councils, giving them an interest in
keeping the administrative classifications as high as possible,
despite downgrading them on the ground. But that's unlikely to be true
of course.
Colin Smale
[1]
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40868lon=0.2965zoom=15layers=B000FTF
http
On 27/02/2010 18:11, SteveC wrote:
WHy excluding Medway? Isn't KCC HQ in Chatham?
No, KCC HQ is in Maidstone, the County Town of Kent. Medway has been a
Unitary Authority since 1998 and as such has its own Highways department
- see http://www.medway.gov.uk/index/environment/roads.htm
On 04/03/2010 11:15, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 04/03/10 09:51, Trevor Hook wrote:
C roads are marked as yellow on OS landranger maps.
I don't believe that's true. IIRC the key on such maps claims that the
colouring is determined by the width of the road not any internal local
Looks really nice, with the colours as well!
Looking at the Thames east of London, the boundary down the river
between Kent and Essex looks rather suspicious. There seem to be bits of
Essex with a Kent postcode and vice versa. Is this a function of
clipping to the coastline that you mention? I
Very big +1 for that.
Moving from implicit tagging to explicit tagging would cause the size of
the database to explode. An alternative approach may be to have an
optimised function available to derive the jurisdiction or territory
from specific admin boundaries, and hang the
On 01/11/2010 19:36, David Earl wrote:
On Monday, November 1, 2010, Andy Allangravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Colin Smalecolin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 29/10/2010 22:22, thomas van der veen wrote:
You might like to take note that nothing is implicit in OSM.
committed an offence.
A significant difference, which leads to more consistent, more explicit,
less confusing signage in NL, without having to e.g. measure the
distance between street lights. The built-up area starts where the
sign says it does.
Colin
On 02/11/2010 02:50, Ian Spencer wrote:
Colin
On 16/03/2011 18:00, Peter Miller wrote:
My understanding is that the signed speed limits are those that must
be obeyed by those classes of vehicles that are not limited by some
other rule. I don't consider that we need to do more that we are which
is to reflect the street sign in the data.
I would say that a 2d representation of a 3d building should be its 2d
bounding polygon, i.e. its projection onto the ground. This is what you
see from vertically overhead (for above-ground buildings, and leaving
out effects of parallax for the moment). So in this case it would show
the
On 25/05/2011 23:54, Steve Doerr wrote:
On 25/05/2011 22:47, TimSC wrote:
On 25/05/11 22:41, Steve Doerr wrote:
I preferred the old version where you didn't have to know about PCTs
and the like :-(
Steve
You mean you can't find the PCT you want? That's a good point. I
wanted to split the
Hi,
Although these points are about tagging, I suspect they are rather
UK-specific so I thought I would start enquiring here in talk-gb.
Is there any accepted tagging standard for the ubiquitous Unsuitable
for HGVs (white text on blue background)? So it's not illegal for HGVs,
just
On 08/10/2011 16:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
In the UK, each road can only belong to one route (i.e. an unambiguous
ref= tag). There is no need for road route relations; the M5 motorway
is more easily defined as all ways within the UK bounding box with
the tags highway=motorway* and ref=M5.
On 09/10/2011 13:17, Ed Loach wrote:
* E-routes forming a network which overlays the national network
These aren't sign-posted in the UK, so what source would you use to
map them? For example the E32 as described in Wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E32
lists no source
Government consultation is ongoing - more information here about
decentralisation of the road network/classifications and satnavs...
I noticed that one of the nodes he created was named I live here, in
Putney near the new motorway across the Thames...
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10375617
Colin
On 13/01/2012 15:09, David Earl wrote:
I bet you this is liam123 in a different guise. He's editing in the
same
Hi,
It seems that the UK administrative boundaries in OSM are rather
incomplete. I'm looking for advice about the possibility of doing a bulk
upload of the OS BoundaryLine data for counties, districts and unitaries.
