Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Dudley Ibbett]

OSMAND has recently had some very positive comments about walking on an 
unrelated (to OSM) forum I use.  It also doesn't appear to render on the basis 
of whether there is a service=driveway tag at the moment.  In the field, as a 
walker, given you can download the maps, it is what I would consider suggesting 
someone try if they asked me rather than the main OSM website.

I've had the debate about the use of track/service some time ago.

I go the impression that highway=track was initially used based on the surface 
rather than the "function".

I now try and tag on the basis of what I think is the function.  So if it is 
the highway to an isolated residence or residences (farmyards that have been 
sold off for housing are quite often multiple residences) or a farmyard (which 
will include a residence) I would use highway=service and service=driveway.  I 
would add a surface tag for the surface.  I might even add a tracktype tag as 
in reality this is just another descriptor for a surface.   If the highway is 
to farm buildings only (you get isolated barn/s in fields) or into fields I 
would use highway=track.

One advantage of having service=driveway rendered differently on the main OSM 
website is that you can use it to QC your use  of this tag!

Dudley




From: ael via Talk-GB 
Sent: 13 December 2020 11:41
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 09:11:32PM +, Martin Wynne wrote:
> On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
>
> What I'm wondering is how the typical recreational country walker would find
> that map, or get it on their mobile phone app in place of the awful Google
> maps? It's a lot of work to create if no-one ever uses it?

Just to mention that I use navit on my satnavs, and that has a good
"POI" feature which would show benches in the vicinity. I understand
that there is a Android version, so presumably it works on those
types of smartphone.

https://github.com/navit-gps & https://www.navit-project.org/ etc.

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] (re: Re: Road name contradictions in the UK)

[Dudley Ibbett]

Open before Friday


 View message 
here

03:05:12 (Openstreetmap)

Re: [Talk-GB] Road name contradictions in the UK
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping horse steps?

[Dudley Ibbett]

According to a horse riding friend this would most commonly be known as a 
“mounting block” in UK.

It seems people are more likely to need to them to get on a horse rather than 
off.

The only recent occasion I have seen them on a bridleway was a new dedicated 
bridleway bridge (not much wider than a foot bridge) over a railway line.  I 
suspect it was stipulated by the planning authority for safety reasons.

Dudley




From: Tim Waters 
Sent: 30 August 2018 15:03
To: Warin
Cc: OSM - Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping horse steps?

Wikipedia calls them "mounting blocks" 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounting_block
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Duke_of_Wellington%27s_Mounting_Block%2C_Athenaeum_Club%2C_London.jpg/1200px-Duke_of_Wellington%27s_Mounting_Block%2C_Athenaeum_Club%2C_London.jpg]

Mounting block - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
A mounting block, horse block, or in Scots a loupin'-on stane is an assistance 
for mounting and dismounting a horse or cart, especially for women, the young, 
the elderly or the infirm.



I spotted a new ish concrete one the other day which had an official looking 
"horse riders may mount here" sign above it, but I don't think those signs are 
in the HM Sign Manual.  I prefer "mount" to "dismount" and it might reflect the 
intended purpose of it, it's easier to fall off than climb on the beasts!

Going back to the wikipedia page, these block steps are not only horse 
specific, but could have been used to get into carts and buggies, too.


Tim


On 28 August 2018 at 01:32, Warin 
<61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/08/18 23:28, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 27/08/18 13:32, Edward Catmur wrote:
amenity=horse_dismount_block has 4 occurrences, all in the north of England.

I think I'm responsible for half of those - happy to pick a different tag if 
someone's got a better idea!

There are actually a selection of tags used for this sort of thing:

--

-- Horse mounting blocks
--

   if (( keyvalues["amenity"]   == "mounting_block"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["bridleway"] == "mounting_block"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["historic"]  == "mounting_block"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["horse"] == "mounting_block"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["horse"] == "mounting block"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["amenity"]   == "mounting_step") or
   ( keyvalues["amenity"]   == "mounting_steps"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["amenity"]   == "horse_dismount_block" )) then
  keyvalues["man_made"] = "mounting_block"
   end

https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L2211

all very low usage.

horse=* is used as an access thing .. so I'd not encourage its use for other 
things.
e.g. there exists horse=dismount .. I think that means the rider must get off 
the horse to proceed .. an access condition, not a facility to assist 
dismounting.

I'll raise it on the tagging list and see what they come up with.
My personal preference at the moment is for man_made=mounting_steps. But that 
is just me.




___
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] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

[Dudley Ibbett]

If I’m planning a walk for myself or leading a group in a rural area such as 
the Peak District I would always assume for an A or B road sidewalk=none as the 
default.   Because of a lack of detail on most maps for sidewalks and verges 
most people out walking in rural areas are likely to plan routes avoiding such 
roads.  I must admit I don’t know what the legal status is when it comes to 
walking along a verge.  If enough people walk along a verge could/should it 
become sidewalk=*, surface=grass/ground/mud/...?  If there was a particular 
need to use a section of an A or B road I would currently have to go out and 
survey it or take a look at any suitable images online.

As a consequence of the above and my involvement in OSM I do now try and put in 
sidewalks as there is the potential to produce a much better map for walkers in 
rural areas using OSM.  Sidewalks are certainly a feature I would like to add 
to the maps I put on my Garmin GPS.  I’m not aware of any online map that 
displays sidewalks.  It would certainly be useful if there was one.

