Hi,
Post towns may be somewhat arbitrary, but they are at least a verifiable
national scheme which we can use for addressing every location in the
country. That has to have some benefits compared to each individual mapper
deciding where they believe each address falls - easy for many places,
highway=steps
ramp:bicycle=yes
Kind regards,
Adam
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 18:53 Chris Hodges, wrote:
> NCR45 in Stroud goes down a rather steep flight of steps to cross
> Dudbridge Road. I can confirm that is what the signs say, having been
> there yesterday. Also the Sustrans/OS map shows it
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 13:18 Dave F via Talk-GB,
wrote:
FYI Wiltshire Council's Rights of Way Explorer is not the 'definitive map'.
> It usually a misnomer. Paths are described with words in a definitive
> statement. Their map is a representation of that data. Many authorities add
> a caveat
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020, 15:39 Tony Shield, wrote:
> 'yes' is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in England
> and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall wilfully ride upon any
> footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use
> or accommodation
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, 18:53 Jez Nicholson, wrote:
> How many holes in Blackburn, Lancashire?
>
There's Tockholes for one https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29020280
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
On the subject of overlapping relations. I've recently noticed that the NCN
62 relation has been named Transpennine trail which is true for much, but
not all of the route. The TPT ends at Southport, yet NCN 62 continues
further North. At the eastern end of the TPT goes far beyond the end of NCN
62
net> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> > I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does
> > seem garbled at points
>
> Apologies; I think I was very tired when I wrote it. It was mainly
> intended
> as a starting
n the other
> data may not have been there?
>
> Gareth
>
> On 14 Jul 2020, at 19:49, Adam Snape wrote:
>
>
> Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does
> marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...
>
> I have utmost respect for
Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does marking
the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...
I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem
garbled at points
Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 11:04, Chris Fleming wrote:
> The third issue is of copyright, which is the one Adam brought up.
> Personally I don't really know about this one. On one hand the route is
> made of of ways already existing on OpenStreetMap; does that move us a step
> outside of copying
There was definitely a 2017-04 release. For raster I'm afraid I only
downloaded my local SD grid square.
Kind regards,
Adam
On Sun, 12 Jul 2020, 17:50 Grant Slater,
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Does anyone have old copies of the OS Open Map Local raster?
> The original filename is: omlras_gtfc_gb.zip
As the route is tagged mtb I think that it may not meet the design
> principles as shown on the referred Sustrans page.
>
> Tony - TonyS999
> On 12/07/2020 11:34, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A mapper has recently added a long mountain bike route to OSM and there
> has been
Hi,
A mapper has recently added a long mountain bike route to OSM and there has
been a difference of opinions in the changeset comments
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87757341 .So I thought I'd share
here to try to achieve some community consensus.
Personally I'm concerned that it
It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as
an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might
be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to
remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is
Hi,
It's worth pointing out that if Wimbledon Common is (as I assume)
registered as common land then there would normally be a legal right of
access on foot under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, so
foot=yes would be correct.
Kind regards,
Adam
Hi,
I'm so glad the information is being used and progress is being made.
However, I do have to agree with Rob about the Council's online map.
Re:OS copyright they are really highly protective about what they perceive
to be derived data. I think it would be difficult to add rights of way
whilst
Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish name,
type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish
Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will
continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change
Sorry, crossposted with Tony there
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:01, Adam Snape wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original
> disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's
> available under an open licence (
s likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I
> have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it.
>
> Regards
>
> TonyS999
>
> On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> There was a discussion on this list about thi
Hi,
There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with
Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and
reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in
communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references
with
On Tue, 5 May 2020, 13:26 Martin Wynne, wrote:
> Is a "public right of way" a highway?
>
> I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line.
>
> Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes
> with a physical highway, sometimes not.
>
In English/Welsh
a
mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be
added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the
field has been mapped.
Kind regards,
Adam
On Tue, 5 May 2020, 12:35 Andy Townsend, wrote:
> On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote:
> &g
Tom Hukins, wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:08:16PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
> > Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific
> > tagging of highway=no
>
> Why do you consider "highway=no" country-specific? Taginfo suggests
> it's u
Hi,
I'm a bit cautious about using highway=no for rights of way. I understand
it where a definitive route is utterly impassible on the ground (eg. goes
through a building) but elsewhere it seems to be suggested as a bit of a
fudge to avoid having one right of way represented by two highways in
s part of my original question. I shall send to
> Rob the data I extracted from the data supplied.
