Re: [Talk-GB] Parallel barriers - unsure about my own edit

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 20:30, Chris Hodges  wrote:

> What I've done is to create nodes for the pinch stile and kissing gate,
> and connect those with paths (access=foot) to the bridleway.  Spacing is
> estimated as it all fits within the GPS error I had.  But I'm not sure.
> It's https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95898653

All I would say is that they need spacing out a little. Using the
aerial imagery and the scale bar on iD, the three nodes appear to span
about 20cm in total - but it looks like about 2-3m from the middle of
the bridleway to the middle of the kissing gate in your photo.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 15:09, Simon Still  wrote:

> Not by any means.  1057’s are the ‘go-to’ way to DO SOMETHING for traffic 
> engineers.
>
> - Cyclists getting hit by cars at a junction? Paint some 1057s across it ‘to 
> alert drivers that there may be cyclists there” (though of course drivers 
> should be conscious that there could be cyclists on any road)
>
> - can’t work out how to get cyclists around a bus stop or parked car? Paint a 
> 1057 to indicate road position.
>
> OSM Wiki Cycle_routes
>
> "Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise signed 
> route”

I'm broadly in agreement with Simon's point of view on this one. I see
in many parts of the world the thought that if there is any form of
cycling infrastructure, it must be part of a route relation. This
isn't helpful. Some infrastructure is just there and not part of a
route. In fact, the "signed" bit of "signed cycle route" was not only
there to avoid enthusiastic mappers making up their own routes (from
whole cloth), but also to ensure that individual occurrences of
infrastructure aren't mistaken for routes.

* Not all bike paths are part of a larger signed cycling route.
* Not all bike lanes are part of a larger signed cycling route.
* Also, not all 1057 marked stretches of road are part of a larger
signed cycling route. (Same applies to sharrows, for our American
colleagues).

In saying all that, with the state of the art in the LCN era being so
low-quality, along with several years of neglect since then, it's hard
to tell just by looking at one stretch of road whether it is or is not
part of a longer route - often a lot of detective work is required! So
I think the best results are when there are some agreed broad outlines
of how we work, but we shouldn't be afraid to discuss and document in
detail specific edge cases.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Andy Allan]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 13:20, Tony OSM  wrote:

> So please do not tag as ncn; but please keep as a route.

Sustrans are not the only group in the UK that can make signed cycling
routes of national-importance, although they are certainly the biggest
and most well-known. But if another organisation makes a signed
national route, it will also get a ncn designation in OSM.

So please don't read too much into the "ncn" tag. The same tag is used
throughout the world for national cycling routes in OSM. It's not
entirely a coincidence that the tag and the concept of Sustrans'
National Cycling Network are very similar, and I say that as one of
the people who was involved in the history of this tag, but in
retrospect the overlap in meanings isn't hugely helpful. Think instead
of the ncn of network=ncn being a rather unusual contraction of the
work "national" (maybe we dropped all the vowels and the l and changed
the t to a c, or something), rather than referring to a specific
network from a specific organisation.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Andy Allan]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 11:04, Chris Fleming  wrote:

> Secondly unsigned routes, these aren't necessarily great as they can't be 
> verified on the ground, and often tend to be informal however they are 
> useful, I cycled a day of the Capital trail last year and it was great being 
> able to pull the route out of OSM. My feeling is OK on these. It would be 
> intesting to know what the consensus is on noting unsigned - most routes I've 
> seen just use unsigned = yes rather and name:signed=no

There are a staggering number of unsigned, unofficial mountain biking,
cycling and walking routes in the UK, from all kinds of groups,
writers, local clubs, councils etc. There are barely any paths
anywhere in the country that are not part of at least one route that
someone somewhere made up once apon a time.

We should not add any of them to OpenStreetMap, unless they are
signed. That's the only reliable way to ensure that we don't end up
with a worthless collection of scribbles all over our maps. Using the
"is it signed?" yardstick also fits in with the on-the-ground and
other verifiability principles that are key to our success. And
helpfully, it fits in with a clear way to filter out routes that are
made up from whole cloth, without having to measure up whether it's
from a somehow reliable source or just someone down the pub with a
spare website or short-run guidebook. Signed, or it should not be in
our database.

Please please please don't think that there are only a few, somehow
worthwhile to have in OSM, unsigned routes out there. That's not the
case. There are thousands. Some people have their own opinions which
are like "no but this unsigned route is more special than the others
so it deserves to be in OSM" and unsurprisingly there can be no
consensus on these subjective points of view.

And please don't think that some 'pantomine' tagging (oh no it isn't
tagging) will save us. It won't. So please don't leave these unsigned
routes in the database as if they are normal routes with just another
couple of tags added. Please either remove the relation (best), or
remove any tags that suggest that it is a route akin to our properly
signed routes.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

[Andy Allan]

On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case  wrote:
> > Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following 
> > the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being 
> > rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as 
> > Tony suggests.
>
> I'd be surprised if any map renders this as a highway.

I've seen maps from a multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that
were rendering anything with a highway tag the same as their most
minor road style. So I think it was a case of rendering highway=* as a
small road, and then adding additional rules for specific highway
values to show them as larger roads.

Very few people would make this mistake since it's a pretty obvious
problem that will show up quickly, but I do wonder how many people use
a specific list of road values and then draw everything else as paths.
In that case, there's a risk of highway=no showing up as a path.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 camden updates

[Andy Allan]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 14:21, Andy Robinson  wrote:
>
> For those keeping an eye on the HS2 Phase 1 preparatory works changes to the
> landscape here is the link to the latest Camden district 12 month look ahead
> which covers Euston and its approaches.
>
> http://tiny.cc/r9skhz

For the trivia fans, the document mentions demolishing "Wolfson
House". This was the location of one of the main OSMF datacentres from
2014 to 2016.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - schema mapping

[Andy Allan]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 05:22, Wulf4096  wrote:

> Hello,
> in Germany we've got "Radfahrstreifen" (solid line) which are
> additionally marked by bicycle signs. Only cyclists may use those, and
> the sign forbids cyclists to use the main carriageway, unless they've
> got a reason to.
>
> And we've got "Schutzstreifen" (dashed line). Legally, from the view of
> a cyclist, those marking don't exist, as they don't impose any rules on
> cyclists (this has been ruled by court).  Other traffic may not use the
> dashed lanes unless they've got a reason to.
>
> So I guess it's similar markings and rules?

Similar markings, but different rules. There is no implication in the
UK that a cyclist has to use a cycle lane, regardless of markings. You
can ignore a solid-line-lane and ride in any other traffic lane,
without needing any reason.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] State of the Map 2019, Heidelberg 21-23 Sept

[Andy Allan]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 15:14, Jez Nicholson  wrote:
>
> That's interestingI'd wanted to go by train before as its more 
> eco-friendly and more interesting, but struggled with the cost compared to 
> flights. Do you use Loco2.com to plan?

I find it's worth paying a little extra both to avoid the carbon
emissions and the general hassle of flying and airports. Train travel
is often a few quid more expensive than flying, but it's only a small
amount to pay in the grand scheme of things.

For buying tickets to Germany from the UK, it's worth booking the
Eurostar leg and onward travel to Germany as a combined ticket e.g.
using Deutsche Bahn, and to avoid booking individual legs. This is
because Deutsche Bahn do great "Super Sparpreis Europa" tickets for
journeys that start or end outside of Germany, which are often cheaper
than just the German part of the journey alone! A quick look at
Loco2.com shows they also offer these fares, so that's an option if
you prefer to book with them.

The best route from London to Heidelberg is via Brussels and changing
at either Cologne (Köln) or Frankfurt. I've made similar trips a few
times before, both to get to Karlsruhe and also going further afield,
and I've had good experiences each time. Definitely worth considering
the train as an option for SotM.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lake District NationalPark

[Andy Allan]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 01:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The larger something is the longer it takes of the renders to see it.

This is not true.

> And if it is a change the renders are slower to see that too.

This is not true either.

> Something new and small gets rendered fairly quickly.

This is also not true.

> Give it a few more weeks.

This is, however, reasonably accurate.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] account disabled due to bounces

[Andy Allan]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 10:10, Jez Nicholson  wrote:
>
> I get the occasional email from Talk-GB telling me that my email address has 
> excessive bounces. I'm using gmail. Am I the only one with problems? Is there 
> something I need to change?

It happens to me too. I've opened at ticket on the OWG tracker about
this, since there are steps that we can take to avoid this hassle.

https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/262

Thanks,
Andy

___
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] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire

[Andy Allan]

On 11 May 2017 at 09:07, Dan S  wrote:
> Congratulations Robert! The long thread of letters is... educational!

To put it mildly! Well done Robert, not only on the outcome but also
in keeping calm and civil during the protracted correspondence.

My highlight of the saga is definitely sections 37 through 40 of the
most recent ICO decision notice:
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013892/fs50619465.pdf

Overall I'm quite impressed with the ICO decision notices - they seem
to cut through the confused attitudes of CCC. If only CCC would learn
from these and stop trying to avoid publishing their data, it would
save everyone a load of time.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Import Progress

[Andy Allan]

On 22 March 2017 at 09:24, Gregory  wrote:

> Besides notification, shall we now focus on actual concerns/comments on the
> imports taking place?

