If the position of the boundary is imported from a source that ultimately has a
very high precision, for example Ordnance Survey or a Council's GIS system
through a shapefile or similar, then the location as recorded in OSM will
likely be more accurate than what would be obtained from tracing
I agree. I suspect that the post town / dependent locality are
correlated against the post code by the OCR processing. If there was no
post town it would seriously degrade the scanning accuracy as the
postcode OCR would need to be 100% accurate, which is not going to
happen given the number of
On 2020-12-21 17:11, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
> If you search for an address on the RM website, I find that (at least in
> London) it does not suggest the post town is used at all, just "London", not
> "Stratford" or "West Kensington" or whatever. (I mean here-
>
On 2020-12-21 16:07, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 12:50, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Royal Mail say that a house number must be numeric, and anything else
>> (like Rose Cottage, 7A, 3-7, 11/13 etc) should go in the house name field.
>
> So in a row of t
On 2020-12-21 13:01, Alan Mackie wrote:
> I struggle with what to call the in that example.
>
> A recent suggestion for named terraces was to use addr:street=
> and addr:parentstreet=, but if the relates the
> whole building to to parentstreet, then reconstructing an address seems
>
That's why RM have a Dependent Locality, to distinguish between cases
like this. If the OSM addr:* tags are to represent postal addresses (and
that seems to be the consensus) then OSM should offer a place for the
Dependent Locality. RM say the Post Town is a mandatory component; why
do you
On 2020-12-21 10:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> Regarding properties (e.g. on named terraces or sub-streets), where
> there are two street names (Thoroughfare and Dependent Throughourfare
> in Rail Mail terminology) then we need a second key to store the other
> street name under.
I don't think you can *deduce* the post town from the postcode, but you
can look it up, using the (non-open) PAF. You will need to use the full
postcode though, as sectors can be split amongst multiple post towns.
Let's not drift too far from the original topic of how to represent
addresses. How
On 2020-12-20 20:24, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
> The housenumber and street would be tagged on the "building:part=house"
>
> Is this housrnumber belonging to the terrace or is it belonging to the
> street? If it belongs to the terrace, I think even with this tagging software
> wouldnt
On 2020-12-20 19:44, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
> What you do is give the outline way "buildong=terrace" and
> "name=" and all the houses with "building:part=house". The
> software can then tell that all those houses are part of the terrace called
>
So in the case like I referred to
On 2020-12-20 18:21, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:
> Tag the houses with addr:place maybe?
IMHO a house is not a place
> Or, better method is to use the alternative terrace taggong scheme where each
> house is tagged as building:part=house within a larger building=terrace.
> (Terracer
On 2020-12-20 17:16, Chris Hill wrote:
> On 20/12/2020 14:57, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> On 2020-12-20 15:41, Chris Hill wrote:
> Addresses in OSM are not the same as Royal Mail's addresses. RM addresses are
> all about their processes for delivering post to delivery points. The
On 2020-12-20 17:09, Chris Hill wrote:
> On 20/12/2020 15:30, ndrw wrote: On 20/12/2020 12:45, Dave Abbott wrote:
> There is a page at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping which
> mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is in use. If
>
On 2020-12-20 16:30, ndrw wrote:
> On 20/12/2020 12:45, Dave Abbott wrote:
>
>> There is a page at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping which
>> mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is in use. If
>> correct I would be tagging as -
>>
On 2020-12-20 15:41, Chris Hill wrote:
> Addresses in OSM are not the same as Royal Mail's addresses. RM addresses are
> all about their processes for delivering post to delivery points. The postal
> town (Largertown in your example) is a convenience for RM that we have all
> been persuaded is
On 2020-12-20 14:39, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
> It's not just administrative boundaries. If you mark points with
> "place=suburb", "place=town" etc. that will also be used.
>
> In this case it is clearly difficult to tell which tags to use, so I would
> just not use them and let
On 2020-12-20 14:13, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:
> Marking city, town etc is not necessary in UK because Geocoders like
> nominatim can figure those out using afministrative boundaries.