>
> Regards
> Tony
>
> On 26/11/2019 21:12, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Firstly, Tony, I think 9-4 is Anderton and 9-1 is Adlington.
>
> As part of the original F
Hi,
Firstly, Tony, I think 9-4 is Anderton and 9-1 is Adlington.
As part of the original FOI/EIR/Re-use request for the GIS dataset, I also
requested (and was supplied) the council's scanned copies of the Definitive
Statements along with permission to use them under the OGL. They appear to
be
Hi,
I'm in agreement with Rob re:licensing. The good news is that lhe OS is now
fine with the OSM-compliant Open Government Licence (version 3), so if you
ask the council for an updated dataset they will be able to release the
data under the appropriate licence. [I was actually in the process of
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, 18:15 Jez Nicholson, wrote:
> Known locally as "Pigeon Shit Bridge".
>
So who's going to add the loc_name tag ;)
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
You do see this kind of thing periodically. It usually is caused by an
editor breaking the coastline and it's usually fixed pretty quickly but
tiles take a while to update. It's now only showing on the one layer so
will probably disappear completely when those tiles are re-rendered.
Kind regards
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, 12:54 Devonshire, wrote:
> I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the
> combination of highway=footway|track|service and
> designation=public_footpath etc. contains more useful information both for
> map rendering and for active map users. Whether you
Hi,
Quite! You'll notice the Geograph link to the OS API explicitly states that
the OS claims both copyright and database rights.
There also seems to be some confusion about OS licensing. Being included in
the OS OpenSpace API (a free - as in beer - mapping API) does not mean
that a map is open
Hi,
I think you're right in your reading of those tags - they don;t indicate
what you'd like.
Assuming the restrictions aply to all traffic (other than psv) then a
general oneway:conditional=yes @ (09:00-18:00) would seem the most simple.
Your oneway:psv=no overides that restriction.
Personally
e a reasonable proportion of the total. If you
> aren't aware Will Phillips OSM-Nottingham site does allow searching of
> various open data sets across the UK (I would recommend searching only in
> the viewport, so you need to zoom out and in to the target area). The
> quickest way to e
Hi,
I'm not on about extrapolating postcodes for other buildings on a street,
but we should be able to map the postcode of building on which the centroid
is placed, shouldn't we? Zooming in should allow us to see which building a
centroid is on.
Kind regards,
Adam
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 13:44,
ining postcode. I imagine you would get this if
> there was a cul-de-sac projecting into a crescent that was small enough
> to have one post code.
>
> On 09/11/18 13:12, Adam Snape wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree with not mapping the centroids but...
> >
> >
Hi,
I agree with not mapping the centroids but...
Is it the case that the centroids are always placed on a building which
falls under that postcode? If so, wouldn't it be okay to tag the building
with the appropriate postcode?
Another idea: Given that postcodes (with few exceptrions) apply to
Hi,
If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that you'd
find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion in OSM. The
argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural geographic
relevance. People with no particularinterest in history can and do still
the 'boundary maps' tab on
http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/ (licence is cc-by-sa 4.0).
Adam
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 23:51 Adam Snape, wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Contemporary OS maps showed the borough and district boundaries. The 1"
> New Popular Series dates from around that ti
Hi Rob,
Contemporary OS maps showed the borough and district boundaries. The 1" New
Popular Series dates from around that time. The 6" and 25" maps are more
detailed but many didn't receive a post-war revision until the 50s. A good
selection of OS maps is on the National Library of Scotland
Hi,
I think this needs discussing on its own merits, because the argument being
made here is different to the usual argument for adding historical
features. The OP and others have made clear that the motivation lies not in
recording now-disappeared historical features, but in mapping traditional
His,
I think I said earlier in the thread but I've never viewed OSM as a strict
majority rule, more a do-ocracy or rule by consensus. Certainly, I think
anybody proposing the deletion of others' mapping ought to be sure of clear
community consensus, not just a mere majority opinion. Future
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, 22:26 Martin Wynne, wrote:
>
> > Even in these days of Brexit, I don't think there's any movement for
> > Northern Ireland to leave GB. You've been misinformed!