Please bear in mind that contacting the mailing lists isn't just for
the purposes of "notification", but is also supposed to be a mechanism
by which the importers seek guidance and outside expertise. Most
people running an import have far less experience in doing so than the
collective wisdom of the imports mailing list, for example. Or an
expert in imports will have less experience in tagging tree species
than the collective wisdom of the talk-gb mailing list, to give
another example.

So let's not make the false step of seeing this part of the guidelines
as just some "tick-box notification".

I would encourage that, rather than putting the burden on outsiders to
chip in with their opinions here, that instead the people who are
actually doing and promoting these imports are the ones to actively
follow the import guidelines, and actively seek out the guidance and
outside expertise themselves.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-GB] Import Progress

[Andy Allan]

On 20 March 2017 at 12:34, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> I've no idea why Brian didn't follow the rules. I expect he probably didn't
> know about them.

I have emails from Brian discussing imports as far back as 2009. I
find it unlikely that with 8 years of experience he could be
completely unaware of the import guidelines.

> Let's step back, allow for this data to be completed (else it will be in a
> worse case) and find a sensible way forward for the guidelines when we have
> time to think with a fresh mind.

I feel this is a politely phrased way of saying "we will continue to
ignore everyone and carry on what we're doing already".

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-GB] Import Progress

[Andy Allan]

On 19 March 2017 at 15:04, Rob Nickerson  wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I don't think any of us are members of the import mailing list and I don't
> see the point of joining any more mailing lists. They represent an arcane
> 20th century solution that allows a few negative comments to derail a
> locally supported project.

We have our import guidelines which have been long-discussed and
battle-tested over many years. They aren't perfect. You could have
chosen to improve the guidelines, or improve the process. You could
have sought alternatives to mailing lists or wiki pages or whatever
you object to, and use such alternatives when agreement has been
reached.

However, ignoring the whole process and running rough-shod over things
you dislike shows the complete contempt that you hold for the rest of
our community. I care little about these imports but I am deeply
saddened by the attitude.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Import Progress

[Andy Allan]

On 20 March 2017 at 12:34, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> I've no idea why Brian didn't follow the rules. I expect he probably didn't
> know about them.

I have emails from Brian discussing imports as far back as 2009. I
find it unlikely that with 8 years of experience he could be
completely unaware of the import guidelines.

> Let's step back, allow for this data to be completed (else it will be in a
> worse case) and find a sensible way forward for the guidelines when we have
> time to think with a fresh mind.

I feel this is a politely phrased way of saying "we will continue to
ignore everyone and carry on what we're doing already".

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Import Progress

[Andy Allan]

On 19 March 2017 at 15:04, Rob Nickerson  wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I don't think any of us are members of the import mailing list and I don't
> see the point of joining any more mailing lists. They represent an arcane
> 20th century solution that allows a few negative comments to derail a
> locally supported project.

We have our import guidelines which have been long-discussed and
battle-tested over many years. They aren't perfect. You could have
chosen to improve the guidelines, or improve the process. You could
have sought alternatives to mailing lists or wiki pages or whatever
you object to, and use such alternatives when agreement has been
reached.

However, ignoring the whole process and running rough-shod over things
you dislike shows the complete contempt that you hold for the rest of
our community. I care little about these imports but I am deeply
saddened by the attitude.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[Andy Allan]

On 10 January 2017 at 15:55, SK53  wrote:

> I was going to say that usually we have the atco code in ref for bus stops
> with the more visible stop C in local ref, and thus bus stops aren't the
> perfect example. I certainly wouldn't tell someone to wait at bus stop
> 3390V1 rather than V1.

Ah, that's my misremembering of the nuances of bus stop tagging. But I
don't want to drag this too far off-topic, so suffice to ignore
mentions of bus stops in my previous email.

> I then felt obscurely cheated that the latter local_ref shows up on the
> Transport Map in bus stops in high zooms for London and some city centres,
> but apparently not elsewhere. Is this some magical trade secret or me just
> missing some tagging difference.

It's limited to two characters at the moment, perhaps that's the
problem? If not, feel free to get in touch with an example and I'll
investigate.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[Andy Allan]

On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell  wrote:

> ref=legible_london

I would only use the ref= tag if there is a reference code for each
installation, e.g. if the totem has a displayed reference like "A01"
designed for users to see. From the pictures I don't think that they
do, and if they did, I would expect it to be a reference for internal
use - i.e. official_ref=

Think of it like bus stops (ref=C) or road numbers (ref=A204). Would
it make sense if I was to render a map with an icon for the
information point, with the reference shown underneath?

I would suggest brand=legible_london as an alternative, but there
might be other options too.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Users tagging Farmyard as place=farm (Was Summer quarterly project)

[Andy Allan]

On 14 September 2016 at 13:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14-Sep-16 09:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>
>> Andy Townsend wrote:
>>>
>>> ** many "names" on OS OpenData aren't names at all (for example,
>>> search for "poultry houses" in OSM and you'll get lots of things
>>> "named" that).
>>
>> On the hillside above the Crawnon Valley (up from Llangynidr in the Brecon
>> Beacons) OS StreetView has helpfully marked "Sheep".
>>
>
> Just came across a peak named "phone reception" ... very handy.. I wonder
> which provider?

My favourite this week is a car park named "Car Park to meet staff
from Kielder Observatory." which might be a true fact but it's
unlikely to be the actual name.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311395410

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools

[Andy Allan]

On 5 August 2016 at 13:41, Colin Smale  wrote:

> What I meant was, having established that some (many?) schools will need to
> use the MP model, all consumers (for this data) will need to be ready to
> process MPs anyway.

Our mapping conventions are based on our mappers, not consumers. As
you say, it's easy for the consumers to handle both situations, but
it's harder for mappers to deal with multipolygons-with-one-outer than
just a basic closed way.

Multipolygons are there to deal with the difficult situation, not to
make the most common situation more complicated.

We *must* keep putting the mappers first.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools

[Andy Allan]

On 4 August 2016 at 19:13, Christian Ledermann
 wrote:

> If the consensus is that schoolgrounds which consist only of a single
> polygon (without holes) should be rather mapped as a closed way I can
> change this

Yes please.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools

[Andy Allan]

On 4 August 2016 at 15:14, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> On 04/08/2016 14:42, Brian Prangle wrote:
>>
>> Yesterday approx 150 schools were added as relations according to the
>> taginfoscript which is monitoring schools. Does anyone know what's going on?
>
>
> I'd ask Christian Ledermann - the numbers roughly match his changes I think.
> Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6457274 .

I had a look at a few of these, and they seem to be simple shapes that
I'd normally tag on the ways (i.e. they are multipolygons with only a
single outer way). This seems strange to me - is it intended? Is it
desirable?

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

[Andy Allan]

On 26 March 2016 at 06:30, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> How do we ensure the mix continues to contain a lot of OSM data?

At the highest level, by making sure the focus of OpenStreetMap is
on-the-ground mapping, which best enables us to capture valuable
information that's not available in other datasources.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Restoring a usable map service!

[Andy Allan]

On 31 October 2015 at 15:18, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote:
>> while switch2osm may well produce a working system for
>> some ... I have to also support current paying traffic on the
>> hardware and that prevents running too many different
>> competing web services.
>
> You can run a tileserver for the UK on a £10/month virtual machine. If your
> paying traffic can't support £10/month across all your clients, and instead
> you have to rely on a third-party server operated by a non-profit
> organisation, then there's something wrong with your business model.

It's the constant moaning whenever something changes that annoys me
most. All the effort that volunteers put in to create and improve the
style, to run the servers, to write the blog posts and announcements
and all we get from Lester is moan moan moan. I've had enough, to be
frank.

Lester, we make the styles available, we make the software available,
we make instructions available and you've had plenty of warning that
things are changing (in fact, they are always changing, and this
always displeases you). If it's important to you to keep a particular
style that's understandable. Make your own maps, pay someone else to
make them, or find some other volunteers to piggyback off.

But please, keep these constant complaints to yourself.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

[Andy Allan]

On 13 July 2015 at 14:34, Mike Evans mi...@saxicola.co.uk wrote:

 It seems to me that the viaduct and the railway are two separate entities and 
 should mapped as such. Just because an abandoned railway happens to run on 
 the top of the viaduct is irrelevant in my opinion.

Exactly. If there was a massive viaduct that used to carry power
cables, it should be shown since it's a massive sodding viaduct, not
because there used to be some cables on it.

The same goes for massive trenches in the ground (i.e. cuttings) and
enormous embankments. But unfortunately every conversation about these
actually-here features gets dragged into some sort of
used-to-be-a-railway-here conversation, and used-to-be-a-railway-here
is not, in itself, enough of a reason to draw features on
openstreetmap-carto - any more than used-to-be-a-power-cable or
used-to-be-a-sewer or used-to-be-a-hedge-here or
used-to-be-a-building-here.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge

[Andy Allan]

On 22 May 2015 at 14:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
 Andy, the operator tags are all the same, not the building names.