Postal addresses have no relation to administrative boundaries. They are
simply "what you need to put
On 2020-12-14 20:21, Edward Bainton wrote:
> With plenty of portages...
>
> Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting that the
> "GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked on the map?
> (Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was extensive
I suspect someone has uploaded a GPX version of the boundary from OS
Boundary-Line. It doesn't look like an actual trace from a GPS receiver.
On 2020-12-14 18:27, Edward Bainton wrote:
> Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that
> near enough exactly tracks
A new user, TL5100, is causing a bit of damage in the Midlands, deleting
loads of things for no obvious reason. A couple of their changesets have
comments to this effect already. Could someone have a word?
On 2020-11-01 23:09, Kai Michael Poppe wrote:
> Hi Colin, Hi BD,
>
> as I live in a country with the maximum "anomality" are different 5-digit
> postcodes along a street (or sides of said street) I find different codes per
> building strange to say to least.
>
> I'd go for:
> * Remove
UK postcodes are for the delivery of mail and not intended to identify
buildings or parts of buildings. There will be loads of "anomalies" like
this. It's not crazy, it's just not what you are used to.
On 2020-11-01 22:16, BD wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> came across this quite strange arrangement:
>
On 2020-10-03 18:16, Tom Hughes via Talk-GB wrote:
> 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
On 2020-09-12 23:53, 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
On 2020-09-12 22:23, Russ Garrett wrote:
> Incidentally, the OSM wiki page for Wales claims that the sea boundary
> between Wales and England is not well-defined:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wales#Boundary
Then the wiki is wrong. The "Welsh Zone" was most recently defined by
the:
THE
This anomaly gives rise to the situation that there is a triangle (more
or less) of water near Flat Holm which is simultaneously within the
jurisdiction of Wales and the City of Bristol. It probably only matters
for things like fishing, as that was basically the reason to define
clearly the
On 2020-08-19 17:21, Russ Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 16:00, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> At least it sounds soluble. Given the right transform and corrections a
>> "definitive" OS point in Easting/Northing format can be translated
>> accurately t
need is an equivalent of TIGER Line as a GB specific overlay
> layer showing selected alignment friendly features from either OS Local or
> Vector Map. If we could borrow styling from either TIGER Line or the US
> Forest roads it might be feasible to make such a layer.
>
> Je
On 2020-08-19 12:17, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 19/08/2020 10:11, Stephen Colebourne wrote:And now I can see Amazon
> mappers using an iD variant
> that doesn't have the offset and moving all the roads as a result:
> https://osmcha.org/changesets/89549551?aoi=758c7f2b-faca-44e5-acd2-0cb8c33034bd
On 2020-08-13 12:25, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 16:56, SK53 wrote:
>
>> OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the toid for
>> the street name. I wonder if we should include these alongside usrn & uprn.
>> They may be more useful than
I think I replied privately by mistake, so copying to the list now...
On 2020-07-28 11:45, Ed Loach wrote:
> Colin wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your message. I would like to challenge one point - your
>> assertion that the Regions
>> at admin_level=5 are in "widespread popular use". It is true that
On 2020-07-28 14:41, Dan Glover wrote:
> Other observations, if I may?
>
> Levels 4 and 6 give UK-wide coverage and level has complete coverage of
> England. The Combined Authorities are relatively sparse in their coverage (by
> area - by population is a different matter) so there would be
On 2020-07-28 11:45, Ed Loach wrote:
> Colin wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your message. I would like to challenge one point - your
>> assertion that the Regions
>> at admin_level=5 are in "widespread popular use". It is true that many
>> people talk about
>> geographical regions like "the
:41:02AM +0100, Steve Doerr wrote:
>
>> Could they perhaps be 5.5 to distinguish them from regions?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> From: Brian Prangle [mailto:bpran...@gmail.com]
>>
>> I favour admin level 5 too.
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 at 23:52, Co
constituent councils are Unitary Authorities and
should therefore be at AL6 themselves for consistency with other UAs.
Tagging West Yorkshire at AL6 as well would currently break the model.
