: You might like to get a volunteer to check a pilot import that's limited within a manageable area - suggest a limited range of postcodes Another useful check would be to apply your matching over the OSM database, and pull out all the potential polygons that are already tagged with a postcode. Then compare the existing tagging with the postcode you get from the external data. Loot at the number / percentage of dependencies, and for each one try to work out which source is correct. This might will give you another indication of the accuracy of the proposed import. (Personally, I'm not sure I see much benefit to the import. It's presumably going to add relatively few postcodes, so won't be that much use for anyone wanting to use OSM data for postcode look-ups. Indeed anyone wanting to do that could just as easily use the centroid data directly to map a postcode to a location, and then use that location to do whatever searching they want to do on OSM. There is obviously some advantage in that we'll have more buildings / amenities with properly assigned post-codes. But because of the relatively low benefit (unless I'm missing something) I would say that the community should see good evidence for an extremely low error rate on the import before agreeing that it would be a good thing to do.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Alton Towers
On 17 January 2013 01:38, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Anyone familiar with Alton Towers / rollercoasters in general? This changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14382319 has merged a number of different-layered sections of Nemesis into one. It's by a very new mapper, so I suspect that the layer changes were accidental. It's also now apparently railway = light_rail; is that OK? No, the light_rail stuff isn't OK. It's not a light rail system, it's a rollercoaster! Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] European Walking Route E2 / Staffordshire Way / Viking Way
Gregory Williams wrote: I know that E2 exists down here in Kent. In the past couple of years a number of new signs have been put up on the North Downs Way, which E2 follows. These include an insert with a European flag and E2 on them. Thanks to all who replied. It's good to know that at least in some places the E2 is actually signed as such. I'll not manually add new bits of Staffordshire Way to the E2 relation, and I'll not further mess with the three relations and super-relation that make up most of the Staffordshire Way now, as I suspect that if it was merged it would only need to be split later as it got too big. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations
Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle map, transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM? Mapnik seems to know the difference and renders the disused stations with a smaller symbol and grey label, but viewing the other three layers leads you to the conclusion that these are all regular stations. For an example see this (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.43943lon=-2.96918zoom=15layers=C) in North Liverpool where I was cycling using the cycle map recently. Bank Hall and Kirkdale are regular stations which are both useful landmarks for a cyclist and offer a potential ride home whereas Spellow and Walton Anfield do not exist. I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who are interested in historic maps, but the features which are important for that type of mapping can just get in the way of useful everyday find-your-way-around maps. Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug? Thanks Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations
One in London has had disused: put in front of the tags http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1528661184 On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Bogus Zaba bog...@bogzab.plus.com wrote: Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle map, transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM? Mapnik seems to know the difference and renders the disused stations with a smaller symbol and grey label, but viewing the other three layers leads you to the conclusion that these are all regular stations. For an example see this (http://www.openstreetmap.org/** ?lat=53.43943lon=-2.96918**zoom=15layers=Chttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.43943lon=-2.96918zoom=15layers=C) in North Liverpool where I was cycling using the cycle map recently. Bank Hall and Kirkdale are regular stations which are both useful landmarks for a cyclist and offer a potential ride home whereas Spellow and Walton Anfield do not exist. I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who are interested in historic maps, but the features which are important for that type of mapping can just get in the way of useful everyday find-your-way-around maps. Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug? Thanks Bogus Zaba __**_ 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Bogus Zaba wrote: Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle map, transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM? I think disused railways and raillines that are not visible on the ground shouldn't be in the data base. If the structure and/or tracks are still there, they should be rendered differently. However, because it's no longer a station, railway=station seems inappropriate. cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode data
I would imagine that this would add a fair number of postcodes, and although those interested in address lookup can just use the centroid database without needing to go to OSM, this requires knowledge of the database (which non-UK developers might not have) and does not link postcodes back to address numbers and street names. Also recall that the Auto industry asked in 2012 how OSM intends to bridge the gap between us and commercial map providers. Something like this would be a good step in the right direction in my opinion. From what I have heard, this sounds like a very cautious import and I am happy to support it. It may even have lower error rates than some manual edits!! RobJN p.s. Matt, if you are reading this, do you still update your graph of number of postcodes added to OSM? Might be interesting to see it. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
