Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:10, 560 - a complete mid 19th century map of Britain

[Adam Snape]

Of interest, but - for osm purposes - don't we already have permission to
use all of the National Library of Scotland's Ordnance Survey scans (which
I think already include all editions of the 6-inch County Series)?

Adam

On 13 Sep 2017 7:33 p.m., "Andy Mabbett"  wrote:

> FYI,
>
> 
> From: Fæ 
> Date: 13 September 2017 at 14:09
> Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:10, 560 - a
> complete mid 19th century map of Britain
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list 
>
>
> Category link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Category:Ordnance_Survey_1st_series_1:10560
>
> A full set of high resolution OS map scans is being gradually uploaded
> to Wikimedia Commons and indexed by historic county. These are very
> large files, 10,000 pixels wide, so are both in TIFF and jpeg format
> to make reuse easier.
>
> These are of 'specialized' interest, but I would think could be of use
> to both Wiki Loves Monuments projects and readers of this email list
> interested in early maps and geo-related experiments. The maps show
> plenty of fine detail, including inns/pubs, churches, bridges etc.
> Those that still exist will be likely to be listed and protected, and
> those that are not, may still be great photography subjects. Note that
> to view the maps, Commons' in-built ZoomViewer is useful but it
> appears to be broken today, so you may have to settle for examining
> the full size jpeg in-browser.
>
> As I write this, the uploads are working through "B", so the projects
> is going to take several weeks to complete. If there are ideas for how
> better to categorize or template these maps, feel free to drop a note
> on my Commons talk page. It is always possible to do some post-upload
> housekeeping or adjusting the way the uploads are currently getting
> formatted.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
>
>
> --
> 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

[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #373 2017-09-05-2017-09-11

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 373,
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/9449/

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

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Post box and war memorial

[Andy Mabbett]

Here's an oddity; a post box which is also a war memorial:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5106084752

   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Post_box_B66_52

I've tagged it as a post box; I'm not sure how to add the memorial
details. Suggestions?

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of Way Data for Warwickshire

[Chris Hill]

On 14/09/2017 19:42, Philip Withnall wrote:

On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 18:37 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

PS: To contrast with the good news here, East Riding of Yorkshire is
being decidedly unhelpful at
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_
2
, although they'll need to drag their feet for some time to beat
Warwickshire.

That makes for some disappointing reading. What are the reasons
councils could have for withholding a GIS file? That’s not a rhetorical
question — I am actually interested in why they’re being dogged.


I have made some requests of East Riding of Yorkshire council, where I 
live. I've asked for various datasets and some friends have also asked 
for stuff too. Most of our requests were not related to OSM. They 
diligently, consistently and stubbornly refuse to release any data under 
an open licence.


My friend believes it stems from a piece of bad publicity about how the 
council failed to maintain some waterways which were implicated in the 
wide-spread flooding of the area around Hull in 2007. Someone released 
maintenance records unofficially and since then there is a blanket ban 
on releasing any data.


I am grateful to Robert for taking on asking ERoYC for this data.  I 
think he now has the experience and persistence to succeed and I wish 
him well.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of Way Data for Warwickshire

[Philip Withnall]

On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 18:37 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> PS: To contrast with the good news here, East Riding of Yorkshire is
> being decidedly unhelpful at
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_
> 2
> , although they'll need to drag their feet for some time to beat
> Warwickshire.

That makes for some disappointing reading. What are the reasons
councils could have for withholding a GIS file? That’s not a rhetorical
question — I am actually interested in why they’re being dogged.

Philip

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Rights of Way Data for Warwickshire

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

After over 2 years and two interventions from the Information
Commissioner, Warwickshire County Council have finally backed down and
agreed to release their Right of Way GIS data under the Open
Government Licence -- so we'll shortly be able to use it in OSM.

(Their email to
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_information
got blocked by WDTK's anti-spam policy to automatically lock inactive
threads, but hopefully it will get there soon with some updated data
too.)

