Re: [OSM-talk] software requirements for OSM Editor: Firefox
On 06/10/2023 14:23, Martin Trautmann wrote: On 23-10-06 14:24, Tom Hughes wrote: Maybe it would be easy to avoid and maybe it wouldn't but until we know what the actual problem is we can't tell and none of the developers are likely to have such an old browser to reproduce it even if they wanted to so unless you can provide more details somehow it's not clear what can be done. Apart from the info given before I do see an Uncaught SyntaxError: expected expression, got '=' https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/id-859874f88bc2e65931793d0d2edfb626917168cd008d86196e5b6fe2c88b39d5.js :29:19029 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/id-859874f88bc2e65931793d0d2edfb626917168cd008d86196e5b6fe2c88b39d5.js> That's far more likely to be the main problem but you'd need to ask the iD developers if they have any clue what it might be. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] software requirements for OSM Editor: Firefox
On 06/10/2023 12:53, Martin Trautmann wrote: On 23-10-06 13:41, Tom Hughes wrote: On 06/10/2023 12:12, Martin Trautmann wrote: On 23-10-06 12:55, Tom Hughes via talk wrote: No it was released in June 2020. October 2021 was the last security patches. To answer the original question there have been any deliberate changes that I know but given the error it's entirely possible that FF has fixed something in what CSP rules it checks for what requests. I doubt that since FF did not see any changes here for some time, unfortunately. So it appears to be from an OSM editor's change. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. My hypothesis is that something in iD has started using a data URL where it didn't before and that is triggering a latent bug in your version of firefox (in that it is checking that URL against the media-src rule in our security policy) while newer versions of firefox are checking it against some other rule. Thanks - that does clarify the issue. But as you say, "something in iD has started" - so it's a change within OSM's editor, which does break old systems. Maybe it's a reasonable and necessary change for ID - but maybe it isn't! Without knowing more about which load is being blocked it's not really possible to say more and I might be totally wrong as I'm just guessing from the limited information available. I agree - but I don't know where else to report this malfunction. It's obvious that one part of this bug is an outdated FF version. But that does not mean that those have to be excluded. Nobody is deliberately excluding you but equally nobody is going to spend hours trying to make it work either. Maybe it would be easy to avoid and maybe it wouldn't but until we know what the actual problem is we can't tell and none of the developers are likely to have such an old browser to reproduce it even if they wanted to so unless you can provide more details somehow it's not clear what can be done. We don't even know the CSP error in the console is the root cause of your main problems - it might be incidental as a media load failing doesn't normally cause total page failure. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] software requirements for OSM Editor: Firefox
On 06/10/2023 12:12, Martin Trautmann wrote: On 23-10-06 12:55, Tom Hughes via talk wrote: No it was released in June 2020. October 2021 was the last security patches. To answer the original question there have been any deliberate changes that I know but given the error it's entirely possible that FF has fixed something in what CSP rules it checks for what requests. I doubt that since FF did not see any changes here for some time, unfortunately. So it appears to be from an OSM editor's change. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. My hypothesis is that something in iD has started using a data URL where it didn't before and that is triggering a latent bug in your version of firefox (in that it is checking that URL against the media-src rule in our security policy) while newer versions of firefox are checking it against some other rule. Without knowing more about which load is being blocked it's not really possible to say more and I might be totally wrong as I'm just guessing from the limited information available. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] software requirements for OSM Editor: Firefox
No it was released in June 2020. October 2021 was the last security patches. To answer the original question there have been any deliberate changes that I know but given the error it's entirely possible that FF has fixed something in what CSP rules it checks for what requests. I don't see that error, and as far as I can see our policy only allows data URLs for images and not for other media which suggests no data URLs are being validated against media-src for me. Tom On 06/10/2023 11:34, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: Firefox 78 EST has reached end of life over year ago, see https://endoflife.date/firefox <https://endoflife.date/firefox> It was released in October 2021. I would strongly encourage to update it for security reasons. And would not be surprised if random things are breaking. Oct 6, 2023, 11:54 by tr...@gmx.de: Have there been any changes for a minimum software version to use the openstreetmap editor? I can still browse with my old firefox version 78.15.0esr, but when I try to edit anything, the editor's area remains empty. Inspecting the pages names "The page’s settings blocked the loading of a resource at data: (“media-src”)." id-container does not load any more, I suppose. Anything from https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/id-859874f88bc2e65931793d0d2edfb626917168cd008d86196e5b6fe2c88b39d5.js causes an error here. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mapilio? (street-level imagery)
On 24/05/2023 13:31, Greg Troxel wrote: I just got spam from mapilio, implying that I was a "Mapilio contributor". This was, to my memory, the first I had heard of them. There have been a handful of mentions on the forum of various lists in the last few months. I too just got spammed by them - quite ironic given the GDPR Compliant logo at the bottom of every page on their web site. Looking briefly, it seems like a corporate thing with proprietary tooling. They talk about an app in proprietary app stores but do not mention F-Droid :-) The point seems to be to monetize crowdsourced contributions, in a gamified/rewards-ish sort of way. The address on the web site actually appears to be a coffee shop in Andover so I think we can discount that as a mere correspondence address. The web site appears to have been created by a non-native speaker of english which points overseas. Looking at their "custom iD editor" repository there is actually a single commit from today to add their imagery which was done by a user with a visiosoft.com.tr address so possibly they are the people really behind it? Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] AT Email
On 30/01/2023 13:25, Mike N. wrote: Not sure where to report this but it seems that AT Email has placed OpenStreetMap Emails on the block list in the past week. Might I suggest that AT Email would be the place to report it? I mean I'm not sure what you think we can do about it remotely. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM and Google
No it couldn't - the google problem he refers to was with their authentication service not their DNS service. Tom On 14/12/2020 19:10, James wrote: are you using 8.8.8.8 or 4.4.4.4 as a dns? could explain it. On Mon., Dec. 14, 2020, 1:58 p.m. Niels Elgaard Larsen, <mailto:elga...@agol.dk>> wrote: Google services was down for an hour today. I noticed that at the same time I could not push my edits with JOSM due to "internal server error" Was that a coincidence or do we somehow depend on Google? -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM and Google
On 14/12/2020 18:54, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: Google services was down for an hour today. I noticed that at the same time I could not push my edits with JOSM due to "internal server error" Was that a coincidence or do we somehow depend on Google? It was a coincidence. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please SWITCH to Mailman 3 & hyperkitty
That's just the instructions on how to migrate the data
and it doesn't cover anything related to actually installing
and configuring all the components of mailman 3 from a
quick look which is a big issue given that it's not packaged
and it's a not a single tool like mailman 2 but rather is
a collection of separate components.
Given that we're already looking at other things there is
no point in spending several months and many man hours on
attempting a migration to something that we have to install
from source and then try and keep up to date without any
upstream packages.
You're right that the UI tries to be a web forum but from
personal experience I can say that it fails - it's probably
a better UI as a simple archiver but it's no use as a way
of reading lists day to day. The only thing that's ever
got close to that is Discourse.
A bigger problem is that the UI for list owners is horrid.
Tom
On 14/12/2020 18:58, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
Python's mailing lists use mailman 3:
https://www.python.org/community/lists/
<https://www.python.org/community/lists/>
What is the problem with the UI ? It seems far, far more useable than
pipermail and hyperkitty feels like a forum.
If upgrading isn't possible, well then I guess bad luck. The mailman
focs doesn't make it look that hard (is it skipping over OSM server
specific steps that make the process harder?)
https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/migration.html
<https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/migration.html>
Thanks,
IpswichMapper
--
14 Dec 2020, 18:45 by t...@compton.nu:
It's not going to happen.
Virtually nobody uses mailman 3 with the exception of Fedora
and I know from using it there that the UI is a disaster.
Also it's not packaged for Ubuntu and it's far more complicated to
deploy than what we have.
Don't think of mailman 3 as an upgrade - it's basically a
totally different product.
There is talk of a change, but it won't be to mailman 3.
Tom
On 14/12/2020 18:42, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
Okay thanks, I'll contact him on github. I don't havd mailman
administration experience, or that much coding experience for
that matter. I was just suprised that we are stuck with 10+
years old cluttered pipermail when hyperkitty is actually useable.
--
14 Dec 2020, 18:37 by j...@liotier.org:
From looking at the Mailman Chef cookbook at
https://github.com/openstreetmap/chef/tree/master/cookbooks/mailman
<https://github.com/openstreetmap/chef/tree/master/cookbooks/mailman>,
Tom Hughes is the person you should ask. If you have mailman
administration experience, maybe you could make it happen.
On 12/14/20 7:18 PM, ipswichmapper--- via talk wrote:
I was wondering if all the lists on
https://lists.openstreetmap.org
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org>
could be switched to Mailman 3 and hyperkitty (the newest
archiver).
Currently, pipermail is used to archive, and its UI is
*unusable*.
Comparatevely, hyperkitty is a lot more like a forum.
From my experience, the mailing lists are *far more active*
than
the forum, so it would be good to have it searchable & more
accessible (the only downside to this is newer users might
use the
mailing list now. I don't think this is a downside, but I
understand why others would think so).
Also, Mailman 3 still gets updates, while *mailman2 is on
maintainance mode and won't recieve feature updates.*
I strongly recommend that the mailing lists are upgraded to
mailman3 with hyperkitty: this will make the mailing lists
so, so
much more useable.
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please SWITCH to Mailman 3 & hyperkitty
It's not going to happen.
Virtually nobody uses mailman 3 with the exception of Fedora
and I know from using it there that the UI is a disaster.
Also it's not packaged for Ubuntu and it's far more complicated
to deploy than what we have.
Don't think of mailman 3 as an upgrade - it's basically a
totally different product.
There is talk of a change, but it won't be to mailman 3.
Tom
On 14/12/2020 18:42, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
Okay thanks, I'll contact him on github. I don't havd mailman
administration experience, or that much coding experience for that
matter. I was just suprised that we are stuck with 10+ years old
cluttered pipermail when hyperkitty is actually useable.
--
14 Dec 2020, 18:37 by j...@liotier.org:
From looking at the Mailman Chef cookbook at
https://github.com/openstreetmap/chef/tree/master/cookbooks/mailman
<https://github.com/openstreetmap/chef/tree/master/cookbooks/mailman>,
Tom Hughes is the person you should ask. If you have mailman
administration experience, maybe you could make it happen.
On 12/14/20 7:18 PM, ipswichmapper--- via talk wrote:
I was wondering if all the lists on
https://lists.openstreetmap.org <https://lists.openstreetmap.org>
could be switched to Mailman 3 and hyperkitty (the newest archiver).
Currently, pipermail is used to archive, and its UI is *unusable*.
Comparatevely, hyperkitty is a lot more like a forum.
From my experience, the mailing lists are *far more active* than
the forum, so it would be good to have it searchable & more
accessible (the only downside to this is newer users might use the
mailing list now. I don't think this is a downside, but I
understand why others would think so).
