[Talk-gb-london] Mapping of resources for vulnerable people in London

[Dan S]

Hi all

I had a conversation with an OSM contributor who lives in London but
isn't on this mailing list. They'd like to find out if there's any
previous work, or any interested people here, about mapping resources
for vulnerable people in London. Let me quote directly:

> I went to an open borough meeting, and ended up chatting mapping with some 
> Lambeth council members. They were interested in mapping aid points for 
> vulnerable people - shelters for those experiencing homelessness or domestic 
> abuse, foodbanks, etc - so that reps on the ground could more immediately 
> provide people with support in seeking these. For example, a PCSO said that 
> she was often asked about these, but because PCSOs are often moved around for 
> work, she doesn't always know how best to direct people.
>
> My question, then, was whether there was any history within London of trying 
> to map these kinds of resources for vulnerable people within OpenStreetMap. 
> If there is some active effort, is anyone keen on...advising me in trying to 
> do that?


If you have suggestions or Lambeth connections, or you'd like to be
put in touch, feel free to let me know on- or off-list.

Thanks!
Dan

___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Re: House number ranges that are only odd or even

[Dan S]

That JOSM rendering is just a limitation in JOSM's rendering - I'd
imagine it was unplanned.

I'd be happy to see that second solution (i.e. make clear the
interpretation of the tag, for closed ways). I don't necessarily think
it needs a proposal/vote but I'd be happy to see it happen!

Best
Dan


Op do 10 dec. 2020 om 18:37 schreef ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB
:
>
>
> Date: 10 Dec 2020, 18:34
> From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com
> To: mattatt...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] House number ranges that are only odd or even
>
> This issue also came to my mind. addr:interpolation on a building doesn't 
> seem appropriate. JOSM, for example, renders it as a dotted line around the 
> edge of the building (as if that is the addr:interpolation way).  Clearly 
> then, addr:interpolation isn't meant for buildings.
>
> Currently, I do 1;3;5;7;9 (here is an example of this: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222193468/history [old versions of this 
> building have that tagging scheme])
>
> Probably, a proposal needs to be created to either create a new tag or change 
> addr:interpolation so that its meaning is different on closed and open ways.
>
> I think the latter solution is better, as people probably already tag 
> buildings with an addr:interpolation.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>
> --
>
>
> 10 Dec 2020, 15:37 by mattatt...@gmail.com:
>
> Is there a way when specifying a range for addr:housenumber to indicate it's 
> only for even or odd numbers?
>
> When walking around my local area I have come across some blocks that will 
> have a sign indicating for example house numbers 1 to 21 odd only. Similarly 
> when there is just one building drawn for a whole street of terrace houses 
> the number range will only be or odd even depending on the side of the road.
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] House number ranges that are only odd or even

[Dan S]

I use addr:interpolation on single items as in Mat's example, just as
much as on an explicit "interpolation way". It seems to me the concept
is perfectly adaptable. For example, an address-search-engine should
have no trouble digesting these two almost-the-same uses of
addr:interpolation.

Cheers
Dan

Op do 10 dec. 2020 om 16:04 schreef Ken Kilfedder :
>
> Isn't addr:interpolation only for ranges of housenumbers on an interpolation 
> way?
>
> In this case the question seems to be about a residential building containing 
> only even numbered units?
>
> If you just say addr:housenumber=2-20, it could mean that 19 is included.  If 
> you say addr:housenumber=2;4;6;8;10;12;14;16;18;20 - that might be correct, 
> but it seems a bit inefficient.
>
> ---
> https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
> spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk
>
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, at 3:43 PM, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> > On 10/12/2020 15:37, Mat Attlee wrote:
> > > Is there a way when specifying a range for addr:housenumber to indicate
> > > it's only for even or odd numbers?
> >
> > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr:interpolation#values
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >Jeremy
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] British Waterways

[Dan S]

Sounds OK to me.

FWIW, here's an edit I made a few years ago, similar in kind, to
rename Barclays/Santander Cycle Hire in London:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/mcld

Op ma 7 dec. 2020 om 10:18 schreef Andy Mabbett :
>
> I just updated a local canal feeder reservoir, which was tagged in OSM
> as operator=British Waterways.
>
> The value should of course now be "Canal & River Trust".
>
> Should we have an automated edit to update all instances of "British 
> Waterways"?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

[Dan S]

Op do 26 nov. 2020 om 19:21 schreef Jez Nicholson :

> Okay, bear with. I know that this is detailed mapping, but I enquired a
> while ago on the amenity:recycling talk page and a single recycling
> container == a single node. A group of containers == a group of nodes.
>
> Here is an image of the highly attractive Golf Drive Recycling Point
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golf_Drive_Recycling_Point.jpg
> featuring 6 * "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling_type"="container" which
> accept different items including
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379145 glass,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379151 cans, cardboard, paper,
> plastic bottles, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379142 a
> clothes bank.
>
> The area they are contained in is called "Golf Drive Recycling Point".
> There's a sign that says so. I've added a polygon
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/877940580 as "amenity"="recycling" +
> "recycling_type"="point"
>
> I can only really see containers or centres in
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/recycling_type#values but this
> place is neither.
>
> Are you offended by "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling_type"="point"? It
> seems like the UK term for it.
>
>
Honestly, "point" seems dangerously prone to misunderstanding, when used as
a value here in OSM. I know we tend to say "recycling point", but that
doesn't mean that we say "point". "I'll just go to the point".

I wish I could suggest a good alternative word, e.g. a word we already use
for some other type of feature.

What is the fundamental reason this is not a recycling_type=centre? Is it
the size? (If so, no problem - use "centre" on a suitable polygon.) Is it
the fact that it's unstaffed? (Could use self_service=only or
supervised=no.) Is it that there's no perimeter boundary?

Best
Dan



> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 4:25 PM Jeremy Harris  wrote:
>
>> On 26/11/2020 11:16, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>> > Am I missing something, or is there no concept of a Recycling Point in
>> OSM?
>> > Have you seen/used anything else?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:recycling_type>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>Jeremy
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

[Dan S]

Hi Jez

Is this not it?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling

Op do 26 nov. 2020 om 13:08 schreef Jez Nicholson :

> I'm planning some work with Household Waste Recycling Centres and
> Recycling Points during the Code The City OSM hack weekend this Sat/Sun
> (which you are very welcome to join
> https://codethecity.org/what-we-do/hack-weekends/code-the-city-21-put-your-city-on-the-map/
> in any capacity you like)
>
> A Recycling Centre being the local 'tip', see
> https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/find-your-nearest-recycling-centre
>
> A Recycling Point being a cluster of recycling containers in, say, at the
> end of your local supermarket car park. Often given a name by the Council,
> see
> https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/recycling-points
>
> Am I missing something, or is there no concept of a Recycling Point in
> OSM? Have you seen/used anything else?
>
> - Jez
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Dan S]

Yes, either highway=footway or highway=cycleway are fine, and there's
almost no difference if you're also tagging access rights explicitly!
Thanks for being careful about it.

Dan

Op za 21 nov. 2020 om 18:38 schreef Edward Bainton :

> Thanks all for these ideas. The path is marked as shared, but only in the
> middle of the park
> 
> - it's a bit odd. (It's even on a cross-city cycle route.)
>
> It's the actual highway=* tag that I was most puzzled over, but it sounds
> like with the access tags this is academic for routing purposes.
>
> In which case it would seem the 'looks like a footway, rides like a
> footway' criterion would be best?
>
> Not relevant here, but like Tony I also would love a tag that means
> 'everyone cycles here, even if it's technically illegal'. I think it was
> SK53 who suggested some use 'tolerated', which seems pretty good to me.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 16:00, David Woolley 
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/2020 15:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
>> > there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
>> > "permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"
>>
>> The way seems to be in a park, and, in general, permissive is the
>> maximum legal status of any path in a park, unless it is also a
>> bridleway or public footpath, in the definitive map.
>>
>> >
>> > In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is
>> > problematic
>> > for access/parking tagging in OSM.
>> >
>>
>> There is a modal filter near me, on a temporary traffic regulation
>> order.  It has been flouted for all the three months that it has
>> existed.  However it is clearly signed as emergency vehicles (and
>> non-motor vehicles) only.  In that case accepted use shouldn't represent
>> how it is mapped.  (It also has enforcement camera signs, and it might
>> be interesting to find how many fines they collect if they do install
>> the cameras.  I suspect the abuse will stop until they are moved
>> elsewhere.)
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Solar PV data snapshot released today

[Dan S]

Hi all,

I'm very pleased to say we've published a snapshot of the OSM UK solar
PV data today.

The journal article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00739-0
The twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/mclduk/status/1327192431117422595

Some of you may be wondering why a snapshot is needed, when OSM is
there for all to download. Our goal is to make the data maximally
accessible for researchers, data scientists, and people in the power
industry. So the paper and the data release should be easier to
discover, and easier to re-use.

The paper is also partly intended to help data scientists understand
how to work with the OSM community, so that they can improve the data
within OSM whilst also meeting their own goals - i.e. beyond treating
OSM as just a data source.

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar tagging app

[Dan S]

Let's officially change over to "direction" then. I've edited the wiki
page to reflect that.

Best
Dan

Op di 6 okt. 2020 om 19:40 schreef Jeremy Harris :
>
> On 06/10/2020 16:44, Russ Garrett wrote:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom/Rooftop_Solar_PV
>
> One difference I make vs. that is "direction" rather than
> "generator:orientation".  In iD, at least, you get a nice visual
> of the view-angle then.
>
> I use a point and a module-count.  If it's flat, I use "tilted:no"
> rather than a direction.
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YLx  is my current "look for missing
> tags" hunter.  Pick your area then hit the Run button.
> --
> Cheers,
>   Jeremy
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar update Q3 2020

[Dan S]

Hi all,

Thanks Jerry for this very good analysis. 250,000 is a fantastic
milestone - thanks to everyone.

I don't have very much to add to Jerry's report. The change in the
imagery has made a massive difference to aerial mapping - I can
certainly say that for my patch of London, where I'm quite pleased to
discover we exceeded 100% :) In my experience the imagery made it much
more feasible to draw solar panels as polygons (ways) rather than
nodes, so I'm generally doing that. (I'm not able to do as high
quantities as others can.)

Orientation - very interesting, I guess I'll start using the
"direction" tag too instead of the one we were previously using.
Mapping the orientation (the compass direction) of solar panels is
very useful for data consumers - it really helps in predicting the
power they'll be generating. So yes, I'd really encourage people to
put the direction=* tag on there.

Cheers
Dan

Op do 1 okt. 2020 om 14:18 schreef SK53 :
>
> I'd meant to provide an update at the end of August, just after the peak of a 
> frenzy of adding solar power from the new higher quality Bing imagery. As I 
> didn't, now is a good time to summarise recent progress: September has seen 
> more modest gains.
>
> Some headline figures:
>
> We passed 250k OSM elements on 31st August and 30% completion (measured 
> against FIT, which does not cover the totality of solar installations) a few 
> days later
> 2 additional LA areas joined the, anomalous, Isles of Scilly, in passing 100% 
> of the FIT target: Torridge and Tower Hamlets.
> 7 more LAs have reached >90% of FIT. Joining Nottingham and Plymouth, these 
> are Canterbury, North Devon, Exeter, Torbay, Derby and Chesterfield
> 30 LAs are now between 80 & 90% of the FIT numbers
> in total around 100 LAs have over half of the FIT totals mapped, including 4 
> in Greater London
> Devon, Derbyshire & Nottinghamshire have all LAs over 80%
> Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Warwickshire are around 60% complete
> Much of the rest of the West Midlands is around 30%
> Edinburgh was the first Scottish LA to pass 50% (thanks Donald)
> Visibility of solar in Greater London has changed dramatically. Russ, Dan & 
> Yvonne have been the most active mappers.
>
> From my own mapping, it's now clear that in most parts of the country the 
> imagery is probably good enough to find at least 90% of installations. This 
> raises the bar compared with previous imagery where for most LAs finding much 
> more than 50% of solar was too hard to be practical. It perhaps also changes 
> what our focus should be. The following paragraphs touch on some of these.
>
> The other significant aspect of better imagery is that it is now feasible to 
> provide module counts and orientations for the vast majority of panels. At 
> present only 8.5% of the panels already mapped have these tags (although this 
> represents 20k panels, valuable in its own right). I've therefore moved to 
> improving the percentages in the counties I focussed on recently (Devon, 
> Derbys and Notts). It's slightly tedious work, but I think it's now important 
> to avoid building up 'tagging debt' in this area. For LAs with a lower 
> percentage of mapping (upto 60%) it's often possible to combine adding these 
> tags with looking for unmapped solar power, which is rather more engaging, as 
> can be seen by totals for places like Gedling, Rushcliffe & Derbyshire Dales. 
> This latter type of activity can combine well with general updating of an 
> area, refinement of existing elements and correction of errors. If half the 
> new panels added as we advance to 300k have these tags we'll double this 
> percentage. I've moved to generally using direction rather than 
> generator:orientation because this is visualised in iD and I can't see any 
> ambiguity in the use of direction on solar elements (the exception is where 
> solar tags have been added to a building). This overpass-turbo query can be 
> used to visualise the status of solar within any LA: green has both tags, 
> purple is a large installation with "lots" of modules, red lacks orientation 
> & module count, yellow & orange lack one or other.
>
> Frederik mentioned a while back about solar elements in places where little 
> else is mapped. Solar is slightly unusual for OSM in that the utility of the 
> data in most cases needs fairly comprehensive coverage, whereas a single 
> address is useful if I want to route to it. Use of nodes for much of the 
> mapping does allow local mappers adding more detail to correct position and 
> so on, and there is a small, but steady, flow of edits of this type.
>
> Adding buildings themselves comes up against the imagery alignment issues 
> which have been discussed here recently, and therefore, in general, needs 
> more care. In many places there were already substantial numbers of buildings 
> mapped, but a particular problem is that these can appear misaligned with 
> modern imagery (in some places as much as a 5 m discrepancy). In 

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Dan S]

Op ma 28 sep. 2020 om 20:55 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
:
>
> On 28/09/2020 17:53, Dan S wrote:
> > Hi Rodrigo
> >
> > I think Loomio is designed
> > for the purpose of making good decisions together:
>
> Come again? Why do you think "good decisions" can't be made here? What
> do those who don't wish to join yet another off-shoot do?

Please, Dave, try not to be so shocked by everything. Email is a tool.
Loomio is a tool. Mediawiki is a tool. The designers of Loomio tried
to create a tool specifically for group decision-making. That's all!

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Dan S]

Hi Chris,

Both the wiki, and the Loomio, require a separate log in account which
is not the same as the main OSM account. So the barriers are the same.

I don't think the Loomio is restricted to just OSM UK "official
business" - though I might be wrong! Someone please correct me.

I do agree with you that a vote isn't necessarily all that helpful. It
was one of the original ways that the OSM community started
self-organising its tagging, but because of various limitations it's
very much fallen into disrepair as a way of doing things. I hope that
"good decision-making tools" like Loomio might be a way forward - but
I don't imagine it's a silver bullet.

