[Talk-GB] Virtual meeting: New open data and towards more UK addresses
Hi I have just joined this list so apologies. I am really interested in the issue of UPRNs (Unique Property Reference Number) having worked for a local authority but also aware of the risks of not sharing quality data. So if possible I would like to join in any discussion - Saturday would work well for me but happy to fit in with others. Cheers Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] positioning of shop nodes as entrances
I'm partial to tagging the shop/cafe as an area within the building. In a highstreet scenario, you might have a 3 storey terrace containing mostly flats, with cafes and Argos's on the ground floor. Very well, tag buildings as buildings, and tag the amenities as areas (likely most of the floorplan, except residential doors leading upstairs), and tag the doors as entrances. Tagging the amenities as points within the building outline is certainly better than adding them to the doors, though. I'd call that plain wrong. I've done it that way for 43 to 79 West Ham Lane E15, for example - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53920/0.00438 --- https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk On Tue, 30 Jun 2020, at 4:53 PM, Cj Malone wrote: > >Personally, I don't like tagging the whole building as 'amenity=cafe' as it > >is only the downstairs of the building being used for that purpose, which > >is why they were nodes. > > I agree, it also means that shops on buildings sometimes have `level`, > which doesn't makes sense. > > >So, is there any downside to marking the entrance? I can see that it links > >the cafe node to the building better. > > One down side I can think of is that people might deleted the old node, > and make a new one, and copy the tags across. Losing the history isn't > ideal, but it's not really an argument against. > > Also is there a way to link entrances to a poi as a node? In the > example below Boots has 2 entrances. Could they both be linked to the > pharmacy? > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/336202468#map=19/50.70033/-1.29443 > > ___ > 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] positioning of shop nodes as entrances
Hi Jez, I am not a fan of using entrances for tagging POIs for three reasons: - An entrance to a shop is not a shop. - Multiple primary tags cause problems with consuming data (e.g. when rendering). Is the point mainly an entrance or mainly a shop? In practice, we leave this decision to a piece of software that applies a "one fits all" rule. - It is different from more established methods of tagging POIs as separate points or buildings, so we end up with multiple tagging conventions for no obvious benefit. My own rules are to tag POIs as separate points whenever possible, especially if they are loosely attached to a building (e.g. there are multiple businesses in the building or the building is hired). Only when the building has a single, well defined purpose (a pub, a purpose-built shop) I tag POI on the building itself. Tagging addresses on entrances is better (entrances can be actual delivery points). But, since this still results in multiple tagging conventions and provides a temptation to add POI information to the entrance points later, I don't use that technique myself. On 30/06/2020 16:02, Jez Nicholson wrote: I notice that a number of my local shop's POI nodes have been relocated as entrances, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2648378395 rather than them being a node within the building outline. Personally, I don't like tagging the whole building as 'amenity=cafe' as it is only the downstairs of the building being used for that purpose, which is why they were nodes. So, is there any downside to marking the entrance? I can see that it links the cafe node to the building better. ___ 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] positioning of shop nodes as entrances
>Personally, I don't like tagging the whole building as 'amenity=cafe' as it >is only the downstairs of the building being used for that purpose, which >is why they were nodes. I agree, it also means that shops on buildings sometimes have `level`, which doesn't makes sense. >So, is there any downside to marking the entrance? I can see that it links >the cafe node to the building better. One down side I can think of is that people might deleted the old node, and make a new one, and copy the tags across. Losing the history isn't ideal, but it's not really an argument against. Also is there a way to link entrances to a poi as a node? In the example below Boots has 2 entrances. Could they both be linked to the pharmacy? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/336202468#map=19/50.70033/-1.29443 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] positioning of shop nodes as entrances
I notice that a number of my local shop's POI nodes have been relocated as entrances, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2648378395 rather than them being a node within the building outline. Personally, I don't like tagging the whole building as 'amenity=cafe' as it is only the downstairs of the building being used for that purpose, which is why they were nodes. So, is there any downside to marking the entrance? I can see that it links the cafe node to the building better. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Documenting tagging practice for place nodes in London
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 13:56, Russ Garrett wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 13:20, Andy Townsend wrote: > > Quite a lot of stuff of the placename info on OS StreetView probably > > _shouldn't_ be in OSM. Leaving aside farm and house names, the where I > > used to live in Derbyshire is according to OS StreetView composed of 5 > > different "villages". It's actually either 1 or 2, depending on who you > > ask. It's probably less of an issue in London (less space for > > extraneous names), though. > > I have noticed a few cases, especially in areas of London I know very > well, where OS shows an archaic name which isn't really in general > use. This gets a bit tricky because there's not really a way of > signalling to other mappers that a place name isn't in use based on > local knowledge. Obviously local knowledge is best here but we > probably don't have mappers with good local knowledge of all the > various corners of London, and I'm pretty sure that there are areas of > London where the area names have never been adequately mapped (which > is why I started this thread). So I'm not sure how best to solve that > conundrum. > > Out of date names might show up less in addr:? Of course then you need full addresses rather than street, number and "leave it to the algo". ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Virtual meeting: New open data and towards more UK addresses
I probably won't make the meeting myself - but it sounds clever to put it in SotM, you might acquire a couple of bonus participants that way? Best Dan Op ma 29 jun. 2020 om 21:46 schreef Tony OSM : > > Hi Rob > > I think a meeting this weekend is a good idea. > > Even if a basic discussion of what we understand is available and the > creation of an agenda of how to use the data. > > Tony Shield > > On 29/06/2020 20:37, Rob Nickerson wrote: > > Hi all, > > The new open data comes out on Wednesday this week (land ownership > boundaries, Unique Property Reference Number, etc). We are considering > holding a virtual meeting to discuss how we might be able to use this and any > next steps. > > Does this sound of interest to you? If so, what times and dates might work > best? One option is we schedule it as a State of the Map virtual session. > Either 19:00 BST on Saturday 3rd July (just before Allan's Q session) or at > 19:45 BST on Sunday 4 July. If this is too soon then we can slip it by a week > or so. > > Let me know what you think. > > Best regards, > Rob > > ___ > 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] "secret" site
On 29/06/2020 22:56, Colin Smale wrote: It was completed in 1964 as the GPO Tower. The GPO became the Post Office in 1969, at which time the tower was also renamed. I stand corrected - partially. It seems to have been referred to in pariament as the Post Office Tower as early as 1963: https://bit.ly/2ZkUVah -- Steve -- 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