I have conquered the projection issues with the downloaded shapefiles
and I
Hi again,
I realise I probably caused some confusion by using the words bulk
upload when I really intended bulk import. Sorry about that... I was
thinking about a way of getting all the data into OSM without having to
do too much manual work. But if people would prefer me to dump the
Having just taken a look at ogr2osm I think that is probably the best
way of achieving OSM-data with a view to a bulk import. However there
are lots of disadvantages and gotcha's on that route as several people
have pointed out. If we were to take that route there would not be any
point in
Hi,
Maybe I am just having a blond moment but I can't see any way of
capturing access restrictions except for access. Loads of country
roads are signposted as max width 6'6 - except for access which
implies a wider vehicle will fit (just). There are other restrictions
which are sometimes
facility for hosting these files? They are about 500MB
all together, but they compress very nicely.
Someone suggested I make a wiki page for this. I will try to do that at
the weekend.
Colin
On 30/05/2012 00:59, Colin Smale wrote:
Having just taken a look at ogr2osm I think that is probably
The exception to maxwidth is not for a class of vehicle, but for a
purpose, i.e. reaching a property along that road. I'm not sure of the
actual legal meaning of access in this case but it's probably
something like that. So loading would also be in this category, but
permit_holders would not
Or this one - they are iron girders in the middle, with lots of paint
missing...
http://goo.gl/maps/jAfu
On 01/06/2012 01:29, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 20:49 +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
Tagging it as maxwidth=6'6 and ignoring the qualification is IMHO a
good starting point
On 08/06/2012 16:02, John Sturdy wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote:
Is it not sensible to use the reference format of the place you are in,
rather than create some sudo standard?
A web application I'm developing straddles many counties. So I've
Not directly OSM-related but I thought there might be someone here who
knows...
It seems that the formal boundary of Bristol City Council includes a
huge chunk of the Bristol Channel, from Avonmouth out to Steep Holm,
across to Flat Holm and back again. This was confirmed in 2007 by the
On 13/06/2012 14:38, Philip Barnes wrote:
The built up area of Chester straddles the England-Wales border and
the football ground is right on the border. The pitch being in Wales
and some of the car park and offices in England.
I think this is a little curious, but it doesn't seem to imply
On the continent it is not uncommon to have very long platforms in
major stations, with a through central track and crossovers half way
along. Like that you can get two trains at the same platform at the
same time, and the rear train can use the crossover to leave the station
before the front
A new mapper has made rather a mess of the new roads here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.5233589708805lon=0.549077689647675zoom=18
If anyone is in the area...
Colin
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
On 14/07/2012 18:21, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 17:55 +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
A new mapper has made rather a mess of the new roads here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.5233589708805lon=0.549077689647675zoom=18
If anyone is in the area...
I am not in the area, but I
I noticed there are a number of roundabouts in the area without an
explicit oneway=yes, and a couple of slip roads and part of the New High
Street were also missing oneway=yes. This may be a contributing factor
so I fixed what I found. Don't know how long it will take OSRM to get
the updates
On 25/09/2012 18:25, Andrew M. Bishop wrote:
As the author of an OSM data consumer (the router Routino)
Can I just say how refreshing it is to have some input from the data
consumers. Most of the interminable debates about tagging are between
parties who talk about data entry issues (how many
The UK Office for National Statistics has released some data [1] under
the Open Government licence [2] . I've extracted the postcode data from
it and created a tile overlay which can help find a postcode for a
building in GB, excluding Northern Ireland. More info is at
Colin, it's fine to add the postcode data to a node object (eg a poi),
just
don't create a node with just the postcode and nothing else as this is
meaningless. The postcode data we have is not the information for
individual
buildings, its just the centroid of the address polygon which will
WARNING: CHECK YOUR BOUNDARIES!
Longbow4u has been causing other problems with these edits as well. In
Kent the boundaries of Ashford and Shepway districts have been emptied
of ways. The addition of wikipedia links is continuing apace, sometimes
in English, sometimes in German.
This
Dave, not sure exactly what you are looking for. If you are looking for a
display, then OSM Inspector (Multipolygon view) might help, as might
http://layers.openstreetmap.fr .