Also, Mailman 3 still gets updates, while *mailman2 is on
maintainance mode and won't recieve feature updates.*
I strongly recommend that the mailing lists are upgraded to
mailman3 with hyperkitty: this will make the mailing lists so, so
much more useable.
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Brexit & EU database rights
The primary database and one of the mirrors are already in the EU and have been for several years. There are currently two other mirrors both of which are in the UK. Tom On 13/12/2020 09:21, Edward Bainton wrote: Thank you for the link, now read. All you say on substantial changes makes sense. So if we move the database into the EU, are we confident it would be all be protected under those terms? Does the hiatus from 1 Jan 2021 cause any difficulties? I'm reading the bit that says protection runs from the date of completion of the database - which is either already done, or never to be achieved. Either way I'm struggling to be sure that a database imported into the EU (perhaps considered complete on the day of import?) would have the protection. Or do we need two databases - the UK-based one that is protected under the legacy agreement (until the UK Parliament decides otherwise, I suppose), and the new EU one, and the servers work off them in tandem? On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 23:18, Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: To answer the questions caveat there is no relevant court decisions that I know of, so this is all likely untested: insubstantial changes to a database do not create a new one, but substantial changes do. Where the line is drawn, or better where the OSMF draws the line, is currently open. See article 10 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31996L0009 <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31996L0009> Simon Am 10.12.2020 um 22:11 schrieb Edward Bainton: A pleasure meeting you all at LWG this evening. I saw Brexit in the minutes for September "At the end of year we won't be losing database rights immediately." General guidance I've seen appears to say: - database rights accrued before 2021-01-01 persist (as I've seen discussed in minutes) - database rights accrued from 2021-01-01 will exist only in the UK (if at all: I can't see any enabling legislation after a quick look, and this may have gone into the Govt's "later" tray - so copyright may be the only protection). The last point suggests to me that any edits made after 2020-01-01 will have less protection than so far has been the case. Is that your understanding? Or is the database as a whole protected because the architecture has been built, and subsequent edits are protected modifications of an already-protected creation? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk> ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk> ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Nominatim oddity
On 07/12/2020 17:23, Mark Goodge wrote: This may be a dim question, and this may possibly be the wrong place to ask it. But, at the risk of being both dim and out of place... Why does Nominatim return "Britanniarum Regnum" as the country name for objects in the UK? For example: https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=21279378=place Well it doesn't for me. Do you have your browser languages set to prefer Latin or something (that's the name:la for the UK relation). Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions
On 02/12/2020 09:27, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Michal Migurski wrote: > FB’s attribution approach in keeping with best practices seen from other commercial users of display maps. In the spirit of Twitter footnoting one of Donald Trump's "I won the election" tweets, this is your respectful reminder that Google, Bing, Here, Tencent, ViaMichelin, TomTom, Mapquest, Esri, and Qwant all have on-map attribution. The really curious thing is that of all of those, it is only Facebook that manages to annoy our volunteers by causing them to receive what are essentially support requests that should be going to Faceboook. Something about the way Facebook attributes causes their users to think that we are responsible for whatever problems they are having... Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?
So that can't possibly be when the copyright expires, rather it's a question of contractual provisions in a license agreement between them and NLS not copyright as such. Of course it's only claiming they do have a copyright that they can make such a license necessary. Tom On 01/12/2020 09:49, Ken Kilfedder wrote: Hi Tom, IpswichMapper forwarded me this note, apparently received from NLS via an enquiry made by Rob-from-OSMF: “I wish I could give you better news on the 1940s OS maps of south-east England. Unfortunately, you’re right, they were scanned by a third-party commercial company who have placed commercial re-use restrictions on this layer – there are further details under our Copyright Exceptions list at https://maps.nls.uk/copyright.html#exceptions. These restrictions will last for another couple of years – until the end of 2022 – which I know might seem a long way off, but hopefully will pass quickly. Then we’ll be happily able to share them with the OSM community, along with the rest of England and Wales National Grid 1940s-1960s mapping, that will be of interest too.” --- https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk On Tue, 1 Dec 2020, at 9:41 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: If we assume that a new copyright is created by the scanning (which is a complicated question) then there is no way it expires next year. What exactly do you think the term is for this copyright and when do you think it starts from? I don't think it's relevant anyway as I thought NLS had given us permission to use their scans? Tom On 01/12/2020 09:32, Ken Kilfedder wrote: SO, It turns out - we cannot use these images until the scanner's copyright expires at the end of next year. Happily, it seems like there will be GB-wide coverage available at that point, not just the London-Southend-Brighton area. However, I have been happily using these images for a bit less than a year now, so I'm looking for advice on How to redact. I've tagged all the relevant changesets with the name of the TMS, so it should be possible. 1. Is there an overpass syntax that would let me download (to JOSM) - all ways with addr:housenumber added or changed via a changeset with a certain source tag? (and not updated by something else later) 2. Could I then wipe all such addr:housenumbers and re-upload? 3. Could I keep a JOSM session file around to reupload the addr:housenumbers once the scanner's copyright has elapsed? This has come to light thanks to IpswitchMapper's tireless efforts to set up a tasking manager for adding housenumber, and thank to Rob-from-OSMF's communications with NLS. --- https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, at 10:55 AM, Ken Kilfedder wrote: Hi Mark, If there is absolute confidence in that, can it be added to the wiki page here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland And can it be added to the default set of old maps in JOSM? If it is available for use, not point in keeping it a secret. --- https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 6:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote: On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org: It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967 in NLS is available freely. What are its licensing terms? "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license" It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving data from it. I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey. House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still the same. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?
If we assume that a new copyright is created by the scanning (which is a complicated question) then there is no way it expires next year. What exactly do you think the term is for this copyright and when do you think it starts from? I don't think it's relevant anyway as I thought NLS had given us permission to use their scans? Tom On 01/12/2020 09:32, Ken Kilfedder wrote: SO, It turns out - we cannot use these images until the scanner's copyright expires at the end of next year. Happily, it seems like there will be GB-wide coverage available at that point, not just the London-Southend-Brighton area. However, I have been happily using these images for a bit less than a year now, so I'm looking for advice on How to redact. I've tagged all the relevant changesets with the name of the TMS, so it should be possible. 1. Is there an overpass syntax that would let me download (to JOSM) - all ways with addr:housenumber added or changed via a changeset with a certain source tag? (and not updated by something else later) 2. Could I then wipe all such addr:housenumbers and re-upload? 3. Could I keep a JOSM session file around to reupload the addr:housenumbers once the scanner's copyright has elapsed? This has come to light thanks to IpswitchMapper's tireless efforts to set up a tasking manager for adding housenumber, and thank to Rob-from-OSMF's communications with NLS. --- https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, at 10:55 AM, Ken Kilfedder wrote: Hi Mark, If there is absolute confidence in that, can it be added to the wiki page here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland And can it be added to the default set of old maps in JOSM? If it is available for use, not point in keeping it a secret. --- https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 6:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote: On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org: It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967 in NLS is available freely. What are its licensing terms? "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license" It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving data from it. I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey. House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still the same. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
On 03/10/2020 16:57, Philip Barnes wrote: They are intended to stop this type of routing https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car=52.64994%2C-1.20491%3B52.64983%2C-1.2049 Which is techincally not illegal and in real world usage is not going to happen. But unless the start or end point is on the flare why would a router do that over the shorter route on the roundabout... I mean maybe there are a few cases where the flare is shorter somehow? Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
On 03/10/2020 14:05, Brian Prangle wrote: There seems to be a predilection for adding turn restrictions , either no right rurns or no U turns at the exit flares of roundabouts to prevent turning back into the entry flares where there are no explicit signed restrictions. I suspect this is "rendering for routers". Do routers actually need this data? I'm tempted just to delete them all wherever I meet them, but I suspect there are thousands of them and there'll be howls of complaint. Surely if there is a flare then the entry half of the flare will be one-way against anybody turning off which should exclude it from any consideration by a router? Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
On 24/09/2020 10:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: it contains changesets, notes, etc. but not diary posts or changeset comments (correct me if I’m wrong). You're wrong: https://planet.openstreetmap.org/planet/discussions-latest.osm.bz2 Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD
Hopefully I've fixed them on TW for the next update.
Tom
On 16/09/2020 12:44, Tom Hughes via Talk-GB wrote:
That would be because somebody on TranslateWiki has added a bunch
of bogus strings to the en-GB translation:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/master/config/locales/en-GB.yml#L621
Tom
On 16/09/2020 12:00, Paul Berry wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't in edit mode so nothing to do with iD. I'm using the
latest version of Chrome on Windows 10 and browsing to the standard
https://www.openstreetmap.org site with Standard Layer selected and
the Query tool used. You can see that everything's in en-gb (as I have
set it), excepting the one search result in question, by viewing the
screenshot here: http://pberry.me.uk/osm/osm_query.png
I've double-checked on other devices, operating systems, and browsers
but the issue remains. I hope this helps to narrow down the problem.
Regards,
/Paul/
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 11:04, Nick via Talk-GB
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Hi Gareth
It was just a thought if that might have been the source
Cheers
Nick
On 16/09/2020 10:12, Gareth L wrote:
Hi Nick,
Not in the example I cited.
Gareth
On 16 Sep 2020, at 10:03, Nick
<mailto:n...@foresters.org> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, were these all mapped with the new version
of the RapiD OSM editor https://mapwith.ai/rapid-esri?
On 16/09/2020 08:18, Gareth L wrote:
Morning Mateusz,
__ __
You’re right, it’s not encountered in edit mode.
__ __
4:
1. “en-GB en”
2. “en-GB”
3. System Locale: en-us;English (United States)*
Input Locale: en-gb;English (United Kingdom)
__ __
*damn, i’m normally better at keeping it en-gb!
__ __
Gareth
__ __
Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>
for Windows 10
__ __
*From: *Mateusz Konieczny <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>
*Sent: *16 September 2020 08:09
*To: *Gareth L <mailto:o...@live.co.uk>
*Cc: *Paul Berry <mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>; Talk GB
<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD
__ __
1) it is not a bug of default style at all - what is displayed
in tiles is not related
(both are using OSM data and here similarities end)
2) it is not a Mapnik bug - it is a library used by OSM Carto
(default map style)
3) it is not in edit mode, so it is likely not an iD bug (maybe
it uses an iD
presets that have some bug)
__ __
Is it still visible in edit mode? The it may be an iD bug.
__ __
4) Which exactly language settings you have?
__ __
(a) In OSM settings
(b) In browser
(c) In OS
__ __
For me this is not present,
I see Polish description ("Budynek przemysłowy itp group
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/414437370>") as I selected
Polish as preferred language in OSM settings.