I'd like to get this data added to my tool at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ but their PRoW numbering
scheme is a bit unusual. Rather then basing the RoW numbers on
parishes, they seem to be using larger areas, which are each assigned
a one or two letter code. I think these are based on the pre-1974
system of boroughs and rural districts:

AE - Atherstone
AL - Alcester
B - Bedworth
K - Kenilworth
L - Leamington
M - Meriden
N - Nuneaton
R - Rugby (rural)
RB - Rugby Borough
SB - Stratford Borough
SD - Stratford (rural) District
SM - Southam
SS - Shipston on Stour
T - Tamworth (rural)
W - Warwick (rural)
WB - Warwick Borough

The RoW numbers are then things like "SB34" and "R28a". Some numbers
in this format are already in OSM south-east of Southam.

As far as my tool goes, I think I'll need to treat these areas as the
"parishes". I don't suppose anyone has any more detailed knowledge of
the RoW system in Warwickshire and would be able to comment?

Robert.

PS: To contrast with the good news here, East Riding of Yorkshire is
being decidedly unhelpful at
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_2
, although they'll need to drag their feet for some time to beat
Warwickshire.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Open survey on participation biases in OSM

[Gregory]

Hi Zoe,
Thank you for having an interest in OpenStreetMap and letting us know on
this mailing list!

I hope you're aware of the big selection-bias by asking the demographics of
users that read the talk-gb mailing list. Others have tried to look at OSM
diversity in the past, and I'd (personally) be more interested in how
diversity results vary depending on how you get the information (e.g. who
you ask) or if they've been changing over time.


I'm also interested in what initial preparation you have done for
researching OpenStreetMap. I have 4 starting points I would recommend
(others my disagree or have others):
* Take a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Research and add your
name/focus to the list (go back again if/when you have a publication to
link to). I'm surprised Nottingham has nothing listed.
* Attend an OSM meetup or Missing Maps event (maybe both) to meet some of
the community in person. We don't bite, and many of us like to meet over
beer and/or cake.
* Edit the map, help out and make an improvement. Even if it's only adding
one missing shop or 5 house numbers. How can you study something with
millions of users if you don't look at how easy it is to join.
* Read Steve Coasts' The Book of OSM, and look for other sources or ask if
you think you need to know anything that gets mentioned but isn't explained.


I look forward to hearing how you get on and reading about some of your
outcomes.

All the best from Durham,
Gregory (LivingWithDragons).


On 4 September 2017 at 11:38, Zoe Gardner  wrote:

>
>
> Dear OSM talk-gb subscriber
>
>
>
> I am a Research Fellow in the Nottingham Geospatial Institute at the
> University of Nottingham, interested in participation biases in geospatial
> crowdsourced projects such as OSM and other Volunteered Geographical
> Information (VGI) projects. My current research project is concerned with
> the way in which participation biases in OSM may potentially affect the
> usability of the data that is collected and subsequently what is available
> to location based service providers which use OSM as their primary
> geospatial database.
>
> The project is motivated by recent research that has found a strong male
> bias in OSM participation. This has led to assertions that various
> geospatial knowledge could be under represented or poorly recorded on the
> map. However, the actual consequences of this bias remain little explored
> or reported. By collecting information about contributors to OSM, which can
> then be analyzed along with their editing patterns, the impacts of this
> bias might begin to be measured and therefore better understood. I have
> therefore published an online survey designed to collect information
> directly from OSM editors and I would like to invite as many of you as
> possible to participate. The survey is anonymous and takes a couple of
> minutes to complete.
>
> If you are an OSM contributor and are interested in or would like to
> participate in the study, please click on the link below, which will take
> you to the Bristol Online Survey website where you will find more
> information and an opportunity to participate in the survey. As a small
> incentive, at the close of the survey in a few weeks’ time, 60 respondents
> will be drawn at random to receive a £15 Amazon voucher.
>
>
>
> To participate in the survey, click on the link below:
>
>
>
> https://nottingham.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/osm-user-profiles
>
>
>
> Please do think about participating. It is hoped that knowledge about the
> way participation biases impact on crowdsourced maps will enable new
> strategies to be developed to address any resulting voids in the geospatial
> information provided by amateur mappers. In turn this could strengthen the
> role played by platforms such as OSM in urban planning and sustainability
> and raise the profile of the important mapping work that you all do.
>
>
>
> In the meantime, if you would like to know more about me, my research
> activities or the project, please visit my University webpage (link below)
> and do not hesitate to get in touch directly or via the OSM messaging
> service.
>
>
>
> https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/engineering/people/zoe.gardner
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Zoe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
>
> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
> message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
> University of Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as