Best
Dan

Op ma 28 sep. 2020 om 18:31 schreef Chris Hill :
>
> {this time to the list]
>
> And the people who care about OSM and the way imports and automated
> edits affects OSM, but don't use Loomio and are not connected to OSM UK?
> What should they do?
>
> Everyone in OSM has access to the Wiki.
>
> Having said that, I'm not sure what a vote will do. OSM is very clearly
> not a democracy in any sense. Voting tends to give any outcome the
> veneer of consultation and listening to feedback, but in practice so few
> people vote that the process is meaningless.
>
> Chris (chillly)
>
> On 28/09/2020 17:53, Dan S wrote:
> > Hi Rodrigo
> >
> > Before you create a vote on the wiki, can I suggest a different
> > method? "OSM UK" has started using Loomio for discussions and votes,
> > and it generally seems to work out well. I think Loomio is designed
> > for the purpose of making good decisions together:
> > https://www.loomio.org/openstreetmap-uk/
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't wish to confuse you with tools and differing opinions...
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dan
> >
> > Op ma 28 sep. 2020 om 15:31 schreef Rodrigo Díez Villamuera
> > :
> >> Thanks all of you for your messages.
> >>
> >> As a new joiner, I could not ask for more than other members engaging in 
> >> such a passionate way :)
> >>
> >> It's fair to say that there is no clear consensus of whether the proposal, 
> >> in its current form, is acceptable or not. So, I am going to create a 
> >> voting section on the wiki page to help us visualise what people think
> >>
> >> However, before I do that I would like to reply to a point that was made 
> >> by Andy
> >>
> >> Andy,
> >>
> >> I'm not actually convinced that's a problem - as others have said, web 
> >> browsers are perfectly capable of converting "www.mypub.com" into either 
> >> "https://www.mypub.com"or ""http://www.mypub.com"as appropriate, so this 
> >> doesn't really add any value.  "Letting the browser sort it out" is a 
> >> great approach as it can deal with now/near future things such as removal 
> >> TLS 1.0 and 1.1 support as well.
> >>
> >> This is not true based on my experience. I just tested on the latest 
> >> version of Chrome and Firefox and, if the URL scheme is not specified, 
> >> they both open the the URL using http even if https is also available for 
> >> it.
> >>
> >> You may have experienced a behaviour by which the user gets redirected 
> >> from the http url to the https one but that depends on the configuration 
> >> of the site server which is not always set-up.
> >>
> >> This is also well documented for Firefox here: 
> >> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/URL_Bar_Algorithm
> >>
> >> I see value in updating schemaless :website tags with the https version if 
> >> available.
> >> --
> >> Rodrigo Díez Villamuera
> >>
> >> w: http://rodrigodiez.io
> >> t: @rodrigodiez_pro
> >> p: 00 44 7513 638225
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 13:50, Andy Mabbett  
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 10:00, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The change you plan to execute is of limited use. Yes, it ensures more
> >>>> conformity in the data, but it will be a temporary fix (since new
> >>>> "wrong" URLs can be added at any time).
> >>> This seems like an argument for never fixing any error.
> >>>
> >>>> So what your edit does is, it "touches" lots of objects and adds no
> >>>> meaningful information whatsoever.
> >>> This statement is false, not least because in some cases "http://; is
> >>> added, in others "https://;; each of those 

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Dan S]

Hi Rodrigo

Before you create a vote on the wiki, can I suggest a different
method? "OSM UK" has started using Loomio for discussions and votes,
and it generally seems to work out well. I think Loomio is designed
for the purpose of making good decisions together:
https://www.loomio.org/openstreetmap-uk/

I'm sorry, I don't wish to confuse you with tools and differing opinions...

Cheers
Dan

Op ma 28 sep. 2020 om 15:31 schreef Rodrigo Díez Villamuera
:
>
> Thanks all of you for your messages.
>
> As a new joiner, I could not ask for more than other members engaging in such 
> a passionate way :)
>
> It's fair to say that there is no clear consensus of whether the proposal, in 
> its current form, is acceptable or not. So, I am going to create a voting 
> section on the wiki page to help us visualise what people think
>
> However, before I do that I would like to reply to a point that was made by 
> Andy
>
> Andy,
>
> I'm not actually convinced that's a problem - as others have said, web 
> browsers are perfectly capable of converting "www.mypub.com" into either 
> "https://www.mypub.com"or ""http://www.mypub.com"as appropriate, so this 
> doesn't really add any value.  "Letting the browser sort it out" is a great 
> approach as it can deal with now/near future things such as removal TLS 1.0 
> and 1.1 support as well.
>
> This is not true based on my experience. I just tested on the latest version 
> of Chrome and Firefox and, if the URL scheme is not specified, they both open 
> the the URL using http even if https is also available for it.
>
> You may have experienced a behaviour by which the user gets redirected from 
> the http url to the https one but that depends on the configuration of the 
> site server which is not always set-up.
>
> This is also well documented for Firefox here: 
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/URL_Bar_Algorithm
>
> I see value in updating schemaless :website tags with the https version if 
> available.
> --
> Rodrigo Díez Villamuera
>
> w: http://rodrigodiez.io
> t: @rodrigodiez_pro
> p: 00 44 7513 638225
>
>
>
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 13:50, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 10:00, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>>
>> > The change you plan to execute is of limited use. Yes, it ensures more
>> > conformity in the data, but it will be a temporary fix (since new
>> > "wrong" URLs can be added at any time).
>>
>> This seems like an argument for never fixing any error.
>>
>> > So what your edit does is, it "touches" lots of objects and adds no
>> > meaningful information whatsoever.
>>
>> This statement is false, not least because in some cases "http://; is
>> added, in others "https://;; each of those - and the difference
>> between them - conveys meaningful information.
>>
>> > It creates load on the database
>>
>> The level of load is trivial. Have our database maintainers ever said
>> that a load of such small magnitude is problematic?
>>
>> > There are many, many better ways to contribute to OSM than runnning a
>> > useless automated conformity edit. Take a notebook or mobile editor, go
>> > outside, check if the phone booths on OSM are still there on the ground,
>> > add a few opening times, or even trees for that matter - a single hour
>> > of such original work is more useful to OSM that what you are proposing
>> > here.
>>
>> Denigrating another's contribution - a valid and valuable contribution
>> - in this manner is antithetical to the spirit in which OSM activity
>> is supposed to be conducted.
>>
>> > Remember: OSM is not an IT project.
>>
>> Of course it is. "Information technology (IT) is the use of computers
>> to store, retrieve, transmit, and manipulate data or information." [1]
>>
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Dan S]

Thank you Frederik - that's a good way to put it all.

Welcome Rodrigo! You'll find that Frederik's advice fits pretty well
to a common strand of thinking in OpenStreetMap. His advice is
surprising, for many of us joining OSM from an IT background (or even
a Wikipedia background, where automated edits are more widespread).
But please do take some time to think about his advice.

Best wishes
Dan

Op ma 28 sep. 2020 om 10:02 schreef Frederik Ramm :
>
> Rodrigo,
>
> On 27.09.20 17:28, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:
> > After some time using OSM as a user, I decided to make my first step as
> > a contributor, hence this email and the proposal inside.
>
> If your first idea of "how to contribute to OSM" is "how to write a
> script that runs an automated edit on the body of OSM data", then
> something is amiss!
>
> The change you plan to execute is of limited use. Yes, it ensures more
> conformity in the data, but it will be a temporary fix (since new
> "wrong" URLs can be added at any time). Anyone consuming OSM data must
> be able to work with URLs that miss a schema, and indeed today any
> browser can do that.
>
> So what your edit does is, it "touches" lots of objects and adds no
> meaningful information whatsoever. It creates load on the database; it
> creates a new version of every object you touch which, informationally
> speaking, is identical to the old version. It produces larger diff
> files, larger history files, and on top of that runs the risk of making
> data look more current than it is ("oh, this pub has last been changed
> by someone two months ago, so surely it will still be in business" when
> in fact the last OSMer who saw that pub with their own eyes did so five
> years ago).
>
> There are many, many better ways to contribute to OSM than runnning a
> useless automated conformity edit. Take a notebook or mobile editor, go
> outside, check if the phone booths on OSM are still there on the ground,
> add a few opening times, or even trees for that matter - a single hour
> of such original work is more useful to OSM that what you are proposing
> here.
>
> Remember: OSM is not an IT project.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging modal filters and school streets

[Dan S]

Hi

That could be a good idea.

How about barrier=modal_filter? Using barrier=* we might expect it to
be on the barrier itself (e.g. a row of bollards/planters), perhaps
less appropriate if a whole street area with camera-based enforcement.
But, after all, they're all intended as a barrier to some forms of
traffic.

In what sense is traffic_restriction "taken"? I see there are plenty
of "traffic_restriction=no_stopping" tagged. Could this sit alongside?

BTW, according to taginfo, in the UK there are 4 "modal_filter=yes"
and various notes/descriptions mentioning "modal" that could be a good
way to find examples:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=modal#keys


Best
Dan

Op ma 21 sep. 2020 om 18:21 schreef Stephen Colebourne :
>
> Given we have hundreds of existing and new modal filters* and school
> streets**, I think we could do with having a *high level* tag for them
> that captures the concept.
>
> Currently, these are hard to find as they can be represented in many
> ways. eg. for modal filters:
> - highway=cycleway
> - highwat=footway
> - highway=service/residential with motor_vehicle=no
> - plus potential associated barrier=xxx
>
> School streets are no more than a motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (xxx)
> which again loses the semantic meaning.
>
> What I'd like is a new tag that captures the high level concept. It
> would be a bit like traffic_calming, but I don't think that adding
> more values to that is appropriate. Any new value would go on the way
> that is no longer open. These are generally verifiable on the ground,
> even for filters that were added in the 1970s.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have a great name. "traffic_restrictions" is
> taken as is "traffic_control". My best suggestion is
> "traffic_intervention=modal_filter"/"school_street", as they are
> essentially interventions by local government to better manage the
> street space.
>
> Any thoughts?
> Stephen
>
> * a "modal filter" is a place where the road is closed, or made one
> way for the purposes of controlling traffic, such as to stop rat
> running. It is commonly linked to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)
> but they have been around for 50 years, and are generally easy to
> spot.
>
> ** a "school street" is a street that is only accessible by residents
> at school drop-off and pick-up time
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Brexit and OpenStreetMap

[Dan S]

Tony,

Please read the original thread! The one that weeklyOSM is referring to!
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-August/thread.html#7191
That email thread includes a very specific reply from Grant Slater
(about databases and countries), and also a reply from OSMF board
members.

Best
Dan


Op ma 14 sep. 2020 om 13:51 schreef Tony Shield :
>
> Saw this subject in WeeklyOSM 529
>
>   https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13734/
> Has someone analyzed the effects of Brexit on OpenStreetMap and which 
> responses could be undertaken to fix potential problems?
>
> For example have you looked at the consequences, cost and effort of moving 
> the OpenStreetMap-Foundation to a EU-country and on the problems of staying 
> in the UK (e.g. database protection for new databases by UK citizens will not 
> be given in the EU).
>
> Could we keep the servers in the UK but provide services under a different 
> jurisdiction (because the foundation seat is moved)?
>
> Is it possible to move the foundation, and what are the requirements? Maybe 
> we should ask the membership what they would think about such a move? Has the 
> board voiced its standpoint?
>
>
> If something has been written about the specific situation of OpenStreetMap I 
> would be interested in a link. I would also be interested in learning about 
> your thoughts wrt brexit and OpenStreetMap. Publicly it seems we have mostly 
> avoided any related considerations, until last year many had been hoping that 
> someone would still stop it, but now it will become effective in only 4 
> months.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
> I'm a OSM GB member not fully understanding the structure of OSM but
> here goes -
>
> GB is soon to be like any non-EU country. Brexit occurred 31 January
> last and Withdrawal Agreement ends 31 December 2020.
>
> The question becomes is the OSMF so dependent on EU laws that it cannot
> operate outside the EU. OSM is a global effort and operates in many
> places where laws are substantially different to those of GB and EU.
> Laws are also different within the EU.
>
> By thinking of moving OSMF from UK to EU because of Brexit are you
> saying that OSMF may never be able to function outside the EU - what
> about Switzerland where many international organisations are based, or
> United States. These are respected countries which should be considered
> if relocation is deemed necessary.
>
> With respect to data privacy what is to stop OSMF mandating in its
> contracts and operation that the relevant EU data laws are adhered to.
> Maintaining data integrity and security is a function of OSMF, these
> functions are mandated by EU law, OSMF wherever it is domiciled can base
> its operations on the implementation of EU law.
>
> With respect to current operations where OSM/OSMF operate or communicate
> outside the EU what protections are necessary?
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Shield
>
> aka TonyS999
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway

[Dan S]

Hi there,

Unless there's a "history" to this I recommend that you assume good
intent. Seems Skyguy made an embarrassing mistake there.

Please also don't assume "tagging for the renderer" or "vandalism",
those two OSM curse words ;) the mapper explicitly stated their
intention in the changeset comment, and it appears to be motivated by
the genuine status of the park.

By the way, the Olympic Park is technically private property not
public land, so local rules set by the park owner might take
precedence over generic Highway Code.

Best
Dan

Op do 3 sep. 2020 om 10:30 schreef Robert Skedgell :
>
> A user has recently changed highway=cycleway objects in Queen Elizabeth
> Olympic Park, London (QEOP) from highway=cycleway to highway=footway on
> the ground that "Olympic Park paths are Pedestrian Priority".
>
> In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access
> tag and segregated=no has been removed, which breaks cycle routing
> through the path. I am unsure whether this is carelessness, or the
> expression of an agenda which has no place in OSM. If the latter, this
> is vandalism.
>
> It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing
> cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed
> line to a red dashed line.
>
> Changes made by Skyguy in:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89374106
>
> Broken routing by missing access tags (not changing the highway=* tag
> for now) fixed in:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90351366
>
> Most paths in QEOP are 3 metre wide gold-top asphalt (looks a bit like
> surface=compacted and sometimes mapped as such) and there are no paths
> on which cycling is prohibited. The paths are almost all included as
> cycle tracks in the TfL CID export. QEOP is generally open to the public
> 24/7, but any part can be closed without notice for events.
>
> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging
> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be:
> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive
>
> There is nothing in the Wiki which suggests that pedestrians do not
> already have priority on unsegregated cycleways, so the edit seems
> unnecessary.
>
> The current Highway Code Rule 62 does not make this explicit, but
> pedestrian priority seems a reasonable interpretation of: "Take care
> when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people,
> and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop
> if necessary."
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
>
> The proposed new Rule 63 could also reasonably be read as strongly
> implying pedestrian priority:
> "Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles.
> When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or
> horse drawn vehicles is permitted take care when passing pedestrians,
> especially children, older adults or disabled people. Let them know you
> are there when necessary e.g. by ringing your bell (it is recommended
> that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely.
> Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and
> that this may not be obvious.
> Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or
> at high speed, particularly from behind. Remember that horses can be
> startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and
> stop when necessary."
> https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code
>
> BCC to DWG because of the impact in cycle routing.
>
> --
> Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of solar panels - number of modules

[Dan S]

Hi Donald,

If I remember right, we started off last year tagging it as
"generator:modules" but then fairly early on changed to
"generator:solar:modules" to make the tag clearer. The latter's been the
recommendation on this wiki page, for a good while:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom/Rooftop_Solar_PV

I don't know which tag(s) Gregory's page picks up, but in my (separate)
processing I've been handling both tag variants.

Cheers
Dan

Op za 29 aug. 2020 om 18:47 schreef Donald Noble :

> Hi,
>
> I have a query regarding tagging of solar panels, and specifically the
> number of modules for (domestic) rooftops. I have been tagging these with
> just generator:modules, but I see that generator:solar:modules is a lot
> more popular on TagInfo [1], although I don't seem to find specific
> documentation on the solar mapping page.
>
> This issue came up as I was surprised by the low percentage for Edinburgh
> with a number of modules on Gregory William's excellent Solar Mapping stats
> page [2].
>
> If there is a clear consensus, I will re-tag those I have added (which is
> possibly a significant number of the 1161)
>
> Cheers, Donald
>
>
> [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=modules
> Count
> Key
> 13 906
> generator:solar:*modules*
> 
> 1 161
> generator:*modules*
> 
> 2
> plant:solar:*modules*
> 
> 1
> *modules* 
>
> [2] http://osm.gregorywilliams.me.uk/solar/index.html
> --
> Donald Noble
> http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rooftop Solar & UPRNs

[Dan S]

Op za 8 aug. 2020 om 11:35 schreef Frederik Ramm :
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8/7/20 23:27, Dan S wrote:
> > The progress on the solar panel mapping is astonishing.
>
> Indeed it is. Recently I zoomed in to a small countryside residential
> neighbourhood in the UK, and all that was mapped there was (a) the
> streets (b) the bus stops and (c) a single rooftop solar collector. Most
> mappers I know would probably have let themselves be distracted and
> traced some buildings while they were there ;)

Yes, this is the recurrent story of OSM - a palimpsest of minor
obsessions :) Postboxes, zoos, playgrounds... love it all!

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rooftop Solar & UPRNs

[Dan S]

Hi all

The progress on the solar panel mapping is astonishing. I just have
one small observation to add, from our local checking here in London:

A year ago, it seemed there were not many solar panels to spot in
imagery, in central-ish London, plus the imagery wasn't always clear
enough to be sure. Now, the imagery is better, but also - in our own
area of East London it really is increasingly clear that the builders
of new blocks of flats are putting solar panels on top. These can't be
seen from the ground, and none of the new estates' own websites etc
seem to promote it as green credentials. I'm not aware of any local
authority incentives, so perhaps it is becoming more common for these
to simply be part of the build. Will be looking out for those in new
imagery.