If you are looking for importable/traceable data, there are ready-to-go
GPX files available at
updates manually by comparing the boundary line data up to now.
Jason (UniEagle)
-Original Message-
From: Colin Smale
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 7:42 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS boundary data as background images in Potlatch
or
JOSM
Dave, not sure
Jason,
I have obtained the data from the Natural England website and converted it
successfully to GPX. You can get the GPX files and the licence statement
from here:
http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/national_parks/
BUT:
a) the data seems to be OGL-licensed but I am not a lawyer so I cannot
I found this report from 2000 which addresses exactly this point.
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/tyldesley_reportall.pdf
It still
doesn't answer the question why Dittisham though. According to one
algorithm it should cross the river at the tidal limit, which is in
Totnes, far above Dittisham.
Aha, it's Mauls is it... He is indeed very prolific, and adds a lot
of missing details across the whole planet. However he never seems to
disclose his sources, either in the source tag or in changeset comments.
Colin
On 2013-02-20 14:18, John Baker wrote:
I have had more
correspondence
There are plenty of things in OSM which are not verifiable on the
ground. That in itself is not a reason to disqualify it from OSM or
relegate it to second class information. It's more about the fact that
there is a verifiable source of authoritative information (appropriately
licensed of
On 2013-03-17 14:02, sk53.osm wrote:
Yes, I believe in some
cases they are signposted: in which case a ref=* is entirely
appropriate.
W.r.t other commenters, I do not believe that it is
the role of OSM to hold internal identifiers, however authoritative, for
any object as a matter of
In case anybody has been updating OSM by removing the apostrophes,
you might need to put them back again...
http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/18/apostrophe-ban-council-backs-down-and-reinstates-punctuation-3547409/
Colin
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up...
User SemanticTourist has been very busy recently with Neighbourhood Plan
areas, particularly in East/West Sussex, Kent and central England.
He has been adding them to the map in a way that IMHO is not compatible
with current practice.
Note that
wrote:
Colin Smale
wrote:
What do others think?
Thanks for the heads-up. This
sort of import is exactly the sort of
thing that should have been
discussed on this list first.
As I read it (from
https://www.gov.uk/neighbourhood-planning [1] )
boundaries are only
really going
Hi,
Since February the New Forest District admin boundary relation
[1] has been sporting an exclave in the form of Ironshill Lodge [2]. I
couldn't find anything on the internet about this, only about the
various Inclosures in that area but nothing to indicate that the Lodge
area is outwith
:52, Colin Smale wrote:
Hi,
Since February the
New Forest District admin boundary relation [1] has been sporting an
exclave in the form of Ironshill Lodge [2]. I couldn't find anything on
the internet about this, only about the various Inclosures in that area
but nothing to indicate
It would be better to separate content from presentation. The database
should contain data in a generic, canonical format; it's the job of the
presentation layer to format that up as required. The key thing is that
a data consumer needs to be able to interpret the data unambiguously. I
would
deserve too much worrying about.
Jerry
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
It would be better to separate content from presentation. The database should
contain data in a generic, canonical format; it's the job of the presentation
layer to format
E.164, I don't care that much if it's
some national format either, as long as it is well-defined and
consistently applied.
Colin
On 2013-08-22 18:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Colin Smale wrote:
Someone needs to stick up for the data consumers; it's not *all* about the
mappers, and anyway
On 2013-08-22 20:00, sk53.osm wrote:
As the NSA clearly don't process their data according to E.164
(otherwise how could they confuse Washington DC area code with Egypt),
I think we can skip it too!
Yes well they have a habit of being rather parochial in their view of
the world. Everyone
Which is the higher priority, consistency or accuracy? Is it better to
have an internally consistent map, where everything is topologically
correct but possibly a little displaced by a uniform vector, or is it
better to have some of the objects positioned with high accuracy,
despite the apparent
Cm-level GPS accuracy is coming within our grasp... My attention was
recently drawn to this:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/swiftnav/piksi-the-rtk-gps-receiver
[2]
On 2013-09-13 15:06, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
I don't think I would trust commercial GPS much below 5m unless it was
Just forwarding this to talk-gb as well as it is on their patch...
Looks like this is the guilty changeset:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17850673 [3]
It's the first and only changeset from a user who signed up a year ago.
Can anyone revert this?
Colin
On 2013-09-15
Peter,
I say this because the '70 mph' value for maxspeed can only be used case
where a road is a dual-carriageway.
What about link roads and slip roads? Sometimes they seem to go on for
miles without an obvious other carriageway. Yet the correct maxspeed
is often 70mph, is it not?
How
That sounds like a very valid thing to do. I would be happy to help.
I've been working on UK admin boundaries for some time now and have a
good view of how it hangs together. To start with I could make a table
to map the OSM boundary relation IDs to the ISO3166 values.
Colin
On 2013-10-10
I assume that should be in lower case, as per
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:iso3166-2 [3]
On 2013-10-10 17:02, cquest wrote:
Simply add ISO3166-2=* to the relation, and the mapping will be done ;)
-
Christian Quest - cqu...@openstreetmap.fr
--
View this message in
Hi,
In the last couple of years I have put in a lot of hours maintaining the
UK's admin boundaries in OSM. Having started in Kent (home territory) I
have gradually been fanning out to cover more and more of the country.
Although there is a lot of consistency in the tagging, one thing I
Hi Robert,
On 2014-02-20 20:17, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
On 20 February 2014 11:34, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
one thing I noticed is that there are two schools of thought regarding
Metropolitan Districts. These are a subdivision of Metropolitan Counties
Formal UK City status may be held by a council (can be
borough/district/unitary/parish) or by Charter Trustees. I am working on
some kind of normalisation in the tagging for administrative areas and I
am proposing to reflect the formal city/town status in the
council_style=* tag, to show what
On 2014-04-24 11:57, SomeoneElse wrote:
2) We need some way to represent ceremonial city, if it's not to be
place=city Sure, if you want uk_legal_status=city then go ahead and add
that.
designation=city perhaps? Isn't that what the designation tag is
supposed to be for?
As long as this
Spare a thought for Nieuwstraat/Neustraße on the boundary of NL-Kerkrade
and DE-Herzogenrath. It looks like there have been differences in
approach between Dutch and German mappers over the years. The Germans
say it should be tertiary or secondary, and the Dutch put it back to
Primary. Maybe we
appears at z11-z13. On this map, the left half is
blue (last rendered June 17) and the right half is normal (last
rendered June 10).
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/52.0770/-0.7172
On 2014-06-18 01:10, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
Am 18.06.2014 00:41, schrieb Colin Smale:
why the UK
Indeed, it seems to be fixing itself now. Panic over!
On 2014-06-18 08:56, JB wrote:
After rerendering (/dirty), blue went away:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/51.9605/-0.7644 [2]
Le 18/06/2014 08:27, Colin Smale a écrit :
It only appears to be happening on areas
As this discussion is about UK specifics, I thought it would be a good
plan to reach out to the talk-GB list.
--colin
On 2014-08-03 16:44, Colin Smale wrote:
On 2014-08-03 16:24, Craig Wallace wrote:
On 2014-08-03 11:00, Matthijs Melissen wrote: Residential roads in the UK
often seem
In this case it is not our access to, or use of, the road which may be
illegal (the landowner is giving us permission after all, once we hand
over the two quid) but the very existence of the road, because it was
constructed without the requisite planning permission.
On 2014-08-11 11:10, Dave
Particularly if you have an interest in railway tagging (both stations
and track) in north Kent you might want to keep a watch out for new
mapper James Philips who joined us in July and has been unilaterally
reworking some tagging. Unfortunately he has left several unconnected
tracks, as well
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
It seems that that the housenumber/name/street/postcode is probably
non-controversial - but the town/locality is, because RM have a
specific view on the world.
Has anyone looked at the use cases here? I am guessing that the main use
case is for navigation - you have to go somewhere and you
To paraphrase a well-known saying: Quality is in the eyes of the
consumer.