No, they really aren't.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148247775 - Churchill College
(University of Cambridge)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12861651 - University of Cambridge
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98523431 - Clare College (University
of Cambridge)

 But also the assertion within a few dozen miles is wrong, as for
 Nottingham in China.

Read what I said, please:

 If there were two objects tagged as universities with
 identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they
 are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit.

I make no assertion that all parts of the same university are within a
dozen miles.

I hope you realise that your tagging (using tags that imply 1200
different universities) is causing problems, and think what could I
do to help other people rather than I don't want to change
anything.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge

[Andy Allan]

On 22 May 2015 at 14:03, Christopher Baines m...@cbaines.net wrote:
 On 21/05/15 22:39, Dan S wrote:
 I don't relish bringing this up since it's a bit of a tangle, but I
 noticed Cambridge has a lot more universities than I thought!
 Apparently 1219, judging from the number of amenity=university tagged
 objects. In real life I'm aware of two: Cambridge Uni, Anglia Ruskin
 Uni.

 I think that it is a poor assumption to make that there exists a one to
 one mapping between objects (nodes, ways, relations) tagged with
 amenity=university, and actual organisations.

Sure, but then you need to look at what is actually being tagged.
We've already heard that there are 1219 different universities in
Cambridge, so I was intrigued as to what they are. After all, I would
expect amenity=university; name=University of Somewheresville to be
a university. If there were two objects tagged as universities with
identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they
are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit.

But they are all different. There's a university named Music Centre.
There's another university called Pavillion D. There's a third
university called Forbes Mellon Library which is a surprising thing
to call a university. There's a bunch of little unamed universities.
And they all have different operator tags too.

I suspect these are the names of buildings, not universities. I
suspect they are operated by different sections of the one university,
but there's no easy way to tell from the operator tag without a
natural-language parser coupled with a wikipedia-based explanation of
the constituent college system.

Have a look at the data, and you'll see it's not as straightforward as
you think. Sure, there's no one-to-one mapping between the real world
and OSM features. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge

[Andy Allan]

On 22 May 2015 at 11:54, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:

 2. What is a University anyway?

I'll not explore the concept of a university too far, since very
little about groups of people is relevant to OSM!

However, if you were to say What is the physical aspect of a
university then I would say it's a collection of one or more places -
usually parcels of ground, often with buildings. In OpenStreetMap we
tend to represent collections of entities with a relation, unless the
tagging of each part is substantially the same (i.e. no need for a
relation when you split a road and add bridge tags.

I note that the amenity=university tag is used mostly (exclusively?)
on buildings, and I think that this is incorrect. I would expect a way
tagged amenity=university to indicate that everything within that way
- buildings, gardens, carparks etc - was part of the university. So we
can probably retag things to cut down the numbers by using perimeters
around particular areas.

 4. Constantly changing tags creates a moving target that is extremely hard
 to maintain for data consumers, and is a major off-putting factor in using
 OSM, especially if you can't manage the process because things just change
 under your feet.

Yep, I certainly agree with you there. But when things are tagged
'incorrectly' (fsvo incorrect, of course), then we need to change the
tagging.

 My view is that tags are merely
 tokens and too much is read into the words.

Yep, I've gone on at length about this with people wishing to change
the order of the characters within a particular tag - it's
infuriating.

  bear in mind this has a
 direct financial cost to me as a freelancer supporting the University map,
 and that the University has been a big benefactor for OSM, even though they
 get the rest of the map back in return, so you really don't want to give
 them a slap in the face for doing so.

Be careful. To say that we need to support your old tagging scheme
indefinitely would seem to be a slap in the face for all our
volunteers, now and in the future.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to edit the search results ?

[Andy Allan]

On 31 March 2015 at 23:48, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote:

 Simple question - how does one edit the rubbish search results ?

Mike, you are being unnecessarily rude and confrontational again. If
you can't behave in a civil manner - both on this mailing list and in
the edits that you make to our database - then I ask that you leave
and find something else to do.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_Code_of_Conduct_%28Draft%29#General
has some good points for you to consider, especially the Be
Considerate and Be respectful sections.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging U road numbers [was: Search but cannot find]

[Andy Allan]

On 19 March 2015 at 01:39, Pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote:
  So all ABCU road numbers need to be consistently placed

No they don't. We've had the discussion many times before, and in the
UK we don't put C or U refs into the ref tag. This is for good
reasons, as other people have explained.

 It seems OSM needs people who know something about databases and usefulness
 of data.

Now you are just being very, very rude.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Discussion of Mechanical Edits

[Andy Allan]

On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote:
 I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing.

I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming
farcical. After setting up dozens of hoops for him to jump through,
which he has done, and then because he managed that creating more and
more, it's now in the position where people are proposing keeping
demonstrably incorrect data in the database for no coherent reason.
Moreover, despite all common sense showing that it never actually
happens, we're expecting other people to spend their free time on
meaningless, brainless drudge-work in order to fix simple typos by
hand, in some kind of well this sainsbury's might not actually have
an apostrophe maybe it fell off the wall or something nonsense. Oh
boy, I'm sure glad that all these typos are there for me to fix by
hand! That's the /best/ use of my free time, it's /such/ fun.

This mailing list appears to be having some sort of immune-response
over-reaction. We don't like mechanical edits in general. Fine.
Therefore every mechanical edit must be fought against, to the bitter
end. That's an over-reaction.

 No-one seems to dispute that we do not have a consensus, Can we leave it at
 that we agree to disagree. It is usual in such cases to keep the status
 quo ante.

No, that can't work any more. If we're going to build a successful
community here in the UK then we need to cope with thousands of people
having their own opinion, not just no consensus among a few dozen
people on this list. Having every sensible plan derailed by
noticeable opposition is not a scalable policy either. This concept
of regional opt-outs is also badly thought through, since nobody is
in charge of a particular area (no matter how much they might strut
around on the lists) and encouraging people to self-appoint as having
area-based vetoes builds the opposite of the community that we're
trying to build.

I'd like to encourage everyone to step back, and think of a better way
to organize ourselves. This isn't it.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names

[Andy Allan]

On 18 December 2014 at 12:18, Jonathan Bennett jonobenn...@gmail.com wrote:

 All your mechanical edit does
 is correct one tiny part of the mapping, and possibly to no great effect -
 it's just the text of the name that's getting corrected under a limited set
 of circumstances.

So let's JFDI then, right?

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMF Special General Meeting

[Andy Allan]

On 26 November 2014 at 08:23, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote:

 When the actual meeting notice is issued,

That notice has already been given - see
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2014-November/003079.html

Thanks,
Andy

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

[Talk-GB] NCN 279 Exeter to Okehampton

[Andy Allan]

Hi all,

I've been alerted that the NCN 279 cycling route from Exeter to
Okehampton is currently missing from OpenStreetMap. I've no personal
knowledge of the area or even if the route is now signed, so I thought
I'd mention it here. If anyone knows more, or if anyone is from that
area and fancies investigating, then there might be a whole new route
to add to OSM!

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

[Andy Allan]

On 13 August 2014 12:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
  I would still maintain that
 the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on
 highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing them to cross-reference
 the map to official documents) outweighs the drawbacks (extra
 cluttering is minimal, and the fact that they're not signed on the
 ground in the UK should be easy to get used to).

No, it really doesn't. The number times the average person needs to
cross-reference the map to official documents in their lifetime tends
to zero. On the other hand, the number of times people will look at an
OSM map and get confused by road references not shown anywhere else
that they will ever see - well, that's non-zero. Saying people will
'get used to' ignoring these official-use-only numbers is also doubly
wrong - they shouldn't need to 'get used to' ignoring administrivial
details, and in any case if OSM is full of unhelpful nonsense then
they will more likely just stop using it entirely.

Imagine an argument saying that we should show the Companies House
registration numbers for all shops. Or the VOA Business rates
reference numbers for shops. Or both. Now imagine yourself saying,
with a straight face, 'oh, these are useful when you need to
crossreference information with government sources. The fact that they
aren't signed on the ground - and aren't otherwise useful to the
general public - should be easy for you to get used to'.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM

[Andy Allan]

On 3 July 2014 17:51, John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com wrote:
 He just said we release the plans and
 they are public domain.

Public Domain (British English, especially Government and in the
Courts): Information known by the public, could be under any kind of
copyright
Public Domain (US English): Information available for unrestricted reuse.

So you could say The contents of all the Harry Potter books are in
the Public Domain and in the UK that just means the general public
knows what's in the books, rather than anyone having permission to
upload them to Project Gutenberg :-)

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Town v City

[Andy Allan]

On 25 February 2014 09:47, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:

 City status is an honour granted by The Queen, not something that can be
 claimed by size or population. Like trunk roads, its quirky and like trunk
 roads I see it as the way we do things here.