On 2020-07-27 08:55, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/27/20 00:50, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>
Hi,
I think we need to discuss tagging of Combined Authorities. I spotted an
edit that changed the tagging on West Yorkshire Combined Authority, and
it was pointed out to me that there were already other instances of
similar tagging for Combined Authorities (Greater Manchester for
example).
On 2020-07-21 22:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
> It's the errors which are more of a problem, because it's generally better
> not to map something than to map it wrongly.
This is a difficult point. Data is never 100% complete, and frequently
not 100% accurate. At what point it becomes better not to
What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we
tag all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is
"designation=public_footpath" enough?
On 2020-07-10 13:54, Andrew Hain wrote:
> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for
>
It was completed in 1964 as the GPO Tower. The GPO became the Post
Office in 1969, at which time the tower was also renamed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Post_Office
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Tower
On 2020-06-29 23:40, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 29/06/2020 08:20, Ken Kilfedder
On 2020-06-15 23:14, barry b wrote:
> Hi Folks, I made the below changes to rockall.
Thanks for engaging!
> The changes i've made are
> 1) Changed Rockall from Island to Rock
> 2) Removed the Administration boundary
>
> 1) Rockall is not a island. You could debate its a rock or islet but
I just pointed the user concerned to the signup page to this mailing
list, so he should be here soon! Further to my earlier message I will
not make any changes to Rockall until we have had the discussion.
Colin___
Talk-GB mailing list
On 2020-06-15 15:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
> I'd just revert it.
I'll give them until tomorrow to see if there is any further engagement.
Otherwise I will fix it up as place=islet and resurrecting the coastline
and admin boundaries.
Colin___
Talk-GB
A new mapper has changed the status of Rockall, removing it from the UK
admin boundaries. As I understand it Rockall is accepted as UK territory
although it can't be used as a baseline to extend the EEZ. I contacted
the mapper with a changeset comment and their motivation is based on
"fixing the
On 2020-04-26 14:26, Tony OSM wrote:
> If we generate a tag schema it clearly needs to be applicable to other grave
> organisations - e.g. German War Graves Commission - _Volksbund Deutsche
> Kriegsgräberfürsorge_ in German.
So we need a more abstract concept like "War Cemetery":
) but it may also be a dedicated cemetery in its own
right.
On 2020-04-26 14:16, Andy Townsend wrote:
> That'd work when if I know the reference, but what if I've only seen the sign?
>
> On 26/04/2020 13:09, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> ref:cwgc=* would kill two birds with o
ref:cwgc=* would kill two birds with one stone, would it not?
On 2020-04-26 13:44, Andy Townsend wrote:
> Hello,
>
> How is it suggested to tag "there are commonwealth war graves here"?
>
> At least near me, there's usually a fairly large white on green sign near the
> entrance, so even if
Considering that it is legally and functionally the same as a Village
Green, I would say use the same tag i.e. landuse=village_green. It may
be *called* a town green because it belongs to a settlement that is a
town (who decides that is a whole other discussion) and/or has a Town
Council (which
ons that
> have been asked before any more editing.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> On 30/03/2020 18:35, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> He's back, and he's unimpressed...
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82834995
>
> "Reverted edits as many of m
He's back, and he's unimpressed...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82834995
"Reverted edits as many of mine were falsely removed"
On 2020-03-25 21:54, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 25/03/2020 16:02, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
>> Heh, none of the references on the Wikipedia page link to
Having both ref and id in the key seems a bit like overkill to me...
ref:UK:leedscc:bin ?
On 2020-03-26 13:13, Patrick Lake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The ID is only used for bins, so by the sounds of it we may as well go for
> ref:UK:leedscc:bin:id so hopefully we won't have to change it in the
ref:lcc=* would probably be best, or even ref:lcc:bins=*. There is an
activity going on at present to get these external IDs documented to
some extent, in the context of IDs that are used for correlation during
data imports and subsequent maintenance. It would fit nicely in this
list:
On 2020-03-20 19:36, Andrew Hain wrote:
> Also changing the name tag for Eel Pie Island.
