[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #367 2017-07-25-2017-07-31

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 367,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9326/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 15:29 +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> That was, of course, meant to go to the Wikimedia UK mailing list,
> not
> the OSM UK list.
> 
> I was wondering why so many replies were about mapping...

But it has sparked some useful debate, both here and #osm-gb.

Phil (trigpoint)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[me]

On 04/08/17 at 09:20am, SK53 wrote:
>Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished:
>building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active
>mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.

This is exactly what we try and do in Edinburgh. An example is here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372571074

When something new is build then these will get deleted. We have had
occasions where building have been re-added based on imagery.

We work a similar plan on shops or businesses that close, rather than delete
we would mark as disused:shop= or shop=vacant 

Cheers
Chris


>On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox" <[1]davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
>  Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground.
>  Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being
>  reversed.
> 
>  On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <[2]61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  How different is the footprint of the new building?
> 
>  I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old
>  one - given the planing permissions.
> 
>  So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it
>  alone - that gives at least an indication that there is a building
>  there.
> 
>  Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?
> 
>  On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
>  > [3]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
>  >
>  > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
>  > of editing, I suggest)
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black
>  <[4]andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>:
>  >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down
>  and
>  >> rebuilt.
>  >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back
>  and add
>  >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>  >> I have added a note  #1077006
>  >>
>  >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>  >>
>  >> ___
>  >> Talk-GB mailing list
>  >> [5]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  >> [6]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>  >>
>  > ___
>  > Talk-GB mailing list
>  > [7]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  > [8]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
>  ___
>  Talk-GB mailing list
>  [9]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  [10]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>  ___
>  Talk-GB mailing list
>  [11]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  [12]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> References
> 
>Visible links
>1. mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com
>2. mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com
>3. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished
>4. mailto:andrewdbl...@googlemail.com
>5. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>6. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>7. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>8. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>9. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>   10. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>   11. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>   12. 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] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

[SK53]

Hi Brian,

The GiGL data are open AFAIK. I have downloaded a copy but havent looked at
it yet: it should be appearing on the GLA Data Store.

Jerry

On 4 August 2017 at 15:15, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> While we're on this subject, it isn't readily apparent to me  which map
> base the Guardian is using for this campaign. We should be lobbying them to
> use an open source rather than an online POPS which does suggest a
> delicious irony. But if they're using OSM  then good for them.  I've
> already raised this with them but not received a reply
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> On 4 August 2017 at 14:16, Dan S  wrote:
>
>> 2017-08-04 13:20 GMT+01:00 SK53 :
>> > Personally I'm rather more interested in mapping POPS as they are
>> becoming
>> > an issue in larger cities.
>>
>> We could map the boundaries of POPS through a systematic procedure of
>> standing in specific spots, looking like we don't want to buy
>> anything, and waiting for the security guards' reaction?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

[Andy Mabbett]

That was, of course, meant to go to the Wikimedia UK mailing list, not
the OSM UK list.

I was wondering why so many replies were about mapping...

On 3 August 2017 at 13:47, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> We appear to have no pics on Commons of Lewis Cubitt Square, a newly
> (2016?) created public open space behind Kings Cross station:
>
>https://www.kingscross.co.uk/lewis-cubitt-square
>
> If anyone is passing there, please take a few, and add one to:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q34622297
>
> The same goes for the other parts of that development, such as Lewis
> Cubitt Park:
>
> https://www.kingscross.co.uk/lewis-cubitt-park
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk



-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

[Brian Prangle]

While we're on this subject, it isn't readily apparent to me  which map
base the Guardian is using for this campaign. We should be lobbying them to
use an open source rather than an online POPS which does suggest a
delicious irony. But if they're using OSM  then good for them.  I've
already raised this with them but not received a reply

Regards

Brian

On 4 August 2017 at 14:16, Dan S  wrote:

> 2017-08-04 13:20 GMT+01:00 SK53 :
> > Personally I'm rather more interested in mapping POPS as they are
> becoming
> > an issue in larger cities.
>
> We could map the boundaries of POPS through a systematic procedure of
> standing in specific spots, looking like we don't want to buy
> anything, and waiting for the security guards' reaction?
>
> Dan
>
> ___
> 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] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

[Dan S]

2017-08-04 13:20 GMT+01:00 SK53 :
> Personally I'm rather more interested in mapping POPS as they are becoming
> an issue in larger cities.

We could map the boundaries of POPS through a systematic procedure of
standing in specific spots, looking like we don't want to buy
anything, and waiting for the security guards' reaction?

Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[SK53]

Dave,

I would be very grateful if you did not talk about me (or David Earl, for
that matter) in such an off-hand way on this mailing list. I find it really
offensive.

This is nothing to do with historical mapping: it's retaining an element to
avoid erroneous re-mapping of a non-existent building. They get deleted
when imagery is updated. In the past considerable work has been created by
people mapping from aerial imagery when someone has gone to the trouble of
updating stuff from a survey. Keeping a small number of elements in OSM for
this purpose is I believe entirely reasonable.


Jerry

On 4 August 2017 at 12:45, Dave F  wrote:

>
> On 04/08/2017 12:11, Dan S wrote:
>
>> 2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F :
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out
>>> OSM is
>>> not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed
>>> from
>>> OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map.
>>>
>> Yes I thought so too. I tried to search the talk-gb archive for it but
>> I couldn't find the thread. Shame it isn't easier to find things in
>> our previous threads.
>>
> This is the welcome screen shown to all new users:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome.html
>
>
>
>> Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat
>>> 'Around
>>> here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when compare
>>> with
>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>> Don't worry too much about that, I'm sure it's just about awareness,
>> not exceptionalism!
>>
>
> From his previous posts, regrettably I don't believe that to be true. And
> he's not alone. See Cambridge University where a mapper has knowingly
> misinterpreted well defined tags to suit his custom rendering, (every uni
> building is tagged amenity=university & recreation grounds are tagged as
> pitches).
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.20114/0.12167
>
> https://map.cam.ac.uk/#52.199657,0.117062,16
>
> DaveF
>
>
> ___
> 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] Building that have been replaced

[SK53]

This happens to be a local convention which has evolved. I have no idea how
it is done in other places as I don't tend to keep track of changes in
buildings and am less likely to be in the position of regularly seeing a
building & then not being aware of it being demolished. So I'm not offering
it as a general solution and that needs to be said.'

I always say where to place it in context: not everyone reading these
emails will want to trawl through a whole list. So I try and provide enough
information for the casual reader as well as the regular reader.

Different parts of the UK have evolved quite different ways of mapping
certain features. Often a local consensus emerges because mappers encounter
each others work and probably copy a particular approach: either, if they
haven't seen such things mapped before, or if they didn't know any suitable
tags. This is not a bad thing: it ensures that data does get captured, and
usually it only pertains to fairly rare tags or situations.

Jerry

On 4 August 2017 at 12:04, Dave F  wrote:

> I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM
> is not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed
> from OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History
> Map.
>
> Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat
> 'Around here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when
> compare with elsewhere.
>
> On 04/08/2017 09:20, SK53 wrote:
>
> Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished:
> building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active
> mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.
>
> On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox"  wrote:
>
>> Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground.
>> Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed.
>>
>> On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How different is the footprint of the new building?
>>
>> I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old
>> one - given the planing permissions.
>>
>> So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone
>> - that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.
>>
>> Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?
>>
>>
>> On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
>> >
>> > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
>> > of editing, I suggest)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black :
>> >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down
>> and
>> >> rebuilt.
>> >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back
>> and add
>> >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>> >> I have added a note  #1077006
>> >>
>> >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> 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
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

[SK53]

See for example:
https://www.nicholasgooddenphotography.co.uk/london-blog/permit-for-photography-london.
I think it's entirely reasonable to warn people about such issues.

I think I may have taken photos of Granary Square but not sure if from
within the private bounds.

Personally I'm rather more interested in mapping POPS as they are becoming
an issue in larger cities.

Jerry

On 4 August 2017 at 12:57, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On 4 August 2017 at 09:23, SK53  wrote:
>
> > Isn't this one of the Pops (privately-owned public-space) recently
> mapped by
> > GiGL? In which case the landowner might forbid photographs.
>
> That doesn't mean that photographs cannot be taken; just that if they
> ask a photographer to stop or leave, they should do so. (And good luck
> to them spotting, let alone stopping, everyone who takes a pic with
> their mobile phone.)
>
> Nor can they stop people taking pictures from adjacent public spaces,
> such as the highway.
>
> In either case, once the pics are taken, Wikipedia and its sister
> projects can use them.
>
> ___
> 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] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

[Andy Mabbett]

On 4 August 2017 at 09:23, SK53  wrote:

> Isn't this one of the Pops (privately-owned public-space) recently mapped by
> GiGL? In which case the landowner might forbid photographs.

That doesn't mean that photographs cannot be taken; just that if they
ask a photographer to stop or leave, they should do so. (And good luck
to them spotting, let alone stopping, everyone who takes a pic with
their mobile phone.)