Is that actually documented anywhere though?

I'm playing devils advocate here, since I've been annoyed in the past
to see Croydon tagged as a city when in my mind it's just a suburb of
London. But remember that it's up to us to choose what place=city
means in the context of OSM.

For example, we've rounded on our American colleages for tagging all
of their thousands of village-sized Incorporated cities as
place=city, and now they've changed them to villages and kept
place=city for, well, 'actual cities'. But then we go around saying
that towns like Ely and St Asaph are place=city, which smacks of dual
standards at best and probably even unhelpful tagging. Do consumers of
OSM data find it helpful that St Asaph is in the list of place=city
objects?

If anything, I'd like to amend the UK use of place=city to come up
with a use of the tag that fits in with global OSM usage. We can add a
tag for 'ceremonial status' or similar to indicate they are a 'city'
according to the weird UK rules but aren't actually cities in the main
meaning of the word. So long as it's all agreed and documented, I'd be
in favour of a change.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Somerset Levels Flooding

[Andy Allan]

On 7 February 2014 12:37, John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com wrote:
 Always to play the devils advocate.

 We have all heard about mapping for the renderer but are you mapping for
 the third party data providers that is slow at updating the planet data.

Define slow for a printed atlas? Should we be pulping them each
minute? Day? Week?

 I think we all have different opinions on this (it will likely take months
 for the work to be done at least 6 weeks was the latest I heard this
 morning) and don't we pride ourselves about having the most up-to-date
 information and what is on the ground?!

There's a difference between providing up-to-date data, and being
unnecessarily misleading. For example, there's a section of the A82 on
Loch Lomond that was only one lane wide, and controlled by traffic
lights. It was marked as two-way, but at any one instant it is, of
course, one-way. Should we have marked it as one-way and flipped the
direction every 90 seconds? Of course not. Should remove a railway
line when it's closed for overnight engineering works? Is a field
flooded for a week now a lake?

 Permanent versus temporary is very subjective and people will have different
 opinions.

As with anything. But I suspect that a sensible group of people will
come to a sensible answer in every case. In the two at hand, the
railway is still a railway, and the Levels are fields, not lakes.

Unless, of course, there are people who are deliberately looking for
an argument...

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] FW: OpenStreetBugs PhaseOut: help needed, Mapping party

[Andy Allan]

On 6 January 2014 10:55, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Forwarded from osm-talk after reading the diary entry:

 [GB] 2517

 Very little progress. (70 Bugs fixed). Can anyone promote it to GB
 mappers?

 The bugs are distributed over the whole country.

 See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetBugs/Phase_Out

And http://openstreetbugs.schokokeks.org/ is the direct link

Great to see lots of other people diving in over the last hour or so! Be bold!

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Upcoming changes to OpenStreetMap.org website

[Andy Allan]

On 2 December 2013 20:40, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:

 So, we have an announcements list, but there was no announcement there
 about the recent change, which people are complaining was
 inadequately, er, announced? I think they may have a case.

And here you are, complaining that nobody is volunteering to help
write announcements, but at the same time, not volunteering to help.

 I'm not sure that more people on a committee will be the solution, here.

So we don't have enough people helping with CWG, and so there's nobody
writing the announcements. But here you are stating that you think
having more volunteers on CWG would, err, not help.

I'm getting the impression that you are, basically, happy to complain,
but unwilling to help.

Cheers,
Andy

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

[Talk-GB] New OSM Leaflets now available

[Andy Allan]

Hi all,

I've sat down and created an updated version of the OpenStreetMap
Promotional Leaflets that many of you will have seen at some point or
another. They now have the correct licence and logo, for a start, (the
old ones date to 2010) but have also been thoroughly updated based on
both the old English text and the updated German versions. I've also
created new maps from recent data and fresh stylesheets, this time of
Edinburgh and London, and it even features our new signup character
to tie into the website redesign.

I'll be doing the same as before, i.e. distributing them in person at
meetups and conferences to anyone who would like some to re-distribute
further. You can also order them through the OpenCycleMap shop - this
time there's a small charge for postage, since I'm now covering all
the printing, shipping, postage (and time) costs out of my own pocket.

http://shop.opencyclemap.org/products/openstreetmap-promotional-leaflets

I'll be bringing them along to the next pub meetup in London - give me
a shout if you would like large numbers of leaflets, I once again have
thousands of them!

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Using store locator as source

[Andy Allan]

On 16 September 2013 14:18, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote:

 If there is no license on their website regarding the information, then 
 shouldn't it be considered public domain?

Err, no. That's not how the law works - either on copyright or on
database rights.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Wish LIst for Mapnik Stylesheet (overmapping of private features)

[Andy Allan]

On 10 September 2013 12:00, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote:
 I would hope that whoever might fix the bugs in the rendering
 stylesheet would start with those rather than discard all of them and
 start with a new bug list on github.

 That is step 3 on the roadmap described on the openstreetmap-carto repo:

 https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto#tackle-the-backlog-v3x

 I am appreciate that the patches welcome response is not tremendously
 positive, but, culling issues from trac and transferring them over to the
 github issue tracker would be a quick and easy way to help getting the
 issues you care about fixed.

Copying issues over to github does not help get them fixed. I know
there are issues in trac, and I'll get to them later, since new
features are not the current priority.

If people want to help, without writing any stylesheets, then at least
curating the tickets on trac would help. The very first on on the list
(#4436) has got nothing to do with the stylesheets, for example.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail

[Andy Allan]

On 13 May 2013 11:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to
 railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground?

I don't oppose the change in principle, but we need to be clear what
you intend for all the various values. railway:historic = rail,
railway:historic = light_rail and railway:historic = tram can't all go
into one railway=dismantled tag without losing information. I expect
you intend to use another tag (dismantled = light_rail etc) but that's
worth stating.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Writing a howto wiki page for mapping golf courses

[Andy Allan]

On 30 April 2013 12:21, Bob Kerr openstreetmapcraigmil...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 Is there no precedent for HOWTO documents like there are with other
 opensource projects?

Sure, there's loads of pages on the wiki describing how to map
particular types of things - they are called Feature pages. These
naturally refer to lots of specific tag pages.

See for example
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking

etc. Someone has even made a category for them:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Features

and a page that also lists them

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Features

and if you click through a few of them, you'll realise that most are
incomplete. Such is the nature of the wiki.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Complaining about refs on roads again!

[Andy Allan]

On 30 April 2013 19:21, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
 I would still maintain that it is appropriate to use the ref key for
 such reference numbers. Internal or not, it's still the primary
 official reference number for that stretch of road. I would argue that
 the problem with the numbers being displayed on the map is more of a
 rendering issue.

I heartily disagree.

There are clearly two types of road reference numbers used in the
UK. One type of reference is used publicly on signs, on atlases, and
people expect to see them. Another type is rarely seen by members of
the public, and of only very niche interest. They are different and we
should acknowledge this.

It's very, very easy for us to say For highways in the UK, only use
the ref tag for motorways, A and B roads. It's the principle of least
surprise - all around the world, people are using ref tags on highways
to show the reference that members of the public expect to see.

It's only some high level of pedantry that would suggest there's no
difference between A14 and UW2093. Sure, it's possible to claim
it's a rendering issue, but in reality it's not. It's a
misinterpretation of what the ref tag, when used on highways, is for.

I'd appreciate it if we can all accept the most sensible position, and
move these non-public references to a different, non-clashing tag.

Cheers,
Andy

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

[Talk-GB] Messed up buildings in Preston

[Andy Allan]

Hi All,

I noticed some weirdness when doing some openstreetmap-carto work.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.763681lon=-2.723075zoom=18layers=M

Notice a few things:

* Overlapping buildings (e.g. to the south of the junction)
* Strange triangular partial-buildings
* Incredibly thin buildings (e.g. to the north of the junction)
* Unlikely shapes of buildings (e.g. to the east)

Move a bit further north:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.767768lon=-2.731803zoom=18layers=M

Now I don't know the area, but I'll bet they don't build
higgledy-piggledy like that in Preston.

A brief look suggests this changeset:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5994643

and the tags on the buildings suggest it's an import:

source = Auto_OS_OpenData_StreetView

So does anyone want to try fixing, redoing or reverting this, er, stuff?

And does anyone know how widespread such Auto_OS_OpenData_StreetView
damage is around the country? Taginfo suggests there's 45 598
 cases - hopefully not all this bad?

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/source=Auto_OS_OpenData_StreetView

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode data

[Andy Allan]

On 26 February 2013 22:08, Aidan McGinley
aidmcgin+openstreet...@gmail.com wrote:
 is the actual output that would get loaded onto OSM.

Please don't load this data into OpenStreetMap. It's not a good idea.

1) The source data appears to be heavily overprocessed.

Users should note that postcodes that straddle two geographic areas
will be assigned to the area where the mean grid reference of all the
addresses within the postcode falls.