>
> Hi Toby,
>
> Northern Ireland is part of the UK but it's not part of GB.
>
> GB is England, Scotland and
Hi Tony,
Please do read the conversation, but I think it's important to stress that
no one is changing the standard tagging here. It has never been standard
to map unsigned references for tertiary/unclassified roads under the ref
tag; indeed there has long been a consensus against doing so.
The
Hi,
Both Colin and Dave have repeated the implication that the traditional
counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess, certainly successive
governments have made clear that they recognised the continued existence of
the traditional counties, and that administrative changes neither
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, wrote:
>
> I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic' for
> something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as
> being potentially ambiguous, it may also encourage people to add
> boundaries that are "historic" in
Hi,
I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
consensus in favour of deletion.
Kind regards,
Adam
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38
I think there's certainly an argument for including the traditional
boundaries. There's certainly enough people arguing the pros for us to say
that there's no clear consensus against it. As you say, there is a certain
culture of tolerance within OSM that would be at odds with removal.
I do,
Yep,
I should have said add access=no and remove any conflicting access tags.
The foot=designated access tag could be added back in once pedestrian
access was once again allowed.
Kind regards,
Adam
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, 16:58 Adam Snape, wrote:
> My personal convention for temporary closu
My personal convention for temporary closures is to add access=no. Using
access tags for these temporary orders is consistent with how we map
permanent tros.
If the line is altered upon reopening or the path is formally extinguished
then the appropriate changes can be made as and when they occur
Sorry,
I mean to say we need a way to tag this 'name format' (official_name
perhaps? Or prow_name...)
Kind regards,
Adam
On 3 July 2018 at 09:09, Adam Snape wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references
> like that. They almost always us
Hi,
Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references
like that. They almost always use the parish name and path number eg.
Newton Footpath 1. I think we really this 'name' format as it is something
we could consistently do nationally.
Kind regards,
Adam
On 2 July 2018 at
Hi,
Whilst I'd be honoured to be responsible for a resource as good as
MapThePaths, it is Nick Whitelegg's work. I've changed the Wiki accordingly.
Kind regards,
Adam
On 28 June 2018 at 23:01, Martyn Evans wrote:
> Great project, especially now we have the excellent MapThePaths tool. One
>
in the coming months.
Finally, In the coming days I'll update Rob Whittaker with my progress so
that his PRoW OpenData table ( http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/open-data/
) so that it can be updated.
Kind regards,
Adam Snape
On 1 June 2018 at 09:10, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
> Hell
And, to actually deal with your question, I'd do a ground survey to see
where the name changes. Failing that, the OS Open Map Local roads vector
layer will show where the OS thinks the road name changes.
Kind regards,
Adam
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, 17:01 Adam Snape, wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
&
---
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
>
> On 25 Jun 2018, at 16:38, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> If this is to be mapped shouldn't it be as a historic feature rather than
> a (current) road route?
>
> By the way I tend to use
Hi,
If this is to be mapped shouldn't it be as a historic feature rather than
a (current) road route?
By the way I tend to use loc_name for a colloquial name regardless of
whether it is just used by local people.
Kind regards,
Adam
On 25 June 2018 at 15:59, Paul Berry wrote:
> Someone's
HI Nick,
Great job. It will be a really useful tool :)
I echo Rob's request for a higher level of zoom if that is at all possible.
I'd also suggest looking at some of the excluded 'urban' areas. Some of the
unitary authorities and Metropolitan Boroughs (particularly in Pennine
England) are more
A very interesting dataset,
Just a belated comment regarding the footpaths on the c.1900 maps. We do
need to be careful not to infer too much about public rights. It is only
modern (1960s onwards) OS maps which have shown definitive rights of way
(in OSM terms designation=public_footpath). Older
Hi,
Just a word of warning to double check the licensing terms before use. Many
councils' licensing is ambiguous in that they'll refer to the OGL then
state or link to the incompatible OS Open Data attribution terms.
Whilst it's a wonderful resource and I think Barry has done a great job,
the
As long as we're dealing with advisory signs erected by an official body
rather than a vigilante neighborhood busybody, I think the
maxspeed:advisory= tag would be appropriate.
Regards
Adam
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Restricted Road is the correct formal term for roads where the default
30mph limit applies. That said, it is not a term that most people will
recognise (unlike single/dual carriageway).