How long do you think we can survive with this policy of refusing to
acknowledge that there is such a thing as good data and bad data?
Interpretation of the definition of the name tag (and many others) is
incredibly
Hang on a minute... the name tag should contain the most common name,
or, as the wiki puts it, the common default name. There are other tags
for enthousiasts to store official names, legal names, alternate names,
brands, operators etc which, in a certain frame of reference, can also
be correct
at the question. They may both be right, but from
two different points of view.
C.
On 2014-11-04 23:17, Chris Hill wrote:
On 04/11/14 22:04, Colin Smale wrote:
Hang on a minute... the name tag should contain the most common name, or, as
the wiki puts it, the common default name. There are other
a certain novel
which comes to mind, but have a shared idea of what data quality means
and find the right balance of measures to work together towards that.
C.
On 2014-11-04 23:54, Lester Caine wrote:
On 04/11/14 22:04, Colin Smale wrote:
Hang on a minute... the name tag should contain
Most of the names in the South East seem to have been added by two
(prolific) specific mappers. Has anyone asked them about their source
and motivation? It would sound fair to consult them and hear them out.
Having said that, one of the top rules in my mkgmap[1] style is
highway=motorway
.
Plenty of similar examples, such as the Preston Bypass which formed an early
part of the M6.
Where these names are no longer used on the ground then a former_name tag
would be appropriate.
Cheers
Andy
FROM: Colin Smale [mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl]
SENT: 19 November 2014
May be interesting to some:
UK mapping agency Ordnance Survey stands accused of using £800m of
government contracts to stifle competition in a row over the release of
geographical information as open data.
It appears to actually exist; postcode SN15 4LS gives several addresses
in Avon, Chippenham.
Maybe Google are matching that hamlet to the ceremonial county of Avon
and getting it wrong?
Colin
On 2014-12-07 13:51, Malcolm Herring wrote:
On 07/12/2014 12:39, Malcolm Herring wrote:
It
You are right, Avon is not a Ceremonial County as I said but it has gone
the way of Middlesex - only existing in an archaic form of postal
addressing. It is a former postal county according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_counties_of_the_United_Kingdom
Colin
On 2014-12-07
(50?) shades of grey,
where common sense needs to be factored in.
On 2015-02-17 11:48, Jonathan Harley wrote:
On 17/02/15 10:03, Colin Smale wrote:
It's only correct because that's the frame of reference you have chosen in
this case. The local authority decides what a street is officially
Why did you set Merseyside back to boundary=administrative? There is no
longer a council and it no longer exists as an administrative entity,
only as a legal entity. The metropolitan county councils were abolished
in 1986.
On 2015-04-01 02:48, pmailkeey . wrote:
On 1 April 2015 at 00:18,
I would limit it to animals in general, not just horses - donkeys,
camels, ostriches, elephants, giant tortoises etc etc can also have
saddles. It can also be used in other contexts such as engineering,
where it would mean a component for spreading a load evenly in some way.
Motorcycles also
refer?
On 2015-04-03 16:12, John Aldridge wrote:
On 03/04/2015 14:59, Colin Smale wrote:
Why not tag both spelling variants? They are both correct in their own frame
of reference. If it differs to what is on the ground, we can use
official_name=* for the name given by the local authority
Is there any intrinsic difference between one for boats and one for
motorhomes? If they are actually pretty much the same thing, maybe the
difference would better be expressed by access=customers or purely
geometric/geographic properties.
On 2015-04-22 20:07, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Wed,
or ref:issuer as a more generic way of indicating the scope/domain of
the value of ref?
Whatever we end up with, I would also like to see a way of tagging both
the signed, official-looking ref *and* the actual administrative ref.
One example of where the two values diverge is where a road has
Why not tag both spelling variants? They are both correct in their own
frame of reference.
If it differs to what is on the ground, we can use official_name=* for
the name given by the local authority, warts an' all.
Even council employees and contractors make mistakes occasionally.
Should
The Royal Mail has deprecated the use of counties in addressing. The PAF
(Postcode Address File) no longer contains counties.
