Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Christmas curry

[Rob Nickerson]

No preferences from me. Will let you and the others within the local area
pick :-)

Thanks,

*Rob*

On 5 November 2017 at 16:35, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> Sounds good to me. It's in my diary.Anyone got any preference for a good
> curry house?
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:
>
>> 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-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Rob Nickerson]

Thanks Andy. Any talks you recommend us watching?

I can recommend the following:

https://2017.stateofthemap.us/program/building-community-in-south-florida.html

90% imported automatically, the remaining 10% left to the local community.
Seems like engaging with them is hard at this stage even when you offer
extra credits for student assignments!!

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Andy Allan]

On 3 November 2017 at 17:51, Ilya Zverev  wrote:
> First, thanks everyone for checking the import. I've made some improvements 
> regarding addresses, and I removed the "operator" tag. You can see the 
> improvements on the same map. I'd like to join Richard in a search for a 
> review tool, which would allow people from UK to participate.

Maproulette springs to mind.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/MapRoulette for those who haven't
seen it before.

On a more general point, I recently attended SOTM-US and it was
noticeable the shift in approach to third-party data that has been
happening over there in the last few years. Very few people or
companies were discussing imports in the manner of "lets get the data
into the right format and then just upload it with a script" and
instead the theme is very much how to get data into the hands of
mappers and how to develop the right tools so that the local
communities can incorporate the data themselves. Facebook were very
clear on this. Even ESRI have been working on developing iD so that
mappers can use third-party data during their normal workflow, rather
than going down the shapefile-and-a-script route. So it's a little
disappointing to return home and find that someone is trying to upload
some dataset directly to the servers, instead of trying put the data
in the hands of mappers to deal with it ourselves.

This Shell data appears to be useful, but I don't like the idea of
giving everyone only a few days to review and comment before shoving
it into the database. Please explore options, like MapRoulette or
others, so that the mappers are in control of the process and not the
techies. I'm sure if mappers are working through the list as part of a
MapRoulette challenge, checking for weirdness and ticking off the ones
that are done, we'll all enjoy it more and we'll end up with better
results. Even just improving these tags as part of a challenge will
lead mappers to reposition the fuel station nodes more accurately, or
even add some further details from imagery, or whatnot.

In short: Third-party data good, bulk imports bad. Power to the mappers!

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Christmas curry

[Brian Prangle]

Sounds good to me. It's in my diary.Anyone got any preference for a good
curry house?

Regards

Brian

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:

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

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Proposed Import of West Mids VMS Locations

[Brian Prangle]

Hi everyone

I'd like to open a discussion here first before opening it to talkgb and
talkimport

The raw data can be found here


It covers the West Midlands and parts of the M1 and M69 also

Licence is OGL

I've edited the data to give lat/lons and I've added operator tags based on
Motorway/Trunk being Highways England and everything else BCC.
I've put a copy on Dropbox

so you can review the data.
I'd welcome feedback on what to tag the Short Description column


Issues:

VMS tagging is a mess so I'll no doubt have to wade through a tagging
proposal. The most sensible approach was discussed here

I've not checked against against existing OSM data which I suspect is
patchy and given the tagging mess difficult to do a taginfo or ovepass query

What do you all think? Is it worth pursuing?

Regards

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

[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

[Rob Nickerson]

>I recommended BY for consistency with the other two-letter
>abbreviations (FP, BR, RB) that were more universal.

+1

Given that there is little internal consistency within each LA and that
these are rarely even marked on the ground, my preference would be to stick
with the standard as described on the wiki unless this does not fit with a
LA.

For Warwickshire CC I [1] came to a different prow_ref than Robert W [2].
Where Robert went with just SD91a, I opted for FP Combrook SD91a as that
fitted with the wiki standard.

Finally, I understand that FP etc can be determined from the designation
tag but I do not see this as a reason to omit the data. It is useful to the
end user, just as the M in ref=M1 is for motorways!!

So, in summary, can't we just stick to what we previously agreed and
diverge only when this clearly doesn't work for a participial LA (or which
I expect that to be very rare).