__ __
Sep 16, 2020, 08:57 by o...@live.co.uk <mailto:o...@live.co.uk>:
Hi Paul,
I’m not sure if the fault is with the ID viewer, mapnik, or
overpass-api really. ID bugs can be reported/tracked through
its GitHub repo https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD
<https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD>
For others curious, an example is go to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.37824/-1.23676 and
right click> query features on say, the ITP building or air
ambulance. It will show “Индустриална сграда itp group” on
the results where you choose which element you want more
detail on.
I’m not that familiar with the codebase but it looks like
there has been quite a lot of activity in the localisation
section, so it is possibly a recently introduced bug.
Gareth
*From: *Paul Berry <mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>
*Sent: *16 September 2020 00:21
*To: *Talk GB <mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
*Subject: *[Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD
Hi all,
Not sure who to direct this to so apologies for targeting
the mailing list. However, I hope the right people can be
found this way.
If you use the query feature within iD (which uses the
Overpass API) and point at a commercial building you get a
Bulgarian label in the results set instead of an English
one: Търговска Сграда, which translates as "commercial
building" - there might be other cosmetic bugs out there.
Regards,
/Paul/
__ __
__ __
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetm
Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD
__ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Flatholm Island Boundary Problem
If you think Bristol or Aberdeen are mad then try Norwich: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/172506 Again presumably due to Norwich's history as a port and therefore having control of the river. Tom On 12/09/2020 22:53, Russ Garrett wrote: Yeah, I assume what happened is that the City of Bristol ended up, at some point, as a statutory port authority (which I think they were until 1991), and somehow the boundary from that has remained as their local authority boundary. But it's still a fairly unique situation as there are many other harbours with statutory port authorities where this anomaly doesn't exist. I'm fairly sure that Bristol boundary does not coincide with the current limits of the Port of Bristol. Aberdeen has a small seaward extension which also doesn't appear to coincide with their current port authority limits either. So it's not clear what these seaward extensions currently achieve. I'd love to find the actual legislation which created this... Russ On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 at 22:24, Mark Goodge wrote: On 12/09/2020 21:23, Russ Garrett wrote: I've foolishly now decided to try to get to the bottom of it - the beating of the bounds still doesn't explain why exactly it covers that area (although I'm impressed that the Lord Mayor managed to commandeer a warship to do so!) AIUI, it's because it's the historic maritime navigation route into Bristol and Avonmouth. The simplified constituency boundary map is, possibly a little bizarrely, one of the best visualisations of that: https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3368/location See also this Admiralty chart for the Bristol Channel - you can see that the "Bristol Deep" channel passes between the two islands and leads into the harbour: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0278/1529/products/OCB-1179.jpg Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway
I suspect that the real clue is in the changeset tags: resolved:outdated_tags:incomplete_tags=10 So the iD validator has presumably claimed that the tagging of those paths was "out of date" in some way and this was likely a misguided attempt to fix that. Of course that was likely based on some rule in the validator that is trying push whatever daft path tagging the wiki is currently trying to promote... Certainly I think a polite enquiry would have been a better first response than presuming malice. Tom On 03/09/2020 10:29, Robert Skedgell wrote: A user has recently changed highway=cycleway objects in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London (QEOP) from highway=cycleway to highway=footway on the ground that "Olympic Park paths are Pedestrian Priority". In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access tag and segregated=no has been removed, which breaks cycle routing through the path. I am unsure whether this is carelessness, or the expression of an agenda which has no place in OSM. If the latter, this is vandalism. It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed line to a red dashed line. Changes made by Skyguy in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89374106 Broken routing by missing access tags (not changing the highway=* tag for now) fixed in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90351366 Most paths in QEOP are 3 metre wide gold-top asphalt (looks a bit like surface=compacted and sometimes mapped as such) and there are no paths on which cycling is prohibited. The paths are almost all included as cycle tracks in the TfL CID export. QEOP is generally open to the public 24/7, but any part can be closed without notice for events. I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be: highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive There is nothing in the Wiki which suggests that pedestrians do not already have priority on unsegregated cycleways, so the edit seems unnecessary. The current Highway Code Rule 62 does not make this explicit, but pedestrian priority seems a reasonable interpretation of: "Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary." https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 The proposed new Rule 63 could also reasonably be read as strongly implying pedestrian priority: "Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles. When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Let them know you are there when necessary e.g. by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely. Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and that this may not be obvious. Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind. Remember that horses can be startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary." https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code BCC to DWG because of the impact in cycle routing. -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Referential integrity of https://planet.openstreetmap.org/replication/minute//004/146/694.osc.gz
On 12/08/2020 13:56, Roland Olbricht via talk wrote: in the minute diff, in file https://planet.openstreetmap.org/replication/minute//004/146/694.osc.gz the way 40657824 uses node 7804408284, but that node is contained neither in 694.osc.gz nor in any earlier minute diff. It's in 693 as far as I can see? Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Deprecated feature template in the wiki
On 10/06/2020 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: This doesn't make sense. Why is the definition for the tag removed? Why should someone not " (semi-)automatically change “deprecated” tags to something else in the database" if these tags are completely synonymous as the template suggests? It doesn't say you shouldn't change them - it says that such a change is an automated edit that should follow the automated edit rules. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM nicknames are Unicode characters? (not Ascii?)
On 28/05/2020 14:02, mbranco2 wrote:
I was surprised finding an OSM username written in gothic characters:
I'm not sure if this mailing list could show such font, the
nickname is 햒햆햘햙햗햔 ("mastro" in normal characters).
The problem is that, if you want to access this user profile, you've to
copy and paste his name written with such font, searching with
osm.org/user/mastro <http://osm.org/user/mastro> give no results.
Isn't this an anomaly?
So we shouldn't allow people who don't use the latin
alphabet to register using names in their native language?
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 189, Issue 24
I don't believe you can migrate to StackExchange - we would have to start over if we went that route. You definitely can't pay for a StackExhange site - they specifically say that they no longer offer that. Tom On 20/05/2020 22:17, Allan Mustard wrote: Simon, et al, if money is required from the OSMF, could not one of the working groups submit a funding request for migration to a new platform like StackExchange? Microgrant is probably not appropriate for something like this. Just my two cents' worth. apm On 5/20/2020 4:42 PM, talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send talk mailing list submissions to talk@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of talk digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying (Mateusz Konieczny) 2. Re: our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying (Tom Hughes) 3. Re: our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying (Lester Caine) 4. Re: our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying (Simon Poole) 5. Re: our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying (Tobias Wrede) 6. Re: our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying (Frederik Ramm) 7. Re: our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying (Tobias Wrede) 8. Re: our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying (James) -- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:48:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Mateusz Konieczny To: Tobias Wrede Cc: Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" May 20, 2020, 09:28 byl...@tobias-wrede.de: Can we involve any of the OSM organizations to find, maybe pay, someone? The question is about the plan. Life support for this specific platform? It sounds like an endless pit that can consume plenty of resources, but maybe I am too pessimistic. Migrate to Stack Exchange? Even assuming that this company will agree it has plenty of potential issues. Wait for someone to volunteer and fix? It would be nice, but not sure what are chances of that. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200520/1710766f/attachment-0001.htm> -- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:12:58 +0100 From: Tom Hughes To: Mateusz Konieczny, Tobias Wrede Cc: Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying Message-ID:<15f2bcdf-981f-19e7-224f-8b92f6574...@compton.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 20/05/2020 14:48, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: Migrate to Stack Exchange? Even assuming that this company will agree it has plenty of potential issues. They have a public process for proposing new sites: https://area51.stackexchange.com/faq So long as enough people are interested it shouldn't be an issue. I've been through the process with another site. Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying
On 20/05/2020 14:48, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: Migrate to Stack Exchange? Even assuming that this company will agree it has plenty of potential issues. They have a public process for proposing new sites: https://area51.stackexchange.com/faq So long as enough people are interested it shouldn't be an issue. I've been through the process with another site. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying
Where on earth do you get the idea that they're using the same software? They're not. In fact OSQA and all the other similar open source projects are attempts to recreate the Stack Overflow experience and they're basically all dead or, if still on life support, then very poor clones. Personally my preference would be to close help.osm.org and move to a proper SO site via the Area 51 process which should be no problem for a community of our size. I imagine that will be unpopular with a subset of our users however. The alternative if it's going to stay alive is that somebody needs to find a way to migrate the data to something like Askbot that is at least semi-conscious. Tom On 20/05/2020 13:52, Andreas Vilén wrote: Stack overflow seems to use the same software and is highly active. This seems to be updated? Can't we update as they do? https://stackoverflow.com/questions /Andreas On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:34 AM Tobias Wrede <mailto:l...@tobias-wrede.de>> wrote: Hi, we have several channels in OSM to facilitate discussions and support. First touch point for new users is often help.openstreetmap.org <http://help.openstreetmap.org>. Questions relating to mapping in general, tagging, editors, development, OSM based applications are asked there and get answered in most cases. The site is based on OSQA, a software which has not been maintained in some time. Some application errors have surface in the past but had to be ignored since no fixes are coming from OSQA any more. Until now we could live with that. They were annoying but not critical. There are open tickets on OSM github to move the help site to some other framework (https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/149, https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/377) but there isn't exactly an abundance of volunteers to take care of that. Usability of help.openstreetmap.org <http://help.openstreetmap.org> has now seriously worsened over the past few days with some js error popping up for longer and longer times (https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/74831/why-does-the-add-a-new-comment-button-sometimes-not-work). Buttons to support formatting questions and answers are gone, comments cannot be added and moderation functions (reporting, converting questions to comments etc.) are not working anymore. If this continuous we can shut down the site soon. Even if this problem got resolved somehow it's only a matter of time until a new problem arises. The site provides a low entry hurdles place to ask questions that can be solved by simple answers. I'd hate so see it gone. I'm neither a programmer who could help out on the technical side nor am I involved in OSM organization and politics to have an idea on how this could be sorted out. Question around: Can we find someone to take care of the technical side? Can we involve any of the OSM organizations to find, maybe pay, someone? Does the community even find it worthwhile keeping the site? cheers, Tobias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] List moderator - volunteers needed
On 14/03/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote: Op za 14 mrt. 2020 om 11:20 schreef Tom Hughes via Talk-GB : On 14/03/2020 11:13, Rob Nickerson wrote: As may have seen in Simon's response it sounds like we currently lack list moderators. If this is something you would like to do please email this mailing list. Likewise we probably need to think about the criteria of what makes a good list moderator. If there are any traits that you'd like to see in a mailing list moderator please share with this mailing list. Just to clarify what Simon said a bit before you all get carried away, there absolutely is a list administrator and there is evidence that they are processing the moderation queue. That's not to say that they are actively reading the messages on the list or applying any particular code of conduct. It does mean however that you can't just choose somebody and ask me to make them the list owner - you will need to try and make contact with the existing list owner and discuss the situation with them before attempting a putsch. Do they read messages to the "owner" address more actively? talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org I have no idea but hopefully. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] List moderator - volunteers needed