So while you're trying to map postcodes to a particular building in
OSM, what's actually happening is that the real postcode locations are
first being averaged to a centroid, then that postcode centroid is
assigned to a given geography (e.g. a LSOA, or whichever geography you
are using), and then you're taking the centroid of the geography (not
the centroid of the postcodes) and finding a random building in OSM
that overlaps that geography centroid, then adding the postcode to the
building. So you're adding postcodes to whatever building just happens
to be at the centroid of the geography, when all we know is that the
centroid of the postcodes is somewhere within that geography.

Having postcode data in OSM is useful, but this appears to be very
haphazard. There's no guarantee that the given building is anywhere
near the postcode centroid (the postcode centroid could be at the edge
of a given geography) and it's no surprise that each geography could
have multiple postcode centroids.

There are other approaches. We have access to postcode centroids from
elsewhere, if we were to pick just one building per postcode to assign
a postcode to, it would be better to use the centroid of the
postcodes, rather than the centroid of a geography that the centroid
of the postcodes happens to fall within.

2) The license is unclear

ONS Intellectual Property in the postcode products is supplied under
Open Government Licence terms (see Related Links).

Sure, OGL, great, but...

The ONSPD is a Gridlink® branded product that pulls together data
from members of the Gridlink® Consortium (Royal Mail, Ordnance Survey,
National Records of Scotland, Land  Property Services (Northern
Ireland) and ONS).

So the ONS might be happy to put their own IP (presumably the act of
mapping postcode centroids to geographies) under OGL, but as it says
above there's a bunch of other IP rights in the database, and the ONS
makes no statement on the licensing of the data.

3) We don't want to import this stuff anyway

Postcode centroids have been discussed many times before, and the
position we've taken is that importing them does not help our mappers.
It's derived data, not the kind of thing that we actually map. We use
the centroids in various visualisations and QA tools, we can expand
them out to voroni polygons to help figure out what the real postcodes
might be, but what we're aiming for is for buildings to be assigned
the *correct*, actual postcodes.

Until we get some real, full detail, all 28m buildings, data (e.g. the
PAF) under a suitable license, then please don't import centroids or
anything derived from them.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Alton Towers

[Andy Allan]

On 17 January 2013 01:38, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
 Anyone familiar with Alton Towers / rollercoasters in general?

 This changeset:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14382319

 has merged a number of different-layered sections of Nemesis into one.
 It's by a very new mapper, so I suspect that the layer changes were
 accidental.  It's also now apparently railway = light_rail; is that OK?

No, the light_rail stuff isn't OK. It's not a light rail system, it's
a rollercoaster!

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Telegraph releases Green Belt data

[Andy Allan]

On 28 November 2012 15:37, Ralph Smyth ral...@cpre.org.uk wrote:

 The Department for Communities and Local Government released the data
 for the 2011 green belt to the Telegraph, and it is being made available
 here to view, explore, share and download.

That seems to be the limit of the details of the licence (there's
nothing in the download itself), so as such it's not suitable for use
as a source of data. Before we could use it in OSM, we'd need the
dataset to come with a clear licence.

We need more permissions than just that - we need to be able to
re-license, and the permission to create derived products.
Additionally we need to know what the attribution requirements are.

Of course, if the DCLG want to add an OGL licence to the data, that
would be a good start. Clarification around OS rights in the data, if
any, would be nice too.

 Previously the data has only been available at a cost of tens of
 thousands of pounds from a third party, despite the location of green
 belt land being identified by councils using taxpayer money.

This is why I suggest a lot of caution - if we take the data and
incorporate it into OSM, and it turns out to have come from this third
party through a more-limited release, we could end up in difficulties.

Cheers,
Andy

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

[Talk-GB] Updates to the England Cycling Data project

[Andy Allan]

Hi All,

I've made some updates to the software that powers the England Cycling
Data[1] project (i.e updates to snapshot-server).

* All the capitalisation bugs (e.g. Lane - lane) should be taken care of
* Each area now has an overall completion percentage, and these are
shown on the list of areas too:

http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/projects

* Progress bars are now coloured, with the traditional
red/yellow/green motivational colours :-)

http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/projects/1

* There's now a trademarked shonky map to show a random selection of
things that need examining, e.g.

http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/projects/1/map

These maps still need some more developing, but should be especially
useful when tracking down the remaining features in a particular area,
rather than having to page through the lists of nodes and ways
manually.

There's also been some other behind-the-scenes development on the
snapshot-server software, making it slightly easier to install and
improving compatibility with PostGIS 2.0. If you are planning your own
data-merging project, feel free to get in touch or jump in with ideas
for the software on github[2]. Thanks to Paul Norman for his bug
reports over the last few weeks - he's been experimenting with just
this situation.

Cheers,
Andy

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_project
[2] https://github.com/gravitystorm/snapshot-server

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Updates to the England Cycling Data project

[Andy Allan]

On 8 November 2012 14:55, Aidan McGinley aidmc...@gmail.com wrote:
 Andy,



 Just looking at this and I’ll be doing some merging for my area as there
 seems to be a good amount to do.  One question, is there any way to quickly
 create a way where one exists in the background data but not on open
 streetmap?

Ctrl+Shift-click (Linux) / Alt-click (Windows/Mac) - converts a vector
layer object.[1]

This copies the feature from the background layer into the main editing layer.

Cheers,
Andy

[1] Buried among the list on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch_2/Shortcuts

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

Re: [Talk-GB] DfT Cycling data - cycle lanes

[Andy Allan]

On 9 October 2012 17:34, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
 Gregory,

 I thought that cycleway=opposite_lane was the equivalent of
 cycleway:right=lane.

no - opposite_lane is useful in a one-way road to indicate cyclists
can go both ways. There's nothing in cycleway:right=lane to suggest
whether or not that cycle lane is with or against the traffic flow on
a one-way road. Outside the Jeremy Bentham is a one-way cycle lane in
the same direction as cars on the right hand side of a one way road,
for example.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Updated GB cycle lanes map

[Andy Allan]

On 2 October 2012 09:55, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:

 1) put the output back in the database, by using existing keys (eg
 maxspeed=30 mph + maxspeed:source=inferred from presence of residential side
 streets)
 2) put the output back in the database, using new keys (eg
 maxspeed:inferred=30 mph + maxspeed:inferred:source = presence of
 residential side streets)

Please don't put auto-generated data back into the database, in either form.

It would be best to hook the output from your algorithm into an
existing QA system, such as the ITO maps, or keepright, or if none
fit, then into a new QA system.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Andy Allan]

On 6 July 2012 21:43, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote:
 I've noticed a stack of stations showing up on the map recently labelled
 VillageName Station which just seams wrong and to have them show up on the
 default rendering seams even more wrong.

 They are tagged railway=station; disused=yes

Please feel free to fix them, as per

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-April/011460.html

The combination railway=station; disused=yes should not be used.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Stations and platforms=*

[Andy Allan]

On 28 June 2012 12:02, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:

 There are two pages on the wiki, each giving slightly different advice, each
 containing confused, ambiguous and conflicting suggestions:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway_stations
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dstation

My bugbears are that building=railway_station and railway=station
areas have long been confused. I don't really see the difficulty,
since in most cases the footprint of the building (if there is one)
bears little resemblance to the whole station. I would tag
building=railway_station around one or more buildings, and have a
railway=station area surrounding the building, platforms and whatever
else makes sense to include.

Unfortunately, one prolific railway mapper in the UK disagrees with
the above, and has in the past converted railway=station areas into
building=railway_station (which is usually inappropriate, even for
large terminus stations) and added a separate railway=station node,
which is vexing. Or, like in the example on the wiki, people add both
railway=station and building=railway_station to the same area, which
again show more muddled thinking rather than appropriate mapping.

If we could agree that railway=station nodes can be mapped in more
detail as station areas, and building=railway_station is kept for the
building(s) themselves (and otherwise untagged with ref etc), then
that would at least be a start.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Stations and platforms=*

[Andy Allan]

On 28 June 2012 14:14, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote:
 I thought the railway=station node should be attached to the railway line.
 But that get's confusing over which line to attach it to, so I like using it
 as an area.

I think if it's got the point where you have more than one way
representing the railway, it's time to expand the station node into a
station area, even just approximately. If you have platforms,
buildings, footbridges and whatnot, the idea of a station node becomes
even more unworkable.

 Does platforms=* count platforms out of use?

If it used by the travelling public to board trains, then count it. If
not, it's just an oddly shaped pile of bricks, not a platform.

 I can think of Clapham Junction (platform 1?) that was closed to the public,
 although I think they pulled up the weeds to use it for the London
 Overground now.

(Slightly off-topic, but see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapham_Junction#Platforms )

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Stations and platforms=*

[Andy Allan]

On 28 June 2012 14:42, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote:

 Wikipedia has a handy map -
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Preston_railway_station_2008.png 7 is the
 right most one (numbered as such in the station itself) and 0 is the right
 hand side of the blue platform)

 To me the correct answer could be one of 8 (1-6, 3C, 4C), 9 (same plus 7),
 14 (1a-6a, 1b-6b, 3c-4c), 15 (same plus 7) or any of those plus 1 (including
 platform 0).  My inclination would be towards 8 or 9 (probably 9) though.