Adam
On Wed, 2 May 2018, 12:36 Tobias Zwick, wrote:
> Also,
>
> 6. Did you come up with
hat speed because traffic calming makes it hard not
> to.
>
> On Wed, 2 May 2018 at 11:36 Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The school lights I'm aware of which refer to a maximum speed are
>> advisory rather than mandatory. The actual legal speed limit remai
On Wed, 2 May 2018, 11:47 John Aldridge, wrote:
> I believe it's DoT policy not to allow 30mph repeaters (at least,
> someone told me that
>
This is correct on street lit where the 30mph limit would apply by default.
30mph repeaters can (and should) be used if a 30mph limit
The school lights I'm aware of which refer to a maximum speed are advisory
rather than mandatory. The actual legal speed limit remains the same.
Adam
On Wed, 2 May 2018, 11:17 Brian Prangle, wrote:
> Just to further complicate matters there can also be conditional 20 mph
>
April 2018 at 20:31, Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure I'd call any of the national speed limits implicit. All are
> explicit in that they are (or should be) physically signed at least where
> the limit changes, so they are verifiable rather than merely impl
I'm not sure I'd call any of the national speed limits implicit. All are
explicit in that they are (or should be) physically signed at least where
the limit changes, so they are verifiable rather than merely implied. The
only practical difference is whether small repeater signs are required to
the good work!
Kind regards,
Adam Snape (ACS1986)
On 14 April 2018 at 13:51, Tony Shield <tony.shield...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Starting to get into OSM mapping and things OSM - so I've found this
> talk-gb mail system, I've just found the website OSM UK and seen t
Hi,
One of my local ones is currently closed with an uncertain future
("temporarily closed" according to the POL data). I've changed it to
disused:amenity=post_office and opening_hours=closed with a note. Ideally
the tools ought to be able to understand the disused: lifecycle prefix on
post
Hi,
How about disused as a lifecycle prefix rather than a simple tag eg.
disused:man_made=kiln
tourism=museum
Alternatively, how about using the historic tag to differentiate old kilns
from modern ones eg.
historic=kiln
tourism=museum
Kind regards,
Adam
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 16:00 Paul Berry,
.
Regards,
Adam
On 4 April 2018 at 13:26, Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Permission to add something to a map is certainly not the same as
> permission to release information under the ODBL, we need that explicitly
> stated.
>
> Also, how are you
is the
relevant YHA one? Any information derived from the Google maps on the YHA
site is strictly unuseable, even with YHA's permission.
Kind regards,
Adam Snape
On 4 April 2018 at 13:08, Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> "YHA (England & Wales)" wou
I'm not sure about other countries, but one thing I did notice when living
in Wales is that there did seem in many (most) cases to be a consistently
preferred name. For this reason there is a problem automatically adding
name:en for an English variant of a name where most English speakers would
On 4 January 2018 at 17:26, Andrew Black
wrote:
> Do we know what a proportion are going to be left. Is it going to be
> close to none.
>
About half: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40934210
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Hi,
I don't think we would delete a postcode found in other Open Data just on
the basis of it not being in Codepoint Open; the error could lie in
Codepoint Open itself. I suggest that a FIXME would be appropriate where
two sources appear to contradict each other.
Of course in this case we know
Hi,
Most of that 'strawman' suggestion seems sensible and entirely the right
kind of way for the community to help companies add useful data to the map.
I do however, disagree with the penultimate point. I do not belive that we
should be automatically importing this kind of data. An omission is
Interesting, but if your interpretation of the law regarding red/green
distinctions is correct, why do the majority of road road atlases on sale
and most maps (both open and proprietary) supplied by Ordnance Survey
maintain the red/green colouring?
Incidentally, my father is red/green colour
Most map users don't understand the distinction between primary (green) and
non-primary (red) A-roads so I understand why not all maps use it. Since
OSM makes this distinction anyway it makes sense to use the standard uk
green/red colour scheme in the UK map.
Adam
On 15 Nov 2017 1:54 a.m.,
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.
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
"Are you saying that anything with a postcode beginning with SW should be
tagged addr:city=London and anything beginning with TW9 or TW10 should be
tagged addr:city=Richmond?"