On 14/03/2020 11:13, Rob Nickerson wrote: As may have seen in Simon's response it sounds like we currently lack list moderators. If this is something you would like to do please email this mailing list. Likewise we probably need to think about the criteria of what makes a good list moderator. If there are any traits that you'd like to see in a mailing list moderator please share with this mailing list. Just to clarify what Simon said a bit before you all get carried away, there absolutely is a list administrator and there is evidence that they are processing the moderation queue. That's not to say that they are actively reading the messages on the list or applying any particular code of conduct. It does mean however that you can't just choose somebody and ask me to make them the list owner - you will need to try and make contact with the existing list owner and discuss the situation with them before attempting a putsch. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] iD as default editor
Indeed - it has been the default since August 2013. Tom On 23/12/2019 07:15, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: check your OSM settings. AFAIK, iD is the default editor. On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:10 AM Sören Reinecke via talk mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: Hello, so far I know currently Postlatch is the default editor on osm.org <http://osm.org> . Since it needs Flash to run and most users do not have Flash anymore, clicking on the "Edit" button leads to almost blank page. Without knowing that you need to change Postlatch to iD in settings, you're lost as newbie. This is not very beginner friendly Are they any plans to make iD the default editor or is iD already the default editor? Cheers Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Laura Ashley - looking for tagging consensus
I see there's at least one near me that has been named in exactly that way as "Laura Ashley Home": https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5024407483 No idea if that actually reflects how the shop is branded though. Tom On 20/12/2019 09:08, Jez Nicholson wrote: You could generalise if the majority of stores fit the standard category, as individual shops can still be 'interior_decoration' if that is all that they do. A difficulty could be that editing apps suggest that it is 'incorrect' and needs updating. Some chains make it easier by having a sub-brand like "Laura Ashley Home", but clearly some do not. I curse the real world for refusing to fit itself into our categorisation scheme! :D On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 8:53 AM Stuart Reynolds <mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> wrote: Hi, I may be wrong, but I believe that there were some home (furniture) shops that didn’t sell clothing, and some years ago my family would reliably buy wallpaper from Laura Ashley which had the traditional Laura Ashley design on it. So that would seem to back up the “interior_decoration” tag. So I don’t know that you can necessarily generalise without a survey of each store - although I agree that clothing is probably the most likely for most cases these days. Not that I’ve been in one for quite some time! Regards, Stuart On 20 Dec 2019, at 07:25, Jez Nicholson mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks for consulting. Even if you don't get a huge response (like with The Range) it is good to get wider opinion. With The Range I simply didn't know so had no response. A short poll in my household (myself + my wife) concluded: "Laura Ashley is a clothing store that happens to also sell furniture" On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 00:52 Silent Spike, mailto:silentspike...@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm a UK based maintainer of the name suggestion index <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name_Suggestion_Index> and would like to get this brand added. Unfortunately it's not so obvious how it should be tagged and I'm not comfortable making a tagging judgement call alone without consulting the UK community. My last thread of this nature for The Range didn't attract many responses, but some input is always better than none and it allowed me to get that brand into the index knowing that if consensus changes then the tagging can easily be updated in OSM. Here's the Laura Ashley website and Wikipedia page for those unaware of this chain: https://www.lauraashley.com/en-gb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ashley_plc It looks like currently there are: * 44 shop=clothes * 20 shop=furniture * 15 shop=interior_decoration * 4 shop=houseware * 1 shop=home_furnishing * 1 shop=fabric * 1 shop=fashion This makes sense as it seems that furniture and clothing are the main items sold. The tagging alone seems to suggest `shop=clothing` is favoured more - does this seem reasonable or do you think another tagging is more suitable? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Elections Online website - candidate for OSM?
The reason they're getting that error is almost certainly that they aren't paying and they're either not passing an API key at all or they're passing one that is for a different site. Most likely the site was developed before API keys were required and has never been updated, but if they add a key they will almost certainly exceed the free allowance and have to pay which is likely why they haven't done so. Tom On 03/12/2019 15:21, Edward Bainton wrote: Interesting. Do they pay Google for the map and tileserver use (even if they don't realise that's what they're paying for)? Or rather, since they've clearly not updated whatever agreement they had with Google for a while, /if/ the map were functioning would that mean they were paying Google? On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:46, David Woolley <mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk>> wrote: On 03/12/2019 09:47, Edward Bainton wrote: > > General Elections Online > <https://electionresults.parliament.uk/#Cities%20of%20London%20and%20Westminster> (hosted > at parliament.uk <http://parliament.uk> <http://parliament.uk>) have got a failed page where > the Google map is overlaid with "Development purposes only". > > I was planning to suggest they use OSM instead. > The advantage to them of using Google is that Google provides the tile servers. OSM tile servers aren't funded to support a mass market use like this, so the organisation will have to install and run their own tile servers. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Maintaining privacy as a casual mapper
On 05/11/2019 09:40, Maarten Deen wrote: COPPA does not seem to apply since OSM is not directed to children, let alone in commercial ventures. The only possible connection would be when children register since you would store information about them. That might be a sensible reason to block children from registering (I can also see that they probably would not have a significant positive contribution to the data), but again, at the moment any use of OSM by children is blocked. GDPR has similar requirements around getting parental consent for people under a certain age before processing personal data on the consent basis. Specifically although the default is 16 some countries including the UK have set that at 13 instead. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Anonymous comments on notes now disabled
On 30/08/2019 10:14, marc marc wrote: So an anonymous user now is unable to answer to a note he create himself unless he decides to create an account to answer? ? since most anonymous notes lack information, we will be able to close nearly all anonymous notes. we will see if this pushes people to register or if there are so many people who forget to identify themselves. In reality anonymous users pretty much never come back to answer a question anyway because they have no way of knowing that anybody has asked a question unless they monitor the note themselves by visiting the web site to check on it. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sending location from a smart phone.
On 18/08/2019 08:35, Tom Hughes wrote: On 18/08/2019 02:22, John Whelan wrote: Apparently some Fire brigades ask people who are lost on moors etc to download What3words then tell them their location. In the UK any even vaguely modern smartphone will send location data with a 999 call anyway, as Ed made clear in response to all that press the other day: https://twitter.com/edparsons/status/1162766686912700417 Actually this is the better version with the link to how it works: https://twitter.com/edparsons/status/1162376705492885504 Works on Android 4 and later for Android phones. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sending location from a smart phone.
On 18/08/2019 02:22, John Whelan wrote: Apparently some Fire brigades ask people who are lost on moors etc to download What3words then tell them their location. In the UK any even vaguely modern smartphone will send location data with a 999 call anyway, as Ed made clear in response to all that press the other day: https://twitter.com/edparsons/status/1162766686912700417 Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Valuation Office Agency council tax data (was postcode mapping (was Re: Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only))
On 30/07/2019 15:12, Stephen Colebourne wrote: Is it open data? Well, it has "Crown Copyright" at the bottom, so maybe? I'd love to know if this dataset has been considered before, as it can turn a postcode into something wereally need. What part of "crown copyright" says "open data" to you? What it says to me is "copyright for 50 years from the end of the year when it was published" so unless there is some license allowing it's use then no, it can't be used. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap
I think it's a unilateral self-declared collaboration ;-) Tom On 24/07/2019 21:07, Nuno Caldeira wrote: so grateful of "The project is a collaboration with OpenStreetMap (OSM)". I might have missed the announcement, can anyone pinpoint me the link of such collaboration being announced? Hope they find some spare time in the future to add the attribution on the maps on their website and apps. #priorities A quarta, 24/07/2019, 20:59, John Whelan <mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>> escreveu: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49091093 Did I miss a discussion on the subject or an announcement from Fredrick on this? I note "Martijn van Exel" is quoted. Many Thanks Cheerio John -- Sent from Postbox <https://www.postbox-inc.com> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 14:17, David Woolley wrote: On 19/07/2019 13:37, Tom Hughes wrote: I would say the logical consequence of that argument is that no road should be mapped as tertiary, as, unless taken from OS, it is a subjective judgement and can't be consistently verified. That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary and trunk to the official status of the road. You seem to be rejecting the original proposal. I was analysing the case where the original proposal is accepted, and therefore the official status must be ignored if it is not signposted. Well I'm not entirely sure what the true status is since the road hasn't been identified and OS OpenData seems to be being used as the source of truth which wouldn't be my first choice. Philip seemed to be saying that this was genuinely a white signed A road (or at least that OpenData says it is) and hence that it is a primary although he apparently prefers it to be tertiary. You then followed up by saying that the logical consequence of it being a primary (which I was assuming was correct) was that nothing was tertiary, which didn't seem to make much sense to me Perhaps if the road was identified it would be a more productive discussion... Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 12:55, David Woolley wrote: On 19/07/2019 12:36, Philip Barnes wrote: I cannot dispute this is legally a primary, OS Opendata shows it. I would say the logical consequence of that argument is that no road should be mapped as tertiary, as, unless taken from OS, it is a subjective judgement and can't be consistently verified. That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary and trunk to the official status of the road. Roads with no official status as A or B roads are then divided between tertiary, unclassified and residential on a more subjective basis. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database
Whether we want it is not really the issue. I believe the issue is the licensing, and until that is resolved what we may or may not want is irrelevant. Tom On 11/06/2019 10:11, Tony Shield wrote: Hi Looking at the demo I can't think of a reason why OSM would not want this data - I believe we do want this data. Questions I have - * Are the tags suitable for a global database? Can and should they be reused elsewhere in UK? or globally? Is there a need for specific prefixed TfL tags? * Are there clashes with other cycling data in London? What is a resolution strategy? * Will import and integration be performed by automatic processing? Usual OSM import rules? Clash detection and sanity checking? Regards Tony - TonyS999 On 10/06/2019 23:13, Martin Lucas-Smith - CycleStreets wrote: The demonstrator map showing this data from TfL now has an extensive set of filters for each feature type: https://tflcid.cyclestreets.net/ E.g. for cycle lane/track, you can now filter for segregated, shared, prority at sideroads, full/part time, mandatory, stepped track, etc. These filters match the schema definition at: https://tflcid.cyclestreets.net/TfL_CID_Schema.pdf There are also a lot more images loaded now. My general impression is that the data does seem very accurate. I would welcome more eyes on this, and thoughts generally on the use of this data in OSM. Hopefully the filtering will make this easier to find various kinds of infrastructure. I am about to circulate a suggested mapping of the TfL data to OSM equivalents, where equivalent tags exist, for comments. NB The new filtering controls have a couple of URL persistency bugs - I'll mop these up shortly. So please be aware of this if sending a link. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ On Fri, 10 May 2019, Martin Lucas-Smith - CycleStreets wrote: Transport for London (TfL) have created a new database of cycling infrastructure, containing 240,000 assets, covering all of Greater London. This groundbreaking database contains every cycle infrastructure asset within Greater London, including assets on and off-carriageway. The assets surveyed are: cycle parking; signals; signage; traffic calming measures; restricted points (e.g. steps); advanced stop lines; crossings; cycle lanes/tracks; and restricted routes (e.g. pedestrian only routes). TfL is keen to make this available to the OpenStreetMap community under a compatible open license, to ensure maximum use of the CID. TfL is also potentially willing to consider tool development to help facilitate sensitive merging in of this data. There is a new Wiki page, giving full details, at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database Demonstrator map: - A demonstrator map, for the purposes only of evaluation by the OSM community at this stage, has been created by CycleStreets. This demonstrator map contains only one of the 25 areas that have been surveyed. We are specifically seeking comments on data quality and usefulness of this data from the OSM community. Initial analysis by CycleStreets is that the data is of excellent quality, and very suitable for conflation into OSM, to increase both comprehensiveness and metadata quality. https://tflcid.cyclestreets.net/ (Use the controls on the right to change feature type.) Usage notes: The controls on the right of the map allow the different feature types to be selected. The OSM layer (available at zoom level 19+) also provides a live feed from the OSM API, to enable quick comparisons. The two photos of each asset are in the process of being supplied; those already available and cleared in GDPR terms are included in the popup. It is stressed that at this point, no permission is given for re-use of the data in any way, but TfL strongly intends to make this available in future. All 25 areas would be covered in the final data release, not merely the one shown currently in the demonstrator map. Feedback is very strongly encouraged, as soon as possible. What are people's thoughts? Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] HOT and the OSMF