14. I can tell just by counting the squares on the diagram.

 How many platforms does Ormskirk have? - there is one physical one in place,
 but the tracks are cut in half down the middle - the northern half of the
 platform being part of the national rail network, and the sourthern half
 being part of Mersey Rail.

2

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Andy Allan]

On 20 June 2012 15:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
 The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were
 recorded in 3 categories:
 1) 1.5m
 2) 1.5=x2
 3) =2

 So the values in the data (1.25 and 1.75 mostly) are spuriously accurate and
 quite often overstated.

That's true, and that's why I arranged to have these widths in the
est_width tag rather than the width tag. For the curious, here's
the numbers across the database:

 est_width | count
---+---
 0 | 6
 1 | 9
 1.25  |  9505
 1.5   | 4
 1.75  | 25209
 2 |18
 2.5   | 27090
 3 | 2
 4 | 3
 6.5   | 1

If there's any other questions regarding the data, feel free to ask!

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Andy Allan]

On 20 June 2012 15:21, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) gra...@dalmuti.net wrote:

 David Earl wrote

 I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the
 council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs

 I guess that ways signed as leading to an NCN could still use ncn_ref=(xx),
 but we'd probably want to carefully note this approach somewhere on the wiki
 (probably http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes )

For the link routes as they are known within Sustrans, they should
indeed have brackets around the ref on the signpost. They can go into
OSM as route relations in themselves, e.g.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1920622

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Andy Allan]

On 18 June 2012 12:05, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
 One last comment for now.

 When looking at a project page, such as:
 http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/projects/78/
 tagged_ways
 It would be good to have a link to edit a relevant area, or failing
 that at least a latitude/longitude so you can find the way.

I've just added a stack of functionality to the site, so now you can
see maps showing where the features are, along with the coordinates.
It's not perfect, but it works!

Feedback welcome, and/or patches for the technically minded. See
https://github.com/gravitystorm/snapshot-server

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Andy Allan]

On 18 June 2012 10:11, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
 Are there any notes I'm missing about how to access and deal with
 nodes in the DfT data? e.g.
 http://www.flickr.com/photos/edloach/7392860104/in/photostream

Nope, you're not missing anything - it simply appears to be broken.
I'm investigating what's going on.

It should, of course, just work(tm) in the same way as for ways.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Andy Allan]

On 17 June 2012 12:44, Martin - CycleStreets
list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net wrote:

 This data for each area is now available, converted, and ready for easy
 merging in with a new Potlatch2 tool Andy has written. The DfT is very keen
 to see the data more widely used, by OSM.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_project

I've just uploaded another 41 areas - you can see them now on the wiki
page above (scroll down to Ashford and go down from there).

That should hopefully be all of them now, but I'll update the list if
we add any more.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[Andy Allan]

On 19 June 2012 12:59, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:

 a) Not a problem at all;
 b) simply a problem for the rendering, and no change to the tagging is
 required;
 c) a possible problem with the tagging?

I'd say c). It seems to me like the road reference number (e.g. A514)
and public right of way reference number (e.g. B442) are not mutually
exclusive - i.e. a particular way could have both a road reference
number and also a public right of way reference number. If we are
using the same tag key (i.e. ref) for non-mutually exclusive tags,
then that suggests to me there's a problem with the tagging.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[Andy Allan]

On 19 June 2012 14:11, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote:

 I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for
 administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage.

 Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer.

No, that's not true. Please see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer ,
especially:

the tags being used are accurate and not misleading - that describes
to me the use of admin:ref. If Richard was using, say,
source:generator = B234, or landuse = B234 that would be
deliberately tag[ging] incorrectly for the renderer.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Andy Allan]

On 18 June 2012 14:37, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
 'Left'/'Right' is then based on the direction of the
 way, therefore you will need to make sure that OSM's and DfT's ways are
 drawn in the SAME DIRECTION before merging!

They should be. In some cases you'll find the DfT data tagged with
oneside e.g. cycleway:oneside = lane, where the direction matching
has (for whatever reason) not worked, and it's left to the mapper to
figure out which is which.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Andy Allan]

On 18 June 2012 10:58, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
 Also, I'm not up on cycleway lane tagging, and on a section where
 there are lanes both sides, is cycleway:left=lane and
 cycleway:right=lane correct, as per merge tool suggestions? Also,
 the merge tool is showing a suggest of Lane with a capital letter,
 which I think should be lower case.

Eurgh, I've just checked and found a few other cases where the
production data is still coming through with incorrect case on the
tags - I'd checked the first few batches, but it seems wildly
inconsistent. I've no idea how they are managing to do that!

I'll fix things up on the snapshot server, rather than asking for it
all to be regenerated.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cycling, the law and traffic signs

[Andy Allan]

On 16 May 2012 01:05, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote:

 Unless it's been recently changed. the Cycle Only sign could never
 prohibit 'pedestrian access' because use of the sign is defined by the
 Department for Transports Traffic Signs Manual (chapter 3) [1].

 The DFT guidance confirms the signs can be used for routes where cycles can
 travel and all other vehicular traffic is prohibited. Therefore this sign
 must not be used to prohibit pedestrian access. The Manual also points out
 usefulness of a convenient footway or footpath to lure pedestrians away from
 this intended 'cycle only' way.

Interesting stuff. So from my research this morning, sign 955 (cycle
only) is used in two scenarios - on-carriageway, for things like false
one-way streets, and on off-carriageway routes.

The text of the guidance is:


CYCLE TRACKS AND ROUTES SHARED WITH
PEDESTRIANS

17.32 An off-road cycle track is indicated by the
sign to diagram 955, which means that the route
is for cycles only and all other vehicular traffic
is prohibited. As the route is not intended for
pedestrians, there should be a convenient footway
or footpath nearby. The sign should be provided
at the start of the cycle track and where the track
crosses roads used by other traffic. The signs may
also be used as repeaters along the route. [...]

17.33 Where a footway (forming part of a road) or
footpath (e.g. through a park) has been converted to
a route shared by pedestrians and cyclists, signs to
either diagram 956 or 957 are used. These prohibit
the use of the route by any other vehicles. The sign
to diagram 956 indicates an unsegregated route.
It should be located where the shared route begins
and must be used as a repeater, at regular intervals
(direction 11), to remind both pedestrians and
cyclists that pedal cycles can be legally ridden on
the footway or footpath. [...]



So while it's correct that 955 doesn't prohibit pedestrians, there's
still a clear difference in intent between 955 and 956 (unsegregated
shared ped/cycle). How do we capture the difference? After all, from a
pedestrian's point of view, you'll be a bit miffed if OpenStreetMap
treats 955 and 956 as identical and you keep getting routed down paths
not intended for pedestrians.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] routing on the road network

[Andy Allan]

On 16 May 2012 12:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 On 05/16/2012 11:56 AM, Tim Pigden wrote:

 that there are no one-way streets leading to dead ends,


 This is not common in OSM but I am not aware of anyone doing a network
 analysis that would fix such a problem.

Keepright has this check - dead-ended one-ways

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] routing on the road network

[Andy Allan]

I don't think the email below made it to the list:

 On , Tim Pigden tim.pig...@optrak.com wrote:
 Error reporting would definitely be a challenge.Are there existing
 facilities to add suspect type tags to enable OSM itself to be the primary
 reporting medium? I haven't looked into the details of editing OSM data but
 adding new tags seems to require a collective decision.

Please don't add bug reports to the OSM database itself, whether
through suspect tags or similar. I expect anything like that would
lead to getting blocked pretty quickly!

There's a variety of existing bug reporting / QA toolchains -
Keepright, OSB, Mapdust - for everything from auto-generated
calculations to end-user reports. It's best to pick one of them, and
add your additional insights to that.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Micronations

[Andy Allan]

On 10 May 2012 08:23, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote:
 If you look at zoom level 3 for the UK you will see the Kingdom of Ivania
 rendered. A google search throws up
 http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ivania which is a vanity
 nation consisting of someone's bedroom in Derbyshire. I can see a rash of
 these appearing. Are they appropriate to be present in OSM? I think not

They are completely inappropriate for OSM, and should be removed immediately.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Tagging Guideline - wiki page proposals

[Andy Allan]

On 30 April 2012 10:23, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
 Which (yawn) is not a bad thing:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

 On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote:

 IMHO it's either a track on the main highway (cycleway=track) or a
 separate track (highway=cycleway). If you put both in you're editing for the
 renderer not editing what's on the ground .

I agree with Brian - in this case, it should be one or the other.
Mapping the same feature twice (in this case as both a way, and
attributes on another way), is bad practice.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Once_and_only_once

Cheers,
Andy

P.S. Please don't yawn in your emails, it's rude.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] People wanting to remove the route of the HS2 from openstreetmap

[Andy Allan]

On 26 March 2012 14:51, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:

 I'm trying to explain it all to the group members, it might help if the
 route were named 'Proposed HS2 route' or similar.

