Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

Robert Whittaker wrote: > On the basis that it's a required part of each address, I > would recommend that we do store the post town in OSM > addresses. There are significant advantages to storing it > in a consistent way, and the best existing tag to do this > would be addr:city. (We wouldn't

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

Andrew Hain wrote: > What distinction would you make between this and the cycle > route over steps that was discussed recently or the > signposted cycle route past cycle barriers in Barnes, > London? "Cycle routes" as a distinct concept don't have any legal force, other than authorised forms of

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

Neil Matthews wrote: > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from > bridleways Um, no there hasn't? The changeset you've pointed to (which is one of mine) has a single stile moved to the side of a bridleway. I've done this a handful of times in the past, too, usually where

Re: [Talk-GB] British Waterways

Andy Mabbett wrote: > Should we have an automated edit to update all instances of "British >Waterways"? Scotland's canals are still run by the British Waterways Board (trading as Scottish Canals), so any edit would need to be geographically constrained. TBH there's only 170 operator=British

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

Could I suggest that, rather than second-guessing what some putative router might or might not do, people actually try these scenarios with one of the many real-world routers to see if they actually happen? I see an awful lot of "may" and "might" in this thread, together with a liberal

Re: [Talk-GB] NCN 231 and NCN 235 Isle of Wight

[apologies for broken threading, Nabble is still down] Jon Pennycook wrote: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2821036 and > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2821037 (claiming to be > National Cycle Network Route 231 and 235) have been listed on > OpenStreetMap for some time. They

Re: [Talk-GB] [talk-gb] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

Robert Whittaker wrote: > Sustrans' NCN data is available from > http://livingatlas-dcdev.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/54a66fa3c15d4e118e085fbd9b141aae > as vector tiles under the ODbL. However, note that the "removed" > sections mostly won't be reflected on the ground yet. Also, the > dataset

[Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

Hi all, As some of you may be aware, Sustrans has embarked on a project to review and improve the National Cycle Network. As part of this, sections of routes which Sustrans thinks have no realistic prospect of being brought up to a minimum standard in the near future are being either removed

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[apologies for broken threading, Nabble appears to have fallen over] Chris Fleming wrote: > We also have copyright of the route itself, Cycling UK do seem > to assert copyright and therefore we probably do need them to > ask them. I did ask that very question at a recent Facebook webchat with

[Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM

Hi folks, You’ll remember that a couple of weeks ago I posted about the work I’m doing to look at getting the relevant bits of Transport for London’s openly licensed Cycle Infrastructure Database into OSM. I’ve now pushed the in-progress code to github:

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database - conflation

Martin Lucas-Smith - CycleStreets wrote: > Richard will be doing the bulk of the scripting work, and is working > on converting each of the sections of data. This will naturally be > published on Github openly, as will the outputted data. This is > reasonably complex work given the number of

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

Jothirnadh Guthula wrote: > With a team of mappers @Amazon we are planning to improve > missing roads in UK using Facebook detections as a source. Please > let us know if you have any ongoing projects using this data source. > While adding missing roads, we will be adding all the associated >

Re: [Talk-GB] Freemap (free-map.org.uk) - potential shutdown

Nick Whitelegg wrote: > I am proposing shutting down my (very old) England and > Wales footpath mapping site Freemap (free-map.org.uk). Wow, there's a blast from the past! Freemap was of course one of the very first grassroots mapping sites (2004), together with my geowiki.com (2003 [1]), Jo

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

Dave F wrote: > CU wanted a new site map. They paid someone to provide it for > them. Which is fine, but please don't suggest they're > contributions are superior to those of any anybody else. > Especially when they decided to knowingly go against accepted > tagging procedures. I think that's

Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render

DaveF wrote: > This OS map render only shows a selection of paths. Does anyone > know what criteria OS used to decide which to render? I suspect "only those which OS have got round to digitising". OS have digitised all paths in National Parks and appear to be gradually digitising others. But

Re: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

Peter Neale wrote: > I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to > go about it. Brilliant. Thanks for taking this on! You can do it from iD - no particular need to use JOSM for this. Essentially the trick is, for each way that needs to be removed from the relation, select

Re: [Talk-GB] Elections Online website - candidate for OSM?

Edward Bainton wrote: > Is there any reason why OSM can't set up a user co-op (for instance) > that would offer a paid tileserver service? It's an idea that's been thrown around now and then. In OSM, of course, "why can't OSM..." is usually best rephrased as "hey, let's...". First person plural.

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

Twopenn'orth and not particularly a reply to any single message: 1. I'm not against them being in the OSM database, mostly for the reason that it's unrealistic to expect every single app to do additional processing for all 195 countries in the world. Sure, it would be nice if Osmand and maps.me

[Talk-GB] Wales Coast Path almost finished

I was in holiday in North Wales last week and mapped the biggest remaining gap, east from Aberdaron: https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13!52.8079!-4.6498 That leaves three smaller gaps around the central Cardigan Bay coastline, between Barmouth and Borth:

Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth

Tom Hughes wrote: > That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare > exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary > and trunk to the official status of the road. It's slightly more nuanced than that - we have always mapped secondary, primary and trunk to the

[Talk-GB] OS Open Greenspace tileset

Hi all, I've put together a simple tileset showing greenspace areas from Ordnance Survey's recent OS Open Greenspace release. The data is released under the standard OS open licence therefore suitable for tracing in OSM. Many features are already in OSM, but not all, and in addition the names

Re: [Talk-GB] Milton Keynes Redways - How to Tag Consistently

Peter Neale wrote: >So how should they be tagged for access? I believe it should be: > highway=path  (but I see several tagged as highway=cycleway and both are > shown in the Wiki > at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=cycleway) > foot=designated > motor vehicle=permit (to allow the

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

I'm not quite sure what you've done with the quoting but you've attributed me as writing your reply, which evidently I didn't. :) Will Phillips wrote: > I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a > guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be becoming >

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

Colin Smale wrote: > As you will know RM have their own particular ideas of the > geography of the UK, all done for their own convenience. It > would certainly avoid some confusion if we used addr:posttown > instead of addr:city. Fully agree. The notion that I should tag addresses in

Re: [Talk-GB] OS National Grid References

Brian Prangle wrote: > Are these covered by copyright? The National Grid per se is not covered by copyright. The newer transformations used to produce highly accurate grid references may be, but in fact OS has licensed the most recent (OSTN15) under the permissive BSD licence:

Re: [Talk-GB] Network tag on railway stations

TonyS wrote: > Lot of the obscurity is caused by the contracts from Department > For Transport. Merseyrail is both a train operating company > and a commuter rail network in and around Liverpool City Region Indeed, and it's actually even more nuanced than that. Merseyrail is not a franchise

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

Stuart Reynolds wrote: > I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask > them to review the arguments for both sides and come to a > firm decision. That’s what we elected them for, after all. Then > they publish it, and that is what we all agree to accept, > whether it matches

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

Frederik Ramm wrote: > But we are not fundamentalists, and we do allow exceptions. One > obvious exception is current administrative boundaries; they are > not easily verifiable on the ground but we're making an exception > because of their undoubted usefulness. From 1974 to 1997, the county

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

Toby Speight wrote: > That's why we have > rendering rules - if you don't like the rendering, change the rules. What you're suggesting would imply that every worldwide site using OSM data to display a consumer-facing map, or provide routing, needs to write a special exception for Great Britain.

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

Brian Prangle wrote: > I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI. The edit did not take place in Northern Ireland, as Dave stated unequivocally in his original mail: "Note I didn't include Northern Ireland"

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

webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote: > 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. No-one told you to keep your opinions to yourself; I simply suggested you start a separate Northern Ireland-centric discussion

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

Toby Speight wrote: > Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software - > editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required? I > see no sign of any of this having started. No changes are required to core OSM software, but if your own niche requires a map on

Re: [Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature

Philip Barnes wrote: > Recently new blue branded co-op shops have started to appear, > some have changed and at least one has opened in direct > competition with an existing Mid-counties. Midcounties are also adopting the "new" cloverleaf Co-op logo in many places, while their Chipping Norton

Re: [Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > Perhaps an operator=* tag would help, if we knew which > Co-Op groups still had pharmacies... A quick flick through their various websites suggests only: Midcounties: https://www.midcounties.coop/stores/ Lincolnshire:

Re: [Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > First there's a new set of objects in my "Ghosts" tool at > https://osm.mathmos.net/ghosts/. There are 162 still-mapped > "Co-Op Pharmacy" branches, which should have been rebranded > to become "Well Pharmacy" branches now. Not necessarily! As you say,

Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.

Martin Wynne wrote: > Google publishes a map for profit. > Worcestershire County Council is paid for by me. And a few others. Sure. The point is that copyright automatically subsists unless expressly disclaimed. WCC has not expressly openly licensed this data. You can't just say "it's publicly

Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.

Martin Wynne wrote: > Worcestershire County Council publishes PDF text lists (no mapping) > of classified and unclassified roads. Google publishes a map, but that doesn't mean it's an admissible source for OSM. :) Richard -- Sent from:

Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.

Rob Nickerson wrote: > Dave can you do the D class roads too. Someone has added these - > e.g: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.21554/-1.87663 That reminds me - there's some weird ones in Hillingdon too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.5603/-0.3943 Can anyone think of a

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

Killyfole and District Development Association wrote: > So I hear a urgent traffic update on the radio that there was a forest > fire > on the C425 Eshnadarragh Road and that the Fire Service have closed > the road due to the pumping equipment needed to fight the fire. Dave originally wrote

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

Dave F wrote: > However this task was never undertaken. I decided to grab the bull by the > horns. Bravo! Killyfole and District Development Association wrote: > Surely we map for what is there on the ground, not how it renders? Right. C road numbers are not on the ground. (With the

Re: [Talk-GB] Has someone just given us (the start of) access to the crown jewels?

Mike Thacker wrote: > Yes, a threshold on getting the data via an API, but true Open > Government Licence doesn't limit the amount of data used (as > far as I know) so it should be possible to build up a fill picture > as open data. The transaction-limited versions don't appear to be being

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

Nick Whitelegg wrote: > I realise this is going a bit OT for OSM but wondering if this data, > together with the newer historic maps from the earlier part of the > 20th century, could be used to build a platform for the purpose of > finding these lost paths? Had a quick look yesterday and there

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

Rob Nickerson wrote: > Basically we have point data of historic footpaths (some 300k points) and > I think it would be amazing to compare this to OSM to see if we can find > more footpaths to map. Very cool. Could you post the data somewhere? Richard -- Sent from:

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

Philip Barnes wrote: > I wouldn't invent a type tag, it's maxspeed = 20 mph > because that's what the sign says. There is nothing special > about these areas. No, 20mph zones and roads with 20mph limits are different legal concepts and are signed differently. A 20mph zone must have physical

Re: [Talk-GB] Mistagging of old telephone boxes

Dave F wrote: > To double check - CC BY-SA 2.0 is compatible with OSM? It isn't, but in this case it doesn't matter: this is what's sometimes described as a "thin copyright". Reproducing the photograph itself is an act restricted by copyright, but deducing information from it isn't. (Of course,

Re: [Talk-GB] Open route service update

Rob Nickerson wrote: > A few months ago I spotted an edit where a company employee was > moving height restriction data from nodes to ways. This in itself is > not wrong Absolutely - the restriction is much better tagged on the way. It's a property of the road just like a speed limit or

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

Andy Mabbett wrote: > Can that tool not be repurposed, and thereby avoid the friction > that imports like this seem sadly to cause? It was implemented as part of Potlatch 2, so sadly probably not appropriate for general consumption in a post-Flash age:

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

Ilya Zverev wrote: > Please help me review the data. Here is the updated map: > http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/ Eek, this still looks a bit sketchy. Choosing one of the two nearest affected petrol stations to me, the one on Woodstock Road, Yarnton looks like it

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

Matt Ellery wrote: > I agree with the idea that living_street isn't appropriate for the > town centre roads identified here. I did notice that New Road > in Brighton (mentioned in the shared space Wikipedia article) > has also been changed to living_street by Pete Owens, although > he has

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

I've fixed the wiki to reflect Chris's comments, given that he's a resident of Wales and has a long pedigree in creating the Welsh-language rendering so is better qualified than the rest of us to pronounce on this.[1] The much shorter text should hopefully also be easier for new mappers to follow.

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

Brian Prangle wrote: > You have raised a subject which needs attention but we don't > have an active community in Wales, just individual mappers I don't find that a helpful distinction. Aside from a few places (London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, the North-East Midlands), OSM in the UK doesn't have

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping bridge heights from open imagery

Hi Manfred, Maybe http://maxheight.bplaced.net/overpass/map.html can help. ;-) It can indeed - I mentioned it in my diary entry! :) cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Mapping bridge heights from open imagery

Hi all, It would be great to get bridge height data into OSM, to stop those embarrassing truck-vs-bridge-deck interface moments. It turns out that with the advent of open street-level imagery (e.g. Mapillary, OpenStreetCam, and of course Geograph) it's really easy to find and tag bridge

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] Importing fuel stations in UK and future similar imports

Ilya Zverev wrote: > I think that would fall into the "fair use" clause. There is no "fair use" clause in UK copyright law, which is important not just because OSM is hosted in England & Wales but also because this is presumably a dataset in part containing materials with an E copyright holder.

Re: [Talk-GB] Import Progress

On 19/03/2017 21:29, Matthijs Melissen wrote: Or is your post simply a request for all people to follow *your* rules? Wow. Stay classy. I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to reply to that, but there's an extensive debate about that sentence in the mailing list archives a propos of the

Re: [Talk-GB] Import Progress

Rob Nickerson wrote: > Mailing list posts drift off topic way too easily any it's never clear > when "consensus" is found. Richard F did the right thing in 2013 > when he quit them and I encourage others to do the same However, just because I no longer spend my time batting back and forth to

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

Marco Boeringa wrote: > There may be more... All of these "users" are prolific, leave almost > no changeset comments, and seem to be editing all day. It seems > to me these are editors working professionally for some OSM > related company. Thanks for the detective work and for persisting with

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK site

Rob Nickerson wrote: > If anyone is holding off from doing something just because the OSM UK > company is "coming", please don't. For one, you can make a great start > before OSM UK, but also there is no guarantee that OSM UK will work > on your specific idea. The main issue is that there are

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK site

Rob Nickerson wrote: > No, the first steps are to get people signed up as members (more > shortly when I have had a chance to speak with Gregory) and then > to host a first meeting. I see your point and it's great that so much work has gone into pre-thinking the incorporation and such like...

Re: [Talk-GB] Ideas for quarterly projects

Andy Mabbett wrote: > I'd like to float the following ideas for quarterly projects, and see > what folk think. > [...] > What are your thoughts? I'll throw one in early for Q2: campsites, hostels and bunkhouses. OSM coverage is oddly patchy and it would be great to encourage better coverage at

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

Rob Nickerson wrote: > I understand this to be "easy" for data consumers It is indeed easy. There are 442,133 instances of foot=* in the UK and 748 of access:foot=*. That makes it a nice easy decision for the data consumer not to bother supporting access:foot. ;) cheers Richard -- View this

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

David Woolley wrote: > So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path; > foot=yes; bicycle=yes; horse=yes; motor_vehicle=no (spellings may > be wrong). highway=footway would imply yes to just foot. Renderers > and routers will, I think follow this policy. I can't speak for

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

Frederik Ramm quoted Mr Angry: > "NONE of the paths indicated on the map that proceed north through > Upper Booth Farm are public footpaths" And indeed they're not tagged as such: they are tagged as the perennially useless highway=path, some of them with highway=permissive, while the Pennine Way

Re: [Talk-GB] Users tagging Farmyard as place=farm (Was Summer quarterly project)

Andy Townsend wrote: > ** many "names" on OS OpenData aren't names at all (for example, > search for "poultry houses" in OSM and you'll get lots of things > "named" that). On the hillside above the Crawnon Valley (up from Llangynidr in the Brecon Beacons) OS StreetView has helpfully marked

Re: [Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > it would be interesting to know what routers make of highway=no. From https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/master/profiles/foot.lua: elseif access and access_tag_whitelist[access] then -- unknown way, but valid access tag

Re: [Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

Luke Smith wrote: > If anyone has comments or advice for us, it would be gratefully received. This is terrific. I've been waiting to see what you do with this since you first posted some sample images in 2011, so it's good to see it finally come to fruition. Lovely clear cartography and a

Re: [Talk-GB] Does "Great Britain" need a relation with "place=island" on it?

Andy Townsend wrote: > What does everyone else think? I would tend to think that if - 12 years into the life of a project that was started in Britain and much of which is still run out of Britain - you are radically changing the way Britain is tagged, you should probably reflect on why no-one has

Re: [Talk-GB] Admin boundaries for unparished areas - how to handle?

Colin Smale wrote: > I was hoping that we could find some middle ground by allowing > the relations to persist but outside the admin boundary regime Yes, I would agree with this. If there's no administration then they're not admin boundaries. > If I'm honest I am beginning to doubt whether the

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Wednesfield-Walsall old railway

Hi all, There is an old railway from Wednesfield to Walsall, starting hereish: http://cycle.travel/map?lat=52.5944=-2.0743=16 and continuing east to the northern edge of Walsall. I believe some of it is a path, particularly to the west of the M6. At present it's just in OSM as

Re: [Talk-GB] New user renaming highway=cycleway with NCN references

David Woolley wrote: > For canal towpaths, bicycle=designated is misleading, as it tends > to imply a public right of way, whereas these are normally > access=permissive, and privately owned by the Canal and River > Trust. Again, Scotland is different. :) Scotland's canals didn't go to CRT:

Re: [Talk-GB] New user renaming highway=cycleway with NCN references

Craig Wallace wrote: > Maybe the consensus in England. > In Scotland, where paths can be used on foot, bicycle, horse etc, > then highway=path makes sense. And that is how they are > generally tagged in OSM. Yes, access laws are indeed different in Scotland to England & Wales. However, the

Re: [Talk-GB] New user renaming highway=cycleway with NCN references

On 10/05/2016 20:59, Eric Grosso wrote: What do you think? Do we, OSM contributors, tag all the highways part of a NCN as cycleways? What to do when in some cases, a highway is both part of a NCN route and a hiking route (e.g the John Muir Way)? Please don't use highway=path:

Re: [Talk-GB] New user renaming highway=cycleway with NCN references

David Woolley wrote: > I'm not sure of the likely sources (assuming they have missed > the reference in the existing mapping) but Sustrans have a no > commercial use restriction, that is incompatible with OSM. I wouldn't assume bad faith in this or indeed any NCN-related case. As I thought was

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Chapter Directors' Powers

Rob Nickerson wrote: > The poll we did last year (?) suggested that the OpenStreetMap UK > community want to be involved in decision making. My suggestion is > that, if this is the culture we want to breed then the Articles should > reflect this. I'm the chairman of a community-owned

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data

Rob Nickerson wrote: 1. Would there be any cases where merging open data in OSM would reduce end user challenges (e.g height restrictions on bridges, traffic calming, cafes from the food hygiene data*)? End-user merging any of those is reasonably easy - these datasets are point data, which

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

Rob Nickerson wrote: > Is it OK to leave it to the data users to merge the open data with OSM > or is that burden too large for them to bother (at which point the > pressure of OSM in the UK reduces)? > > The reason I ask is because I don't have the answers. Hoping some > of the data users on

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

Colin Smale wrote: > As we are not copying the content from Wikipedia/Wikidata, but just > a reference Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. The matching is done by co-ordinates. The co-ordinates in Wikidata could be held to be information copyrighted by Google. Consequently you could argue

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

Hi all, Without wanting to be a rotten party-pooper, could I just raise the licence issues with this? Wikidata co-ordinate information is chiefly sourced from Wikipedia, which claims to be CC-BY-SA licensed. Wikipedia co-ordinate information is chiefly sourced from Google Maps[1]. Google

Re: [Talk-GB] Reminder: Footpath Mapping Consall Forge/Ipstones this Saturday 5th March

sk53.osm wrote: > We are meeting at Ipstones because the lunch spot Black Lion pub is deep > in the valley of the Churnet and reached by a rather tortuous road. Quite a direct canal, though. Unfortunately it's a bit of a long way from Worcester or I'd use it to join you... cheers Richard --

Re: [Talk-GB] New users and P2

Jerry Clough wrote: > However, when it's end comes it's likely to be swift as flash gets > eliminated by major browsers. I think that remains to be seen. There's a number of alternative options for running Flash apps, either in-browser (Shumway, FlexJS) or on Mac/Windows desktop (AIR). There's

[Talk-GB] London bus lanes

Hi all, I was slightly surprised to find that bus lane tagging in London is very patchy! Bus lanes are easy to spot, even from imagery: 1. They are on roads with bus routes (see Andy's Transport map) 2. They have thick white lines separating them from the general lanes 3. They are often

Re: [Talk-GB] UK war office maps of Africa digitised

Andy Mabbett wrote: > David Woolley wrote: > > Are you really asking if anyone is prepared to fund the tile server, > > and donate time to any georeferencing needed? > I'm asking what the *potential* is for that, or any other necessary > steps, to be done. For individual sheets like this, I

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

Dave F. wrote: > I've always read the brackets to mean 'leading to' or 'via' not as being > shared. From the Highway Code: "Motorways shown in brackets can > also be reached along the route indicated." Yes, exactly. Because they're just numbers, not routes, the brackets simply mean "if you

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

Colin Smale wrote: > Where two roads are multiplexed, it looks like one of the refs is > the primary and is shown without brackets, and the other is shown > within brackets, such as the A22 near Uckfield which multiplexes > with the A26. It is shown as "Eastbourne A22 / Lewes (A26)". > Is this

Re: [Talk-GB] Restoring a usable map service!

Lester Caine wrote: > while switch2osm may well produce a working system for > some ... I have to also support current paying traffic on the > hardware and that prevents running too many different > competing web services. You can run a tileserver for the UK on a £10/month virtual machine. If

[Talk-GB] One for the London mappers

Slightly surprised this hasn't appeared on OSM yet...! Richard Original Message Subject: TfL Press Release - First section of Mayor’s North-South Cycle Superhighway opens ‎ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:52:39 + From: TfL Press Office To:

Re: [Talk-GB] weekly 271

Manfred A. Reiter wrote: > The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 271 Weekly OSM is brilliant. Thank you. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/weekly-271-tp5856069p5856075.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [Talk-GB] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

Richard Symonds wrote: > Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based > on definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population > size. That's what the population= tag is for. :) Richard -- View this message in context:

Re: [Talk-GB] UK style rendering port ...

Lester Caine wrote: The other area that I am looking to roll back First, I wouldn't think in terms of rolling back at all. Cartography for a UK tileset could and should be designed from scratch. If you really want to start with an existing tileset then use OSM Bright, not osm-carto, but I'm not

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

Dan S wrote: Sounds good. Mind if I ask how it is done? (i.e. rendering rules for rural vs town) Post-import, I run a couple of queries along the lines of UPDATE planet_osm_point SET urban=true FROM built_up_areas WHERE ST_Contains(built_up_areas.geom,way) using a pre-existing

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

Andy Townsend wrote: OSM's standard map is currently trying to be the primary feedback mechanism to mappers but also have clear design (1). I genuinely don't believe that you can do both well in one map style. I think you can, but it requires serious cartographical chops, and - ideally -

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

David Earl wrote: Can you put that on a different thread. David - could you trim messages before replying? 1 line of message for 100 line of quote isn't good. Thanks. Richard -- View this message in context:

Re: [Talk-GB] elsan_points

Bryce Nesbitt wrote: What can we assume the UK tag waterway=elsan_point means? One or more of: 1) Walk up toilet 2) Cassette dump for boats 3) Cassette dump for motorhomes 4) Pump out Very firmly and unambiguously 2. I propose making the assumption the present elsan_point tag means*

Re: [Talk-GB] Voting mechanical edit: UK shop names

Matthijs Melissen wrote: I therefore think inviting list members to vote in order to make the position of the community explicit - in addition to taking comments on the mailing list into account, not as a replacement of it - is the safest way to proceed. On reflection, it would be more

Re: [Talk-GB] Voting mechanical edit: UK shop names

Dan S wrote: Also, Matthijs sent out an RFC email proposing this whole process - he got lots of feedback (which he has taken into consideration), but no-one objected to the voting mechanism. It's not your fault if you only just noticed this happening, of course Indeed, which I only just

Re: [Talk-GB] NCN279 Exeter to Okehampton: Secret Cycle Route?

Guy Collins wrote: NCN279 is now also part of the international Tour De Manche route, a route around Northern France and Southern England. Given the recent addition to the international cycle route I am surprised it is still not signed better (at all!). Will have to investigate when I

Re: [Talk-GB] NCN 279 Exeter to Okehampton (and other destructions)

Guy Collins wrote: The cycle route from Exeter to Okehampton, formerly NCN 28 seems to have been removed in this change set: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15675074 It had the wrong route reference, it now being 279. I have added it once and will not be adding it back on to the

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of British canals.

Hi Richard, I am working my way around the canals of Britain, tracing the canal banks and tidying up locks etc. Your work is really welcome and as someone with a particular interest in the British canals I'm glad to see it taking place. In terms of playing nice with the OSM community, rather

Re: [Talk-GB] City names translation

Andrew Hain wrote: It was only put in recently and I personally find it unhelpful. Would anyone object to removing it? Yes. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/City-names-translation-tp5813645p5813705.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [oxoncotswolds] Tysoe Mapping Party

On 04/04/2014 11:42, Brian Prangle wrote: Hi everyone Just had confirmation from Mike Sanderson of Tysoe Parish Council that May 31st is the preferred date for their Mapping Party (refreshments provided!) and publicity will be going out in the Parish Magazine shortly. So book the date. Tysoe is

  1   2   3   4   >