On 26/03/2019 15:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Is there a formal connection between Hot Inc. and the OpenStreetMapFoundation? I just noticed hot.openstreetmap.org <http://hot.openstreetmap.org> gets redirected to Hot Inc. It was not really obvious from their homepage to understand that it is a Hot Inc. site and not (or is it?) an OSMF site. https://www.hotosm.org/ There is no formal connection that I know of. Do you know where I can find the criteria for projects and businesses to get a redirect from a osm.org <http://osm.org> subdomain? There are no such formal criteria. That redirect was setup many years and and it's highly unlikely we would do it now, at least other than with the direct approval of the board. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] London venues
Geovation is on Goswell Road now, not far from the old address: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3527722639 Tom On 14/03/2019 10:02, SK53 wrote: I don't think Geovation are at 1 Seckford Street anymore (Future Cities Catapult have taken over IIRC), which is a shame as Seckford Street is a really nice venue. It' still available for events, but I suspect with substantial costs. I don't think Geovation have moved very far away. I suspect Andy is right & tech spaces are the best bet. There may be a few churches/community centres in Central London who regularly rent rooms at (for London) modest prices: for instance, Westminster Friends Meeting House, but availability for a Saturday is likely t constrained. Many of these places now pretty much fund themselves by using heavily promoting their facilities for commercial events (Friends House on Euston Road charges around £500 for a room on a Saturday). Universities are another possibility but, even with a staff member as advocate, societies I've been involved in have found the bureaucracy involved far too unwieldy. Places like UCL which were relatively lax have had to tighten up a lot after it was found an (honorary) academic was hosting eugenics advocacy events. Jerry On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 09:16, Jez Nicholson <mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote: Bury the hatchet with an old rival at the Geovation Centre? On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:29 PM Andy Mabbett mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>> wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 23:14, Rob Nickerson mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote: > For the next OSM UK annual general meeting we thought we would try > London as a possible location. Does anyone know of good (and cheap) > venues that we can use? Newspeak House: https://www.nwspk.com/ Let me know if you'd like an introduction to the founder./ manager. Alternatively, you might ask one of the tech co.s in London (Google, Microsoft) to sponsor-in-kind by prviding a room. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Microsoft missive jammed in the system?
On 07/03/2019 13:33, Jez Nicholson wrote: I've had contact with Oisin from Microsoft whom I met at SoTM Milan. He has been trying to mail the list about "/Some dodgy streetnames in the Uk, and how the community would like to handle them/:" and it might need moderator approval to post. Could someone with moderator abilities take a look please? Done, but for future reference he will find it works a lot better if he subscribes to the list first... Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing day replicate
On 09/02/2019 11:47, mmd wrote: For some strange reason, the gz file claims to be from "FAT filesystem", and most likely osmosis can't figure out that the file contents are in UTF-8. They all say that - presumably it's just what the Java zlib implementation puts in the header. Once I decompress and re-compress the file on Linux, osmosis seems to be just fine with said file: I've recompressed the copy on the server now... Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Strang (non-)rendering issue
On 04/02/2019 10:10, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2019-01-30 17:45, Tom Hughes wrote: On 30/01/2019 16:22, Maarten Deen wrote: Are there different rendering servers for those regions? I know that there are different tileservers, but I didn't know the rendering was also different. Is that not really inefficient to have two servers render the same tiles? There are currently five render servers. The changes still don't show up. Also in another area [1] I've made changes (Kirchstraße is not pedestrian and added to memorials) that don't show up. Also someone on the dutch mailing list complained about changes not showing up. Is the renderer that caters for the Netherlands working ok? It is, like all the other renderers, fully up to date. It is however very busy due to the recent style change so it currently unable to perform non-urgent renders for most of the day. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Strang (non-)rendering issue
On 30/01/2019 16:22, Maarten Deen wrote: Are there different rendering servers for those regions? I know that there are different tileservers, but I didn't know the rendering was also different. Is that not really inefficient to have two servers render the same tiles? There are currently five render servers. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns
On 30/01/2019 15:08, Gregory Marler wrote: A small amount of my time has been funded by Open Cage Data to check towns in the UK. Ideally it should be possible to get a town as both a node and a relation. The fundamental problem with this, as Jerry has just said, is that many towns in the UK have no defined boundary. Even where there is an administrative entity there is no guarantee that it's boundary equates to what most people would view as the boundary of the town - it may under or overstate things. Equally there is no clear way of even determining what is, or is not, a town. Just a variety of rules-of-thumb... This has all been discussed a number of times before ;-) If you want a challenge look at my local area - it's unparished so the smallest administrative unit is the district council: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2677978 Looking at the builtup area on the right hand side along the Lea Valley how many places are there, what are their boundaries, and what type is each of them ;-) Hilariously in doing that I've just noticed a town (well that's what wikipedia says it is anyway) that is completely missing from OpenStreetMap... Waltham Cross should be somewhere below Cheshunt and west of Waltham Abbey. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK
Companies House don't validate anything. That much is well known. What Richard was saying was that if you use their web form to submit then it autocompletes using PAF but most older entries will have been submitted on paper with no such normalisation. Tom On 29/01/2019 00:00, Will Phillips wrote: Sorry for misquoting! I've got no idea how I managed to do that. Regarding Registered Companies data, there's a great deal of variation in the formatting of the addresses included, as well as plenty of misspellings, so my impression is most of the addresses are unvalidated. I suspect validation has started quite recently. I take on board that there are strong feelings regarding post towns. I slightly regret mentioning it now, because I considered the more important point of my original message to be the need for an agreed tag for adding localities. Some mappers do seem to want to add both locality and city details and it would be good to have a more agreed way to do this, which doesn't use addr:place. Cheers, Will On 28/01/2019 22:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: I'm not quite sure what you've done with the quoting but you've attributed me as writing your reply, which evidently I didn't. :) Will Phillips wrote: I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be becoming less important, but when most people are asked for their address, they will give their address as defined by Royal Mail. Looking at the Companies House Registered Companies data for Charlbury, I find 235 addresses of which 170 include Chipping Norton. I find Registered Companies data useful because the addresses appear unvalidated and therefore show addresses as people actually enter them. No-one in Charlbury describes themselves as living in Chipping Norton. Honestly, no-one. It's a separate town. Companies House data for my company shows a registered address of 11 Market Street, Charlbury, Chipping Norton. That is not because I think I live in Chipping Norton. That is because, when you register a company, the Companies House autocomplete thing takes your postcode and fills in the Royal Mail post-town and other details from PAF. (TBH, I'm not entirely convinced post towns help Royal Mail in any case, given the amount of mail mistakenly delivered to us that is actually meant for Mr G--- at 11 Market Street, Chipping Norton...) Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK
On 28/01/2019 15:06, Richard Fairhurst wrote: The notion that I should tag addresses in Charlbury with "addr:city=Chipping Norton", a town 6 miles away, just because one private delivery operator[1] uses Chipping Norton as an optional part of their addressing is... one of the more outlandish ideas I've heard in OSM tagging circles, and that's saying a lot. To be fair "addr:city=Chipping Norton" would be outlandish even for an address *in* Chipping Norton... Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS National Grid References
On 22/01/2019 16:20, Brian Prangle wrote: Are these covered by copyright? I've found conflicting opinions: The issue is not a grid ref itself as such, but the data tables that are necessary to do a fully accurate conversion between OSGB and WG84 (or any other coordinate system). There is a simplified algorithmic transformation but a fully accurate conversion requires the OSTN02 data. I'm not sure what the current status is but they certainly used to claim various IP rights over it. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering Problems
On 18/01/2019 09:49, Brian Prangle wrote: Has anyone else noticed problems with edits failing to render?. Stuff I did 2 days ago still not showing up Replication had stalled on one of the render servers - it is catching up now but will take a few hours to get everything. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] account disabled due to bounces
On 14/01/2019 16:31, Andy Allan wrote: 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 No there aren't because our mailman is too old and we can't upgrade that machine because of the disaster area that is OSQA. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] account disabled due to bounces
Not really, it's gmail obeying the insane instructions (via DMARC etc) of other ISPs like Yahoo. See the five hundred previous times when I have explained it in detail. Tom On 14/01/2019 10:03, Tony Shield wrote: Me Too. On Sunday night. I assume its Gmail. Looking on internet its the GMail server 'bouncing' traffic, this is almost certainly a GMail setting which causes the bounce which causes the OSM mail program to disconnect 'bounced' e-mail addresses. Cheers Tony On 14/01/2019 09:50, Chris Fleming wrote: Yup same here. Although I had assumed that it was because I forward my mail to gmail. Cheers Chris On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 09:16 Dan S <mailto:danstowell%2b...@gmail.com>> wrote: It happened to me too today, FWIW. Best Dan Op ma 14 jan. 2019 om 09:10 schreef Jez Nicholson mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>>: > > 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? > > Regards, > Jez > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents
DO NOT USE THIS. You need to read the license properly, and especially the linked document with "third party conditions" from OS that has all sorts of unacceptable restrictions: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inspire-index-polygons-spatial-data#conditions-of-use https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/about/governance/policies/inspire-index-polygons-licensing-terms.html I imagine the upcoming hopefully properly free data will basically be the same though. Tom On 09/01/2019 11:06, Andy Robinson wrote: As a follow-up, has anyone looked at the OGL licenced INSPIRE Land Registry index polygons? https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/download-inspire-index-polygons Data is in GML format. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] Sent: 09 January 2019 10:56 To: 'David Woolley'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Property extents On Wed 09/01/2019 10:35 David Woolley wrote: Actually, that seems more valuable to OSM than the building outlines as it is much more difficult to accurately recover from aerial imagery and ground surveys can normally only see front yards. Agreed, though I wonder whether this will have any correlation with Land Registry. I'm guessing .gov isn’t that joined up. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint
On 11/12/2018 13:22, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote: I would like to point out that in Ukraine displaying a map without Crimea is illegal, article 110, part 1, of the Penal code. It involves from 3 to 5 years of imprisonment [1]. So the OSM map without Crimea is becoming potentially unusable for the community in Ukraine. The same is true in India for the various borders, including that with China. It's also true in China for the border with India. Unsurprisingly there is no one rendering that is legal on both sides of the border. None of which has stopped us using our current rule for that border. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