Well, it would help if the standard layer only showed names for thing
that it was otherwise drawing. But in general, I would expect to find
anti-HS2 protesters willing to delete it no matter what it's called.

If anyone wants to investigate the changesets so far, then these two
users are involved, perhaps others too:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GMetcalfe
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/HAHS2

Part of the Chiltern Mainline has been deleted, just south of West
Ruislip, in the crossfire.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.56636lon=-0.42705zoom=17layers=M

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Un-relicensable roads - now with secondary roads included

[Andy Allan]

On 23 March 2012 08:51,  e...@loach.me.uk wrote:

 b) if it does need remapping, use the remote control link to open the way
 in JOSM

Out of interest (and I'm not 'having a go') - why did you put a remote
control link there? I see lots of different QA websites and they have
a mixture of links to remote control, osm.org etc. But we worked on
osm.org a long while ago so that you can set your preferred editor,
and I would have thought that meant every QA site could just link to
osm.org, and all the users will end up with their editor of choice,
whether p1, p2, merkaartor, josm or whatever the flavour of the month
is.

Just curious, maybe something somewhere doesn't work properly, or I'm
missing the point? If there's something to fix, I'll fix it!

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Un-relicensable roads - now with secondary roads included

[Andy Allan]

On 23 March 2012 12:59, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote:
 I just tried 2 options with my default editor set to remote. The
 default edit URL [1] from browse/way/32795934 does work, but throws an
 error:

 Editing failed - make sure JOSM or Merkaartor is loaded and the
 remote control option is enabled

 A simplified version of the URL that would be useful in situations
 like the Ed's list [2] does not work or throw any error at all.

 [1] 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=55.9567019lon=-3.1310164way=32795934zoom=16
 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=32795934

Nice one - thanks Craig!

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update

[Andy Allan]

On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:

 Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
 odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
 sources?

Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic contributions
from people who have not agreed to the new contributor terms [...]
*and where those contributions have since been superceded or washed
out by subsequent changes*

Emphasis mine.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean

So if there's a path, and it's not clean, you can't just clean it by
adding the tag - that's not what the tag is for. It means that
absolutely no trace of the original IP remains in the current version,
and you've checked there's no residual IP. An example would be a node
tagged amenity = pub, that happens to have been moved, the tag
removed, and incorporated into the middle of a road junction.

Of course, I've been advising people from the beginning to avoid the
tag in the first place. Since so many people are misunderstanding it,
and accidentally misusing it, it has become meaningless. Therefore I
don't see how it can be relied upon during the license change, and if
it can't be used with confidence, there's even less point in tagging
anything with it.

 I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the
 Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to actually
 walk the paths again or just tag with odbl=clean

You don't have to walk the path if you can map it using other
techniques, such as GPS traces, Bing, OOC maps etc. Especially if you
know the path well enough to know how it goes (e.g. it's straight
through a particular patch of woods) then just remap it remotely.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism changeset

[Andy Allan]

On 14 March 2012 13:40, Oliver O'Brien m...@oliverobrien.co.uk wrote:

 I think we are being too nice if we assume that edits like this might be 
 someone new that doesn't realise they aren't in a sandbox, especially when 
 they go through the trouble of pressing the save button and adding a (blank) 
 comment.

I think you're being far too hasty with the cry of vandalism -
people make mistakes, people do things unwittingly. Adding a variety
of tags using what appears to be the the potlatch2 presets is hardly
conclusive proof of deliberate intent.

We've likely got many thousands of contributors who have made mistakes
during their edits. If everyone cries vandalism every time someone
messes up a route relation...

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool

[Andy Allan]

On 9 March 2012 23:00, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote:

 I don't want to steal Andy's thunder, but I thought I'd check the progress
 and what good timing!

 . My reported geometry issues are solved.
 . Many more areas have been processed (~ 1/3 of DfT areas including my local
 area*)

 Updates (yesterday) are on the wiki:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DfT_Cycling_Data_2011

 But I thought a heads up on the GB mailing list would be useful too.

Absolutely - and thanks! There's been some small changes to Potlatch 2
and the documentation too.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle route 20 / Wandle Trail fragmented

[Andy Allan]

On 11 March 2012 14:23, MT_Payne trevy...@fastmail.co.uk wrote:
 NCN route 20 used to be continuous on the OSM, as it is on the ground and on
 Sustrans site, checked from Wandsworth to Carshalton and on to Oaks Park.
 Several sections appear to be missing on OSM:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.4045lon=-0.1829zoom=12layers=C
 Does anyone know what happened? Is there a simple fix?

I suspect someone has deleted and/or otherwise broken the route
relation. All that's left are the stretches that also carried ncn_ref
tags on the ways.

It would be best to find the NCN 20 relation and fix it. I don't know
what the ID number was, nor any particularly easy way to find out.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle route 20 / Wandle Trail fragmented

[Andy Allan]

On 12 March 2012 13:37, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 11 March 2012 14:23, MT_Payne trevy...@fastmail.co.uk wrote:
 NCN route 20 used to be continuous on the OSM, as it is on the ground and on
 Sustrans site, checked from Wandsworth to Carshalton and on to Oaks Park.
 Several sections appear to be missing on OSM:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.4045lon=-0.1829zoom=12layers=C
 Does anyone know what happened? Is there a simple fix?

 I suspect someone has deleted and/or otherwise broken the route
 relation. All that's left are the stretches that also carried ncn_ref
 tags on the ways.

 It would be best to find the NCN 20 relation and fix it. I don't know
 what the ID number was, nor any particularly easy way to find out.

Yep, as suspected, it's a deleted relation. I used OWL to find it.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/12179

Deleted on the 9th January this year:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10346090

It's hard to see the history of such well-edited relations, since our
browsing interface will simply time out. However, the last version is
here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/12179/166

If someone wants to try reinstating the relation, that would be great.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapquest routing

[Andy Allan]

On 8 March 2012 20:55, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:

 Its not an OSM problem, but anyone any idea why they have done it like
 this?

I'll bet it's to do with the US.

I think that in the US we are mapping freeways as either
highway=motorway (for freeways that cross state lines, i.e.
Interstates) or highway=trunk (for freeways that don't). So,
translating it to the UK, the avoid freeways option becomes avoid
motorways, but still disables both highway=motorway and
highway=trunk.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subjective value of adding FIXMEs by a bot?

[Andy Allan]

On 3 March 2012 16:45, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote:


 I can't say I'm convinced about the value of adding FIXMEs to 7000+ postboxes 
 in the UK in changeset:
 ...
 As such I'm thinking the changeset should probably be reverted/removed.

Wholeheartedly agree. Automated QA shouldn't be run against the actual
database, that's why we have all the QA systems. Fixme tags shouldn't
be auto-generated.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Backwards Areas

[Andy Allan]

On 14 February 2012 19:34, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:
  but I made the way run
 clockwise rather than anticlockwise.

Just for clarity, there's no difference between clockwise and
anticlockwise polygons in OSM. Either direction works fine.

There are, of course, one or two exceptions, the principle one being
coastlines where you might be able to describe a whole island with
just one way. But for buildings, gardens, ruins etc, there's no
difference.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool

[Andy Allan]

On 24 January 2012 03:09, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote:

 The Taunton Sedgemoor import data seems pretty messed up.
 Eg Mansuel Road, seems have picked out wrong points (over 5+ miles away) to 
 generate crazily wrong geometry.

Thanks Robert - I'll have a look at that and find out what's gone wrong.

 Other areas look OK.

Great!

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool

[Andy Allan]

On 16 November 2011 09:20, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi All,

 I previously discussed[1] what our plans were with regards to the
 cycling data that is coming out of the DfT.

Hi again,

I've now received lots more data on this project, again for soliciting
feedback. Current areas available include:

Nottingham
Cambridge
Devon
Mendip
South Somerset
Taunton Sedgemoor

You can have a look using the demo available at
http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-demo/

I'm receiving the data one area at a time. To facilitate this I've
expanded the functionality of the server-side component to handle
different areas independently. This will make it easier for me to add
new areas as soon as I receive them. It also means that if we need to
rework any particular area based on feedback from you guys, it won't
impact the rest of them.

If you want to mess around with the completion flag, feel free.
Results are shown on the server at

http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/

The next stages in the project are getting more areas, and based on
feedback when everyone is happy flipping the switch so that we can use
the data for real.

Have fun!
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Help with remapping

[Andy Allan]

On 15 January 2012 19:27, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:

 If you reposition the new node in same place as the old one, this hasn't 
 really
 achieved anything.  At best, it has obscured the history a bit so it's no 
 longer
 quite so clear that the node was originally added by a CT-decliner.

It rarely ends up in exactly the same place - when I'm doing these
node replacements I take time to remodel junctions, improve curves and
so on. The contribution is my own, not an obfuscation of history. The
O keypress is just a little labour saving, not a charade.

 Rather than going through this charade why not just add odbl=clean to the 
 node?