Yeah, that was the first thing I noticed. I changed that one back, and
left comments on a couple of other changes, but when I saw the rest I
gave up.___
Talk-GB
If there is anyone who keeps a weather eye on South-West London, in
particular the Twickenham area, would they like to cast their eye over
the changesets of a brand-new user "tommyf5"? He has been busy today
making many changes that I would class as "fiddling" and don't look
right, but a local eye
Daniel, that is completely uncalled for. If you can't live and let live,
take your own advice and go procreate somewhere else.
On 2020-03-13 12:27, Daniel Holsey wrote:
> Fuck Off
>
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 10:31, European Water Project
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> My name is Stuart
I have also wondered about this. The date the track was recorded may
anonymised/obfuscated for privacy reasons. We always have the date of
upload, which is better than nothing I suppose.
On 2019-12-22 12:03, BD wrote:
> Hi,
> couple of days ago I had a chance to drive on the new section of A14
On 2019-11-14 13:22, Martin Wynne wrote:
> "Canal" should surely be restricted to transport functions? Boating apps
> presumably treat "canal" as a route unless navigation restrictions are added.
Canal indicates a form of construction - man-made. Unlike natural
watercourses they were
On 2019-10-26 09:58, Edward Bainton wrote:
> (copying the list in again)
> Thank you. My understanding is that this parish council has had *all* street
> assets devolved to it: see here [1].
Where do you read that in the attached document? W.r.t. the public
highway as an asset, paragraph 8
The London Borough of Sutton has admin_level=8. Admin_level=10 is for civil
(not ecclesiastical) parishes, or community councils in Wales and Scotland. The
GSS code refers to the geometry of the area; if the boundary is modified (by
law) a new code is assigned.
On 23 October 2019 16:49:07
On 2019-09-14 17:14, SK53 wrote:
> Hi Edward,
>
> In general the GPS rule is still the best way of doing it, we used to have
> access to Strava heatmap which was very good, but no longer.
>
> Other viable alternatives are:
>
> * OS OpenData road centrelines. Of course if you use a crude
On 2019-09-08 00:09, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2019-09-07 23:06, Edward Bainton wrote:
>
> 3. Also, there are two walls visible on aerial imagery that all but match the
> doglegged county boundary as it crosses the isthmus. Is it safe to assume
> that these mark the actual boun
On 2019-09-07 23:06, Edward Bainton wrote:
> I'm interested in boundaries marked at Mavis Grind [1] (thanks to SK53 for
> the waterway=portage [2] tag - Mavis Grind is an old Norse portage, still in
> use by Shetland Canoe Club).
>
> 1. Does anyone know if county boundary lines at the coast
On 2019-09-02 16:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
> One of the issues with relying on sat-nav is that the device data often isn't
> updated very often. Unless the government can impose some kind of legally
> binding SLA on the device manufacturers to ensure that all data updates are
> performed within a
ove. I used OSNI townland boundaries to compare with OSM ones back in 2015.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 18:42, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> Has anyone investigated if the data covering Northern Ireland which OSNI make
> available under OGL V3, is licence-compatible
ed
> from the OSI/OSNI data, but I think these never got restored after the server
> move. I used OSNI townland boundaries to compare with OSM ones back in 2015.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 18:42, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Has anyone investigated if the d
Has anyone investigated if the data covering Northern Ireland which OSNI
make available under OGL V3, is licence-compatible with OSM in the same
way as the OSGB open data? I am particularly interested in admin
boundaries, e.g.
On 2019-07-26 15:47, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 26/07/2019 13:28, David Woolley wrote: On 26/07/2019 12:57, Stephen
> Colebourne wrote: unless there is an explicit "private" sign
> There is no legal need for "private" signs. The default assumption should be
> that everything is private
... in
I guess what we are trying to get out of this, is:
a) as a router, can i feel free to route "Joe Public" through here?
b) as a router, how much time penalty should i factor in for passing
this gate?
Anything else?
On 2019-07-26 12:58, Warin wrote:
> To bring a little international
On 2019-07-26 12:26, Gareth L wrote:
> This was discussed on the wiki
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate [1] with the
> suggestion of using a status tag. And was also discussed (9 years ago?!)