On 10/12/2018 16:55, Martijn van Exel wrote: On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea. The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to further remain in effect. The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing basis. A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks. With respect that doesn't make much sense. Either you have a rationale for the decision, in which case you should state it, or you don't and just want to placate a vocal community. At the moment it sounds like you've decided what result you want and now you're going to desperately cast around for a way to rationalise that decision in the eventual statement. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Guildford Blackwell Farm redevelopment
On 21/11/2018 12:09, Andy Townsend wrote: Is their anyone in the Guildford area who can verify these edits by a new user please? They look like a part of the town's planned expansion, but I'm assuming Adam got a bit ahead of himself. He's also overlapped roads onto the railway. I've put in a changeset message to him. http://osmlab.github.io/changeset-map/#63800817 Its changesets 1 and 2 by a new mapper. If it's "likely not correct" then I'd suggest reverting now as doing that cleanly will get harder as time goes on (it's already 29 days ago). I solicited some local intelligence: https://twitter.com/jonobennett/status/1065232930883145728 Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Durham City Congestion Charge
On 15/11/2018 19:22, Jubal Harpster wrote: Our team was modelling the London congestion charge zone as identified by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London_Congestion_Charge and specifically this relation <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3045928#map=13/51.5090/-0.1196>. We were wondering if there has been any attempt to edit the Durham congestion zone. We can’t find any definitive maps of the zone online so can’t reliably determine what the extent of the zone might be. Does anybody on this list know? It's really just a toll on a specific piece of road, and that is marked: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25365715 Because that is the only vehicular access to the area it has the effect of controlling traffic in the whole area. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Spam GPS traces
No that's the effect of us (correctly) anonymising the order of points in private and public traces. Potlatch has been fixed to handle it but JOSM hasn't (yet). See previous talk thread for more. Tom On 14/11/2018 17:33, Paul Berry wrote: It could be obfuscated Strava logs or something like that. Would explain the deliberate lack of timestamps and a high use of footpaths/towpaths (for those out running) rather than roads. Regards, /Paul/ On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 17:11, Silent Spike <mailto:silentspike...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi folks, I'm editing this area (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/57.17591/-2.12320) in JOSM and the GPS data in the area contains some traces uploaded which look like spam (loads of horizontal lines which seem to form the shape of the river and other features). I'm unsure of the extent of the data, but it looks as though they are all marked as recorded from 01/01/70 01:00 - 01:00. Is there somewhere to report this so that they can be removed? I had a look around the wiki and found the data working group, but it's not clear whether they deal with GPS traces and I couldn't find anywhere that specifically discusses them except a figure caption on the page for vandalism. Here's a screenshot from JOSM <https://i.imgur.com/JjRd7Zz.jpg> since private traces aren't visible on the website ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] problem with the public GPX lines in my JOSM
On 12/11/2018 10:26, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote: To be visible on the OSM map "Public GPS Traces" layer, the GPX should be published as "Public". This layer is useful for people, who, for instance, do hiking in wilderness. Because sometimes a path is not mapped yet, but a GPX trace shows that someone could actually walk there. And if there are several traces, it means that there is probably a path. It would be a good idea if these public GPX traces were shown also as a line in JOSM. If you read the description you will see "public" just means the points are public but the ordering it not. The "trackable" level extends that to include ordering. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] problem with the public GPX lines in my JOSM
On 12/11/2018 09:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I would expect this to come from some privacy setting? Maybe you are not sharing timestamps in the trace settings on osm.org <http://osm.org>? Yes a bug was discovered last week which meant that traces that were marked as "private" or "public" which are not meant to be ordered were in fact being returned in order and several editors were taking advantage of that. The bug was fixed and as a result data from those traces is displaying in a confusing way in JOSM and (until a few hours ago) in Potlatch 2. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes
On 09/11/2018 11:44, David Woolley wrote: On 09/11/18 11:34, David Woolley wrote: if you are only dealing with centroids, I think many have been mapped already, <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=uk_postcode_centroid> indicates that at least 2500 have been mapped. Yes, but it's a stupid idea, so please don't... Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes
On 09/11/2018 09:09, Phoenix830 wrote: I want to add postcodes but I am aware of issues with this being copyrighted material. Add them to what exactly? I have come across https://postcodes.io which states it is from open sources. I have contacted them here https://ideal-postcodes-support.herokuapp.com/channel/support . They have confirmed that this data is released under the Open Government Licence http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ . That data set only gives a centroid for each post code though, it doesn't tell you what postcode a particular building has. I am not bulk adding these (I do not have the technical knowledge or time) I am just adding postcodes to properties as I add them. So how are you working out which postcode to use? Sometimes it is fairly obvious from the centroid location but it often isn't. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline confusion
On 03/11/2018 15:50, Colin Smale wrote: The coastline ways with source=PGS are really old and inaccurate. I am not sure of their exact provenance but I think they were traced from some primitive aerial imagery. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:source%3DPGS Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] weird "excessive bounces" warnings from the list
On 02/10/2018 04:21, Paul Johnson wrote: Only if the sender is sending from a server other than their normal mail server, something readily detectable in the headers. Google seems to use the same strategy as I did running my own mail server for about 12 years before moving to gsuite, which is, hey, not totally standards-compliant, since it'll go through DATA before deciding whether or not to accept or reject, but very workable to give the sender some idea what happened. Once it has gone through the list it appears to be being sent from our mail server. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] weird "excessive bounces" warnings from the list
On 01/10/2018 19:54, Richard wrote: The messages go straight into a dedicated gmail inbox without any filters. As far as I know gmail will only ever reject messages that contain what looks to it like executable programs - attached files (*.exe, *.com, *.bat) It also rejects email from a sender whose SPF record tells it to - that is a problem when mail is forwarded by a mailing list because it no longer appears to come from a "valid" address for the sender so services like gmail which believe SPF records with a "hard reject" flag will reject the email, causing us to see a bounce. So the real problem is subscribers to the list using services like yahoo mail which ignore the reality of how email works and think they can specify exactly where yahoo.com email should appear to come form. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.13.0
Nothing to do with me, that's the carto team. Tom On 17/08/18 18:49, Dave F wrote: Thanks for letting us know. Wasted half an hour checking it wasn't just me & providing examples. How about not posting until it's been deployed in future? DaveF On 17/08/2018 18:35, Tom Hughes wrote: That version was never actually deployed because we were busy doing upgrades to the rendering stack. The 4.14.0 has just been pushed and should go live over the weekend. Tom On 17/08/18 18:25, Dave F wrote: Hi Are any of these icons displaying? For me, charity & houseware are still dots & casino is only rendering the name. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418385072#map=19/51.49491/-0.13207 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/349935002#map=19/51.51279/-0.13030 Casino as node doesn't display icon or name: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4868309016 I've zoomed in to z19 & refreshed my browser's cache. Cheers DaveF On 23/07/2018 15:16, Daniel Koć wrote: Dear all, Today, v4.13.0 of the OpenStreetMap Carto stylesheet (the default stylesheet on the OSM website) has been released. Once changes are deployed on the openstreetmap.org it will take couple of days before all tiles show the new rendering. Changes include: - Increased shield distances on roads - Added icon for shop=ticket - Added icon for shop=houseware - Added icon for shop=charity - Added icon for shop=second_hand - Added icon for shop=interior_decoration - Added icon for amenity=bureau_de_change - Added icon for amenity=casino - Added icon for amenity=boat_rental - Updated shop=department_store icon - Small documentation and code fixes Thanks to all the contributors for this release. For a full list of commits, see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/compare/v4.12.0...v4.13.0 As always, we welcome any bug reports at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.13.0
That version was never actually deployed because we were busy doing upgrades to the rendering stack. The 4.14.0 has just been pushed and should go live over the weekend. Tom On 17/08/18 18:25, Dave F wrote: Hi Are any of these icons displaying? For me, charity & houseware are still dots & casino is only rendering the name. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418385072#map=19/51.49491/-0.13207 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/349935002#map=19/51.51279/-0.13030 Casino as node doesn't display icon or name: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4868309016 I've zoomed in to z19 & refreshed my browser's cache. Cheers DaveF On 23/07/2018 15:16, Daniel Koć wrote: Dear all, Today, v4.13.0 of the OpenStreetMap Carto stylesheet (the default stylesheet on the OSM website) has been released. Once changes are deployed on the openstreetmap.org it will take couple of days before all tiles show the new rendering. Changes include: - Increased shield distances on roads - Added icon for shop=ticket - Added icon for shop=houseware - Added icon for shop=charity - Added icon for shop=second_hand - Added icon for shop=interior_decoration - Added icon for amenity=bureau_de_change - Added icon for amenity=casino - Added icon for amenity=boat_rental - Updated shop=department_store icon - Small documentation and code fixes Thanks to all the contributors for this release. For a full list of commits, see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/compare/v4.12.0...v4.13.0 As always, we welcome any bug reports at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: 2 Great Lakes missing
You should see the changes at z13+ but z0-12 are only rendered once a month or when the style changes. Tom On 13/08/18 12:36, SelfishSeahorse wrote: Apparently I sent the message only to James ... So here it is for the rest of you. eanwhile the lakes are rendered): -- Forwarded message - Hi There were quite a few problems with these multipolygons (overlapping and unclosed ways, no role, inner ways belonging to wrong multipolygon), which i've just fixed: <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61523643> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61527345> The multipolygons should be okay now – at least JOSM and i couldn't find any more problems. :-) However they still don't render ... Could it be that this is has to do with these server issues: <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-August/081101.html>? Regards Markus On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 02:25, James wrote: someone probably broke them again... happens quite often sadly... On Thu., Aug. 9, 2018, 9:05 p.m. Daniel Koć, wrote: Hi, Is anybody aware what happened to Lake Superior and Lake Huron? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4039486 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1205151 They were changed 20 and 3 days ago, respectively, and they stopped being rendered both on default and on humanitarian map. -- "My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Problem on tiles update
Rendering is not paused actually. Two of the servers are not currently marking tiles as dirty when changes are made to the data but they are still rendering fine. A fix is expected to de deployed shortly. Tom On 07/08/18 19:55, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote: It looks like there is an issue with rendering in France: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Platform_Status "rendering paused on some servers due to a bug in tile expiry (resolution pending)" (Roubaix, FR) brgds O. On 07.08.18 21:47, Jérôme Seigneuret wrote: Hi, I have update multiple object on Lunel, France but I can't see my modification on openstreetmap.org <http://openstreetmap.org>. Delay to refresh features have been changed? Or there is problem on tiles refreshing. Jérôme ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton
On 26/07/18 13:32, Paul Berry wrote: I can't help but think this changeset is misguided for a number of reasons. However I'm nowhere near Brighton so not really in a position to verify other than from memory and some armchair detective work. To wit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59687846 So, two ways: "Bartholomews" and "Avenue" or just one: "Bartholomews Avenue"? From what I can tell, "Bartholomews Avenue" is actually a mapping error from some 20th Century editions of printed maps (not 19th as the user claims), which *hasn't* been carried through to any other sources. I don't see why we should repeat that mistake. Both the 1880s 1:2500 and the 1950s 1:2500 have the same issue that the "Avenue" is very separate from "Bartholomws" and the side roads round the town hall don't have the "Avenue" at all: https://maps.compton.nu/view#18/50.82039/-0.13968/os2500 https://maps.compton.nu/view#18/50.82039/-0.13968/os1250 Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] API a lot slower?
