A new user has made some edits on the new development in Wood End, Coventry.
It probably needs someone to drop by and do a new survey to clean up between
new and construction roads as currently both are present following the new
edit.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24706794
Cheers
Andy
This sounds very sensible. Can/should it be extrapolated to cover other
cases where the signposting (or lack of it) of a road number contradicts
the official version? I am thinking specifically of B-roads which are
still officially classified as such, and indeed frequently rendered as
secondary
On 13/08/14 01:22, Robert Norris wrote:
However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only*
change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary.
Ditto.
But it's a bit like the 'name' problem where a few roads have locally
known names, but these are not displayed on signs
On 12/08/14 23:08, Rob Nickerson wrote:
6, The Hollies,
Birmingham Road,
Town,
Cases I've seen are maisonettes and parades of shops.
I've used:
housenumber: 5
street: The Hollies, Birmingham Road
but that is more to ensure the data is captured than because it really
seems right to me.
On 13/08/14 07:37, Lester Caine wrote:
On a slightly different tack, the tertiary road designation is more of a
problem. While not advocating 'tag for routing', this is one that is
making my own use of OSMAND almost impossible, and I can't believe
others don't find the problem. It refuses to
On 12/08/14 20:18, Rob Nickerson wrote:
So... how do people tag UK addresses?
The standard for representing addresses in Britain is BS7666, which
comprises:
* Primary addressable object name (PAON),
* Secondary addressable object name (SAON),
* street,
* postcode,
* locality (if
2014-08-12 23:18 GMT+01:00 Will Phillips wp4...@gmail.com:
On 12/08/2014 22:46, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 12/08/14 20:18, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Example 1
Flat 2
8 Something Road,
Town,
...
addr:flatnumber=2
I actually have used addr:flat here
On 13/08/14 08:20, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 13/08/14 07:37, Lester Caine wrote:
On a slightly different tack, the tertiary road designation is more of a
problem. While not advocating 'tag for routing', this is one that is
making my own use of OSMAND almost impossible, and I can't believe
others
Dan wrote:
addr:flats = 1-5;The Garden Flat;The Penthouse
This one is news to me. It seems a bit quirky to use
addr:flats=3 to
represent Flat 3 but if it's used then I'll use it. Do yall use
it?
(I think I've used addr:unit before, but never been sure)
On 13/08/14 08:58, David Woolley wrote:
On 13/08/14 08:29, Lester Caine wrote:
rest can be cloned from the postcode - or some other unique ID for the
related object.
Only if you have purchased access to the PAF or National Gazeteer.
Capture of the former, on OSM, is patchy, and of the
On 13 August 2014 01:22, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote:
AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted
but not that I'm aware of any explicitly.
Whether any of these have ever been captured in OSM is hard to tell.
Near where I used to live there's an
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 07:37 +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
On 13/08/14 01:22, Robert Norris wrote:
However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only*
change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary.
Ditto.
But it's a bit like the 'name' problem where a few roads
On 13/08/14 10:02, Derick Rethans wrote:
It's not only C roads. When looking at Nairn (because of a reported
storm damage to a road) I noticed lots of U-references. Have a look at:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194703765
and surrounding area. I doubt those are on signs either, and
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 09:51 +0100, Matt Williams wrote:
On 13 August 2014 01:22, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote:
AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted
but not that I'm aware of any explicitly.
Whether any of these have ever been captured
On 13/08/2014 10:05, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 07:37 +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
But it's a bit like the 'name' problem where a few roads have locally
known names, but these are not displayed on signs :( Need recording but
not necessarily displaying.
I think thats an important
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 01:22 +0100, Robert Norris wrote:
Ignoring the source information for now, but I suspect it is very
similar to rights of way information in that it is probably derived from
OS maps.
The following overpass query highlights the issue, Norfolk standing out
as
On 13/08/2014 09:11, Lester Caine wrote:
On 13/08/14 08:58, David Woolley wrote:
On 13/08/14 08:29, Lester Caine wrote:
rest can be cloned from the postcode - or some other unique ID for the
related object.
Only if you have purchased access to the PAF or National Gazeteer.
Capture of the
On 12 August 2014 20:08, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and
unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and
allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data.