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html
On 2019-07-14 08:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 14/07/2019 00:39, David Woolley wrote: On 13/07/2019 22:21, Colin Smale
> wrote: So what was your point again about internal waterways? The "extent of
> the realm" is not the 12-mile limit, it is ±MLW, isn't it?
> Assuming
On 2019-07-13 23:07, David Woolley wrote:
> On 13/07/2019 21:38, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Have you got a reference for this, making the link between the boundary of
>> the Realm and the MCA classification of an inland waterway?
>> What could be a consequence of th
On 2019-07-13 22:42, Tony Shield wrote:
> Hi
>
> I meant that OSM does not have an agreed way of tagging MLWS or MLW.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline
That page is about coastline, which is high water, not low water. But
you are probably right. In the case of the
On 2019-07-13 22:30, Devonshire wrote:
> Unfortunately, this is one of those fairly pointless discussions that
> characterises OSM. I know it isn't always possible but I prefer the meaning
> of words in OSM tags to have the same meaning as in everyday conversation. If
> you want to add a way
On 2019-07-13 22:00, David Woolley wrote:
> On 13/07/2019 20:53, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Another reason to want MLW in OSM: The "Extent of the Realm" is *for the
>> most part* defined as MLWS. This is the limit of the jurisdiction of normal
>> (local)
On 2019-07-13 21:33, Tony Shield wrote:
> Hi
>
> Personally think that High Water Mark and Low Water Mark are very relevant to
> people and to OSM.
>
> Yeah - tides are a nuisance and can never be predicted with total accuracy
> and with Global Warming HWM and LWM will change over time.
On 2019-07-13 13:35, Borbus wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:11 PM Devonshire wrote:
>> Just because the coastline follows MLW as it goes around the coast
>> doesn't mean it needs to follow every tidal waterway inland. That
>> doesn't follow at all.
>
> Why not? What is the meaning of
On 2019-07-11 22:45, Borbus wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:19 PM Colin Smale wrote:
>> * Coastal admin boundaries (the "Extent of the Realm") are usually MLWS,
>> but there are such things as "seaward extensions" which extend the
>> "realm&
Good point. Do you know of one? Let's have a look at how the OS deal
with it.
On 2019-07-11 22:52, Edward Catmur wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:19 PM Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> * Where the coastline is essentially vertical (harbour walls, steep cliffs)
>> MHWS and MLWS
Hi,
Great!
Don't worry about having "too many nodes" - the OS data is already
generalised a bit (I think they target 1:1) so it could be a lot
"worse". I spend a lot of time curating the admin boundaries;
occasionally I will update a bit of coastline from OS data when I am "in
the area".
Thanks Phil.
On 2019-06-23 18:59, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-06-23 at 16:50 +0100, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2922
>>
>> (apologies for terseness - sending from pub beer garden)
>
> Thank you Andy.
>
> I have reverted this, I had already
Thanks, and cheers!
On 2019-06-23 17:50, Andy Townsend wrote:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2922
>
> (apologies for terseness - sending from pub beer garden)
>
> FROM: colin.sm...@xs4all.nl
> SENT: 23 June 2019 16:21
> TO: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> SUBJECT: [Talk-GB]
User JS0102 has 17 changesets to their name, and many of them have
critical comments against them. The earlier 16 changesets were reverted,
but this afternoon it was the turn of Gloucestershire to get cleaned
out, and half the River Wye has been turned into a culvert.
Can someone block this user
On 2019-06-01 13:32, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> You're talking about a different subject, which 'associatedstreets' won't
> resolve.
Are you sure? Maybe you would restate concisely the problem as you see
it. The relation linked to in Jez' original post was
type=associatedStreet and he actually
On 2019-06-01 12:34, Gareth L wrote:
> I was about to say, relations of this manner seem duplicitous of simply
> having an address.