On 18/07/18 18:15, Maarten Deen wrote: Nothing special really, I was just downloading the data from a lot of relations sequentially in JOSM. I downloaded relation 1360154 with its members which are bus master_relations that then also load the bus relations but without their contents, and then I selected all the bus relations and downloaded the members (in JOSM: select all relations and do "download members"). From the Java console: 2018-07-18 19:13:55.553 INFO: GET https://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/7449166/full -> 200 and that for about 320 relations. Thanks. That's a call handled by cgimap so this is likely related to the fact that there is currently increased latency between the application server and the database for those calls. There is a pending pull request for cgimap that may help. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] API a lot slower?
On 17/07/18 10:42, Maarten Deen wrote: Is it just me or just today or is the API a lot slower after the move on sunday? I'm downloading a number of busrelations and it takes a lot longer than before the weekend. I know the cause of this has been explained already but I'd be interested to know exactly which API call you are referring to here as it may be that (long term at least) there is something here which should be fixed but it rather depends if it is a call being handled by rails or one being handled by cgimap. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Nominatim on the main page
On 18/02/18 18:40, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu <mailto:t...@compton.nu>> wrote: On 18/02/18 18:05, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Grant Slater <openstreet...@firefishy.com <mailto:openstreet...@firefishy.com> <mailto:openstreet...@firefishy.com <mailto:openstreet...@firefishy.com>>> wrote: How about someone in the community organises a Beauty Parade / Cross Comparison of different open OpenStreetMap GeoCoders? How about search against multiple geocoders instead of just Nominatim and GeoNames? We have all the infrastructure to do that if you have suggestions about other geocoders we could use. Not having tried it myself, I have heard positive things on Reddit and Telegram about Photon <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Photon>. Sorry I probably wasn't very clear. I meant an actual service we could direct queries to, not just come code. I mean we probably could come up with hardware to run something else but it would need somebody prepared to do the work of running it. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Nominatim on the main page
On 18/02/18 18:05, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Grant Slater <openstreet...@firefishy.com <mailto:openstreet...@firefishy.com>> wrote: How about someone in the community organises a Beauty Parade / Cross Comparison of different open OpenStreetMap GeoCoders? How about search against multiple geocoders instead of just Nominatim and GeoNames? We have all the infrastructure to do that if you have suggestions about other geocoders we could use. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Nominatim on the main page
On 18/02/18 18:04, Paul Johnson wrote: OK, so what can we do about this problem? For example, go to Jenks, Oklahoma. Search for Walmart. First result isn't the Walmart Neighborhood Market across the street from the Riverside Market shopping center. It's not even the Walmart Supercenter across from Oral Roberts University. Or even the Walmart Neighborhood Market further from downtown Jenks, but still in Jenks, over by Haddington Heights. The results instead are in Sunset Harbor, Florida; Saint Louis, Missouri; Tallahassee, Florida, El Paso, Texas; and Fairbanks, Alaska. I get that if you get specific and actually type "Walmart jenks" in, you get the one in Haddington Heights, and then the one in Glenpool, Oklahoma (slightly odd for that one, but not entirely unreasonable). But this isn't what most people are going to do. I also get that the homepage isn't /meant/ to be used as the product itself, just a demonstration, but we really should be putting our best foot forward there. I can't comment about how the algorithm works because I don't know anything about it. I'm just saying that we do tell it the viewbox Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Nominatim on the main page
On 18/02/18 17:45, Tom Hughes wrote: On 18/02/18 17:34, Paul Johnson wrote: On the OSM homepage, can we use the visible area (or maybe that plus an exploded offset to a larger surrounding bounds) as a bonding box to be passed to Nominatim for some context when searching? This animation really drives the problem home. We already do exactly that. Sarah can clarify the details but we pass the bounding box to Nominatim and I believe it expands that by a factor of two and then prefers any results in that area over those further afield. Incidentally if you use https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ you can experiment with the affect of the viewbox parameter that we pass by checking and unchecking the "apply viewbox" checkbox beside the search button and zooming moving the map to choose a box. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Nominatim on the main page
On 18/02/18 17:34, Paul Johnson wrote: On the OSM homepage, can we use the visible area (or maybe that plus an exploded offset to a larger surrounding bounds) as a bonding box to be passed to Nominatim for some context when searching? This animation really drives the problem home. We already do exactly that. Sarah can clarify the details but we pass the bounding box to Nominatim and I believe it expands that by a factor of two and then prefers any results in that area over those further afield. Here's the relevant code: https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/master/app/controllers/geocoder_controller.rb#L115 Which encodes the bounds as the viewbox parameter which is then passed through when calling Nominatim. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] iD news - v2.6.0 lots of new features...
I wouldn't say unit is common at all in the UK to be honest. It's only really used for commercial units on industrial estates and things - you wouldn't normally see it in residential addresses like you do in many countries. Tom On 22/01/18 21:24, Bryan Housel wrote: Yes this is an interesting issue.. A lot of people were pretty upset when the `addr:unit` field started appearing in their address field. Field was added here: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/4235 At the time it seemed pretty harmless. (I locked discussion on that issue because it was getting too noisy - we really don’t need to discuss how address work in all parts of the world) I mostly take a pretty hands-off approach to this field - I’d like for people to be able to map addresses however they want to in their country, and I don’t spend a lot of time tracking down what addresses look like around the world, so we rely on local contributors to update the source code with pull requests. I think there are several things going on here: 1. Some places really don’t have a concept of `addr:unit` - there are just no addresses split up by floor, apartment, etc. (The best thing to do is to remove the field) 2. Some places do have this concept, but they don’t call it `unit`, so seeing the word “unit” in the UI is confusing (The best thing to do is probably rename the field, maybe “Apt/Floor/Unit” or something else?) 3. Some places do have this concept, but it is so rare that people don’t want to see it in the UI (The best thing to do is - whatever local mappers want. Still, “rare” does not mean “useless".) 4. Some places do not have a dedicated address format, so they see the “default” format which looks kind of European and had `addr:unit` added to it recently (I removed the field from the “default” format, since opinions on this field are so mixed) Thanks, Bryan On Jan 22, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Steve Doerr <doerr.step...@gmail.com <mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com>> wrote: From the change log: 'remove addr:unit field for gb, ie, si, tr'. I wonder why (re gb). Unit is quite a common element in UK addresses, isn't it? Steve Sent from my iPhone I hope everyone takes a look at the changelog. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Website Data
On 21/12/17 09:15, Ilya Zverev wrote: Frederik and Tom, please explain what has been wrong with the last import, and why osm_conflate + cf_audit tools used for it (conflation + community validation) still do not attain the required quality for OSM contributions? I wasn't commenting on any particular import just on the general principles. I was merely trying to point out that the view that people often have of "official" data as somehow perfect is often far from the truth. I've heard enough real world stories of databases inside companies to know just how far from reality it can be. People often imagine these things as perfectly curated and fully normalised and standardised when the reality is often that they're maintained as an excel spreadsheet by this weeks intern. How would you build a process for importing large batches of business chains? Can I improve something in my tools, or should I build something better from scratch? Well I probably wouldn't because it doesn't especially interest me and I have no commercial reason for wanting to do so. Plus I know that it's an extremely hard problem. It's quite true that an import may well be better than nothing where things haven't been mapped or aren't being actively maintained, but it's equally true that an import that includes updating existing objects may sometimes make things worse, and I don't know how you can tell when you are making an object worse. That's what makes it so hard. That said I will certainly agree that what you're doing is far better than what many companies trying to get their clients locations into OSM have done in the past. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] no osmf-talk link at listinfo
I don't think the archives being semi-visible is deliberate, but it's
not my decision.
I can't remember now if I created it but I suspect I did and I probably
created it as hidden because the idea was that people would be added and
removed automatically as they joined and left OSMF and having it listed
would just cause confusion as people tried to join it.
The archives could be made private but it's a bit of a pain because then
the list members have to login to access them.
Tom
On 20/12/17 00:20, joost schouppe wrote:
Tom,
It is meant to be readable for non-members, right? So what exactly has
the fact you can't post as a non-OSMF member to do with being or not
being listed on listinfo?
Op 20 dec. 2017 12:57 a.m. schreef "Tom Hughes" <t...@compton.nu
<mailto:t...@compton.nu>>:
On 19/12/17 22:51, Sérgio V. wrote:
but I can't find the link to osmf-talk in the listinfo.
I'm not sure why it wasn't listed on that page, but there
is a link to
the OSMF-talk archives from the Wiki
Ok, thank you both. I've found it, as I've quoted it.
But it's actually not easy to find like the others are, just
by the listinfo.
Long time it took to me to realise OSMF-talk exists. Ok, perhaps
I'm not that wiki expert.
But would it be nice to have it listed in listinfo? Like all the
other mailing lists are? Easy to find, for everyone.
Then probably more OSMers could read it; also perhaps
considering join it.
Or, at least, why isn't it listed in listinfo?
As I explained yesterday it is a private list open only to OSMF members.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu <mailto:t...@compton.nu>)
http://compton.nu/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] no osmf-talk link at listinfo
On 19/12/17 22:51, Sérgio V. wrote: but I can't find the link to osmf-talk in the listinfo. I'm not sure why it wasn't listed on that page, but there is a link to the OSMF-talk archives from the Wiki Ok, thank you both. I've found it, as I've quoted it. But it's actually not easy to find like the others are, just by the listinfo. Long time it took to me to realise OSMF-talk exists. Ok, perhaps I'm not that wiki expert. But would it be nice to have it listed in listinfo? Like all the other mailing lists are? Easy to find, for everyone. Then probably more OSMers could read it; also perhaps considering join it. Or, at least, why isn't it listed in listinfo? As I explained yesterday it is a private list open only to OSMF members. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Website Data
On 19/12/17 14:46, Brian Prangle wrote: For those who decry the approach of using third party data, preferring instead the personally surveyed approach, I echo Ilya's and Warin's sentiments: Lloyds TSB demerged in 2013 and we still have 200 instances of Lloyds TSB, TA Centres became Army Reserve Centres at about the same time and we still have about 40 instances of TA Centre, Shell purchased Total filling stations in 2012, and during the recent validation exercise on Shell data, name=Total was the commonest error. What about the the wholesale closure and transfer of Post Offices or the planned closure of thousands of BT phone boxes? We don't have the number of motivated mappers to do this, and expecting evrything to be ground surveyed might be a reason why we have such a high attrition rate; so we should emulate the rest of society and use automated IT methods to assist us and make our lives easier where appropriate. OSM is a balance between IT imported data/automated edits and human ground surveys. Which is exactly what everybody said about OSM when it started - that it couldn't possibly work and there'd never be enough people. Pretty sure we proved them wrong. The fundamental problem of imports that conflate with existing data is that you have way of knowing whether or not you are actually improving anything - you are making an assumption that an "official" source will be up to date and accurate but in the real world they are often anything but. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] no osmf-talk link at listinfo
On 18/12/17 19:49, Sérgio V. wrote: please, one question: Why is the link to https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/ not directly accessible by the https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo? I've read inhttp://www.weeklyosm.eu <http://www.weeklyosm.eu/> about some interesting discussions there, but I can't find the link to osmf-talk in the listinfo. It's a list for OSMF members that they are subscribed to when they join and it's open for public subscription. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Website Data
On 18/12/17 13:15, paulmgill...@gmail.com wrote:
Reading all the talk of Walmart and Shell imports recently got me to wondering
why we can't be doing more of this kind of thing.
If store data can be pulled from directly from a company's public facing
website ('store finder' page) is there any reason we can't do such imports
without discussion with/permission from the company concerned?
Just a small thing called copyright and/or database right.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Mailing list security
On 25/11/17 16:45, Colin Smale wrote: On 2017-11-25 17:31, Tom Hughes wrote: On 25/11/17 15:37, Colin Smale wrote: On 25 November 2017 16:04:45 CET, "Éric Gillet" <gill3t.3ric+...@gmail.com <mailto:gill3t.3ric+...@gmail.com>> wrote: Another point : This password is not secure, but what the worst that could happen with it ? As long as one don't reuse it on other applications (as warned during registration), the only action an attacker could do would be to unsubscribe you. Not really catastrophic ...until it is hacked and thousands of passwords are stolen. If even one of those leads to something serious, I am not sure that saying "I told you so 10 years ago when you signed up" will be enough to absolve the operators of liability. I will open a ticket as suggested. There's really not much point - we will upgrade as and when the packages in Ubuntu are upgraded. We're not going to be installing from source. In that case I won't bother. I can't help thinking: what a sorry state of affairs. When you say "we", who are you referring to exactly Tom? The system administrators that are responsible for running it. I would also add that most sites are sticking with mailman 2 for now which is likely why the distros haven't upgraded. The only site I know of that uses mailman 3 is Fedora and from my experience of it I would say it's still a bit rough around the edges for now. Everybody knows the whole password thing with mailman 2 is not ideal and is basically a major pain but there are no easy solutions to it. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mailing list security
On 25/11/17 15:37, Colin Smale wrote: On 25 November 2017 16:04:45 CET, "Éric Gillet" <gill3t.3ric+...@gmail.com> wrote: Another point : This password is not secure, but what the worst that could happen with it ? As long as one don't reuse it on other applications (as warned during registration), the only action an attacker could do would be to unsubscribe you. Not really catastrophic ...until it is hacked and thousands of passwords are stolen. If even one of those leads to something serious, I am not sure that saying "I told you so 10 years ago when you signed up" will be enough to absolve the operators of liability. I will open a ticket as suggested. There's really not much point - we will upgrade as and when the packages in Ubuntu are upgraded. We're not going to be installing from source. Upgrading to mailman 3 is a massive job anyway - it's basically a completely different piece of software. Or rather it's now about five separate pieces of software that you have to install and connect up. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes
On 19/10/17 13:00, Steven Horner wrote: UK postcodes generally cover an area/polygon. How big that area is appears to come down to how much mail that area is likely to receive, I think that's how its described on Wikipedia. So it could cover one building, a street or a huge area if rural. Ordnance Survey sell CodePoint Polygons which is the polygons each postcode covers. Obviously we can't use that. No, that really isn't true. There is no defined area or polygon for a post code. Post codes are defined as a list of delivery points. Any polygon you see for a postcode has been invented by using some algorithm to draw a polygon that happens to encapsulate all those delivery points. Depending on the algorithm that may or may allow for overlapping polygons and in general you may get different answer depending on the details of the algorithm used. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Downloading Version 3 of all bus stops in a country
On 26/09/17 11:41, Safwat Halaby wrote: On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 11:31 +0200, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi, Am 2017-09-26 um 09:19 schrieb SwiftFast: I need to download all version 3 bus stops in a country which has about 30,000 bus stops. Version 3 exists since a 2012 import. What's the recommended way to accomplish this? I have two ways in mind. Version 3 of what? Best regards Version 3 of all Israeli bus stops that have "source=israel_gtfs_v1". See this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1802982884/history and look at "version #3". But how do you know it's version 3 you want for every one? It sounds like you're making an assumption that all these objects have only been edited in a particular way by some automated process and that nobody has ever touched one by hand and hence added an extra version. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Queensferry Crossing
On 30/08/17 10:26, Tom Hughes wrote: As best I can tell from wikipedia the new bridge is the M90 and under motorway conditions with the old bridge presumably expected to carry non-motorway traffic as the A9000. So from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-41086779 it seems it is non-motorway for now but will become a motorway once the old bridge has been "adapted for public transport". Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Queensferry Crossing
On 30/08/17 09:46, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On OSM, the bridge is mostly there, but some of the link roads at the north end are still marked as highway=construction. Does anyone have enough local knowledge to be able to fix these up correctly? There's a chance for a bit of publicity if OSM is the only mapping provider to have the bridge in place on the day it opens. There seems to be come confusion over status as well - much of it has a ref of M90 but is highway=trunk while the link road to the south has a ref of A90 instead. Meanwhile the old bridge was changed from A90 to A9000 last night but is still part of a relation labelled A90 which may be what is causing the labelling to flip back and forth or that might just be old tiles. As best I can tell from wikipedia the new bridge is the M90 and under motorway conditions with the old bridge presumably expected to carry non-motorway traffic as the A9000. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Thanks for cooperation to SOTM 2017
On 23/08/17 17:43, jun meguro wrote: This conference is 10th anniversary conference, and also this is first "2nd time" conference in 1 country. Actually both Manchester and Birmingham were in the same country ;-) Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Looking for "primary language" map
On 11/04/17 07:08, Tom Hughes wrote: On 11/04/17 00:35, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: Does anyone know of an open source language map - basically a set of geoshapes with the corresponding language code? Country boundaries are not needed - e.g. Canada and USA would be English with the exception of French for Montreal area. This is needed to guesstimate what language the "name" tag is in. There's some data in CLDR for mapping countries/regions to default languages I think, which you could combine with shapes from OSM. Looks like the CLDR data is only country level currently: http://www.unicode.org/cldr/charts/latest/supplemental/territory_language_information.html with the raw XML here: http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/common/supplemental/supplementalData.xml You could identify countries that might need further investigation though by looking for ones with multiple official languages and/or a low percentage of users of the top language. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Looking for "primary language" map
On 11/04/17 00:35, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: Does anyone know of an open source language map - basically a set of geoshapes with the corresponding language code? Country boundaries are not needed - e.g. Canada and USA would be English with the exception of French for Montreal area. This is needed to guesstimate what language the "name" tag is in. There's some data in CLDR for mapping countries/regions to default languages I think, which you could combine with shapes from OSM. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spam reporting
On 23/02/17 10:43, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2017-02-23 11:23, Tom Hughes wrote: On 23/02/17 09:48, Jochen Topf wrote: Every larger system that allows user contributions has a "report this as spam" button. If a few people click on that, an admin reviews and handles this. Sounds like an obvious solution that could also work for OSM. Not being able to report problems is frustrating to users. The whole question of who decides what is spam and what isn't is a bit besides the point here, isn't it? Obviously somebody is already handling this as you mention and it works. But what would help is a nice button. Yes, yet strangely nobody seems to want to finish off the work to implement it. Note that the button is the easy bit really, there is much more work behind that to implement some sort of moderation queue where the information can be stored and presented to moderators. Put them as nodes in the OSM database ;) More seriously: Trac? Dear god, no. Look most of the code is already written, somebody just needs to finish it off! Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spam reporting
On 23/02/17 09:48, Jochen Topf wrote: Every larger system that allows user contributions has a "report this as spam" button. If a few people click on that, an admin reviews and handles this. Sounds like an obvious solution that could also work for OSM. Not being able to report problems is frustrating to users. The whole question of who decides what is spam and what isn't is a bit besides the point here, isn't it? Obviously somebody is already handling this as you mention and it works. But what would help is a nice button. Yes, yet strangely nobody seems to want to finish off the work to implement it. Note that the button is the easy bit really, there is much more work behind that to implement some sort of moderation queue where the information can be stored and presented to moderators. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SOTM EU
On 31/01/17 12:08, Martijn van Exel wrote: Here I thought I was asking a simple question. Anyone who actually knows if there are plans for a followup for http://stateofthemap.eu/ ? You're asking a simple question of an undefined group of people. I would suggest that the lack of an answer is equivalent to the answer being negative - any one person could answer positively but nobody can answer negatively without knows the state of mind of every other person. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] New editors working on parks
On 27/01/17 16:03, Andy Robinson wrote: There has been a large number of new editors in the wider midlands over the last few days (32 since Monday) most of which have been adding new or adding to exiting park areas. Some are fine first edits (a little awkward in placed but not unreasonable) but others are not, so if it's also happening in your area keep a close eye. I'm reverting those in my watch rectangle that are obviously inappropriate and I, along with I note some others, have added some changeset comments to try and make contact where appropriate, though thus far no responses. Mostly these seem to be id edits so I'm guessing perhaps a University course or something. I suspect Pokemon Go is a more likely explanation. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
