Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

[Dave F]

Hi

Comments inline.

On 04/11/2017 20:07, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely 
to result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally 
happy with using the LA's version. Some thoughts:


1.  We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 
'parish' to correspond to modern civil parish boundaries. That could 
cause problems.


Could you clarify what you mean by "modern civil parish boundaries".

2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to 
utilise the tagged information.


I believe all LAs (admin_level=6) and parishes (admin_level=10) have 
been added so the 'standardised' as described on the wiki contains no 
unique data that can't be retrieved from within osm.


3. There often isn't consistency of formatting in official usage. What 
might appear on the definitive statement as 'Wiggington Bridleway 
No.7', might appear in orders as 'Bridleway number 7 in the Parish of 
Wiggington' and on the open data GIS files as 'Wiggington BW 7'


I see that as an internal LA problem & I'm not convinced adding another 
variation within OSM will help.

As long as the format issued under OGL is used, I don't see a problem.

4. A minority of authorities number different categories of RoW 
separately, so a parish may contain both a footpath 1 and a bridleway 
1. If we do standardize a format, including the category seems a good 
way of ensuring we don't end up with duplicate prow_refs in such parishes.


5. It would be preferable to use the established acronym BOAT for 
Byway Open to All Traffic, rather than BY as suggested in the Wiki


From my OP:
* path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are 
already defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation)


--
We haven't unified other references countrywide; such as fhrs:ids & C 
roads, or internationally, such as Motorways/Autobahns.


Cheers
DaveF

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to
result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy
with using the LA's version. Some thoughts:

1.  We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 'parish' to
correspond to modern civil parish boundaries. That could cause problems.

2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to utilise
the tagged information.

3. There often isn't consistency of formatting in official usage. What
might appear on the definitive statement as 'Wiggington Bridleway No.7',
might appear in orders as 'Bridleway number 7 in the Parish of Wiggington'
and on the open data GIS files as 'Wiggington BW 7'

4. A minority of authorities number different categories of RoW separately,
so a parish may contain both a footpath 1 and a bridleway 1. If we do
standardize a format, including the category seems a good way of ensuring
we don't end up with duplicate prow_refs in such parishes.

5. It would be preferable to use the established acronym BOAT for Byway
Open to All Traffic, rather than BY as suggested in the Wiki

Regards,

Adam


On 4 Nov 2017 5:49 p.m., "Dave F"  wrote:

Hi

I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. I've
been using the format as decided by them.

I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by
Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's
Barry's own concoction.

As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with about
PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes
verification of any updates *much* easier.

To check I looked at the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
/wiki/Key:prow_ref

I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple
things appear wrong with this:
* including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA
will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended
* path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already
defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation)

Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make it
non-standard with the vast majority of LAs.

Your thoughts?

DaveF

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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] Prow_ref format

[Dave F]

Hi

I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. 
I've been using the format as decided by them.


I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format 
by Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as 
it's Barry's own concoction.


As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with 
about PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It 
makes verification of any updates *much* easier.


To check I looked at the wiki: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref


I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple 
things appear wrong with this:
* including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA 
will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended
* path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are 
already defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation)


Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make 
it non-standard with the vast majority of LAs.


Your thoughts?

DaveF

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

[Talk-GB] Christmas curry

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi all,

A few years ago the Mappa Mercia group decided to make our December meeting
a "Christmas curry". We discussed the same idea this week.

We'd love for others to join us. I guess it will be first Thursday of
December unless there is an outcry for a different date.

Anyone up for it?

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

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Christmas curry

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi all,

A few years ago the Mappa Mercia group decided to make our December meeting
a "Christmas curry". We discussed the same idea this week.

We'd love for others to join us. I guess it will be first Thursday of
December unless there is an outcry for a different date.

Anyone up for it?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Robert Norris]

Hi Ilya,

I think some more attention needs putting on the creation of new/missing fuel 
stations.

Some issues I've come across:

Around:
http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/#18/50.85426/-1.73008

Looks like it will attempt to create a node over the top of an existing 
location.
Seems like the two nearby stations either side of the A31 are getting confused.

'New' Station NVDS353-10018810 seems a long way off the real position (about 
1.5 miles wrong).
http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/#15/52.0452/-0.0605
Existing location:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.03292/-0.09348


However a number other new locations randomly checked seem correct (i.e. looks 
like a fuel station from aerial imagery)

And at least the one here is definitely correct:
http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/#16/51.0455/-2.4317
Which I could create manually since I 'know it'


--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: Ilya Zverev 
Sent: 03 November 2017 09:55:59
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

Hi,

You might remember a few months ago I discussed here importing of Shell fuel 
stations. The data provider is Navads, which has a contract with Shell for 
putting their stations on the map. They asked me to proceed with the import and 
sent an updated list of the stations. I have prepared an import and would like 
to do it in a few days.

Please help me review the data. Here is the updated map:

http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/

And here is a list of changed tag values for existing fuel stations, for your 
convenience:

https://pastebin.com/KvxiZ9mc

This import will be made from Zverik_imports account and will be described at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Navads_Imports page.

Ilya
___
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