On 18 June 2012 14:46, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Will the errors/discrepancies we identify be fed back to the DfT?
Unless Martin knows more than I do, then in all honesty I doubt it.
I'm hoping instead that whenever the DfT next want cycling data - say
2-3 years down the
David Earl wrote:
quite why they didn't renumber the continuation of this
road to Peterborough also A45 I don't know - it remains A605
Curiously they did - and then changed their mind. For several years there
was new signage saying A45 underneath but with an A605 patch on the top.
But the
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
On 20/06/2012 14:57, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote:
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:
The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were
recorded in 3 categories:
1) 1.5m
2) 1.5=x2
3) =2
So the values in the data (1.25 and 1.75 mostly) are spuriously accurate
and quite often overstated.
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing
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
On 20 June 2012 15:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were
recorded in 3 categories:
1) 1.5m
2) 1.5=x2
3) =2
So the values in the data (1.25 and 1.75 mostly) are spuriously accurate and
quite often
On 20 June 2012 15:21, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) gra...@dalmuti.net wrote:
David Earl wrote
I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the
council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs
I guess that ways signed as leading to an NCN could still use
On 18 June 2012 12:05, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
One last comment for now.
When looking at a project page, such as:
http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/projects/78/
tagged_ways
It would be good to have a link to edit a relevant area, or failing
that at least a
On 18 June 2012 10:11, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Are there any notes I'm missing about how to access and deal with
nodes in the DfT data? e.g.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edloach/7392860104/in/photostream
Nope, you're not missing anything - it simply appears to be broken.
I'm
David Earl [mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com] wrote:
Sent: 20 June 2012 15:05
To: Graham Stewart (GrahamS)
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now
available for merging
On 20/06/2012 14:57, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote
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).
Andy Robinson wrote:
Basically any route to or deprecated braid should have a
bracketed number, though in many locations this may not have
happened yet.
There's a slight tagging ambiguity when a link route connects two numbered
routes, of course: often these will be signed as, say, '(5)' in
Sorry Richard for spamming you - one day I'll remember this replies to the
person rather than the group by default - argh!
On 20 June 2012 15:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
wrote:
The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were
recorded in 3
On 18 June 2012 10:11, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Are there any notes I'm missing about how to access and deal with
nodes in the DfT data? e.g.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edloach/7392860104/in/photostream
Did this get an answer? I've tried, and failed, to click on the underlying
DfT
One thing I have noticed with the data is that in a number of places the
DfT data claims there is an LCN on a major road which I know has no LCN
signage (except the odd crossing) - e.g. London Road - or claims that both
the main carriageway AND the adjacent cycleway (well footpath with some
wobbly
It's just a vanilla potlatch instance, by the way. All the
merging
panels etc are built-in to the standard potlatch, there's no
special
code or branch or anything in the deployment that we're using
here.
I wondered if the created_by changeset tag value could be the same
as the name that
On 17 June 2012 12:44, Martin - CycleStreets
list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net wrote:
This data for each area is now available, converted, and ready for easy
merging in with a new Potlatch2 tool Andy has written. The DfT is very keen
to see the data more widely used, by OSM.
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data
now available for merging
As previously announced [1], we've been working with Andy Allan
and the
DfT's contractors to open up the cycling data that the DfT have
collected
(via manual surveys
Also, I'm not up on cycleway lane tagging, and on a section where
there are lanes both sides, is cycleway:left=lane and
cycleway:right=lane correct, as per merge tool suggestions? Also,
the merge tool is showing a suggest of Lane with a capital letter,
which I think should be lower case.
Ed
One last comment for now.
When looking at a project page, such as:
http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/projects/78/
tagged_ways
It would be good to have a link to edit a relevant area, or failing
that at least a latitude/longitude so you can find the way. I've
followed the two
I'd be tempted to convert the cycleway=lane into cycleway:left=lane and
cycleway:right=lane anyway, since (if I understand it right), it's
relatively easy to tag-transform it back again, for data users who can only
use symmetrical stuff. The capital letter is wrong though.
Richard
On Mon, Jun
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.
On 18 June 2012 14:35, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2012 18:30, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
It would be really helpful if the snapshot server could render a map
showing
where the remaining unmerged data is located.
That's a good idea, and it's something
On 18 June 2012 14:37, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
'Left'/'Right' is then based on the direction of the
way, therefore you will need to make sure that OSM's and DfT's ways are
drawn in the SAME DIRECTION before merging!
They should be. In some cases you'll find the DfT data
On 18 June 2012 10:58, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Also, I'm not up on cycleway lane tagging, and on a section where
there are lanes both sides, is cycleway:left=lane and
cycleway:right=lane correct, as per merge tool suggestions? Also,
the merge tool is showing a suggest of Lane with a
Rob wrote:
I don't see this. Right and Left tell you where the lane is, but
it does not
tell a user (or routing software) which direction you can ride in.
This
requires knowledge of which side of the road each country drives
on
(or forward/backward tags).
Ah, yes. I see your point.
I
As previously announced [1], we've been working with Andy Allan and the
DfT's contractors to open up the cycling data that the DfT have collected
(via manual surveys on bikes) over recent years.
This data for each area is now available, converted, and ready for easy
merging in with a new
Comments below.
On 17 June 2012 12:44, Martin - CycleStreets
list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net wrote:
As previously announced [1], we've been working with Andy Allan and the
DfT's contractors to open up the cycling data that the DfT have collected
(via manual surveys on bikes) over recent
oh, and the other suggestion - it would be handy if I could hide all
existing OSM data which doesn't have highway=* - nearly added the DFT to
fences about half a dozen times already!
Kev
On 17 June 2012 15:05, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote:
Comments below.
On 17 June 2012 12:44,
Martin,
This looks like a great project.
Can you clarify the situation in London? I don't really know what areas the
SuperLondonBorough sets cover. I added some hints to the wiki as to where
each of them open, then went from the one that starts in Sydenham to pan up
to my neck of the woods and
Kev js1982 wrote
Comments below.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/England_Cycling_Data_**projectlt;http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_projectgt;
It has these attributes, and the CycleStreets router [2] now supports
them:
- Surface quality (surface=)
- Local
32 matches
Mail list logo