Nor can they stop people taking pictures from adjacent public spaces,
such as the highway.

In either case, once the pics are taken, Wikipedia and its sister
projects can use them.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Dave F]

On 04/08/2017 12:11, Dan S wrote:

2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F :

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM is
not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed from
OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map.

Yes I thought so too. I tried to search the talk-gb archive for it but
I couldn't find the thread. Shame it isn't easier to find things in
our previous threads.

This is the welcome screen shown to all new users:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome.html





Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat 'Around
here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when compare with
elsewhere.

Don't worry too much about that, I'm sure it's just about awareness,
not exceptionalism!


From his previous posts, regrettably I don't believe that to be true. 
And he's not alone. See Cambridge University where a mapper has 
knowingly misinterpreted well defined tags to suit his custom rendering, 
(every uni building is tagged amenity=university & recreation grounds 
are tagged as pitches).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.20114/0.12167

https://map.cam.ac.uk/#52.199657,0.117062,16

DaveF


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Dan S]

2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F :
> I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM is
> not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed from
> OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map.

Yes I thought so too. I tried to search the talk-gb archive for it but
I couldn't find the thread. Shame it isn't easier to find things in
our previous threads.

> Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat 'Around
> here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when compare with
> elsewhere.

Don't worry too much about that, I'm sure it's just about awareness,
not exceptionalism!

Dan


> On 04/08/2017 09:20, SK53 wrote:
>
> Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished:
> building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active
> mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.
>
> On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox"  wrote:
>>
>> Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground.
>> Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed.
>>
>> On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How different is the footprint of the new building?
>>
>> I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old
>> one - given the planing permissions.
>>
>> So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone
>> - that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.
>>
>> Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?
>>
>>
>> On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
>> >
>> > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
>> > of editing, I suggest)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black :
>> >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down
>> >> and
>> >> rebuilt.
>> >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back
>> >> and add
>> >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>> >> I have added a note  #1077006
>> >>
>> >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> 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
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Dave F]

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out 
OSM is not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be 
removed from OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to 
Open History Map.


Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat 
'Around here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when 
compare with elsewhere.


On 04/08/2017 09:20, SK53 wrote:
Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished: 
building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several 
active mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.


On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox" > wrote:


Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the
ground. Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits
being reversed.

On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> wrote:

How different is the footprint of the new building?

I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to
the old one - given the planing permissions.

So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave
it alone - that gives at least an indication that there is a
building there.

Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?


On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished
:
>
> (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the
middle
> of editing, I suggest)
>
>
>
> 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black
>:
>> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked
down and
>> rebuilt.
>> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come
back and add
>> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>> I have added a note  #1077006
>>
>> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital
grounds!
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Building that have been replaced

[Michael Booth]

Do you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/445288438 is no longer 
there, and has been rebuilt into a rectangular building?


If so, have a look at the newer DigitalGlobe imagery, and also OS 
OpenData StreetView to see the new building. Mind and check imagery 
alignment as there's normally an offset to Bing.


On 03/08/2017 16:39, Andrew Black wrote:
What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down 
and rebuilt.
Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back 
and add them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.

I have added a note  #1077006

I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!


___
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] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

[SK53]

Isn't this one of the Pops (privately-owned public-space) recently mapped
by GiGL? In which case the landowner might forbid photographs.

Jerry

On 3 Aug 2017 20:44, "Andy Mabbett"  wrote:

> We appear to have no pics on Commons of Lewis Cubitt Square, a newly
> (2016?) created public open space behind Kings Cross station:
>
>https://www.kingscross.co.uk/lewis-cubitt-square
>
> If anyone is passing there, please take a few, and add one to:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q34622297
>
> The same goes for the other parts of that development, such as Lewis
> Cubitt Park:
>
> https://www.kingscross.co.uk/lewis-cubitt-park
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] [Osmf-talk] OSM and Diversity

[Dan S]

Hi,

Yes - I find myself in the confusing position of being very grateful
for Kate's message, and for Fredrik's message.

This recent discussion originated in the talk-gb mailing list. Now
that OSM UK has been formed as a hub for UK-specific work
http://osmuk.org/ I've been wondering if that will enable us to do
proactive work such as initiatives with school students (as Stefan
mentions, though also inspired by the initiatives mentioned e.g. in
Kathleen's slides). I'm only a peripheral member of OSM UK though so I
can't claim to know the mind of its board, but it might be possible to
get funding to improve diversity in our UK community. (Another
inspiration from Kathleen's slides: find money, take some concrete
action.)