Thanks,
Rob

[1] https://www.loomio.org/d/jUifS6tM/prow-map
[2]
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/warks/stratford-on-avon/stratford-on-avon-rural-district/
___
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 agree with what Robert has said and think he has clarified many points
admirably. I think we need to be clear that in many cases what we will be
recording under prow_ref is a working reference used in the council's GIS
system, not part of the definitive official record of rights of way.

Colin asked about unparished areas. Where people refer to 'parishes' when
talking about the definitive maps they're usually talking about whatever
area was used to group the paths when the definitive maps were first drawn
up and paths numbered. In (then) parished areas this was usually the
parish, indeed parishes were individually responsible for drawing up the
draft maps and submitting them to the County Council. Paths in (then)
unparished areas were usually grouped by the relevant Urban District or
County Borough. With some exceptions these groupings usually remain to this
day. Even new paths added to the map  are usually grouped with these old
boundaries for consistency. Thus, the path recorded as Wiggington Bridleway
No. 7 might not fall in the current civil parish or unparished area of
Wiggington.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F  wrote:
> 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.

I'd agree with that. However, one should be careful about drawing
conclusions about what the LA's official referencing system actually
is. The legal record of Rights of Way is held in the Definitive Map
and Statement, whereas we may well be using an electronic
representation of the definitive map for our mapping. In translating
the data to their computer systems, the LA may have altered the
reference format from that used on the Definitive Map. As others have
already noted, there are also inconsistencies in how an LA itself will
refer to their own paths.

> 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.

Through my work with my tool at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ it's obvious that
different LAs use different reference styles and with different
degrees of consistency. What is clear though is that in OSM we should
adopt a single format *within* each LA to ensure that our reference
values can be uniformly interpreted and processed. But I would agree
that we need to allow different formats to be used for different LAs.
The suggestion that you note in the wiki I think came from me, based
on an attempt to standardise the formats used by some of my local LAs
(Norfolk and Suffolk). Looking at the Definitive Map and Statements,
they weren't entirely consistent, but the suggestion of "Parish FP 12"
was the closest thing to a common standard I could see. IIRC, both BY
and BOAT were used interchangeably; I recommended BY for consistency
with the other two-letter abbreviations (FP, BR, RB) that were more
universal. The "Parish FP 12" suggestion was only intended for use
where there was not another obviously different de facto standard in
use by an LA. If that was the case, then I would expect the LA's own
format to take precedence.

Including the parish name is not redundant in numbering schemes where
numbers are only unique to a given parish. While the current parish
boundaries often align with the historic boundaries that were in
existence when the Rights of Way were recorded, some have changed over
time. LAs typically retain the original numbers and parishes when
boundaries change, but will often add any new paths with the correct
parish number. The result is that the parent parish cannot be
determined by geography (or the history of the geography) alone. A
"Footpath no 12" with the boundary of a particular current parish
might be numbered as part of that parish, or it might "belong" to a
neighbouring parish that included that land in years gone by. The
parish name is important, as it typically tells you in which file the
Definitive Statement for the route will be found.

Since I've added more counties to
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ I've added support for
(almost) arbitrary prow_ref formats, but each county needs to be
assigned exactly one. With the counties I've set up so far, it's
usually been obvious whether there's a different de facto standard
from the LA or not. But there were some edge cases, where I've perhaps
erred more towards my standard format that I should have done --
although some of that was based on existing use of formats in OSM. If
there are any disagreements with what I've gone with in my tool, then
please let me know.

Robert.

PS: I've just added Warwickshire Rights of Way to my tool at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/warks/ . The prow_ref
format used on their definitive map is XXnna where XX is a one or two
letter code for the historic borough/district, nn is a 1-3 digit
number, and a is an optional lower-case suffix. This is what my tool
will is currently detecingt for this county.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

[Colin Smale]

On 2017-11-05 00:52, Dave F wrote:

> 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".

Or what you otherwise mean by "definitive map 'parish'". 

> 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.

The CP coverage is very good in the south and midlands but is largely
absent in the (far) north of England. I am working on it 

How do the LA's tag footpaths in unparished areas?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb