Re: [Talk-GB] Kent County Council Highways Gazetteer

2010-02-27 Thread Colin Smale
On 27/02/2010 18:11, SteveC wrote:
 WHy excluding Medway? Isn't KCC HQ in Chatham?


No, KCC HQ is in Maidstone, the County Town of Kent. Medway has been a 
Unitary Authority since 1998 and as such has its own Highways department 
- see http://www.medway.gov.uk/index/environment/roads.htm

Colin

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


Re: [Talk-GB] Kent County Council Highways Gazetteer

2010-02-26 Thread Colin Smale
I applied to KCC for permission to use data from their Highways 
Gazetteer in OSM. They have approved on the condition that the data is 
attributed to them. My request and their official reply are below. What 
this gives us is an authorititave source for road numbering and 
classification in Kent (excluding Medway), although it does require a 
little bit of thinking as there are no coordinates, only road and place 
names. So for example we take Whitehill Road and Highcross Road between 
Longfield and Bean [1] the Gazetteer makes clear that these roads are 
still officially the B255, even though the signs have not revealed this 
for years. For the attribution they require I intend to use 
source:ref=kent.gov.uk.


Which brings me to a dilemma: If a road is ostensibly one type but 
officially another, how should this be tagged? Both are verifiable. 
Traditionally the official classification takes precedence - otherwise 
the single-track A-roads in the Scottish highlands and islands might 
better be tagged as as track in some cases... The Wiki [2] 
specifically refers to the Administrative classifications.


Another use of this Gazetteer is to arbitrate between road classes, 
particularly between tertiary (i.e. C-roads) and unclassified, where 
there is mostly no visible difference on the ground. That throws up 
the odd anomaly as well: New Ash Green [3] got its very own bypass in 
the seventies, which is single carriageway but very wide. The much 
smaller original main road which goes through the village still 
retains the C classification, and the relatively enormous bypass is 
still unclassified.


It occurred to the cynic in me that the lengths of roads of various 
classes might be fed into some spreadsheet in Whitehall to calculate 
some kind of grant to the local councils, giving them an interest in 
keeping the administrative classifications as high as possible, 
despite downgrading them on the ground. But that's unlikely to be true 
of course.


Colin Smale

[1] 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40868lon=0.2965zoom=15layers=B000FTF 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40868lon=0.2965zoom=15layers=B000FTF

[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway
[3] 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.3665lon=0.30171zoom=15layers=B000FTF 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.3665lon=0.30171zoom=15layers=B000FTF

=

Dear Sirs,

I am one of an army of volunteers who collectively are producing and 
maintaining openstreetmap.org ( _http://www.openstreetmap.org/_ ), a 
crowd-sourced map of the world under the CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons by


Share-Alike) licence ( _http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/_ 
), with which you may be familiar.


Having found the KCC Highways Gazetteer, I would like to request your 
permission to use and republish certain information contained in this 
document by incorporating it in OpenStreetMap.


One of the problems we frequently face is that the official category of 
a road (or segment thereof) is not always immediately obvious on the 
ground. I would like to use this document to classify (minor) roads 
correctly as (for example distinguishing between unclassified and 
tertiary), add the official road number, and possibly its status as a 
private (unadopted) street. The Highways Gazetteer contains no location 
information (other than place names) and therefore is probably 
unencumbered by Ordnance Survey restrictions, which would render the 
data unusable in the CC-BY-SA licence model. The alignment of the road 
will still be surveyed on the ground, but thereafter the Gazetteer 
will be used to classify the road correctly as mentioned.


Yours sincerely,
Colin Smale

=

Dear Mr Smale,
Further to your request for information relating to re-use of 
information from the Kent Highways Gazetteer, because the information 
you have requested falls under the scope of the Freedom of Information 
Act (FoIA) and is information held within the Environment, Highways  
Waste Directorate (the directorate), your request has been forwarded to 
me so that I can co-ordinate the response on behalf of the directorate. 
This is to comply with procedures that the County Council has for 
dealing with all FoIA requests.


You ask the Council:

   * Having found the KCC Highways Gazetteer, I would like to request
 your permission to use and republish certain information contained
 in this document by incorporating it in OpenStreetMap

Although the response below has been sent from me, I have liaised with 
Kent Highway Services who have provided the following in answer to your 
request:


Kent County Council are willing to allow the information in the Highway 
Gazetteer to be used for the purpose of Open Street Map on the proviso 
that we receive confirmation that the data source is kent.gov.uk.


=

On 03/01/2010 12:36, Colin Smale wrote:

While searching the internet for arbitration in a case where

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Woonplaatsen taggen

2009-05-29 Thread Colin Smale
Bovendien, niet alle woonplaatsen op de blauwe borden zijn woonplaatsen 
in de zin van een woonplaatsbesluit. Er zijn veel dorpjes of gehuchten 
met een eigen naam op de bebouwdekomborden die in het woonplaatsbesluit 
geen zelfstandige woonplaats zijn. En de bebouwdekomborden zijn volgens 
mij eigenlijk alleen maar verkeersborden, die aangeven dat de regels van 
binnen de bebouwde kom gelden.


Colin

Theun wrote:



2009/5/28 Christiaan Welvaart c...@daneel.dyndns.org 
mailto:c...@daneel.dyndns.org


boundary=civil voorstellen?). Maar boundary=administrative is
misschien
helemaal niet raar: deze grenzen zijn belangrijk voor dingen als
postadressen en carnavalsnamen, en de bekende blauwe
bebouwde-kom-borden
natuurlijk.


Om misverstanden te voorkomen, woonplaatsgrenzen hebben meestal niks 
met bebouwde-kom borden te maken. Binnen de bebouwde kom is het altijd 
wel duidelijk in welke plaats je bent. Woonplaatsgrenzen worden echt 
interessant in het buitengebied, welke wegen/adressen vallen onder 
welke woonplaats.


Theun,
 





___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
  


___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl


[OSM-talk-nl] Bebouwde Kom

2008-09-09 Thread Colin Smale
Dit klinkt misschien als een domme vraag, maar is er een norm t.a.v. de 
betekenis van bebouwde kom in NL?

Dit vraag ik omdat er verschillende definities bestaan. Ik kan er in 
ieder geval drie bedenken:
* planologisch (bestemmingsplannen e.d.)
* feitelijk (het bebouwde gebied)
* verkeerstechnisch (tussen de blauwe woonplaatsborden)

In mijn woonplaats (Maarssen) heeft de gemeente een tijd geleden de 
verkeerstechnische bebouwde kom aanzienlijk opgerekt, zodat nu een 
aantal wegen op grote afstand van de feitelijke bebouwing al binnen de 
bebouwde kom vallen. In OSM zie ik dat de BK-grens min of meer de 
feitelijke bebouwing volgt. Als de BK-grens in OSM gebruikt wordt om te 
bepalen of de verkeersregels voor binnen de bebouwde kom  op een 
bepaald wegvak van toepassing zijn, gaat dat dus mis.

Graag jullie advies: de BK-grens laten aansluiten op de 
verkeerstechnische, of de wegen in dit grijze gebied allemaal 
afzonderlijk taggen waar nodig?

--colin

___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl


<    2   3   4   5   6   7