Best
Dan

Op za 1 aug. 2020 om 21:12 schreef SK53 :
>
> When I wrote to this list at the end of June I little suspected that we'd 
> achieve 25% completion of solar panels by the end of July. Obviously, access 
> to greatly improved imagery has made a big difference.
>
> The places mentioned by Dan : LAs around Exeter & the Midlands now have good 
> coverage. The Devon LAs are all over 60% and other LAs in the county are also 
> progressing. In the Midlands it's easier to list places with low coverage: N. 
> Staffordhsire, most of Shropshire, East Lincs and Northamptonshire.
>
> One of my concerns mentioned last time was missing installations in rural 
> areas. Even with 60% coverage it is noticeable that rural LSOAs are less well 
> populated. I've recently been experimenting to see if this can now be 
> addressed and have good results.
>
> Initially I used areas where OSM has most buildings mapped (Derbyshire Dales 
> near Bakewell & in South Hams between Kingsbridge & Dartmouth). I pull 
> buildings down into JOSM with an Overpass query, and add existing solar 
> mapping. Buildings are selected and added to the to do list (a plugin) & then 
> I step through each building. This was effective, but the bbox of individual 
> LSOAs resulted in very large numbers of buildings (~8000), which is really 
> too many for a single task.
>
> I then turned to UPRNs. It is relatively easy to filter UPRNs by LSOA (e.g., 
> in QGIS) and numbers are more manageable (say 1,500-2,000). Again stepping 
> through these resulted in finding virtually all the solar installations 
> expected from the FIT numbers (tested on East Devon 0009A - Branscombe & 
> Derbyshire Dales 0008C - Tissington & Parwich). However the number of items 
> is still too high even when divided into batches, and requires quite some 
> time to work through.
>
> One problem is the sheer number of UPRNs which are not related to buildings. 
> Numerous minor tracks, possibly some footpaths, farm ponds, mobile phone 
> masts, old quarries etc. These may make up as much as 40% of all UPRNs.
>
> An obvious solution would be to use only UPRNs which pertain to buildings, 
> but I didnt have an OS Local building layer available and even then the total 
> number of search locations is still too high.
>
> Instead I've used clustering of UPRNs which seems to give reasonable results. 
> A simple clustering based on distance yields around 100 clusters which can be 
> searched visually. The non-building UPRNs tend to move the centroid away from 
> groups of buildings, but not so far as to be unworkable.
>
> I've used QGIS so I thought I'd document that approach in case anyone fancies 
> using it in there own area (obviously it can be used for things other than 
> solar):
>
> * Filter UPRNs by LSOA. I use a clipping operation in QGIS. A shapefile of 
> LSOAs is available from the ONS site, but there is also a file of 
> UPRN=>Administrative Geographies which may enable this to be done on a Unix 
> command line.
> * Cluster. Search for clustering on the Toolbox option of the Processing 
> Menu. A number of clustering techniques are available. The one I used is 
> DBSCAN. Open this can apply settings of minimum cluster size of 1 and maximum 
> distance of 0.0025 (approximating 250 m in WGS assuming 100 km / degree). Run 
> the tool and results appear as a new layer. This appears identical to the 
> original UPRNs, but each is now assigned a cluster id.
> * Group Clusters. From the Vector menu apply Collect Geomtetries from the 
> Geometry Tools menu. This returns a MULTIPOINT layer rather than the original 
> POINT layer.
> * Located Centroid. The centroid of each cluster can be found by applying 
> Centroid from the Geometry Tools Menu. This latter layer can be saved as a 
> geojson file for use in JOSM (or iD or Potlatch).
>
> In JOSM:
>
> * Open the geojson of clustered UPRNs.
> * Download existing solar data using an overpass query within the viewport of 
> the LSOA data. Make sure this is a new layer as this is the layer used for 
> editing.
> * Select all items in the UPRN layer and add them to the to do list.
> * Activate the solar data layer.
> * Step through each item in the todo list searching for 

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Dan S]

If it's truly "open access land" then it's not permissive, it's merely
foot=yes, surely?

Dan

Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 13:20 schreef Michael Collinson :
>
> Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag?
>
> Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you
> usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second,
> there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it
> isn't just dependent on the largesse of a landowner.
>
> In my area of Yorkshire, there are a number of open access areas where
> unofficial paths have evolved over recent years. I have mapped these as
> foot=yes, but that misses the extra right-to-roam dimension.
>
> Mike
>
> On 2020-07-11 12:57, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote:
> >> That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g.
> >> Scotland
> >> and England).
> > Not just England, Wales too.
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)
> >
> >> A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry,
> >> farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that
> >> it
> >> is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would
> >> certainly
> >> help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid
> >> restrictions.
> >>
> >> Nick
> >>
> >> On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote:
> >>> Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
> >>> guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
> >>> consensus? It would be super helpful
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>> Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
> >>> :
> >>>> .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used
> >>>> foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case
> >>>> in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I
> >>>> suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly
> >>>> open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a
> >>>> permissive path' notice.
> >>>>
> >>>> Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to
> >>>> forestry operations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nick
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>> From: Nick Whitelegg 
> >>>> Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
> >>>> To: Talk GB 
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in
> >>>> the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas
> >>>> with public access, which are not rights of way but which
> >>>> nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or
> >>>> 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the
> >>>> landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public
> >>>> use.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain
> >>>> 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It
> >>>> might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the
> >>>> moment we don't know'.
> >>>>
> >>>> I tend to use:
> >>>> designation for rights of way;
> >>>> foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive
> >>>> paths;
> >>>> foot=yes for urban paths;
> >>>> access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out'
> >>>> sign.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nick
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>> From: Adam Snape 
> >>>> Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
> >>>> To: Talk GB 
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway,
> >>>> foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by
> >>>> default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I
> >>>> can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there
> >>>> might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to
> >>>

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Dan S]

Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
consensus? It would be super helpful

Dan

Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
:
>
>
> .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive 
> en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights 
> of way (except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but 
> all paths are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 
> 'This is a permissive path' notice.
>
> Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry 
> operations.
>
> Nick
>
>
> 
> From: Nick Whitelegg 
> Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
> To: Talk GB 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
>
>
> I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the 
> countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public 
> access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use 
> and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this 
> case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public 
> use.
>
> I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 
> 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have 
> public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'.
>
> I tend to use:
> designation for rights of way;
> foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths;
> foot=yes for urban paths;
> access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign.
>
> Nick
>
>
> 
> From: Adam Snape 
> Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
> To: Talk GB 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
>
> It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an 
> error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be 
> the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it 
> and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always 
> preferable to an implied value.
>
> OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end 
> user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly 
> stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut 
> from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks 
> and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and 
> about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Dan S]

I have always believed that highway=footway in the UK implies foot=yes (and
not foot=designated), though I actually don't know if UK tagging practice
is successfully documented. IMHO the use of "designated" is quite specific
and probably shouldn't be assumed as an invisible default.

Best
Dan


Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 12:55 schreef Andrew Hain :

> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for
> highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in
> Potlatch 1.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607
>
> I got a changeset comment querying the edit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>- I note you have removed foot=yes from highway=footway. My
>understanding is that the default for a footway is foot=designated, but
>designated requires an explicit sign. the paths on Wimbledon Common do not
>have an explicit sign, but are legally accessible, hence foot=yes. Perhaps
>osmose is wrong.
>- Any comments?
>- --
>- Andrew
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Maps on BBC Radio 4

[Dan S]

Hi all,

Just to let you all know - I was interviewed for this programme. The
producer is putting together a "part two" of sorts, since they had
more material than would fit into a single 30 minutes. I think the
second programme will go into OSM in a bit more depth (though, still
from the perspective of HOT, since they've interviewed some
humanitarian OSM users in the field). No idea when it airs, but I'll
try to remember and post about it!

Best
Dan

Op zo 5 jul. 2020 om 11:52 schreef BD :
>
> Hi all,
>
> BBC Radio 4
> Seriously… - Mapping the Future
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08jpmk7
>
> I meant to come back to this last week but didn't have a chance. Now after 
> listening I wonder, did I hear about OSM in this program? Is BBC actually 
> aware of OSM at all?!
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar Power mapping update Q2 2020

[Dan S]

Hi all

That's great news. By the way, I have some regions to propose, if
anyone would like to be steered:

With my solar PV colleagues, we've discussed targeting a couple of
specific regions. We're looking at the Midlands (because so much good
mapping has happened there already) - but also the area around Exeter,
because there's quite a lot of "reverse flow" (i.e. solar generation)
in that region, and it's a useful case-study area for people working
with the National Grid ESO.

Exeter itself has been mapped to a good extent (30%), but it and its
surrounding areas could take more: Teignbridge (1%), Mid Devon (22%),
East Devon (4%). If anyone fancies looking over those regions, it
could be v beneficial.

Really great seeing all this mapping. I'm hoping to be able to publish
some academic analysis of it all, soonish. - I'll certainly let you
know when I've done so!

Best
Dan

Op do 2 jul. 2020 om 19:16 schreef Gregory Williams
:
>
> Thanks Jerry, and thanks to everyone that's continued to contribute
> more coverage.
>
> The next quarter's update to the FiT register should be published in
> the next few days. So I hope to find time to update the site to use
> that soon.
>
> I continue to be amazed at the steady progress in the coverage. Though,
> as you say, there are quite a few areas where the imagery either just
> isn't clear enough to untangle the ambiguities, or is clear but isn't
> recent enough.
>
> Personally, I've recently been trying to concentrate on a mixture of
> areas with less than 10% coverage, and on the lightly-mapped LSOA
> hotspots that my tool picked out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gregory
>
> On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 18:56 +0100, SK53 wrote:
> > We passed a couple of milestones a few days ago:
> > 20% of FIT totals
> > 170k individual panels mapped (excluding those in solar farms)
> > In terms of coverage there are now well over 50 LAs (all in England &
> > Wales) with more than 50% of solar installations mapped, with around
> > 10 exceeding 80%. Areas with good coverage are:
> > Scottish Central Belt: helped no doubt by more atomic data much of
> > the Central Belt is around 20% mapped.
> > North-East (former Tyne & Wear): Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland and
> > North & South Tyne.
> > North Wales: Conwy, Flint, Denbigh & Wrexham. Most panels in the
> > first three are in the coastal resort towns, but reasonable rural
> > coverage.
> > North West: recent activity has been around Preston, Blackburn Wigan
> > and Chorley.
> > East Midlands: mainly Leics & Notts. Improved & recent imagery for
> > Leicester made a huge difference.
> > West Midlands: Warwickshire, Worcestershire & Herefordshire are
> > roughly in the 20-30% zone. ALso extending into the South Wales
> > valleys. brianboru's detailed mapping in the latter is another good
> > index of rural coverage.
> > South Coast: Bournemouth area & Southampton, all at over 50%
> > More rural areas continue to be challenging: older imagery which is
> > often difficult to interpret doesn't help. I've experimented in
> > places where every building is already mapped by stepping through
> > each building, but still one may only find 20% of the number in FIT.
> >
> > London and immediately adjacent areas also have relatively little
> > mapped. Imagery can be a problem, but also finding panels in older
> > and/or larger housing with more complex roof shapes is hard.
> >
> > One thing I'm continually amazed at is how many places have buildings
> > mapped, which is very helpful for this task. However in a couple of
> > places: Ribble Valley & Leicester - it is clear that better imagery
> > would allow existing building outlines to be improved, but also that
> > plenty of buildings have been extended, demolished or replaced. This
> > type of activity lends itself to combined work using tools such as
> > Tasking Manager or MapRoulette and might be worth considering in the
> > future for a quarterly project.
> >
> > There's still no shortage of places where a lot of panels can be
> > mapped quickly, although more systematic mapping of a single LA often
> > requires a couple of passes over imagery.
> >
> > Looking forward to achieving the next milestones of 200k & 25%.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > Personally, I'm concentrating on areas adjacent to the existing well-
> > mapped (50%+) areas with the aim of extending these areas.
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Virtual meeting: New open data and towards more UK addresses

[Dan S]

I probably won't make the meeting myself - but it sounds clever to put
it in SotM, you might acquire a couple of bonus participants that way?

Best
Dan

Op ma 29 jun. 2020 om 21:46 schreef Tony OSM :
>
> Hi Rob
>
> I think a meeting this weekend is a good idea.
>
> Even if a basic discussion of what we understand is available and the 
> creation of an agenda of how to use the data.
>
> Tony Shield
>
> On 29/06/2020 20:37, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The new open data comes out on Wednesday this week (land ownership 
> boundaries, Unique Property Reference Number, etc). We are considering 
> holding a virtual meeting to discuss how we might be able to use this and any 
> next steps.
>
> Does this sound of interest to you? If so, what times and dates might work 
> best? One option is we schedule it as a State of the Map virtual session. 
> Either 19:00 BST on Saturday 3rd July (just before Allan's Q session) or at 
> 19:45 BST on Sunday 4 July. If this is too soon then we can slip it by a week 
> or so.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Best regards,
> Rob
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Server crash or dns spoofing?

[Dan S]

I won't presume that everyone on talk-gb wants the gory technical
details, but it seems they gave a brief summary on twitter:
https://twitter.com/OSM_Tech/status/1277001284705570821

Best
Dan


Op zo 28 jun. 2020 om 19:39 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB
:
>
> Apparently it was a temporary outrage,
> see https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/431
> (without useful details except that whatever is broken become fixed)
>
> Jun 28, 2020, 20:30 by witwa...@disroot.org:
>
> Is www.openstreetmap.org down?
>
> I am getting an error "We're sorry, but something went wrong".
>
> My dns is giving
> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.11
> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.13
> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.12
> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:b
> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:c
> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:d
>
> but reverse lookup is a bit suspicious:
> $ host 130.117.76.11
> Host 11.76.117.130.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>
> Am I the only one seeing this: do I need to investigate further?
>
> ael
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] SotM shirts to the UK

[Dan S]

Hi Gregory

Aha, thanks for checking it out! I would be one happy customer.

(FWIW, I used Teemill for one design* - expensive print-on-demand £19
but with good ethical credentials.)

Cheers
Dan

* https://digitalcommoner.teemill.com/




Op ma 22 jun. 2020 om 11:16 schreef Gregory Marler :

>
> Hello everyone,
>
> This year State of the Map (SotM) conference is virtual, so you don't need to 
> travel to attend! Instead of getting a shirt at the registration desk, 
> volunteers are being asked to setup regional online shops[1].
>
> I did contact the SotM 2013 Birmingham supplier[2]. However to do them well 
> we'd need a minimum of 25, and it would cost about £8 + £6 postage per shirt. 
> Deadline to place orders would be the end of this weekend if you want them in 
> time to watch the conference. We concluded the postage cost and the rush 
> makes this not the best deal for OSMers.
>
> I'll see if someone sets up a section in one of the big custom-print sites 
> for Europe (that covers the UK), or I might look at helping with that myself.
>
> Watch this space!
>
>
> Gregory (LivingWithDragons)
>
> [1] T-shirt shop organisation 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_of_the_Map_2020/Tshirt_shop_organization
> [2] https://www.movingforwardsports.co.uk/
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Farmfoods clean up

[Dan S]

Op wo 27 mei 2020 om 08:32 schreef Cj Malone
:
>
> On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 06:35 +, Ed Loach wrote:
> > If you can't copy the opening hours data, are you sure you can copy
> > the store reference?
>
> That's a good point. I guess I was thinking because it's in the url
> it's usable, but I don't know enough about copyright. I'll leave it
> out, unless anyone knows more.

It seems to me the "store reference" / URL is not complex - I wouldn't
expect to hit a copyright or database-right problem in using it. I'd
personally have no problem doing it. These are basically just URLs and
if we had a problem with those, there are probably plenty more URLs in
OSM that we'd need to discuss!
It's quite similar to "deep linking" which has occasionally been debatable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing
Note that there's not much case law to guide us in the UK.

When I did a similar thing for a different website I was advised to
contact them and check they had no objections. I did that, they didn't
mind, I pasted their reply into the wiki.

Best
Dan


> > I've already checked and I used shop=supermarket for their local
> > store, probably based on
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom
>
> I think that page could do with some restructuring, I started updating
> the numbers but it's a lot to deal with. I'd be happy to go with
> either, but I do think shop=frozen_food is a better fit.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfrozen_food
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar panels 150k up

[Dan S]

Hi

That paper is interesting+recent, and uses osm data, but within this osm UK
project we're getting more data and more detail. I'll say more later, once
we've tidied up our work here.

Btw just in case anyone notices: the authors have released the data, but
forgot to state the ODbL licence, needed since it's osm-derived. I'm
already in touch with them about that.

Best
Dan



Op maandag 18 mei 2020 schreef Christian Ledermann <
christian.lederm...@gmail.com>:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0469-8
>
> Harmonised global datasets of wind and solar farm locations and power
>
> Abstract
>
> Energy systems need decarbonisation in order to limit global warming to
within safe limits. While global land planners are promising more of the
planet’s limited space to wind and solar photovoltaic, there is little
information on where current infrastructure is located. The majority of
recent studies use land suitability for wind and solar, coupled with
technical and socioeconomic constraints, as a proxy for actual location
data. Here, we address this shortcoming. Using readily accessible
OpenStreetMap data we present, to our knowledge, the first global,
open-access, harmonised spatial datasets of wind and solar installations.
We also include user friendly code to enable users to easily create newer
versions of the dataset. Finally, we include first order estimates of power
capacities of installations. We anticipate these data will be of widespread
interest within global studies of the future potential and trade-offs
associated with the global decarbonisation of energy systems.
>
> On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 15:49, Christian Ledermann <
christian.lederm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Great work :-)
>> On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 14:17, Jez Nicholson 
wrote:
>>>
>>> "100%, 100%!!!"
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:47 PM Jez Nicholson 
wrote:

 Of approximately 300 ground-mounted solar farms (field(s) full of
solar panels generating >=1MW) in the UK we have around 12 remaining to
locatewhich, quite frankly, is astounding. I am getting ready to run
around my study shouting, "100%, 100%!!!" as soon as I get a few more hours
to complete the list. Most are a simple boundary outline. It is common to
have a 'deer fence' around the installation and this makes for a nice
boundary, some are detailed with individual banks of panels. I favour
progressive enhancement of sites over time. Thank you to everyone involved.
 There are approximately 740 roof-mounted solar farms. I have not made
any attempt yet to collate or locate them. My limited experience is that
these are harder to armchair-map.
 On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:07 PM Gregory Williams <
greg...@gregorywilliams.me.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-05-12 at 11:08 +0100, SK53 wrote:
> > Just would like to point out that we passed the 150,000 mark of
solar
> > panels mapped in the UK. Dan & Jez are best informed about solar
> > farms, so the rest of this update is on small domestic rooftop
> > installations.
> >
> > A number of us continue to spend time mapping rooftop panels, and,
> > although progress is not at the heady rate of last Summer, this has
> > resulted in improved coverage of a number of local authorities.
These
> > are the activities of which I'm aware, there are no doubt others
I've
> > missed:
> > I mainly aim to push reasonably well-mapped LAs over various
> > thresholds (50%, 60% & 80% are the ones I find most useful), and to
> > try & create a contiguous band of well-mapped (>50%) across England
&
> > Wales. Recently I've worked on Flintshire, Hinckley & Bosworth and
> > Vale Royal.
> > gurglypipe continues to spread out beyond Lancaster into South Lakes
> > to the N & Ribbledale and to the S
> > brianboru continues to pick up a significant number of installations
> > across Herefordshire & the Welsh Valleys as part of general mapping
> > work
> > Gregory Williams continues to focus on hotspot unmapped LSOAs
> > MapRoulette users make a steady contribution by converting panels
> > mapped as nodes to areas
> > Gregory has recently updated the FIT data to March which added
> > perhaps 20,000 additional installations. To deal with these he had
to
> > change the LA boundaries used to incorporate unitary authorities
> > (affecting Cheshire, Cornwall, Wiltshire, Shropshire, Northumberland
> > & perhaps others). One consequence is that some well-mapped
districts
> > dropped below thresholds, so I've been working over the last few
days
> > to restore them if possible (Ashford, Hart & Rugby still to be
hauled
> > back over 50%). Very kindly, he agreed to retain the original
> > district boundaries on a distinct web page, because I found working
> > with the old districts of large rural counties more useful than the
> > new boundaries.
>
> The distinct web page is at:
> 

[Talk-GB] Call for a coder: phone app for solar panel spotting

[Dan S]

Hi all,

Together with two UK nonprofits who are working on the climate crisis
(OpenClimateFix and Possible), I'm looking for someone who could help
us to put together a phone app for spotting solar panels in the UK.

We've done really well so far on getting UK solar panels into OSM. The
aim here is to engage a wider public, people who don't know
OpenStreetMap, by making the simplest possible phone app, with the
simplest user journey: take photo of solar panels, submit.

Our idea is to use the Mapillary APIs, which provide a very good
back-end https://www.mapillary.com/developer - so, the programming
task is relatively straightforward: build a simple phone app using
Mapillary SDKs. We're just looking for someone with the skills and
willingness to do it!

Please get in touch with me directly.

Best
Dan

P.S.
OpenClimateFix: https://openclimatefix.org/
Possible: https://www.wearepossible.org/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Dan S]

For me, the convincing argument is not ease of querying; the
convincing argument is essentially namespacing. "uprn" and "usrn" are
rather generic initialisms, and I don't see any useful reason for our
uk/gb project to claim the "meaning" of ref:uprn or ref:usrn within
OSM's tag namespace.

I notice that "ref:usrn" has been used a lot - but in fact primarily
it came three years ago during a tree import in Birmingham. So even
though it's been used a lot, it's largely confined to one user/project
and I wouldn't consider it widespread.

Best
Dan


Op za 11 apr. 2020 om 02:06 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
:
>
> Why country codes? OSM is geospatially aware.
>
> On 09/04/2020 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> >  wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM  wrote:
> >>> If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging.
> >>> Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data?
> >>> What should they be?
> > [snip]
> >> So I'd propose that we use either ref:uprn and ref:usrn, or
> >> ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn. What does everyone else think?
> > Oops. If we were to use the ISO Alpha-2 country codes, it should of
> > course be GB rather then UK. So that would make the keys ref:GB:uprn
> > and ref:GB:usrn .
> >
> > Robert.
> >
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Dan S]

Op do 9 apr. 2020 om 19:47 schreef Lester Caine :
>
> On 09/04/2020 15:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >> So I'd propose that we use either ref:uprn and ref:usrn, or
> >> ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn. What does everyone else think?
> >
> > I'd be happy with either, so long as it's consistent.
>
> That is ideal from my point of view ... yes you can get the country by
> processing the location information, but being able to simply list all
> of them WITHOUT the overhead of other processing has to be the right way
> forward?

We could make such an argument about any tag, e.g. "addr:postcode"
couldn't we? Someone who wants a GB-only list can easily get them from
a GB extract such as Geofabrik's.

On the other hand I'm happy with "ref:gb:uprn" and "ref:gb:usrn" if
preferred (can we use lowercase for convenience please?) since it
seems these terms are not global.

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Nightingale Hospital, London

[Dan S]

Hi Andy

Thanks. Your link had an accidental character at the end - the fixed link is:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7326515224

Once the facility is fully operational, it might be useful to enhance
this with entrance/exit locations for routing? I'm local(ish) though
for obvious reasons probably won't be surveying it in person.

Dan

Op di 24 mrt. 2020 om 20:09 schreef Andy Mabbett :
>
> For expediency, I have added node, inside Excel London, for the new
> Nightingale Hospital:
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7326515224x
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52018477
>
> Stay safe, everyone,
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] List moderator - volunteers needed

[Dan S]

Op za 14 mrt. 2020 om 11:20 schreef Tom Hughes via Talk-GB
:
>
> On 14/03/2020 11:13, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
> > As may have seen in Simon's response it sounds like we currently lack
> > list moderators. If this is something you would like to do please email
> > this mailing list.
> >
> > Likewise we probably need to think about the criteria of what makes a
> > good list moderator. If there are any traits that you'd like to see in a
> > mailing list moderator please share with this mailing list.
>
> Just to clarify what Simon said a bit before you all get carried
> away, there absolutely is a list administrator and there is evidence
> that they are processing the moderation queue.
>
> That's not to say that they are actively reading the messages on
> the list or applying any particular code of conduct.
>
> It does mean however that you can't just choose somebody and ask
> me to make them the list owner - you will need to try and make
> contact with the existing list owner and discuss the situation
> with them before attempting a putsch.

Do they read messages to the "owner" address more actively?
talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] "Solar panel" tag in Mapillary

[Dan S]

Thanks! Yes, in fact that's my main hope. Most of the solar
installations that we haven't yet got are the ones which are hard to
spot in aerial imagery - which very often are domestic solar panels on
sloping gable roofs. Some examples below.* It won't get everything
(e.g. taller buildings) but I hope it's complementary to the other
approaches.

Best
Dan

*
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/lffxXdTHzUfJRjlieK-ldg
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ygsZgXSbDRAOsHjh-Ta3Qg
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/uY1bmSlTJURgVzRlV-qc7g
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/4EZnU3j0T_30jYhkKCllWa


Op wo 11 mrt. 2020 om 12:10 schreef B H :
>
> Great work on the contribution!
> As Mapillary is street-level imagery, is this useful in capturing solar 
> panels on roofs?
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 12:02,  wrote:
>>
>> Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. "Solar panel" tag in Mapillary (Dan S)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:12:34 +
>> From: Dan S 
>> To: Talk GB 
>> Subject: [Talk-GB] "Solar panel" tag in Mapillary
>> Message-ID:
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Mapillary have been kind enough to add a "Solar panel" tag for their
>> street-level imagery. So, if anyone would like to tag a few images in
>> there, I'd be interested to know how you get on.
>> http://mapillary.com/app/
>>
>> (By the way: "Solar panel" is a bit generic, for example it doesn't
>> distinguish between solar photovoltaic and solar thermal. However I
>> think it's the level of granularity we can expect from a largely
>> imagery-based approach, especially if they perform automatic
>> detection.)
>>
>> Thanks to all of you who have continued mapping solar panel data.
>> We're now up to around 140,000 standalone solar, and 927 solar farms,
>> mapped in GB.
>>
>> Best
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> End of Talk-GB Digest, Vol 162, Issue 5
>> ***
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] "Solar panel" tag in Mapillary

[Dan S]

Hi all,

Mapillary have been kind enough to add a "Solar panel" tag for their
street-level imagery. So, if anyone would like to tag a few images in
there, I'd be interested to know how you get on.
http://mapillary.com/app/

(By the way: "Solar panel" is a bit generic, for example it doesn't
distinguish between solar photovoltaic and solar thermal. However I
think it's the level of granularity we can expect from a largely
imagery-based approach, especially if they perform automatic
detection.)

Thanks to all of you who have continued mapping solar panel data.
We're now up to around 140,000 standalone solar, and 927 solar farms,
mapped in GB.

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] "OSMUK-in-a-box"

[Dan S]

Op do 6 feb. 2020 om 13:06 schreef Frederik Ramm :
>
> Hi,
>
> On 06.02.20 13:29, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> > I come from a database background, and when a question isn't easily
> > answered with Taginfo or Overpass Turbo I jump to my trusty local
> > postgres database of UK data. I have a script that downloads the British
> > Isles from Geofabrik, loads it with osm2pgsql, adds some useful indexes,
> > and then removes Eire. Thereafter I can run SQL queries across the whole
> > database to get 'UK-wide' result
> I would recommend using --hstore-all instead of just --hstore because
> this gives you *all* tags in the "tags" column and therefore makes some
> analyses easier (cf. some of the examples below).
>
> It is certainly a good approach to answer complicated questions, and
> also an excellent training ground for people to hone their SQL skills.
> Some scribbles from a recent training:
>
> "what are the most frequently used key on a polygon":
>
> select count(*) as c, (each(tags)).key as k from planet_osm_polygon
> group by k order by c desc limit 10;
>
> or "what are the most frequently used key-value combos":
>
> select count(*) as c, each(tags) as k from planet_osm_polygon group by k
> order by c desc;
>
> or "which are the longest hiking routes":
>
> select osm_id, st_length(way::geography) as l, tags from planet_osm_line
> where tags->'route' = 'hiking' order by l desc;
>
> Having said that, for the easier questions there's also the per-region
> taginfo on Geofabrik (it's a bit beta still but good enough) - it
> doesn't actually feature the UK as an area but you can do
> England/Scotland/Wales separately:
>
> http://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/great-britain/england/

Also there seems to be GB:
http://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/great-britain/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Dan S]

Hi Dave,

I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?

(Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)

Best
Dan

Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
:
>
> Hi
> There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html
>
> Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
> A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance
> with the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
> This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.
>
> The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time
> to rectify.  I think this should be performed now.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Dan S]

Op za 14 dec. 2019 om 16:09 schreef Martin Wynne :
>
> > I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
>
> Thanks Dave.
>
> But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two?

using an added tag farmland=*

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/farmland


> It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous
> detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts of
> land which visually look very different are classed as one and the same?

The bench-with-backrest is a good example: generic tags for generic
tagging, and the possibly to add more detailed tags progressively.

Cheers
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Solar farms from REPD, all checked

[Dan S]

Hi all,

This weekend I completed the task of going through the REPD dataset
(UK planning data) for solar farms. Out of 1058 entries, about 65 were
un-spottable,* the rest are in OSM.

We have 908 solar farm objects in OSM for the UK.
The REPD list totals about 8.1 GW and we've got approx 6.9 GW
explicitly tagged. (Plus 70 of the 908 have no capacity tagged.)

Most of the solar farms are in there as power=plant. However, there
are plenty that had previously been tagged as power=generator, and I
chose not to coerce everything into fixed format. Also, I generally
didn't trace the panels (nor even the blocks of panels) within solar
farms, I merely drew outlines. So there's plenty of scope to improve
the mapping in future!

The repd:id tag is really useful for checking back against REPD. Some
of the mapped solar farms have multiple IDs (semicolon separated),
since there are lots of solar farms which had extensions added in
later years.

As I said, there were about 65 REPD items I couldn't spot in aerials.
Funnily enough, we have a rather similar number (55) of solar farm
objects in OSM which have not been associated with a REPD entry nor do
we have any capacity tagged for them. (Here's a query for non-repd
solar farms: )

Best
Dan

P.S. my spreadsheet is still messy, but I updated it as I went, so
fwiw: http://mcld.co.uk/tmp/wiki_repd_list_dan.ods

* Here are 87 REPD IDs which were either "not seen", or unsure and
could do with a second eye:
1098
1176
1233
1304
1325
1332
1494
1515
1546
1550
1587
1611
1620
1716
1746
1817
1827
1838
1840
1900
1908
1914
1975
1981
2013
2015
2027
2044
2060
2075
2082
2089
2104
2176
2204
2237
2252
2274
2324
2364
4713
4740
4844
4857
4861
4874
4884
4896
5006
5063
5093
5149
5152
5164
5190
5232
5255
5265
5320
5322
5330
5360
5398
5412
5440
5443
5450
5472
5485
5499
5506
5512
5525
5543
5559
5593
5603
5631
5650
5793
5891
5945
5977
6007
6019
6108
6328

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Import of UK SSSI data

[Dan S]

You need to be a little bit clearer about the licensing, to avoid
anyone getting shocked! "Freely usable" could mean many things... The
arcgis page says the data are under the Open Government Licence.

Cheers
Dan


Op za 16 nov. 2019 om 15:31 schreef Henry Bush
:
>
> Sorry, yes, the source of the data is the Natural England API:
>
> https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80
> https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80_0/
>
> The data is freely usable, so there shouldn't be any licensing issues.
>
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 15:24, Philip Barnes  wrote:
>>
>> What is the source of the data you are planning to import?
>>
>> Remember wikipedia is not a useable source under OSM licensing terms.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 2019-11-16 at 15:12 +, Henry Bush wrote:
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > (I've sent this to both the talk-gb and imports mailing lists)
>> >
>> > This is just a heads-up: I'm thinking about importing the data about
>> > UK SSSI areas into openstreetmap.
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest
>> >
>> > I've had a quick look at a few, and none of them seemed to be marked
>> > on the map. If I go ahead with the import, I'd do a much more
>> > thorough investigation first. This mail is simply a prompt for
>> > discussion as to whether people think it's a good idea.
>> >
>> > At the moment I'm still in the research phase. I've started
>> > collecting related links on a wiki page:
>> >
>> >   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Spookypeanut/SSSIBot
>> >
>> > NB: this page is really just bookmarks for me at this stage. If I go
>> > ahead I'll make a proper, more informative page.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> >
>> > Henry
>> > ___
>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging Mill Races / Leats / Lades

[Dan S]

I think instead of canal=headrace you meant to write usage=headrace?
That's what's in the wiki, and also 1000+ entries seen in taginfo.

I've chatted many times to people about millraces, but the term
"headrace" (and "tailrace") is new to me. I'll add keywords to the
wiki to make searching easier.

Best
Dan

Op do 14 nov. 2019 om 11:53 schreef Paul Berry :
>
> Looking at the existing guidelines it would be waterway=canal and 
> canal=headrace (canal here used in the power rather than transport context)
>
> If this is indeed correct then it's not very obvious but it is detailed here: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies#Headraces
>
> Regards,
> Paul
>
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 11:16, Charlie Reid  wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>>
>>
>> Can find no guidance on the Wiki about tagging mill races. I come across 
>> these continually while surveying.
>>
>>
>>
>> They are a totally distinctive water feature which don’t bear much relation 
>> to listed waterway types. Drain seems to be the closes value – but this 
>> really misrepresents  their appearance, purpose and behaviour.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any thoughts
>>
>>
>>
>> Charlie Reid
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[Dan S]

Op vr 4 okt. 2019 om 14:07 schreef Russ Garrett :
>
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 13:59, David Woolley  wrote:
> > Although I don't have a primary source for this, my understanding is
> > that the median is snapped to the nearest actual delivery point within
> > the postcode.
>
> I was also under the impression that they were mathematical centroids
> of the postcode area but the user guide [1] indeed says: "The point is
> given the coordinates of the nearest delivery point to the calculated
> mean position of the delivery points within the postcode unit."
> (Although this may not be true for all entries - the PQI will provide
> that info.)

FWIW the technical term is "medoid"... though I guess throwing new
technical terms in is not my best contribution...


> So I guess it would technically be possible to use Code-Point Open to
> add at least one address location to OSM for most postcodes. I'm still
> uneasy about doing this automatically though.

I've long been frustrated by the uselessness of most OSM-based
services wrt UK postcodes, and I agree with the argument that postcode
medoids are not very different from many of the other "abstract-ish"
things we have deliberately tagged in OSM
 - so, for me, I would support some kind of perhaps semi-automatic
import process.

Best
Dan


> [1] 
> https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/product-support/user-guide/code-point-open-user-guide.pdf
>
> --
> Russ Garrett
> r...@garrett.co.uk
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Video of SotM talk about solar PV mapping

[Dan S]

Hi all

For anyone who would've liked to see it, here's a video of my talk at
State of the Map 2019, about the UK solar PV mapping:
https://media.ccc.de/v/sotm2019-1296-mapping-solar-panels-can-save-megatons-of-co2

Cheers
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar power mapping: 100k up

[Dan S]

P.S. blogged about the milestone here:
http://mcld.co.uk/blog/2019/solar-panels-in-the-uk-10-spotted.html

Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 21:40 schreef Dan S :
>
> Hi all
>
> This is fantastic news! Thanks to everyone who has contributed (there
> are at least 30 different users taking part). We're definitely going
> to pilot some CO2-saving things using these data.
>
> Regarding the solar farms: I haven't tidied up my spreadsheet but I
> may as well just share it:
> http://www.mcld.co.uk/tmp/wiki_repd_list_dan.ods
> I've been working my way down that list (so far I've checked for
> everything that is 7 MW or larger) - and I know other people have been
> doing their own checking via other patterns. Generally, the Maxar
> premium imagery has seemed good.
>
> Please do continue with the smaller solar panels if you're willing :)
>
> BTW I'll be giving a talk about all this at SOTM in a couple of weeks.
> Great timing!
>
> Best
> Dan
>
> Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 20:30 schreef SK53 :
> >
> > It looks as though we have just passed the 100k solar installation mark as 
> > calculated by Gregory's site. We had 98,307 this morning and around 1700 
> > have been added since this time yesterday (roughly the cut-off time for the 
> > stats).
> >
> > We have 4 LAs with over 80% of the FIT target mapped: Knowsley, Nottingham, 
> > Plymouth & Sunderland. Amazingly Plymouth is over 95% of the target. There 
> > are 2 others over 75%: Tameside and Ashfield, and around 16-17 with over 
> > half mapped. I hope one of these is the former district of Caradon in SE 
> > Cornwall as I've been mapping this area following Dan;s suggestion when I 
> > last reported this status.
> >
> > There are still a lot of solar farms to chase down. It would be nice to get 
> > more of them located (or in some cases just updating tagging). This is an 
> > area where we can get close to completeness (pace Brian's remarks earlier).
> >
> > Jerry
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar power mapping: 100k up

[Dan S]

Hi all

This is fantastic news! Thanks to everyone who has contributed (there
are at least 30 different users taking part). We're definitely going
to pilot some CO2-saving things using these data.

Regarding the solar farms: I haven't tidied up my spreadsheet but I
may as well just share it:
http://www.mcld.co.uk/tmp/wiki_repd_list_dan.ods
I've been working my way down that list (so far I've checked for
everything that is 7 MW or larger) - and I know other people have been
doing their own checking via other patterns. Generally, the Maxar
premium imagery has seemed good.

Please do continue with the smaller solar panels if you're willing :)

BTW I'll be giving a talk about all this at SOTM in a couple of weeks.
Great timing!

Best
Dan

Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 20:30 schreef SK53 :
>
> It looks as though we have just passed the 100k solar installation mark as 
> calculated by Gregory's site. We had 98,307 this morning and around 1700 have 
> been added since this time yesterday (roughly the cut-off time for the stats).
>
> We have 4 LAs with over 80% of the FIT target mapped: Knowsley, Nottingham, 
> Plymouth & Sunderland. Amazingly Plymouth is over 95% of the target. There 
> are 2 others over 75%: Tameside and Ashfield, and around 16-17 with over half 
> mapped. I hope one of these is the former district of Caradon in SE Cornwall 
> as I've been mapping this area following Dan;s suggestion when I last 
> reported this status.
>
> There are still a lot of solar farms to chase down. It would be nice to get 
> more of them located (or in some cases just updating tagging). This is an 
> area where we can get close to completeness (pace Brian's remarks earlier).
>
> Jerry
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Managed open water swimming

[Dan S]

It sounds like the network=* tag might be useful for this? eg
network=NOWCA. I'm suggesting it because it sounds like a fairly
similar situation to the London bike hire scheme (for which we use
this tag), in which one can use RFID keys to borrow a bike from any of
various locations...

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/network#values

Best
Dan


Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 12:26 schreef Robert Skedgell :
>
> There are a few open water swimming areas which are operated by the
> landowner, but use RFID wristbands provided by NOWCA or Great Swim Local
> to manage booking and attendance.
>
> I feel that the operator=* tag should probably contain the operator of
> the site, so does anyone have suggestions for the best way to capture
> NOWCA and Great Swim Local sites?
>
> For OWS in the reservoir at Hadleigh Park (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/724008897 ), I currently have it
> tagged as follows:
> access=customers
> contact:website=https://hadleigh-park.co.uk/open-water-swimming/
> leisure=swimming_area
> opening_hours=We 17:30-19:30;Sa 08:00-10:00
> operator=Hadleigh Park
> sport=swimming
>
> There should probably also be a fee=yes added to the above.
>
> --
> Rob Skedgell (rskedgell)
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Dan S]

Ah, good spot. The "type=*" tag on a relation is usually used to
indicate what sort of relationship is represented, e.g.
type=multipolygon. The latter might in fact be a reasonable thing to
do here?

Best
Dan

Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :
>
> Tagging it as type=memorial and memorial=yes doesn't seem very useful to me.
>
> Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
> relation, I would tag it as that. It would be similar to this one nearby
> [1], would still get rendered and be recognised by data consumers. Or
> failing that, just add it as a node.
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7838824
>
> On 03/09/2019 11:40, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > I've just added the RNLI Dunkirk Memorial at Margate to the map:
> >
> >https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9995162
> >
> > but I wasn't sure how to best tag the relation, and the three
> > connected ways that comprise it.
> >
> > It's an area of white-painted conrete, in the shape of an anchor.
> >
> > Any suggestions for improvement?
> >
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar Panels Quarterly Project: 39 days to go

[Dan S]

Hi Brian,

I see where you're coming from. But I'd argue it's not that vital to
push people forward on the larger solar farms. I'm confident they'll
all get done, by the end of the year at least, since there's a finite
set of them and they're highly visible. (We've gone from 138 to 538
solar farms tagged so far.) To my eyes, the quarterly project is
already on track to be a big success - we started with 4k panels and
now we have 69k.

But of course if people would like to map the outlines of the big
farms then please do - indeed I've been doing some of that. I do
actually have a CSV of the type you suggest, but it's a mess with
personal notes. I can share it but not immediately (I was hoping to
merge it back into the wiki list at [1]). In my experience, about 5%
of the REPD entries, I don't see in any aerial imagery (so cannot map)
and I don't know whether that means they're very recent or that they
didn't get built. I've checked all the entries of 10 MW or more, so if
others would like to help then a good starting point is items in the
list [1] of less than 10 MW (e.g. between 5 and 10 MW - there are lots
of those).

Best
Dan



[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#List_of_under_construction_and_operational_UK_Ground_Mounted_Solar_Farms

Op za 24 aug. 2019 om 10:24 schreef Brian Prangle :
>
> Stupendous though the progress is - we're unlikely to achieve more than about 
> 20% of the total by the end of the project so perhaps it would be better to 
> concentrate for the remainder of the time on the larger solar farms where we 
> already have approx 50% of the total and have reasonable prospect of getting 
> them all. It would be good to  have a quartlery project where we achieve 
> completion. Perhaps someone with the data skills could compare the REPD ofgem 
> data with OSM data and prepare a map (or even just a csv with lat/lon for use 
> in JOSM) showing the missing ones?
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 16:34, Dan S  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jerry and all,
>>
>> Indeed we've over 500 solar farms - I can check the exact number this 
>> weekend. (From the OfGEM data, I estimate that approx 1100 exist.)
>>
>> Here are some comments from the point of view of a data consumer:
>>
>> As I think Gregory commented - we don'tt really "need" much detail on solar 
>> farms (e.g. the panels contained within them). In general, we have metadata 
>> for solar farms, so we just need their outlines, plus either their output 
>> capacity and/or their ID in the REPD dataset (repd:id=*).
>>
>> Much more important is to spot the small-scale solar - that's a vital piece 
>> of the puzzle that none of the official data sources are very good at.
>>
>> As Jerry suggests, it's good to aim for high coverage on a few chosen 
>> regions (e.g. local authorities). This will help with the machine learning 
>> but the more direct importance is that it will help piloting solar energy 
>> forecasting, using those regions.
>> In particular, it might be helpful for at least someone to focus on 
>> Cornwall. That's an area with a lot of solar installations, and the National 
>> Grid know it as an area that often gives a lot of "reverse flow", i.e. a 
>> large amount of small-scale generation feeding back into the grid. I've had 
>> a bit of a look at Cornwall and various imagery looks really nice and clear 
>> there.
>>
>> Have a sunny weekend!
>>
>> Cheers
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> Op vr 23 aug. 2019 om 13:05 schreef SK53 :
>>>
>>> Thought I'd write a really quick summary of progress on the quarterly 
>>> project:
>>>
>>> As of last night we had a total of 67,475 installations (solar farms 
>>> enclosing several groups of panels are treated as one installation. At the 
>>> time of writing another 500 have been added this morning.
>>> 8 local authorities have more than 50% of the estimated total number (based 
>>> on FIT data), in descending order : Nottingham, Ashfield, Liverpool, 
>>> Knowsley, Tameside, Wrecsam, Bassetlaw, Peterborough, and Manfield.
>>> During August anywhere from 1500 to nearly 2500 panels have been mapped 
>>> each day. Even if only average 1000 a day for the remainder of the project 
>>> it means we should comfortably exceed 100k mapped installations (between 10 
>>> & 12% of the total).
>>> There's no shortage of places where it is easy to add a lot of panels in a 
>>> short time (I added nearly 500 in Worksop yesterday). Gregory's site has a 
>>> list of candidates at the bottom of the main page.
>>> As expected urban areas ar

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar Panels Quarterly Project: 39 days to go

[Dan S]

Hi Jerry and all,

Indeed we've over 500 solar farms - I can check the exact number this
weekend. (From the OfGEM data, I estimate that approx 1100 exist.)

Here are some comments from the point of view of a data consumer:

As I think Gregory commented - we don'tt really "need" much detail on solar
farms (e.g. the panels contained within them). In general, we have metadata
for solar farms, so we just need their outlines, plus either their output
capacity and/or their ID in the REPD dataset (repd:id=*).

Much more important is to spot the *small-scale* solar - that's a vital
piece of the puzzle that *none* of the official data sources are very good
at.

As Jerry suggests, it's good to aim for high coverage on a few chosen
regions (e.g. local authorities). This will help with the machine learning
but the more direct importance is that it will help piloting solar energy
forecasting, using those regions.
In particular, it might be helpful for at least someone to focus on
*Cornwall*. That's an area with a lot of solar installations, and the
National Grid know it as an area that often gives a lot of "reverse flow",
i.e. a large amount of small-scale generation feeding back into the grid.
I've had a bit of a look at Cornwall and various imagery looks really nice
and clear there.

Have a sunny weekend!

Cheers
Dan



Op vr 23 aug. 2019 om 13:05 schreef SK53 :

> Thought I'd write a really quick summary of progress on the quarterly
> project:
>
>- As of last night we had a total of 67,475 installations
> (solar farms
>enclosing several groups of panels are treated as one installation. At the
>time of writing another 500 have been added this morning.
>- 8 local authorities have more than 50% of the estimated total number
>(based on FIT data), in descending order : Nottingham, Ashfield, 
> Liverpool, Knowsley,
>Tameside, Wrecsam, Bassetlaw, Peterborough, and Manfield.
>- During August anywhere from 1500 to nearly 2500 panels have been
>mapped each day. Even if only average 1000 a day for the remainder of the
>project it means we should comfortably exceed 100k mapped installations
>(between 10 & 12% of the total).
>- There's no shortage of places where it is easy to add a lot of
>panels in a short time (I added nearly 500 in Worksop yesterday). Gregory's
>site has a list of candidates at the bottom of the main page.
>- As expected urban areas are easier to do than rural areas.
>- General areas with a lot of mapping are: West Midlands, North-East
>(Tyneside, Wearside etc), North-West, East Mids and Kent. I think you can
>guess who the likely suspects are.
>- I don't have any immediate stats on solar farms, but Dan pointed out
>that we have over 50%. perhaps Dan or Jex can provide an update.
>
> Apart from a general target of 100k installations some other things are
> worth focussing on for the remainder of the project:
>
>- Getting a few LAs over 75%. Ashfield
> is surprising
>because installations are widely distributed. Liverpool
> is more
>typical: two-thirds are mapped but perhaps 80% of the LSOAs have not been
>touched, and over a 1000 are in 4 LSOAs around Speke. So finding the
>additional panels may be less rewarding.
>- Searching a small number of rural LAs intensively: small ones are
>probably best: Anglesey, Isle of Wight, Rutland etc. My suspicion is that
>panels are harder to find, but also that imagery is often quite a bit 
> older.
>- Get more done in Scotland (and Northern Ireland). Gregory's site
>doesn't allow the micro-targeting by LSOA which has been so effective for
>England & Wales.
>
> The first two are because there is the possibility of using located
> rooftop solar panels as training sets for more automated identification
> using machine learning. Dan may want to say more on this.
>
> Lastly, a couple of remarks stemming from jumping around England & Wales
> about OSM mapping in general:
>
>- Buildings have been diligently mapped in all sorts of unexpected
>places. Unfortunately address data is scarcer.
>- Former council estates often lack many of the footpaths which give a
>better sense of their layout. Particularly true for the post-war Radburn
>style estates.
>- Some places were obviously mapped when OS Streetview first became
>available and the road networks could do with tidying up (I'll draw up a
>separate list at some stage).
>- MS StreetSide is really valuable particularly around Manchester.
>Although the imagery is 7 years old it allows a much more detailed
>appreciation of building types, and checking of other detail..
>
> Happy hunting,
>
> Jerry
>
> PS. I was only the 3rd OSMer to look to add the new solar plant
> 

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar project: Press interview

[Dan S]

Hi Rob,

I'd be happy to

Cheers
Dan

Op do 8 aug. 2019 om 23:08 schreef Rob Nickerson :
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been a bit slow to the solar mapping project but have now picked up the 
> baton for outreach. If we can get some press lined up do we have any 
> volunteers to speak with them?
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Solar panels quarterly project progress

[Dan S]

Hi all,

The current quarterly project is: solar panels. The good news: we've hit 25,000!
(From a baseline of fewer than 5,000 at the start of the year.)
https://twitter.com/mclduk/status/1156274870625472513

Great work folks. It'd be great to find a way to get other people to
help spot solar panels in their own neck of the woods. But we're on
our way!

Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] postcode mapping (was Re: Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only))

[Dan S]

Op di 30 jul. 2019 om 14:21 schreef Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>
>
>
> 30 Jul 2019, 11:56 by nd...@redhazel.co.uk:
>
> 10M addresses that have yet to be surveyed.
>
> Is it typical for post codes to be posted like housenumbers? Either on 
> buildings or postboxes?

No

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_postcodes is not clear,
> http://www.livingwithdragons.com/2009/06/my-postbox-obsession suggest that it 
> may be true.

No, the postboxes have individual IDs that are related to their
postcode district, but they're not actually full postcodes written on
the postboxes.

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits

[Dan S]

Op ma 29 jul. 2019 om 11:22 schreef ael :
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 09:42:27AM +0100, Dan S wrote:
> > "stinks of armchair mapping" - that sounds rather derogatory. My
> > understanding is that these are organised edits informed in
> > significant part by Amazon's own GPS logs from their delivery staff.
>
> In the case that I mentioned, it was certainly not from their own GPS
> logs. The construction area was inaccesible, even on a bicycle. It
> was definitely armchair mapping.

That's useful to know, thanks

Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits

[Dan S]

"stinks of armchair mapping" - that sounds rather derogatory. My
understanding is that these are organised edits informed in
significant part by Amazon's own GPS logs from their delivery staff.
(Am I misunderstanding?) If so, referring to it as "armchair" is
irrelevant; either way, referring to it as "stinks" is just not very
nice. If they should be adding driveway tags then how about emailing
their nominated contact address and teaching them the good ways?

Best
Dan

Op ma 29 jul. 2019 om 09:37 schreef Andy Robinson :
>
> I've just looked at a number of Amazon Logistics in my local area. A lot of
> service roads are getting added which on face value look perhaps to be
> driveways but that tag hasn't been added. Just stinks of armchair mapping.
> The users (three I spotted off the bat) all have the following   "I work for
> Amazon Logistics. At Amazon Logistics, we've been utilizing OSM in some
> cases related to our delivery programs. In connection with those delivery
> programs, we have collected information that we think is valuable to the OSM
> community such as names and info about new roads that are not currently in
> the map today, new data on turn restrictions, and road connectivity, to name
> a few. When we hear feedback, we've been editing to provide that information
> for the benefit of the entire OSM user community. If you have more
> questions, please contact osm-edit-escalati...@amazon.com" in their username
> profiles but there is no link to what's really going on and what the basis
> of the edits are.
>
> Anyone else have concerns over benefits?
>
> Cheers
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Dan S]

Op vr 26 jul. 2019 om 13:15 schreef Martin Wynne :
>
> The tag is *barrier*=gate.
>
> A permanently open gate isn't a barrier, so I don't think it should be
> tagged as such. At least not across a way.

In OSM tagging, the definition isn't strongly tied to the literal
English meaning, but rather to how it's used and interpreted. Any
object that is tagged with "access=yes" and "barrier=*" could be said
to be "not a barrier" since access would seem to be permitted for
everyone. But we still use the barrier tag.

I'd also suggest that a "permanently open gate" is still a gate that
someone might close in future (e.g. if they change their access
policy). Also, there's usually a gate-post on each side of the way,
not just one side.

So yes, I tag permanently-open gates on the way itself.

Cheers
Dan

> You could add a separate node to one side of the way, and tag that as a
> gate.
>
> A gate which is often open, but sometimes closed, is just an ordinary
> gate. Many farm gates are like that. Potatoes this year = leave the gate
> open. They are not likely to escape, and it saves getting down off the
> tractor. Sheep this year = keep the gate closed.
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Playground age limits

[Dan S]

IMHO if there are no actual restrictions, just implications, then
don't specify any min_age or max_age. Just map the fence as a fence.
If there are indeed restrictions, then do as Phil suggests...

Cheers
Dan

Op di 4 jun. 2019 om 15:22 schreef Martin Wynne :
>
> In the local park there are two areas of play equipment for children.
>
> One is fenced off and clearly intended for infants/toddlers accompanied
> by parents.
>
> Next to it there is a larger unfenced area containing play equipment for
> unsupervised older children, large climbing structures, zip wires, etc.
>
> leisure=playground allows min_age and max_age in years, but in this case
> there are no signs giving specific age restrictions.
>
> How best to map the distinction between the two areas?
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Dan S]

I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225

I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
sometimes rise above the road, and even has steps down at at least one
point, so perhaps worth being a separate feature?

Dan

Op za 1 jun. 2019 om 11:12 schreef Jez Nicholson :
>
> Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn 
> which i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite?
>
> Regards,
>   Jez
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tools to support solar panel mapping?

[Dan S]

Thanks Rob - we're using the FiT register already, but please note
that it doesn't disclose any official IDs (for privacy reasons, I
presume) so there's no "primary key", no definitive way to join the
dots e.g. across different versions of the FiT data. The REPD has a
primary key but it only covers larger installations. Most
installations, even if we can find metadata for them, we can't find an
official ID, AFAIK?

Dan

Op do 23 mei 2019 om 23:03 schreef Rob Nickerson :
>
> > we don't have any official ID numbers for the items-to-map
>
> I'm almost certain I have pointed it out here already, but in case not: any 
> solar PV installation which is receiving a subsidy will be registered and 
> will therefore have an ID. Larger installations are installed in the 
> Renewable Obligations register. Smaller sites are in the Feed In Tariff 
> register.
>
> The FiT register can be downloaded (in 3 parts) from:
> https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/feed-tariff-installation-report-31-march-2019
>
> The RO register can be obtained from the following site. You need to click 
> "view public reports", then "Accredited Stations", Next set the page size to 
> 25 and view the report. Once loaded you can then click the export drop down 
> (the save icon/floppy disk) and export the full register to a CSV.
> https://www.renewablesandchp.ofgem.gov.uk/
>
> P.S. this is good for almost all sites built up to now. Going forward then 
> other sources will need to be found* as the subsidy schemes have come to an 
> end.
>
> * there are none.
>
> Best regards,
> Rob

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Tools to support solar panel mapping?

[Dan S]

Hi

Related to the idea of solar panel mapping, I've had a request for
info about what sort of software tools might help support this work.
We might be using some of the familiar tools (e.g. streetcomplete,
openinframap, ... even tasking manager?).

It'd be useful to have something like
completeness-by-postcode-district. Unlike Robert's postbox tools, we
don't have any official ID numbers for the items-to-map, we just have
some official stats (to be taken with a pinch of salt) about how many
are in each postcode district - but still, that could be a start.

I'd also be interested in some tool that predicts where to look, which
might be based on analysing imagery, but perhaps more realistically
based on some mix of heuristics and official data.

Any thoughts?

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-gb-london] bulk importing london open data to osm

[Dan S]

Hi Joe

For the stations that are restricted to taxis... would it be
appropriate to use the access=* tag? It is mainly used for roads/paths
and gates etc, but I think it is used in other cases to specify "who
is allowed to use this feature".

The wiki page for access
 suggests that the
way to do it would be the combination of "access=private" and
"taxi=yes".

Dan

Op di 23 apr. 2019 om 12:29 schreef Joseph Leach :
>
> hello
>
>
> thanks to everyone who has helped us out so far; the current view is that for 
> point data, the osm-conflator and osm-conflator-audit tools are a good fit 
> for syndicating government open data onto osm in a procedural way that can 
> achieve community backing
>
>
> there's now a wiki page that sets out the work to date, the data being 
> imported and our implementation of an osm-conflator profile
>
>
> we've hit an impasse with osm-conflator-audit, being neither able to run a 
> local installation due to issues with flask_oauthlib, nor (yet) host our 
> changes file on audit.osmz.ru; consequently we may fall-back to using the 
> josm file that osm-conflator outputs with reference to the changes file it 
> also produces on geojson.io - there are a few instances where our data 
> conflates with existing records so we'll proceed with caution; additionally, 
> there's the question of how to show that some charging stations we're mapping 
> are restricted to taxis, currently this is stored in a note tag.
>
>
> joe
>
> 
> From: Nick Allen 
> Sent: 14 March 2019 14:35:11
> To: Joseph Leach
> Cc: Tom Chance; talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-london] bulk importing london open data to osm
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Just in case you were wondering if Tom was the only one here.
>
> Welcome, and I look forward to seeing progress.
>
> I think Tom made a very good job of answering you, so I won't interfere and 
> confuse things.
>
> Regards
>
> Nick (Tallguy)
>
> Nick & Daphne
> my phone is responsible for any spelling mistakes!
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019, 13:19 Joseph Leach,  wrote:
>
> attending the meetup sounds like a very good idea
>
>
> on the bus stop example, corporate data releases can have inaccuracies ... at 
> this point i should note that i copied a drinking fountain dataset to sixteen 
> amenities (and added metadata to one in bexleyheath), looking back, adding 
> notes rather than features may have been better in relation to the need for 
> surveys
>
>
> will now go and check the guys hospital one during lunch
>
> 
> From: Tom Chance 
> Sent: 14 March 2019 12:12:47
> To: Joseph Leach
> Cc: talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-london] bulk importing london open data to osm
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> There's further useful guidance on the wiki, inc on the licensing point: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
>
> There's also a regular pub meet-up where you'll find people more up to date 
> and knowledgeable than me! The next is on Thurs 28th: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London
>
> One thing they might have thoughts on is how to involve the wider OSM London 
> community, for example in checking and cleaning data that can be imported, or 
> manually adding data. I recall one import many years ago of TfL bus stop 
> data, where we then had to go through removing lots of duplicates, and quite 
> often we found that the TfL data was less accurate than existing OSM data! So 
> it was worth checking each one with a survey.
>
> Tom
>
> m: 07866 447 075
> w: http://tomchance.org
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 15:16, Joseph Leach  wrote:
>
> thanks, this is encouraging
>
>
> in relation to charging stations this has already raised questions:
>
>
> the data is sourced via various providers, so licensing will likely require 
> several parties to be involved
> the data includes an attribute relating to taxi/public use which could raise 
> issues relating to access
> the data contains likely duplicates of stations already on osm; looking at 
> both tfl and osm data together likely duplicates can be seen for example 
> along Southwark Street SE1, we can use gis to investigate stations based on 
> proximity to those already mapped
>
>
> presumably these questions affect all kinds of open data release, so it will 
> be good to get used to dealing with such matters
>
>
> joe
>
> 
> From: Tom Chance 
> Sent: 13 March 2019 08:48:51
> To: Joseph Leach
> Cc: talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-london] bulk importing london open data to osm
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> This would be great. Welcome to the list. I used to work at the GLA (2009-16) 
> and am glad to see you proposing this.
>
> Others will have a better idea of the process, but I'd think a first step 
> would be to create a wiki page and set out the datasets you have, indicating 
> for each one any licensing conditions/issues, what fields 

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC: Solar panel mapping in the UK

[Dan S]

Hi all,

Thanks for the comments on solar panel mapping. (Plenty of mapping
happening already: thousands of UK solar panels added to the database
in the past month.) A few small responses:

SOLAR FARMS:

I'll defer to Russ's tagging advice about solar farms: power=plant
polygon (or sometimes multipolygon) as the outline of a solar farm,
with power=generator areas contained within it for the blocks of
panels. Previously, I was mapping solar farms as relations, but I'm
easily persuaded!

I don't have any advice about landuse/landcover other than that it's a
fairly separate issue, since those tags are not essential to the solar
power mapping.

I've been adding some solar farms that are listed in the REPD list on
the wiki. For those ones I've used a tag "repd:id=*" which I hope
makes it easy to identify them using the ID number in that database.
Some solar farms have more than one entry in the REPD (they submit a
new application form when they have an expansion).

ROOFTOP SOLAR:

For various reasons, if we can get solar installations mapped as areas
not just nodes, that'll be helpful. Areas will be more useful than
module-counting. However, I've noted that the imagery doesn't always
make this easy for rooftop solar: clarity is variable per region.

Is there any good way to tag the vertical tilt of a panel? I know in
many cases we won't be able to measure it well, but I thought I'd ask.
For example, there's roof:angle=* for the slope of a roof, which is a
mildly related concept.

Cheers
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] RFC: Solar panel mapping in the UK

[Dan S]

Hi all,

I'd like to propose that for OSM in the UK we have a project to map
solar electricity panels (photovoltaics or "PV").

Why? In brief:

* We can do this! It involves a nice mix of aerial imagery, local
on-the-ground observation, etc; and anyone can do it, in the town and
in the countryside.

* The tagging is already pretty well-defined.

* We have auxiliary sources of information (from UK government
departments) to help us know where to look, to help us estimate
completeness, etc.

* The data will be useful - e.g. to help the National Grid predict how
much solar power they'll receive on any given day (allowing them to
reduce the amount of coal power they burn), or to help select good
locations for new installations. I've been in conversation with people
who would use the data for these things. It's also good mapping in
general - these things are often visible landmarks etc.

* We can visualise our work delightfully using Russ' OpenInfraMap:
https://twitter.com/openinframap/status/1113362591642992640


There are two parts to this: rooftop solar (there are about 900,000
installations in GB), and large solar farms (there are about 1,000 in
GB). OSM currently has about 13,000 items in GB tagged as
generator:method=photovoltaic.

For rooftop solar see info we've compiled here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom/Rooftop_Solar_PV
For large solar farms, there's this list (from a while ago but quite useful):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#List_of_under_construction_and_operational_UK_Ground_Mounted_Solar_Farms

We could focus on just one of these or on both. In each case there's
plenty of mapping to do, as well as a bit of cleanup or augmentation
of existing items.

In both cases OSM UK people are already having a look into it and
doing useful mapping, so I'm sure there will be some useful advice
from experience. (See e.g. Jerry's blog, linked from the wiki page
above.)

This could be a quarterly project. Currently it's a request for
comments. What do you think?

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] More imagery

[Dan S]

Op woensdag 6 maart 2019 schreef Dan Stowell :
> Yes, I'm sure it would. Are there any specific nicenesses of these
aerials - eg hi red, recent, different time of day?
>
> I'm currently having discussions about mapping solar panels in the UK.
Both manually and semi automatically. (Don't worry, no weird imports!)
Although existing imagery might be fine for this, the more the merrier...
>
> Best
> Dan
>
> Op woensdag 6 maart 2019 schreef chilton steve via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>:
>> Would OSM benefit from another imagery source? Getmapping have
tentatively offered theirs. See:
https://itsahill.wordpress.com/2019/03/05/edina-geoforum-2019/
>> and get back to me via any of the normal methods.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Steve Chilton (@steev8)
>
> --
> http://www.mcld.co.uk
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] account disabled due to bounces

[Dan S]

It happened to me too today, FWIW.

Best
Dan

Op ma 14 jan. 2019 om 09:10 schreef Jez Nicholson :
>
> I get the occasional email from Talk-GB telling me that my email address has 
> excessive bounces. I'm using gmail. Am I the only one with problems? Is there 
> something I need to change?
>
> Regards,
>  Jez
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Greater London Authority

[Dan S]

Hi

They're not exactly offering OSM data extracts under OGL. In fact
they're cross-linking to Geofabrik's data extract downloads. The page
simply has a mistake on it where it says "Licence: Open Government
Licence" at the top, and that needs fixing. If anyone has a contact
please do send them a friendly message!

Dan

Op zo 13 jan. 2019 om 10:33 schreef Brian Prangle :
>
> Does anyone have any contacts in GLA? Came across this entry  at dat.gov.uk  
> wich was entered in November 2018 so pretty recent. It's  a good write up of 
> OSM and offering practical tips on how to use OSM data and also with some 
> data extracts pubished under OGL ( does our licence allow this?)
>
> Rgrds
>
> Brian
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents

[Dan S]

Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 00:19 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
> Even if it were open .. does OSM want it?

Is it equivalent to the "cadastral" data that's been used in France and Spain?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cadastre
Their experience could be informative, about what the data can help with

> I don't see any specific tags for it?

 Make tags if you need them...

Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

[Dan S]

Hi Martin,

It's a bit of a do-ocracy - you can take the initiative yourself, but
you should follow the code of conduct, which includes discussing it
with the right local groups and giving time for comments on the edit
you want to make. See the instructions here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Cheers
Dan

Op zo 6 jan. 2019 om 11:24 schreef Martin Wynne :
>
> On 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote:
> > I'm about to do a GB wide edit
>
> As a recent mapper I'm interested to know - if a GB-wide edit is needed,
> how does it get decided who should do it?
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] drawing internal parts of buildings

[Dan S]

Hi dzidek

Your mapping looks lovely - thank you!

I can see it most easily if I open the Layers menu (button on the
right) and enable "Map Data". Looking at your tagging, I think it's
great

The main thing to remember is that what you see by default on
openstreetmap.org is only one way of rendering the data. The main
render clearly doesn't do anything to emphasise building-parts. But
your mapping looks good - please be assured, your efforts are not
wasted! - the improved detail gets used in routing applications, other
renderings, etc.

If you want the rendering to do something different, you could raise
an issue or even get involved in coding the main "openstreetmap-carto"
rendering style:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto

Best
Dan

Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 23:30 schreef BD :
>
> Hi all and Happy New Year,
>
> I was trying to capture Peterborough's Serpentine Green shopping centre with 
> all of its internal segments.
> And those are the results:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.54057/-0.26284
>
> Yes, I guess some of you will spot that there are no (visible) parts to the 
> shop. Well yes, but I did spent some time and now would like to ask for your 
> advise before more time is waisted.
>
> Firstly, I would like to avoid mapping this building with separate building 
> objects as this is one large shop. So solution like this is not going to 
> satisfy my requirements ;)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.54361/-0.30304
>
> Please tell me how can I get something like St. Jude Church layout from 
> Google on OSM.
> https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5826465,-0.270375,20.01z
>
> Many thanks,
> dzidek23
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] How to map houses

[Dan S]

Hi BD,

Ed's right that opinions will vary and there's often not one perfect
answer. Allow me to propose a modification of Martin's suggestion, for
the case where you have one single outline for a whole terrace and no
knowledge of exactly which housenumber sits where:

building=terrace
addr:housenumer=5-17
addr:interpolation=2
addr:street=Westbury Avenue

Using address interpolation on an outline is not that common, I admit,
but it does at least mean the data is there in machine-readable
format, i.e. it's relatively straightforward to write an automatic
query to know where to send someone if they're looking for 7 Westbury
Avenue.

The more orthodox use is described here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Using_interpolation
where, assuming you know which end of the row is number 5 and which is
number 17, you'd use building=terrace and then create a separate way
(typically not even connected to the building outline) that holds the
addresses and interpolation as shown in the little diagram you see on
that wiki page.

Best
Dan

Op ma 26 nov. 2018 om 19:22 schreef Martin Wynne :
>
> Hi BD,
>
> Try:
>
> building=terrace
>
> name=5-17 Westbury Avenue
>
> see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dterrace
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

[Dan S]

Op vr 9 nov. 2018 om 10:41 schreef Paul Berry :
>
> Would the etiquette here be to tag the objects with source=local knowledge if 
> you happen to know the postcode without looking it up (or it's on signage, 
> etc)?

Hi - two slightly different things in your question there - the
convention is, as far as I understand it, to use
source=local_knowledge if you happen to know it from being there
yourself or a local tells you, and source=survey if you see it on
signage.

As far as I know, there's some disagreement about whether and how
"disembodied" postcodes should be added, but I do often add postcodes
e.g. on specific shops or addresses where I've got it first-hand (e.g.
from the shop window)

Best
Dan


> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 09:38, Tom Hughes  wrote:
>>
>> On 09/11/2018 09:09, Phoenix830 wrote:
>>
>> > I want to add postcodes but I am aware of issues with this being
>> > copyrighted material.
>>
>> Add them to what exactly?
>>
>> > I have come across https://postcodes.io which states it is from open
>> > sources. I have contacted them here
>> > https://ideal-postcodes-support.herokuapp.com/channel/support .
>> >
>> > They have confirmed that this data is released under the Open Government
>> > Licence
>> > http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ .
>>
>> That data set only gives a centroid for each post code though, it
>> doesn't tell you what postcode a particular building has.
>>
>> > I am not bulk adding these (I do not have the technical knowledge or
>> > time) I am just adding postcodes to properties as I add them.
>>
>> So how are you working out which postcode to use? Sometimes it is
>> fairly obvious from the centroid location but it often isn't.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> --
>> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
>> http://compton.nu/
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Changing wikipedia links

[Dan S]

Op ma 1 okt. 2018 om 23:15 schreef Neil Matthews :
> Looks like an automated edit - albeit a human curated one - without
> discussion, certainly on Talk-GB.

The "imports" mailing list would be the right place to discuss it, if
it's a bulk edit (is it?). It doesn't seem to have GB-specific
implications for this list IMHO (even though this particular changeset
is of course within gb).

> Seems to be moving wikipedia links for branded stores to
> brand:wikipedia, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63071623
>
> My concern is  changing the behaviour of a well-known tag (worldwide).

It's pretty well-established that wikipedia=* is supposed to reference
the wikipedia article about the feature itself, not the operator. The
wiki page has, for more than 5 years, given the guidance: "only
provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link from
St Paul's cathedral in London to an article about St Pauls is fine. A
link from a bus depot to the company that operates it is not." So
irrespective of how the edit was done - in what sense is this
"changing the behaviour of a well-known tag"?

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dan S]

Op do 20 sep. 2018 om 16:31 schreef Mark Goodge :
>
>
>
> On 20/09/2018 13:46, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote:
> >> See the OSM Welcome page.
> >
> > Thanks. The wording there is:
> >
> > "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and
> > current."
> >
> > Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current".
>
> No, it leaves those to the ordinary, everyday meanings of the words.
>
> > What is a "real" bus stop? Does it need a physical marker post or
> > shelter? Or is it a bus stop if it's just a place listed in the
> > timetable? Or even just a place where buses often stop on request?
> >
> > What is a "current" footpath? If I mapped it 5 years ago, how often do I
> > have to go back and check that it is still there? If it's a public
> > footpath crossing a field the farmer is allowed 14 days to re-instate it
> > after ploughing the field. Is it still a "real" footpath for those 14
> > days? What if I re-visit it on the wrong day?
>
> There are, obviously, edge cases where a decision has to be made on the
> particular circumstances. Trying to define things too tightly creates
> unwanted inconsistencies.
>
> However, historic administrative boundaries, by definition, are not
> current. They're not an edge case. They are completely outside the
> realms of what is current.

Your "by definition" seems to be about "historical", not "historic" (a
distinction which already came up somewhere else in this thread).
Historical things are in the past; historic things were important in
the past, and might or might not still exist. I'm sure that seems
pedantic and I'm sorry, but it seems almost to be the crux of the
matter.

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dan S]

Op do 20 sep. 2018 om 09:46 schreef Colin Smale :
>
> 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?

Poohsticks.


(How did the conversation get to this...)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dan S]

Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me
in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly
emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than
simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to
erupt again in 18 months? I'm not a big one for voting eg on tagging
but this seems to be a great case for a Loomio vote or a wiki vote, as
has already been suggested. Can someone perhaps set one up? Maybe a
Loomio vote, and we'd probably want to paste its outcome into the wiki
after to make sure it wasn't lost?

Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Dan S]

Op ma 3 sep. 2018 om 19:06 schreef Toby Speight :
>
> >> Even in these days of Brexit, I don't think there's any movement for
> >> Northern Ireland to leave GB.  You've been misinformed!
>
> 0> In article ,
> 0> Martin Wynne mailto:mar...@templot.com> ("Martin") wrote:
>
> Martin> Northern Ireland is part of the UK but it's not part of GB.
>
> But UK is just an informal name for GB - The United Kingdom of Great
> Britain and Northern Ireland.  It even has "Northern Ireland" in the
> name.  GB without Northern Ireland would just be England, Scotland and
> Wales or the island of Britain.

Please allow me to differ: "UK is an informal name for GB" is not
completely correct. The naming of these islands is utterly confusing -
I blame history! This wikipedia page and the Venn diagram are useful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_British_Isles
So. The official name of the state is "The United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland". Often abbreviated to "UK". "Great
Britain", often abbreviated to "GB", is the name for that biggest
island within that state. HOWEVER, that doesn't settle the matter,
because "GB" is also used officially to refer to the UK (in
particular, via ISO3166).
So if we see the initials "GB" without any context, we can't work out
if the intention is to include NI or not - but in practice, people are
usually referring to the whole state, and often don't know there's any
difference.

Of course, all this terminological back-and-forth is pedantic and I'm
sorry to extend it, since the original issues are more important for
us. I repeat my call for the "talk-gb" moderators to update the
description on https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb to
explicitly say it's for all of the UK, if indeed it is. That way, we
have an anchoring point that could settle these discussions nicely...

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Dan S]

For reference, here's DaveF's email where he documents his mechanical
edit: 
.
(Note also that it includes a note about Northern Ireland.)

Comparing that email against the OSM policy which Brian links to (the
Automated Edits Code of Conduct): This talk-gb seems indeed the
correct forum. The documentation happened after-the-fact rather than
in advance, as the AECoC demands. It seems relatively innocent in this
case given the consensus implied by previous threads (eg the ones
listed in DaveF's email), and I guess he took that as sufficient for
the "discussion period" - however, I agree it'd be much better to have
followed the automated-edits rules more closely, and given prior
notice of the actual edit with at least a few days' pause for
discussion. I'd have hoped the dissenters could have joined that
discussion (could we have notified them directly of the chance to join
in, just to be sure?).

I did an automated edit once, and although I was impatient at the lag
created by following the AECoC, the resulting clarity was a definite
good thing.

Dan


Op di 28 aug. 2018 om 20:25 schreef Brian Prangle :
>
> The last time I checked NI was still in a union with the UK and therefore 
> suggesting that NI OSMers form a separate discussion  is very insensitive. As 
> the community there is very upset and has not agreed to this change, having 
> demonstrated very specific needs and separate treatment of these roads I 
> suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI. Can I also 
> suggest that all future mechanical edits that affect the WHOLE UK  (including 
> NI) are discussed beforehand as required by  OSM policy before being 
> unilaterally applied so that we can avoid situations like this
>
> Brian Prangle
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 13:05, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk 
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
>> Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
>> channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.
>>
>> I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in
>> December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk 
>> IE
>> mailing list.
>>
>> Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,
>>
>> Clive aka KDDA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Dan S]

As an aside - if ISO3166 meaning of "GB" is indeed intended (i.e.
UKoGBaNI), I wonder if someone could update the info on
 to clarify that?
Currently says "General discussion for users in Great Britain"

Best
Dan
Op di 28 aug. 2018 om 13:15 schreef Andrew Hain :
>
> Imposing strict boundaries on OSM communication channels (in this case a 
> non-ISO3166 meaning for a talk list) is out of order and is not a proper 
> response to any disagreement anyone may have about tagging.
>
> --
> Andrew 
> From: webmas...@killyfole.org.uk 
> Sent: 28 August 2018 13:04:20
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland
>
> Hi folks,
>
> As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
> Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
> channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.
>
> I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in
> December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk IE
> mailing list.
>
> Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,
>
> Clive aka KDDA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Churchyard gate/shelter

[Dan S]

Hi

"Lych gate" is the general name for these things. I don't know a good
tag for it, but there are 62 barrier=lych_gate out there!
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=lych#values

Best
Dan


2018-08-22 15:06 GMT+01:00 Martin Wynne :
> What is the correct tagging for this type of ornate gate often seen at
> churchyards?
>
>  https://goo.gl/maps/ffu8iQkbhw52
>
> (I'm not mapping from Google, I walked through it yesterday.)
>
> I've tried barrier=gate and building=shelter, but neither alone seems to
> adequately describe it. building=gatehouse seems far too grand.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths

[Dan S]

In the past I've simply modified the ways concerned by changing
highway=footway to higway=construction & construction=footway, leaving
all the other info intact

As mentioned in the preamble here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction

Cheers
Dan

2018-07-31 16:22 GMT+01:00 Ian Caldwell :
>
> Some footpaths, some of which are rights of way, have been closed as part of
> building a new residential estate
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339576698.  The closure notice says they
> will be closed until March 2019 and I suspect they will have new routes
> when/if they are reopened.
>
> How should this be tagged or should I just delete them? I do not think they
> exist on the ground anymore.
>
> Ian Caldwell
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] University of Northampton new campus - mapper required

[Dan S]

Thank you for the prompt to give good advice, but I don't feel i can
choose a single example as canonical (I don't know the extent to which
there's consensus) - I hope that the general idea, that the wiki
advice looks good, can suffice.

Best
Dan

2018-07-13 23:49 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> Rather than point as to what not to do .. it would be best to point to what
> to do.
>
> So where is the 'best' OSM mapped university? Use that as an example of what
> to do.
>
> On 14/07/18 08:26, Dan S wrote:
>
> I hope this is not too much of a side-issue, but: one hopeful request -
> plase don't use amenity=university for each object in the campus, as was
> done for some other universities.
>
> I don't think UK uni tagging is yet consistent across towns, but the wiki's
> advice looks broadly ok imho!
>
> Cheers
> Dan
>
>
> föstudagur, 13. júlí 2018 skrifaði David Earl :
>> The University of Northampton is opening a new campus very soon between
>> between Bedford Road and New South Bridge Road. They would like to get a
>> detailed campus map onto OSM as soon as possible, ideally by August 1. I
>> haven't looked but I'm assuming this would have to be a ground survey as it
>> is all new buildings so won't be on satellite (though maybe some building
>> footprints might be), and in any case that wouldn't get down to the level of
>> access doors, or building occupiers. If copyright permission can be
>> obtained, I'm guessing they may have plans that could serve part of the job.
>> They would be open to employing someone to do the surveying, especially as
>> it has a short timescale. I can't really do it as it's too far from home to
>> do repeated trips or fit it into my current schedule, otherwise I'd have
>> jumped at it (I worked with the contact doing Cambridge University maps, and
>> I'm sending this with her permission).
>> If anyone is interested, please contact Amy Moore in their estates
>> services department: amy.mo...@northampton.ac.uk
>> David
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] University of Northampton new campus - mapper required

[Dan S]

I hope this is not too much of a side-issue, but: one hopeful request -
plase don't use amenity=university for each object in the campus, as
was done for some other universities.

I don't think UK uni tagging is yet consistent across towns, but the wiki's
advice looks broadly ok imho!

Cheers
Dan


föstudagur, 13. júlí 2018 skrifaði David Earl :
> The University of Northampton is opening a new campus very soon
between between Bedford Road and New South Bridge Road. They would like to
get a detailed campus map onto OSM as soon as possible, ideally by August
1. I haven't looked but I'm assuming this would have to be a ground survey
as it is all new buildings so won't be on satellite (though maybe some
building footprints might be), and in any case that wouldn't get down to
the level of access doors, or building occupiers. If copyright permission
can be obtained, I'm guessing they may have plans that could serve part of
the job.
> They would be open to employing someone to do the surveying, especially
as it has a short timescale. I can't really do it as it's too far from home
to do repeated trips or fit it into my current schedule, otherwise I'd have
jumped at it (I worked with the contact doing Cambridge University maps,
and I'm sending this with her permission).
> If anyone is interested, please contact Amy Moore in their estates
services department: amy.mo...@northampton.ac.uk
> David
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Closed software supplier ESRI creates OSM vector tile basemap

[Dan S]

Great. No problem here with commercial suppliers rehosting osm data as
long as there's clear attribution and licensing, which there is. This
could be useful for many "read-only" users and potentially relieve
some load on the main osm tileserver since it could fulfil various of
their needs.

For my taste, they should probably be clearer in the naming. Instead
of name it as "OpenStreetMap", it would be better to say this is
"OpenStreetMap carto vector rendering", or something less clunky but
not just osm. Else there's a risk of some users believing that what
they get there is the only form in which osm data can be expressed.

Best
Dan


2018-07-10 20:16 GMT+01:00 Jez Nicholson :
> https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=fae788aa91e54244b161b59725dcbb2a
>
> "...updated every few weeks..." is not so great
>
> "...freely available for any user or developer..." sounds good
>
> discuss
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway Platforms - Covered=yes are not shown in latest rendering

[Dan S]

> On 29/05/18 14:53, Tony Shield wrote:
>>
>> At the end of this week (2nd June) I intend to change the platforms I know
>> to remove covered=yes, if you disagree please challenge.
>

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue seems to be that the
carto change works on the assumption that covered=yes implies the
feature isn't visible (e.g. because partly underground), whereas
others may be are working on the assumption that covered=yes means you
won't get rained on (e.g. there is some kind of roof)?

The wiki seems pretty clear actually - it only really talks about the
first of the two meanings.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered
I'm not aware of any "UK-local" consensus to be different about that.

I personally haven't use the "covered" tag (no reason), but I do add
building=roof objects to some train stations.

Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] UK govt event "Tell the government what land and housing data you need"

[Dan S]

Hi

This came via geomob:

"Tell the government what land and housing data you need"
Newspeak House (London)
30th May
https://attending.io/events/what-land-and-housing-data-do-you-need

Cheers
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] YHA (England & Wales), Youth Hostel

[Dan S]

Hi

"YHA (England & Wales)" would go in the "operator" field, not appended
to the "name". (I'm not sure which you were suggesting.)

I'm pretty sure that the loose permission (that you quote) is not
technically enough to safely use the YHA's own list as a source of
data for OSM, though it seems they're likely to be brodly in favour.
With a bit more chat with them, and some reassurance that we're not
intending to infringe on their copyrights, you can probably get
something like an explicit permission to add the data to OSM under
ODBL.

Best
Dan


2018-04-04 12:39 GMT+01:00 David Vere :
> I've made an enquiry to YHA England & Wales and have been told that while
>
> "names of the individual hostels and YHA (England & Wales) as well as Youth
> Hostel are all copyrighted”
>
> they are
>
> "happy for you to use the names on a map"
>
> and will even supply a current list.
>
> Is there any objection to my attaching the YHA hostel name and "YHA (England
> & Wales)" to the hostels that are on openstreetmap.
>
> David
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK meeting in May

[Dan S]

Hi

I've pencilled this in. Was going to mention it to a Manchester friend
- not listed on the OSMUK website though. Is it a closed meeting? Or
is there any public info?

Thanks
Dan


2018-02-15 23:58 GMT+00:00 Rob Nickerson :
> Hi all,
>
> One for the calendar: The next OSM UK meeting (and our 2018 AGM) will be
> Saturday 19th May in Manchester. Formal invitation to the AGM will go out to
> the members closer to the time.
>
> If you would like to attend (member or non-member) then please add this to
> your calendar to keep it free. :-)
>
> Hoping to have some exciting workshops at this event. If you'd like to
> volunteer to host one please add the details to the following form. If you
> want to request one please share ideas in this mailing list.
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1fGJ_9sneOFp3jbcpo3h0-kO9Vqa-CMT9IBorM7szqMA/viewform?edit_requested=true
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Camera and OSM leaflets

[Dan S]

Hi - good work. One thing not mentioned on that website - is there any
particular use you'd like to see? Are there particular things in need
of recording this way, eg urban or rural, high-traffic or low-traffic?

Best
Dan


2018-01-21 16:03 GMT+00:00 Rob Nickerson :
> Hi all,
>
> In case you missed it in the recent OSM UK newsletter, the 360 camera is now
> available to rent. Please see https://osmuk.org/360-degree-camera-rental/
>
> And as a reminder, thanks to the generosity of our friends in Germany, we
> still have plenty of the OSM leaflets to distribute. I will include some
> with the camera rental but can also send them direct to anyone (member or
> non-member) who would like them. Please contact me so I can arrange postage.
> Due to limited funds you will have to cover the postage fees but this should
> be a lot less than for the camera as I can send them in a large letter (if
> not too many) or non-recorded delivery if you want a box full.
>
> Best wishes,
> Rob
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

[Dan S]

2018-01-21 12:14 GMT+00:00 Dave F :
>
> On 21/01/2018 12:09, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> rarely accepted by the locals,...
>
>
> loc_name

IMHO keeping one old_name is good practice, in particular to allow a
little lag time for people who might search OSM data for "the hare and
hounds" not yet knowing it's been changed to something else. No need
to be very formal about it, and no need to keep more than one old name
(in most cases).

(NB "old_name" is very common in tags, "old:name" is not)

Cheers
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Nominatim and postcodes

[Dan S]

Search engine has answers:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nominatim/FAQ#My_postcode_is_missing.2Fwrong_but_I.27ve_fixed_it_in_the_OSM_data._What_is_wrong.3F

https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/22731/nominatim-returns-no-results-when-searching-with-a-postcode



2018-01-10 14:49 GMT+00:00 Mark Goodge :
> I tried searching on OSM for a postcode, which I know exists, but it
> returned zero entries from Nominatim. Other postcode searches work fine.
>
> Can anyone tell me where Nominatim gets its data from for a postcode search,
> and how often it's updated?
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Website Data

[Dan S]

Hi,

People have mentioned this before. The conversation usually then goes
to copyright (and the question of whether simple facts (such as
addresses, opening hours etc) can be copyrighted), then in fact it's
database rights that are probably the main barrier.* I'm not central
to all of this, nor a lawyer, but I'd say it's definitely not clear
that it's OK, and thus inappropriate to scrape such information
without explicit permission from the institutions concerned. But then,
getting permission, checking the data, taking it step by step, seems
like a positive thing to be doing. Just my 2p though!

Dan


* see eg https://www.out-law.com/page-5698

2017-12-18 13:15 GMT+00:00  :
> Hi,
>
> Reading all the talk of Walmart and Shell imports recently got me to 
> wondering why we can't be doing more of this kind of thing.
>
> If store data can be pulled from directly from a company's public facing 
> website ('store finder' page) is there any reason we can't do such imports 
> without discussion with/permission from the company concerned?
>
> Paul
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Use of Drones

[Dan S]

2017-09-18 11:03 GMT+01:00 Brian Prangle :
> The regulations on the use of drones in the UK are already quite restrictive
> (if, of course, you're a  responsible memeber of society) and are imminently
> to become even more restrictive with licensing and proof of competence
> becoming requirements.

Sounds great!

> I'm pessimistic about being able to make use of
> drones to capture imagery. Does anyone have any experience of using drones?

FYI there seems to be plenty of work on those in the HOT domain - I
remember Ivan from MSF demoing his quadcopter rig in London. However I
presume they're deploying them overseas.

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM feature density vs edits per features

[Dan S]

Hi

One specific possibility: I know that at least a handful of people have
been deliberately filling out London's buildings, and in un-surveyed areas
this is often by tracing building shapes from aerial views. This is
motivated by London's "patchy" coverage: areas where mappers live, plus
tourist/popular streets, are well-mapped, while other (residential etc)
areas sometimes looked blank. Maybe worth checking if the difference you
see is due to a specific object type (in particular, building=*).

Best
Dan


2017-09-01 12:01 GMT+03:00 De Sabbata, Stefano (Dr.) <
s.desabb...@leicester.ac.uk>:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> my name is Stefano, and I am a lecturer in geography at the University of
> Leicester. Volunteered geographic information and OSM have been one of my
> research interests for a few years now. I have also done some very minor
> contributions to OSM myself, but never in London and I am not very familiar
> with the London OSM community.
>
>
>
> As I have been recently looking at some aspects data production and
> quality of OSM in London, and I was wondering whether any of you might have
> some time to help me out in interpreting some of the data… I have a couple
> of maps that can use some local expertise to make sense of them. :)
>
>
>
> In particular, I am looking at the relationship between feature density
> and number of edits per features (among other things). It looks like there
> are areas of London with consistently high density but low average number
> of edits per features. I was wondering whether this might be the result of
> local projects or mapathons organised by the community? Or might there be
> (and most probably there are) other reasons I am overlooking?
>
>
>
> If you are interested, please contact me: at s.desabb...@le.ac.uk
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Stefano.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dr Stefano De Sabbata*
>
> *Lecturer in Quantitative Geography*
>
> Department of Geography,
>
> University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK
>
> *t: *+44 (0)116 252 3812 <+44%20116%20252%203812>
>
> *e:* s.desabb...@le.ac.uk
>
> *w: *le.ac.uk/departments/geography/people/stefano-de-sabbata
> 
>
> *twitter: *@maps4thought 
>
>
>
> *Research Associate*
>
> Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford
>
> *oii.ox.ac.uk/people/desabbata *
>
> Information Geographies 
>
> Connectivity, Inclusion, and Inequality 
>
>
> [image: id:77B79125-D80D-4E72-9F70-791C2419DE28@home]
>
> Follow us on Twitter  or visit our
> Facebook  page
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Select and correct a discovered key duplication of sorts in JOSM

[Dan S]

Hi

Overpass lets you search for things like this, and then export them into
JOSM. You can do it via http://overpass-turbo.eu/ - but to do it
case-insensitively, you need to know this tip with regular expressions:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#Key.2Fvalue_matches_regular_expression_.28.7E.22key_regex.22.7E.22value_regex.22.29

So what I'd do is:
1. In overpass-turbo, construct the query using case-insensitive regular
expressions: [~"^ref:Chiltern_Society$"~".",i] - if you follow this link
you'll see I've done it
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/r4W
You can click "Run" to execute this query.
2. I'd suggest lowercase is the best thing to go for.
3. After you have run the query, click "Export" and load it into JOSM. In
JOSM you can then use the program's own search tool to select all the
objects which use that key, and you can then convert them all in one go.
You can then upload.
It's possible that some would find this upload controversial: editing over
1000 objects in a single find-and-replace is verging on the kind of
automated edit which many people would say needs community approval. In
this case since it's a specific region and if as you say it's your own
edits you're revisiting, you might be OK...? Not sure.

Best
Dan





2017-08-19 15:53 GMT+02:00 Bob Hawkins :

> I discovered to my dismay yesterday while I was adding/updating Public
> Rights of Way in JOSM that I have been using a mix of initial upper case
> and lower case alone for a key I created: ref:Chiltern_Society and
> ref:chiltern_society.  I have tried searches that will select
> Chiltern_Society, say, by using a “C” in the search, for case sensitive,
> without success.  I have covered a large amount of South Oxfordshire with
> my additions and updates.  I have three questions, I guess:
> 1. how do I search this whole area of OSM in my search to know that all
> cases have been found?
> 2. what should the key be, now that I find myself in this situation:
> ref:Chiltern_Society or ref:chiltern_society?
> 3. what would be the best method of changing all deemed to be incorrect
> without carrying out changes singly?
> I appreciate this matters not at all so far as the data is concerned.
> Having discovered it, however, I should prefer not to have to live with
> it.  Furthermore, will the two keys remain in the list of keys displayed
> when adding or editing tags?
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_2724482478730571796_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Naming of places

[Dan S]

2017-08-17 17:07 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Herring :
> On 17/08/2017 16:25, Chris Hill wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to replace the name=tag with Hull.
>
> +1

Sounds plausible to me. I hadn't realised they were the same place!

You might use official_name for the long form.

Cheers
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] "Inclusion Matters" UK research funding

[Dan S]

Hi

Thinking about the recent diversity discussions - this UK academic
funding call just appeared, "Inclusion Matters":
https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/news/inclusionmatterscall/
It's for university-based projects. If there are any GIS researchers
reading this, maybe an opportunity for a project to build up the
inclusiveness of VGI?

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

[Dan S]

2017-08-04 13:20 GMT+01:00 SK53 :
> Personally I'm rather more interested in mapping POPS as they are becoming
> an issue in larger cities.

We could map the boundaries of POPS through a systematic procedure of
standing in specific spots, looking like we don't want to buy
anything, and waiting for the security guards' reaction?

Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Dan S]

2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>:
> I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM is
> not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed from
> OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map.

Yes I thought so too. I tried to search the talk-gb archive for it but
I couldn't find the thread. Shame it isn't easier to find things in
our previous threads.

> Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat 'Around
> here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when compare with
> elsewhere.

Don't worry too much about that, I'm sure it's just about awareness,
not exceptionalism!

Dan


> On 04/08/2017 09:20, SK53 wrote:
>
> Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished:
> building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active
> mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.
>
> On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox" <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground.
>> Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed.
>>
>> On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How different is the footprint of the new building?
>>
>> I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old
>> one - given the planing permissions.
>>
>> So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone
>> - that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.
>>
>> Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?
>>
>>
>> On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
>> >
>> > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
>> > of editing, I suggest)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black <andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>:
>> >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down
>> >> and
>> >> rebuilt.
>> >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back
>> >> and add
>> >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>> >> I have added a note  #1077006
>> >>
>> >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Talk-GB mailing list
>> >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> >>
>> > ___
>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] OSM and Diversity

[Dan S]

Hi,

Yes - I find myself in the confusing position of being very grateful
for Kate's message, and for Fredrik's message.

This recent discussion originated in the talk-gb mailing list. Now
that OSM UK has been formed as a hub for UK-specific work
http://osmuk.org/ I've been wondering if that will enable us to do
proactive work such as initiatives with school students (as Stefan
mentions, though also inspired by the initiatives mentioned e.g. in
Kathleen's slides). I'm only a peripheral member of OSM UK though so I
can't claim to know the mind of its board, but it might be possible to
get funding to improve diversity in our UK community. (Another
inspiration from Kathleen's slides: find money, take some concrete
action.)

Best
Dan


2017-08-03 20:18 GMT+01:00 Stefan Keller :
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Kate and others about gentle communication and doing
> small steps towards a better (gender) diversity. Obviously OSM should
> attract more non-male/non-young/non-white/non-rich/non-european
> members.
>
> But I don't see why we should ignore questionable academic disussions
> and papers. It's up to Frederik to take his time to dissect Andrew
> Hall's recent "Wikimedia Research Showcase" and Monica Stephens' paper
> on "Gender and the GeoWebHOT" 2013 (for those interested see other
> thread entitled "Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes ...").
>
> There exists no unbiased map and I support the idea that VGI has a
> systematic and a project specific bias (see Muki Haklay's post here on
> "PhD opportunity on biases..."). I think we agree on the systematic
> bias. But IMHO also the project specific bias of OSM is neither very
> evident nor stronger i.e. than the average tech. project and/or
> association.
>
> So OSM is in good company like e.g. with many sports clubs - and
> computer science. Believe me, they are wringing hands in academia and
> industry there too. I'm co-organizing coding events for women like
> Girls Weeks, @DjangoGirls - besides Mapping Parties - having a great
> time. Unfortunately with limited success since years when looking at
> the low female quota in such jobs.
>
> Being both a computer scientist and a geographer have an observation
> though, which could give a hint: In high school, geographical and
> social departments the gender diversity seems quite good. And to me
> OSM has quite much to do with geography and society (including
> tourism).
>
> So, IMHO it would be worthwhile to find out the commonalities and what
> attracts women to engage in geography or social professions. And I
> don't think it's because of the majority of men nor hostile
> debaters/contributors nor code creators. It's happening at K-12 and
> before... (*)
>
> :Stefan (on the way to SotM 2017 Japan!)
>
> (*) Have you seen the children's activities at SotM-FR 2017? See e.g.
> https://twitter.com/assotiriad/status/869779597256257537 and
> http://openstreetmap.fr/sotmfr2017
>
>
> 2017-08-01 15:31 GMT+02:00 Kathleen Danielson :
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> Just dropping in, as another woman who was on the OSMF Board, but did not
>> manage to finish her term. (Another fun cut was hearing "Good Morning,
>> Gentlemen!" being called out as someone entered a face to face board meeting
>> at which Kate and I were present, definitely not being gentlemen.)
>>
>> I've mostly checked out of OSM these days, because it was exhausting (I
>> wonder why...).
>>
>> If you're wringing your hands about what we can do about the diversity
>> problem (as I saw in a different thread), you haven't been paying attention.
>> We've been talking about this for years. Here's a talk I gave in 2015
>> literally called "Improving Diversity in OSM" [1]. Here's a list of other
>> OSM-specific resources that have been collected on the wiki [2].
>>
>> I hope you'll take to heart the work that so many of us already poured into
>> this topic. I hope you'll also think long and hard about why quite a few of
>> us who amassed that body of work are no longer active within the community.
>>
>> Kathleen
>>
>> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2=WIzTEaMEc8k
>> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Robert Banick  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kate,
>>>
>>> I don’t have any brilliant contributions to add, beyond thanking you for
>>> this well spoken message. I agree completely with what you said and will try
>>> to remember the enjoinder of “just don’t”. I’m not a big mailing lister but
>>> I am certainly guilty of narrowing in on small things instead of addressing
>>> the bigger picture.
>>>
>>> I think it’s a great idea to include these principles in the Core Values
>>> list. I also think that really, 99% of people on this mailing list
>>> implicitly recognize those Core Values, if not always the best behaviors to
>>> reach them. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t recognize them, I just think it’s
>>> worth noting we are a community of good intentions, just not