Because that would be incorrect. The odbl=clean is not a I somehow
assert that I would do the same, therefore ignore the IPR record. The
tag is to indicate where their contribution have washed out and
where the contributor(s) in question cannot reasonably claim any
rights to the current feature[1] - i.e. subsequent edits have
entirely overwritten any IPR in the non-acceptor's contributions. It's
easy to see that the tag is therefore completely inappropriate for
adding to any v1 objects, for a start.

Of course, since the odbl=clean tag is so widely misinterpreted, by
you and seemingly by many others, the tag becomes as meaningless as
foot=yes[2] . It wouldn't actually make any difference during a
changeover anyway - that's the whole point of the tag, after all, to
indicate that even if you removed every conceivable trace of
non-accepting edits from this feature, then end result would be the
same - so there seems little point in adding it. So it's a bizarre tag
- when misunderstood it's applied incorrectly, and when understood
fully it barely makes sense to use it anyway.

Cheers,
Andy

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean
[2] Originally meaning this is a legally declared 'Public Footpath',
it was ambiguously confused with a general legal right of walking
(e.g. on a bridleway). Automatic inclusion on all footpaths of any
type by potlatch1 for a number of years, it became effectively
meaningless as a designator for Public Footpaths, and a new tag
(designation=public_footpath) was eventually created.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Misguided user kane123

[Andy Allan]

On 13 January 2012 16:36, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 On 13 January 2012 13:41, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
 Anyone fancy dealing with http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kane123 ?
 All of their changesets so far are bogus, and need reverting.


 I have reverted the changesets.
 I have also put a notice on the account, the person will be required
 to read it before they can make further edits:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/79

The user is back, and has spent the early hours of this morning
deleting lots of things - major roads etc.

I'm going to upgrade my assessment to deliberate vandal, and ask
again if someone can revert the changesets in question.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Misguided user kane123

[Andy Allan]

On 16 January 2012 10:34, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:

 The user is back, and has spent the early hours of this morning
 deleting lots of things - major roads etc.

 I'm going to upgrade my assessment to deliberate vandal, and ask
 again if someone can revert the changesets in question.

My thanks go to Richard Fairhurst for taking care of things.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to get a Relation History?

[Andy Allan]

On 15 January 2012 09:28, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,
 I am trying to find the history of the relation covering the Weardale Way (
 86561 ).   I can view the relation itself ok at
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/86561, but when I try to view
 the history of it with
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/86561/history, I always get a
 'sorry...took too long to retrieve' error.
 Does anyone know an alternative way of finding out who edited it before me?

There's a great OSM Deep History services at http://osm.mapki.com/history/

http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=86561

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] The state of Bristol in OSM

[Andy Allan]

On 14 January 2012 20:34, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 Q's

 Does anyone have a template letter along the lines of 'please can you sign
 the agreement as it would mean a lot of hard work replacing your data' to
 send to those that are undecided or, more likely, unaware of the change? I'm
 crap at being polite :)

 Is there a way to tell who has been contacted already out of the
 contributors who haven't signed? I don't think numerous people contacting a
 user is the best way to get him to sign on the dotted line.

There are templates and lists of contacted users at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Asking_users_to_accept_the_ODbL

Note that the page is inaccurate as it's the CTs, not the ODbL, that
they are being asked to accept.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] The state of Bristol in OSM

[Andy Allan]

On 13 January 2012 16:36, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:

 I'd rather not find big chunks of south east London and little segments of
 major roads disappear overnight if I can help it.

I've started work in SW London (Putney / Wimbledon / Streatham) areas,
concentrating on the major roads. Much of this is simple replacement
of nodes contributed by anonymous editors - the disadvantage of being
in the historical heartlands of OSM is we still have after-effects
from anonymous users! There is, of course, no way to contact them.

As work progresses I'm heading in a roughly SW direction, towards
Kingston, again concentrating mainly on major roads. I'm hoping other
people make a go of Central London soon.

I've been getting into the routine of doing 10 minutes of this per
day, timed with the p2 save button warning label. Keeps the process
short and sweet!

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Help with remapping

[Andy Allan]

On 14 January 2012 15:35, Eike Ritter osm...@rittere.co.uk wrote:
 I'm trying to do some remapping, and would be grateful for some help in
 situations I've encountered.

 1.) Assume you need to replace a node which is in the intersection of
 several ways. If I simply delete the node and re-create it, I'd have to
 adjust all the ways the node is part of. This is slow and error-prone.
 Is there an easier way of achieving this replacement?

Using Potlatch 2, select the junction node and press O. This deletes
the node and attaches a new node to the cursor - you need to click to
position it. Doing it this way sorts out all the ways for you.

Cheers,
Andy

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

[Talk-GB] Misguided user kane123

[Andy Allan]

Anyone fancy dealing with http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kane123 ?
All of their changesets so far are bogus, and need reverting.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pigging potlach ...

[Andy Allan]

On 11 January 2012 00:21, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:

 Well I'm on SUSE11.3 64bit into an AMD quad core with 8Gb RAM and Seamonkey
 2.6.1
 Rock stable with everything else I run.
 I'll switch to Firefox on another machine when I have a little more time
 tomorrow night.

 Just pissed me off that I'd fixed the same block twice, but not managed to
 save any of the work :(

Hi Lester,

Sorry to hear that potlatch is freezing on you. Maybe you can give us
some more details? First off, the flash version number would be a
great help, it's the most likely thing to be a significant difference
between your machine and others. Seamonkey vs Firefox is less likely
to be a trigger, since both use the same plugin mechanisms to load
flash which runs potlatch.

Also, can you describe the freeze? Is it just the save button that
stops working, or is it everything? When it freezes is your machine at
100% CPU (on one core) or idle? (top may help identify the process
if it's burning CPU). Is there anything in particular that triggers
it? What state is it in when it freezes - are you just panning around,
have you just entered a tag, is there a feature selected etc? For
these, a screenshot of the frozen p2 might be useful for us.

As Richard (albeit fairly bluntly) said, we've not heard similar
reports from other people, but they might just be silently enduring
it. Any further help you can give us to get to the root cause would be
awesome.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pigging potlach ...

[Andy Allan]

On 11 January 2012 11:21, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:

 It's the usual problem of no time ...
 15 mins tidying up an area while I'm waiting for something else to finish is
 time usefully spent, but fire-fighting why something random is happening
 takes a lot longer :(

Sure, I understand. Think of my list of things more as a if it ever
happens again, which hopefully it won't... rather than me asking you
to spend time actively trying to pin it down.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS VectorMap water feature import

[Andy Allan]

On 12 December 2011 11:51, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 The main practical obstacle, as I see it, is that OS in their infinite
 wisdom have started supplying the shapefiles in 100km x 100km squares...
 which are certainly far too large to wrangle within a browser-based editor
 like P2, and I suspect some desktop editors may choke too. If someone were
 to create either a download server for smaller tiles (10km x 10km or even
 smaller), or a queryable API for the VMD dataset, we could get stuck in.

/me points to the Snapshot Server, which was designed entirely for the
situation where your background vector layer is too large to load all
in one go.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Snapshot_Server

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Revert my changeset please

[Andy Allan]

On 4 December 2011 18:12, Pawel Stankiewicz sta...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 Chances are something very different from a ban. There are also chances that 
 a satellite will fall on my head but there is no chances to predict every 
 consequence of any action and only 1 way to verify predictions.

That's all very philosophical, but by the sounds of it you didn't test
your import before you mucked up the live server. That's inexcusable.
We have test servers available, you could have easily experimented
there and found out in safety that you don't know what you are doing.
Even if you have never heard of the import guidelines, that would
still be a responsible approach.

I would suggest a little less arrogance and instead some humility in
future would be nice. After ignoring all of our guidelines and messing
up our live database, you haven't even apologised - instead, you are
just arguing as if you have done nothing wrong.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network

[Andy Allan]

This sounds a bit like yes it is/oh no it isn't tags. If it's not an
actual cycle route, then it shouldn't be otherwise identically tagged
but just with additional official=no or operator=Some Wishful
Thinkers. I think your earlier suggestion of tagging them separately
to lcn/ncn/rcn would be best.

On 29 November 2011 09:35, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thinking about it, I reckon official/operator/signposted tags on the
 relation are a better approach, since the matter is rarely quite as yes/no
 as defining a separate network. Might have to break some relations into
 sections, to reflect the officialness and signpostedness of different
 sections, but that's no great hardship.
 On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Richard Mann
 richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:

 I guess the big-society-defined ones can be ccn and Andy can include
 them or not as he chooses.

 Richard


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network

[Andy Allan]

On 29 November 2011 09:17, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
 In London there's also the problem that the Cycle SuperHighways and LCN are
 both tagged the same, despite being rather different beasts.

In what way? They are both signed cycle routes covering a reasonably
local extent. Other factors - like the superhighways being on major
roads often with cycle lanes, and the lcn typically being on quieter
residential streets without lanes - are already covered by the tags on
the ways.

Cheers,
Andy

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