Dave F. wrote
In Bristol users have been tagging links to NCN 4 (signposted on the
ground with the number in brackets) with the ncnref tag.
This just adds confusion when displayed on the maps. We need a way to
distinguish links from the actual routes.
In the recent thread about the Dft
Dave F. wrote
I'm not sure OSM should want it...OSM tagging system is more detailed
accurate.
Yeah the OSM data is more accurate and detailed, no question, but the
Sustrans data is way more complete in terms of coverage.
For example in my area (Newcastle/Gateshead) I've worked to get
It seems Sustrans have struck a deal with Google allowing them to use
Sustrans National Cycle Network routes on Google Maps:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/about-sustrans/media/news-releases/safe-cycling-routes-to-appear-on-google-for-the-first-time
Merging this data I see that some ways that just lead to an NCN route (but
are not actually part of the continuous route) are still marked with the
ncn=yes;ncn_ref=xx tags for the route the lead to.
What's the feeling on this? I'm a bit torn:
- On the one hand they are not the route, as in the
David Earl wrote
I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the
council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs
That would be sensible. I think Newcastle Council must have run out of
parenthesis :)
David Earl wrote
I think we could do well to do the
Thanks both Andys :)
As an example of somewhere this hasn't happened look at the current mapping
around St Peter's Basin in Newcastle. It shows and extra spur of the NCN72
along Bottlehouse Street, but actually the NCN72 runs along a parallel road
to the north (Saint Lawrence Street).
smurph wrote
I've just been looking through the CUBA data and I think we need to show
that a route is part of a relation (specifically NCNs - which are mostly
done by relation in the Bristol area) to avoid someone retagging all of
the ways as NCN when they are already part of an NCN relation.
Apparently the government has moved control of Ordnance Survey, Met Office
and Land Registry agencies over to the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/19/public_data_corporation_bis_ordnance_survey_met_office_land_registry/
From the article:
The
Fantastic news - thanks to the License Working Group for their efforts on
this.
I've added a new answer to the
http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/5792/can-i-accept-the-new-contributor-terms-if-ive-contributed-data-from-ordnance-survey-opendata
/Can I accept the new Contributor Terms if I've
Lester Caine wrote:
there is little incentive to make changes
since OSM IS correct ... so the 80% is probably a little low in reality.
There is still benefit in tagging these discrepancies (where OSM is correct
and OS is wrong) with the not:name tag - it maintains the accuracy of this
I just noticed that todays
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main ITO Analysis Summary
shows we are now over 80% for road name completion (i.e. OSM road names
compared to the OS Locator data).
I think all UK contributors should buy themselves a pint for that. Top
effort.
We
I've just been using the new Potlatch release and I'm sorry to report that
I've seen a bit of instability too Richard.
After flipping between the backgrounds a couple of times (between Bing, OS
Locator and OS Street View) while working I suddenly lost the Bing
background entirely and couldn't get
12 matches
Mail list logo