In any case, I think you are only talking about postal counties which
are only a fictional concept anyway. Is Bromley in Kent? Is Uxbridge in
Middlesex? Only in the
Some types of county are alive and well, others are pretty much defunct.
There are at five types of thing called county that I know of in
England:
1) Non-metropolitan county
2) Metropolitan county
3) Ceremonial county
4) Postal county
5) Vice County
1) Is a normal county, with a
Hi everyone,
The boundary relation for Snowdonia National Park is severely messed up
at the moment.
Is there anyone who can sort this out? I don't mind doing the editing
but I kind of resent fixing somebody else's damage and I haven't got a
source for the boundary vectors.
The latest
]
On 29/05/2015 00:46, Colin Smale wrote:
Thanks to the people who pointed me at helpful tools. I have fixed it up as
best as I can for the moment - obviously erroneous stretches of coastline
have been removed, missing segments have been added where a bridge has been
inserted, that kind
very roughly to correspond to the illustrative map on
Wikipedia.
//colin
On 2015-05-28 21:12, Colin Smale wrote:
Hi everyone,
The boundary relation for Snowdonia National Park is severely messed up at
the moment.
Is there anyone who can sort this out? I don't mind doing the editing
housenumber, supplement, street, place model.
Jerry
On 29 May 2015 at 15:26, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
If anyone is interested in the data model used by Royal Mail in UK
addresses, this will tell you loads:
http://www.poweredbypaf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Latest
If anyone is interested in the data model used by Royal Mail in UK
addresses, this will tell you loads:
http://www.poweredbypaf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Latest-Programmers_guide_Edition-7-Version-6.pdf
[1]
Warning: you may find yourself uttering things in rather
unparliamentary
If their edits are factually correct, they are improving OSM which is a
good thing. But they should really engage more with the community so we
can see where all this wisdom is coming from, what they are working
towards and who is behind it. Failure to respond to the many enquiries
does not
AFAIK Kent doesn't go round putting 2m width limits on country lanes -
more likely to be 6'6" "except for access". A random spot-check on his
most recent changesets with Google Streetview shows indeed 6'6" "except
for access" so he may actually be correct, except for the discutable
correctness
and explained to them properly. The fact that the
date may change, is no excuse for not having some kind of target date...
//colin
On 2015-10-31 23:27, Chris Hill wrote:
> On 31/10/15 21:59, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> The change could have been managed better, like proper announcements
I was thinking the same. The new colour scheme is not what I am used to,
but having said that, it is kinda growing on me... But the colour
schemes are part of the local culture for many people, and you will
never suit all of the people all of the time. It is definitely time we
had a framework
020-3 is not a "virtual" number, it's a normal London number range.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/numbering/guidance-tele-no/london-area-code/
--colin
On 2015-10-20 13:14, Philip Barnes wrote:
> It came as little surprise that they have an 0203 number, which is a virtual
>
Hi Lester, can you provide a link to the ONS data you are referring to?
On 2015-09-14 16:39, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 14/09/15 15:18, Richard Symonds wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on
>> definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure
No reason whatsoever but how do you determine what a place calls
itself? What the Parish Council puts on the "village" sign -> according
to the PC. What the population maps to according to some algorithm ->
according to the author of the algorithm.
On 2015-09-14 15:23, Richard Symonds
Some civil parishes are even cities (I am thinking of Salisbury for
example). And some cities don't have a council of their own (e.g. Bath).
So it is all dependent on how you look at it. Current population,
historical status, government/democratic decisions...
On 2015-09-14 09:53, Mark
You are referring to the "official" refs. Is it *possible* that the
signs disagree with the official data? To make things look more logical
for drivers?
I ask this because we tend to give precedence in our mapping to what is
visible on road signs, rather than blindly following the official
Great idea Robert!
Any idea why it is not matching Gravesend Grammar School (at DA12 2PR)
which is in OSM with amenity=school on way
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142625579 ? I have noticed several
other schools in Gravesend and surroundings which as far as I can see
are in OSM and not being
1 - 100 of 333 matches
Mail list logo