I know we should not tag for
I use addr:flats regularly. I've recently been mapping high density
areas around the city centre where a high proportion of the residential
addresses are flats, often in converted factories. Here it seems
worthwhile to add flat numbers when they are displayed outside the building.
Here's an
On 13/08/14 11:36, Will Phillips wrote:
2. I don't agree that tagging only postcode and 'addressable object' is
a good idea. To convert that into a full address requires access to a
closed database. Surely the whole point about OSM is creating useful
data that is open? At the moment we don't
On 12 August 2014 20:08, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
We have discussed this subject a couple of times and have, I think,
concluded that displaying the ref (generally only known to local
government people) on roads that are unsigned is not helpful to the end
user.
Ignoring the
On 13/08/14 11:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
When it comes to U-numbers for unclassified roads, I can see that they
usually add unnecessary clutter to the map. So while they may be
useful to see at times, I'd be in favour of them not being displayed
on the default style. But I think
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:01 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Lester Caine wrote:
On 13/08/14 10:02, Derick Rethans wrote:
It's not only C roads. When looking at Nairn (because of a reported
storm damage to a road) I noticed lots of U-references. Have a look at:
On 13 August 2014 11:32, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
Am I wrong in assuming that all B roads should be tagged as secondary?
other than this famous exception that is.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41891313#map=15/54.5039/-2.6589
There's also
Postcodes simply do not solve address issues.
They may mean that we can somehow handle any place where the Royal Mail
delivers post (given privatisation possible Scottish independence, this
could conceivable be rather fewer places than it is now).
However, addresses have other purposes than
On 13 August 2014 12:19, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 13/08/14 11:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
When it comes to U-numbers for unclassified roads, I can see that they
usually add unnecessary clutter to the map. So while they may be
useful to see at times, I'd be in favour of
On 13/08/14 12:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
As far as street names and numbers are concerned, it is the council
that is the official authority on these. They have to maintain a
written List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense. Again if
you can persuade the council to let
On 13/08/14 12:38, SK53 wrote:
Postcodes simply do not solve address issues.
I'm not saying they do ...
Only that there is no point adding 'University of Nottingham, University
Park, NOTTINGHAM' to every single location on the campus when 'NG7 2RD'
provides the same information? That there are
The NSG is a closed shop run by the OS and other stakeholders for the
management of street works. When the NSG was set up a few years ago I tried
to get access and initially during their pilot I sort of did, but this was
cut off when the system whet fully live and access limited to the LA's and
On 13/08/14 15:40, Andy Robinson wrote:
The NSG is a closed shop run by the OS and other stakeholders for the
management of street works. When the NSG was set up a few years ago I tried
to get access and initially during their pilot I sort of did, but this was
cut off when the system whet
I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong
before I continue?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796
Thanks
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
On 13 August 2014 12:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
I would still maintain that
the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on
highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing them to cross-reference
the map to official documents) outweighs the
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:36:51 +0100
Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong
before I continue?
If you are changing ref = official_ref then you ought to change
source:ref = source:official_ref as well. Other than that I
Beware you should follow the mechanical edit policy for this.
I would also change the wiki pages for this that currently state we should have
the ref for c roads in ref.
From: p...@trigpoint.me.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:36:51 +0100
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] C
On 13 August 2014 17:36, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong
before I continue?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796
Someone's already pointed out the need to change any source:ref tags
On 13 August 2014 18:14, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 August 2014 12:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
I would still maintain that
the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on
highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing
On 13/08/14 11:36, Will Phillips wrote:
2. I don't agree that tagging only postcode and 'addressable object' is
a good idea. To convert that into a full address requires access to a
closed database. Surely the whole point about OSM is creating useful
It's also a database which is incomplete;
On 13/08/14 12:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
They have to maintain a
written List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense.
Councils also allocate addresses for streets not maintained at public
expense (and it is my impression that many new residential streets,
including most
On 13/08/14 17:06, Derick Rethans wrote:
On 13/08/14 12:38, SK53 wrote:
Postcodes simply do not solve address issues.
I'm not saying they do ...
Only that there is no point adding 'University of Nottingham,
University Park, NOTTINGHAM' to every single location on the campus
39 matches
Mail list logo