Best
Dan


2017-08-03 20:18 GMT+01:00 Stefan Keller :
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Kate and others about gentle communication and doing
> small steps towards a better (gender) diversity. Obviously OSM should
> attract more non-male/non-young/non-white/non-rich/non-european
> members.
>
> But I don't see why we should ignore questionable academic disussions
> and papers. It's up to Frederik to take his time to dissect Andrew
> Hall's recent "Wikimedia Research Showcase" and Monica Stephens' paper
> on "Gender and the GeoWebHOT" 2013 (for those interested see other
> thread entitled "Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes ...").
>
> There exists no unbiased map and I support the idea that VGI has a
> systematic and a project specific bias (see Muki Haklay's post here on
> "PhD opportunity on biases..."). I think we agree on the systematic
> bias. But IMHO also the project specific bias of OSM is neither very
> evident nor stronger i.e. than the average tech. project and/or
> association.
>
> So OSM is in good company like e.g. with many sports clubs - and
> computer science. Believe me, they are wringing hands in academia and
> industry there too. I'm co-organizing coding events for women like
> Girls Weeks, @DjangoGirls - besides Mapping Parties - having a great
> time. Unfortunately with limited success since years when looking at
> the low female quota in such jobs.
>
> Being both a computer scientist and a geographer have an observation
> though, which could give a hint: In high school, geographical and
> social departments the gender diversity seems quite good. And to me
> OSM has quite much to do with geography and society (including
> tourism).
>
> So, IMHO it would be worthwhile to find out the commonalities and what
> attracts women to engage in geography or social professions. And I
> don't think it's because of the majority of men nor hostile
> debaters/contributors nor code creators. It's happening at K-12 and
> before... (*)
>
> :Stefan (on the way to SotM 2017 Japan!)
>
> (*) Have you seen the children's activities at SotM-FR 2017? See e.g.
> https://twitter.com/assotiriad/status/869779597256257537 and
> http://openstreetmap.fr/sotmfr2017
>
>
> 2017-08-01 15:31 GMT+02:00 Kathleen Danielson :
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> Just dropping in, as another woman who was on the OSMF Board, but did not
>> manage to finish her term. (Another fun cut was hearing "Good Morning,
>> Gentlemen!" being called out as someone entered a face to face board meeting
>> at which Kate and I were present, definitely not being gentlemen.)
>>
>> I've mostly checked out of OSM these days, because it was exhausting (I
>> wonder why...).
>>
>> If you're wringing your hands about what we can do about the diversity
>> problem (as I saw in a different thread), you haven't been paying attention.
>> We've been talking about this for years. Here's a talk I gave in 2015
>> literally called "Improving Diversity in OSM" [1]. Here's a list of other
>> OSM-specific resources that have been collected on the wiki [2].
>>
>> I hope you'll take to heart the work that so many of us already poured into
>> this topic. I hope you'll also think long and hard about why quite a few of
>> us who amassed that body of work are no longer active within the community.
>>
>> Kathleen
>>
>> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2=WIzTEaMEc8k
>> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Robert Banick  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kate,
>>>
>>> I don’t have any brilliant contributions to add, beyond thanking you for
>>> this well spoken message. I agree completely with what you said and will try
>>> to remember the enjoinder of “just don’t”. I’m not a big mailing lister but
>>> I am certainly guilty of narrowing in on small things instead of addressing
>>> the bigger picture.
>>>
>>> I think it’s a great idea to include these principles in the Core Values
>>> list. I also think that really, 99% of people on this mailing list
>>> implicitly recognize those Core Values, if not always the best behaviors to
>>> reach them. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t recognize them, I just think it’s
>>> worth noting we are a community of good intentions, just not 

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[SK53]

Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished:
building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active
mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.

On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox"  wrote:

> Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground.
> Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed.
>
> On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How different is the footprint of the new building?
>
> I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old
> one - given the planing permissions.
>
> So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone
> - that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.
>
> Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?
>
>
> On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
> >
> > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
> > of editing, I suggest)
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black :
> >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down and
> >> rebuilt.
> >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back
> and add
> >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
> >> I have added a note  #1077006
> >>
> >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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] Building that have been replaced

[David Fox]

Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground. Please 
don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed.

On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

How different is the footprint of the new building?

I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old one - 
given the planing permissions.

So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone - 
that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.

Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?


On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
>
> (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
> of editing, I suggest)
>
>
>
> 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black :
>> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down and
>> rebuilt.
>> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back and add
>> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>> I have added a note  #1077006
>>
>> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>>
>> ___
>> 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