Using only the street name to link objects is unreliable. A street can
be divided into multiple segments. Think of a residential side-road with
the same name as
On 2019-06-01 12:29, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've yet to hear a valid reasoning for this relation type. It's much more
> beneficial to add addresses instead.
>
> There appears an increasing tendency to collect almost anything together into
> a relation. See public-transport's
I also have a couple of observations about these changes.
1) Sometimes an admin_centre is being added to a boundary=political
(e.g. parliamentary constituencies, electoral wards). I am not sure this
is appropriate.
2) There are multiple definitions of "town", and I don't know which
definition
wn is also assigned by RM
(see page 50):
https://www.geoplace.co.uk/helpdesk/library/-/asset_publisher/3pCkRTd6bAi9/document/id/335107
On 2019-01-28 23:18, Chris Hill wrote:
> On 28/01/2019 21:56, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> On 2019-01-28 22:22, Chris Hill wrote:
> Post town do not
On 2019-01-28 22:22, Chris Hill wrote:
> Post town do not exist, and never have. They are a fiction invented by Royal
> Mail for their own internal use which they persuaded the public into using
> for the sole benefit of Royal Mail.
...and for the benefit of anyone posting a letter and
On 2019-01-28 18:32, Andrzej wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> These are very good examples, I wasn't aware of such places. They would
> indeed best fit addr:locality. How about using addr:locality together with
> addr:town/suburb/village/hamlet then? Having multiple well defined tags is
> good - they
Hi Will,
On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For this I have
> usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas and addr:locality
> elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to have just one recommended tag,
>
s, not a street.
>
> 3. Tagging subbuildings. Addr:unit is available but is fairly limited (unit
> names?) and vague.
>
> 4. PO Box - I haven't thought about it. Is that something that we would
> include at all in a geographical database? Perhaps if it is associated with a
addr:postcode
PO Box
PO Box
6
n/a
On 2019-01-27 23:17, David Woolley wrote:
> On 27/01/2019 21:21, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Organisation Organisation Name 60 n/a
>> Department Nam
Assuming the post code is seen in OSM as a way of addressing post (as
opposed to a geographic subdivision or an indication of location) then I
suggest following Royal Mail's address structure, which can be seen in
the description of the Postcode Address File on Wikipedia [1]. If we
cannot map a
Hi Rick,
As you can probably guess the whole of the country is divided into
wards, which are subdivisions of council areas for electoral (and not
administrative) purposes. The slivers are not correct of course - they
are artefacts of the fact that the different boundaries have been
created from
Surely the infrastructure network is a different concept to the train
network?
How about this for a thought:
For the trains, a network might be linked to a brand; An operator may
have distinct branding for commuter services, intercity services and
freight operations giving three different
Hi Sean,
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.
HWM data is available as part of OS Boundary-Line. It shows the "island"
("Inner Trial Bank") is (just) within the
The term "HGV" is not actually legally defined in the UK. Goods vehicles
start from 3.5T MAM. There is a special driving licence group D1 which
allows you to drive up to 7.5T, but the difference is in the licence,
not the vehicle.
The sign with an image of a lorry is used for a so-called
On 2018-09-26 13:48, David Woolley wrote:
> In that specific case (7.5T), which is the most common, it would be hgv=no,
> as that is the defining maximum authorised mass for an HGV. I'd consider
> maxweight, for higher limits.
Is a bus/coach considered to be a goods vehicle for these
On 2018-09-20 14:12, Dave F wrote:
> See the OSM Welcome page.
Quoting the law does not make a person guilty. If it were that simple
these boundaries would have been removed long ago.
Are you offering to delete these boundaries then?
As far as I can see there is no "decision" in this case
On 2018-09-20 13:22, Dave F wrote:
> As I noted previously, many discussions have been had & a decision made.
The discussion is clearly ongoing Could you point me to the
"decision" please?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
On 2018-09-20 10:25, Martin Wynne wrote:
> But I can't verify that fact. Should I not map it at all? What is verifiable
> on the ground is the fact that the stream does not stop dead at one location
> and restart at another.
How can you verify it's the same stream? Taking your own flourescein
1 - 100 of 333 matches
Mail list logo