I'm not saying others *should*, I am just saying how I *do *map. If others
want to document how they map I'm happy to how
<les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/10/17 13:15, Adam Snape wrote:
> > But Ebbsfleet is not a Post Town. The address will include Swanscombe. I
> > should have said before that my experience (as an eBay seller) is lots
> > of people are unaware of their correct po
Haha, fair enough, it must depend where you live and the purposes for
needing an address. I apologise for the digression.
On 19 October 2017 at 14:02, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/10/2017 13:15, Adam Snape wrote:
>
>> To my mind Nominatim should use post
But Ebbsfleet is not a Post Town. The address will include Swanscombe. I
should have said before that my experience (as an eBay seller) is lots of
people are unaware of their correct postal address. Each postcode section
eg. DA1, DA2, DA3... will have a particular post town, so I correct this
object. Using associated street relations
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet might be an
option but seems a bit overly complicated.
On 19 October 2017 at 11:04, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/10/17 09:35, Adam Snape wrote:
> > So I'd tag
I'm convinced that many such addresses are unnecessarily long (are there
really multiple Weldons in the Swanscome postal area?). Nevertheless we
should have a way of mapping them if they are the official address. I agree
that more general guidance would aid consistency. My address mapping
practice
Hi all,
I noticed when plotting a route on cycle.travel that the relation for NCN
55 http://osm.org/relation/37734 was deleted, presumably by mistake, in
this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52118445. Is there a
way to reinstate it without manually re-adding all the contituent
Okay, To summarise the discussion so far. Most respondents thought that
highway=living_street was not the correct tag for shared use. Nobody
explicitly supported this usage. Most seemed to think that there should be
a specific tag for shared use to be used in addition to established tags
such as
as a shared space, although there are some
> differences in the priorities that are implied.
>
> So I'd be OK with any of highway=* plus access tags; shared_space=yes;
> traffic_calming=shared_space; or maybe even go for duck tagging them as
> highway=shared_space?
>
> Regards,
> Matt
The photo of Exhibition Rd on Wikipedia makes it look deserted. I guess it
is sensible to photograph a new road layout at a quiet time. I actually
walked along it not so long ago when visiting a museum and it certainly
seemed to still be used by quite a lot of motor traffic. Not that I think
; pedestrians to cross almost anyway. However I think it's marked wrongly as
> a living_street in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19753268/history
> - funnily enough also by Pete Owens...
>
>
> On 01/10/2017 14:12, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Over the past coup
ments more than housing estates.
>
> So please DO NOT consider expanding living_street to include these shared
> spaces.
>
> //colin
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_zone
>
> [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shared-space
>
>
> On 2017-10-01
Hi,
Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, and
some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways are now
designated as 'shared space' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street".
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:
The 'best mapping method' is somewhat subjective. If it were the sole
criteria, then we would instantly create documentation to replace lots of
the less than ideal tags which have developed and explicitly depreciate
either the classic (highway=footway/bridleway/cycleway) or 'alternative'
(highway=
I'm not sure of Wiki-editing etiquette but I support the views expressed by
Richard. The name tag should contain the primary name of an object, not
multiple names. Swansea-Abertawe is no more the name of a place than Duddon
Valley - Dunnerdale is. In the absence of knowledge of local usage, using
Ideally nominatim etc. would recognise that St Mary's Road = St. Mary's
Road = Saint Mary's Road but I do tag both if there is a difference in
road signs.
Church names are more problematic because they and their dedications are
signed very inconsistently. I tend to use the form St Somebody's
PS. Adding the parish boundary (if it hasn't been mapped already) and a
map note would help somebody understand that the two values prow_ref values
were not an error
On 4 July 2017 at 12:27, Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highwa
It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the
parish boundary, with half falling in one parish and half in another. As
long as we map highways as lines rather than areas, adding two values to
the prow_ref tag as suggested seems the best solution where both halves are
given
Hi,
Yes, it's what I did regarding the original topic of this conversation.
That's all sorted now.
I think Warin refers to Matt Ellery's additional query from yesterday
regarding a different mapper who has been adding descriptions/details in
brackets as part of the name tag.
Adam
On 5 June 2017
There probably are some uncooperative mappers out there who perceive any
comment as criticism and insist upon doing things their own way in
defiance of convention. But, surely the starting assumption should be that
people are cooperative and just unaware of the conventions?
I did contact the
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo