Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Guided Busway Cycleway
It's signposted as a bridleway (only the northern section), so it is
technically correct. On the basis of map whatbyou see on the ground, thats
a valid change. So long as it have bicycle=yes, and retains the NCN
information, I don't think it matters that much. Oliver is right though,
use by horses is essentially non existent. In visual terms, one might call
it a track, which happens to be designated a bridleway.
The southern section is specifically designated as a cycleway.
David
On Sunday, September 15, 2013, Oliver Jowett wrote:
I guess the argument is about what the primary use is - and in practice I
see a lot more cyclists than horses on it.
I don't recall noticing that the {cycle,bridle}way is actually named on
the ground, so I'm not sure if name= should even be present. Everyone seems
to call it something slightly different anyway, but I don't think I've ever
heard guided busway brideway.
Oliver
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:40 PM, richard moss
richardm...@yahoo.co.ukjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'richardm...@yahoo.co.uk');
wrote:
I notice that a relatively new contributor has, in his only day of edits
last month, changed the highway tag from cycleway to bridleway, and the
name from Guided Busway Cycleway to Guided Busway Bridleway for the whole
length of the path from Milton Road to St Ives.
Any thoughts? (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JamieAbbott )
He has actually made an error, in that the last bit of the path through
the St Ives PR is not designated bridleway, it is designated cycleway (the
bridleway goes off north to Meadow Lane).
___
Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list
Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org');
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
___
Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list
Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-GB] bing image alignment
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 08:09:49PM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 13 September 2013 19:59, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: No one has mentioned the OS gps (passive) stations: for example http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/472420260 It's rather ironic that that node carries the note: Position from gps waypoint. Not from OS data which is more accurate. That was me being lazy :-) ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] bing image alignment
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:24:31PM +0100, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: On 13 September 2013 19:59, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: No one has mentioned the OS gps (passive) stations: for example http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/472420260 http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/navigation-technology/os-net/surveying.html Can we not use them at least for some reference points? Interesting. Unfortunately it looks as though OS Net slipped past their commercial people as they use the term freely available on their web site without giving a precise legal definition of what that means. Given the intended use (all high accuracy surveys in the UK) there seems to be an implication that they aren't claiming a database copyright, but OSM will probably need a clearer legal statement. OSTN02 seems to have the same licensing uncertainty. It is a few years since I looked at any of this, but it had not occurred to me that any copyright issue could arise. They are essentially modern trig points. There is a mark on the ground, and their website publishes the coordinates. Using these coordinates to position a node on osm would constitute republishing? I thought very small extracts of copyrighted material were permitted in any case. Depending on exactly which ground feature represents the station, That one is a small stud at ground level on a small concrete block all surrounded by a rectangular metal fence maybe 30cm high, roughly 1m by 1/2m. I must dig out a photograph. Are the ETRS89 coordinates given on the monument itself, as they would As far as I recall, there was no indication whatsoever of what it was nor any text at all. It's a pity they aren't all clearly visible on the aerial view, my local one, which appears to be within centimetres of Bing, is only I would be very surprised if the one at Buckland could be seen in aerial images. I must check. It is quite easy to miss it on the ground unless you know what you are looking for and where to look. The tall grass was enough to hide it. The biggest problem seems to be that there are only a few on public land and widely scattered, so of limited use. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] bing image alignment
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:24:31PM +0100, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: On 13 September 2013 19:59, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: No one has mentioned the OS gps (passive) stations: for example http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/472420260 http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/navigation-technology/os-net/surveying.html It's a pity they aren't all clearly visible on the aerial view, my I have just checked, and I think the one at Buckland may be visible, but I need to check with the photographs that I took 4 years ago. in the current Bing images. I think that you can make out a small rectangular enclosure behind the crash barrier, and if I am right that is the metal fence that I mentioned. The stud of radius maybe 1 or 2cm is in the centre of the enclosure. All this from memory: need to find the photographs. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] bing image alignment
On 15 September 2013 11:27, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: It is a few years since I looked at any of this, but it had not occurred to me that any copyright issue could arise. They are essentially modern trig points. There is a mark on the ground, and their website publishes the coordinates. Using these coordinates to position a node on osm would constitute republishing? I thought very small extracts of copyrighted material were permitted in any case. It is the standard copyright issue for maps. There is a relatively new sort of copyright called database rights. Normally for copyright you need to have some creative input. Things like addresses and telephone numbers do not have any creative input. However database copyrights mean that the PAF (postcode address file) is copyright, as is your local telephone directory. With a map, the printed form may be covered by a copyright on the typographical arrangement, but the individual coordinates of the corners of a building are matters of fact and can't, individually be copyrighted. Nonetheless, once you start plotting many buildings, the work involved in compiling the information is recognized by a database copyright. Without database copyrights, there would be on copyright blocks on converting printed format maps to vector format. If you extract a single address from the PAF, to send letter, or a single number, from the phone book, to make a call, you are extracting the fact. If you create a directory, you are copying the database. The former is unrestricted (except by any contract for confidentiality). The latter is a copyright infringement. The OS owns the database copyright on its list of passive stations. Using the location of one of them for an isolated survey is just using a fact. Adding large numbers of them to OSM is a copyright infringement unless there is a licence that permits it. Doing so piecemeal still creates an infringement (if that were not the case, almost all use of commercial maps would be fair game, for a crowd sourced map). There are hints that the intent was an intent to licence with at most the equivalent of CC BY, but I've not seen anything that makes that explicit. On the other hand some of the references to OSTN02, which is actually a larger database, explicitly assert the database copyright, but also seem to release under a BSD licence, which, at most, would require some slight tweaking of copyright attributions. Please do not do anything based on this interpretation without verifying it yourself. (The copyright on OSM itself is essentially a database copyright.) Depending on exactly which ground feature represents the station, That one is a small stud at ground level on a small concrete block all surrounded by a rectangular metal fence maybe 30cm high, roughly 1m by 1/2m. I must dig out a photograph. Having seen OS' photograph, I'm fairly sure this is the feature at 5.2m from the GPS plot, when viewed on the local Bing datum. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] bing image alignment
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:24:31PM +0100, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: On 13 September 2013 19:59, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: No one has mentioned the OS gps (passive) stations: for example http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/472420260 http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/navigation-technology/os-net/surveying.html Depending on exactly which ground feature represents the station, BIng Photographs of the Buckland station are here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/lawrence_a_e/osm/ You can see part of the metal fence = railings in the 2nd picture. It seems to be a granite block or something similar, rather than concrete. I don't seem to have taken a wider view, so I am not absolutely sure that this is directly behind the crash barrier in the Bing image, but I think it is. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Using store locator as source
I'm pretty sure that store locators pages on chain store web sites are not safe sources, but can someone confirm this. I've just come across a, recently added feature, purporting to be an Asda supermarket building, way 237818118. As its only purported source it quotes the URL of the store locator page for that store on Asda's corporate web site. In fact, it seems to show mapping details that could not have come from that site (which uses a Bing map, which is, itself, actually somewhat misleading), so I don't believe that page is the only source used. (On OSM, it has been mapped wrongly in ways that are not relevant here.) I've left a message pointing out that it has been incorrectly mapped, and expressing concern about the source claimed,and also set a fixme, but I wanted to double check that the source is generally unsafe (the Bing map it contains is certainly unsafe, but may not actually have been used). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: [OSM-dev] London Soho wierdly missing data
Just forwarding this to talk-gb as well as it is on their patch... Looks like this is the guilty changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17850673 [3] It's the first and only changeset from a user who signed up a year ago. Can anyone revert this? Colin On 2013-09-15 22:47, Igor Brejc wrote: Hi, I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but there's a strange square of geo data missing in London's Soho area (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.5145/-0.1332 [2]). It's not that easy to spot on the web map, I noticed it when I downloaded data from Overpass API and rendered a map. Regards, Igor ___ dev mailing list d...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.5145/-0.1332 [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17850673 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: [OSM-dev] London Soho wierdly missing data
Hi, On 15.09.2013 23:09, Colin Smale wrote: Just forwarding this to talk-gb as well as it is on their patch... Appears Firefishy has already taken care of it http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17858148 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Using store locator as source
On 15/09/2013 21:41, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: I'm pretty sure that store locators pages on chain store web sites are not safe sources, but can someone confirm this. What do mean by safe? Inaccurate? Unlawful? There's nothing really wrong with the closed polygon that can't be fixed by removing the building tag. The mapper's clearly used the Bing aerial background imagery to trace the area used Asda's website for other data. Seeing the car park originates from '09, I'm going to guess the supermarket polygon was expanded from a POI. I can't think of any data being more accurate than the operator's web page. I'm not sure why you so concerned about this instance. Nothing in OSM is completely accurate. If you know ways to improve the data, do so. Dave F ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using store locator as source
On 15 September 2013 22:24, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 15/09/2013 21:41, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: I'm pretty sure that store locators pages on chain store web sites are not safe sources, but can someone confirm this. What do mean by safe? Inaccurate? Unlawful? Likely to be an infringement of the operator's copyrights (a store locator will have database rights, like a map), and if a map had actually been used from the site, which seems unlikely in this case, of the rights in the map (store locators often have rather better maps than the Bing one used in this case). If it is OK to use store locators, I can see people exporting all the big name store locators into the map. There's nothing really wrong with the closed polygon that can't be fixed by These are side issues. The issue I was consulting on here was the copyright one. removing the building tag. The mapper's clearly used the Bing aerial background imagery to trace the area used Asda's website for other data. Seeing the car park originates from '09, I'm going to guess the supermarket polygon was expanded from a POI. I can't think of any data being more I can't remember. However the current mapper has left at least two POIs behind when they have mapped buildings, so I have a feeling it wasn't mapped at all. Also, I seem to remember thinking about mapping this myself, but holding back because I would have had to use the weak source, local_knowledge, to identify it as Asda, so I would have wanted to re-visit it on the ground, first. The reasons I didn't just remove building=yes were: - I felt uncomfortable about building on something that might have come from a copyright map (I was half expecting a usable map of the site on Asda's web site); - the site outline is wrong. It takes in a health centre and community centre and some blocks of flats that are not part of the Asda site - I felt getting that right was something for another day; - getting the mapper to fix it would be more likely to avoid the same mistake being made again, and get them to fix their other instances - I know of at least one other with the building tag on a site Incidentally, the building tag may be an Id issue. JOSM doesn't set building by default on shops. accurate than the operator's web page. I'm not sure why you so concerned about this instance. Nothing in OSM is completely accurate. If you know ways to improve the data, do so. However, the accuracy is a side issue, that can be handled offline. My concern is about the principle of whether store locators are a special case of a database that is exempt from the normal rule about not importing databases, even piecemeal. If they are, I would expect a source code of something like store_locator, rather than the full URL, or, if the full URL for that store were visible on geographic site, simply website. (In this case, I suspect the real sources were survey (by eye, not GPS), Bing, and then only using the web site for phone numbers, website and address. Although they didn't have opening hours at all, those should have been available on site.) (What made me look at it was that it was local and had no changeset comment.) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