I suspect routing for walking may need to be different when it comes to rural 
and urban areas.  The latter tends to be about getting from A to B.  In rural 
areas routing is most likely to be about a limited distance starting and 
finishing at A and taking in specific features.

I would certainly encourage people to map sidewalks in rural areas as there 
seem to be no rules as to where they are likely to be found and they are a very 
useful map feature for walkers.


Dudley


From: Philip Barnes 
Sent: 08 March 2017 12:49
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 11:41 +, SK53 wrote:
Inadvisable is probably too dependent on the individual and their particular 
situation.
Absolutely, doing this could make many PROW inaccessible.

Phil (trigpoint)




As ever it is better to try adding something more objective to the data which 
allows these routing situations to be better handled. The current tags which 
allow this are sidewalk & verge. I think a sensible solution for your generic 
case would be to disallow pedestrian routing along A-roads which have 
sidewalk=none (perhaps when maxspeed > 30 mph). Verges will not be practicable 
for many pedestrians (Mums with pushchairs, toddlers, older people etc) so I 
think can be ignored.

This would still allow routing where no-one has surveyed or tagged sidewalk 
provision, and is therefore less likely to break places where there are 
pavements or paths. It also allows those cases where walking along the road is 
inadvisable to be mapped on a case-by-case basis.

Other refinements might include considering whether a road is urban or rural 
(Richard Fairhurst does this on cycle.travel): OS Open 
Data provides a decent data set of this & the one I generate from OSM is very 
similar.
cycle.travel | Commuting, Bike Maps, Cycle Routes, Touring
cycle.travel
Smart Turns – new on cycle.travel's route-planner. New Saturday 23 April · 6. 
Today cycle.travel’s route-planner gets the biggest single improvement since it 
...



On a broader community level: mapping presence of absence of pavements or other 
paths alongside main roads in the countryside (and when absent features of the 
verge) is probably something we should aim to do alongside completing speed 
limits for trunk roads. Much can be done from Mapillary images.

Jerry



On 8 March 2017 at 11:27, Stuart Reynolds 
> 
wrote:
What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways? 
Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near Barham 
in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge (and indeed 
very little in the way of verge at some points). It is technically legal to 
walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but it is most certainly not 
advisable and you would be taking your life into your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods. 
Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in the 
crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add it in.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26237116#map=18/51.21188/1.16626

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




___
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

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

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I have taken a look at my data for this area.  I have a few pictures from when 
I walked through this "farmyard" that are from 2013.  It was in my early days 
of mapping.  Looking at this data on JOSM and my pictures I have tidied it up a 
bit.  I think the satellite imagery has also improved since 2013.

I must admit I don't use highway=path in the UK although it seems to be quite 
commonly used in other parts of the world.   I have changed these to 
highway=footway and add access=customers.  These "paths" seem to be about 
accessing the toilet block and car park with regard to customers using the 
campsite.  The one south of the toilet block is sign posted "booking in" where 
it joins the track.I will have removed the foot=permissive as my 
understanding that this implies general "permissive" access for the public.

When it comes to the "paths" in the woods I have changed these to footways and 
add access=customers.  I assume that if you stay on the campsite you can access 
these as paying customers.   

I don't know all the detail of the main OSM websites rendering.  If 
access=customers doesn't render any differently then the owners of this 
campsite still might not be happy.  I must admit I find it odd that people are 
walking into this area anyway.  The footpaths in the wood accessable from the 
campsite don't join up to the public footpath to the west.  There is however a 
National Trust sign at the south end of this area and it maybe that people 
presume this gives them a general right of access.

This area also currently has two "place" nodes.  One is for a "village" and the 
other a "farm".  It probably was a large farm at one tome but now looks more 
like a hamlet when you walk through it.  There is a small farmyard and a few 
residential properties.

Hopefully the above is going to be acceptable.  Its about as good as my 
knowledge and understanding of tagging gets I'm afraid.

Regards

Dudley






> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 17:15:09 +0100
> From: davefoxfa...@btinternet.com
> To: for...@david-woolley.me.uk; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale
> 
> 
> On 02/10/2016 14:21, 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 certainly didn't map highway=path with those assumptions. Could you 
> please list some data users who do?
> 
> (I don't use path at all now as it's irrelevant & confusing. I use 
> footway with all other attributes described in sub-tags).
> 
> Dave F.
> 
> ___
> 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] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

Although not the type of feedback we want, it is actually good to hear that 
people are using the map.  I have walked through here and may have some 
pictures for reference so will see what I can do without a survey.  It is a 
well used walking area so the owners are unlikely to dispute public rights of 
way.  I don't recollect putting in these features.  It looks like it has been 
done by someone that must have stayed on their campsite.   It will have to wait 
until this evening.

Regards

Dudley

Sent from my iPad

> On 1 Oct 2016, at 22:35, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>   OSMF board has received a complaint by the operator of the Upper
> Booth campsite, namely that they're seeing an increase of people
> trespassing due to OpenStreetMap featuring the campsite toilet as a
> public toilet.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.36523/-1.84623
> 
> I fixed that for them, but they have only replied with more (quote):
> 
>> I have looked at the map and there are numerous other inaccuracies.
>> The ONLY footpath is the Pennine way from Edale to Upper Booth. NONE of the 
>> paths indicated on the map that proceed north through Upper Booth Farm are 
>> public footpaths, similarly the P marked is the private parking for campsite 
>> users.
>> To the west of the farm is a stream running north /south there is only 1 
>> public footpath that runs alongside the stream NONE of the others indicated 
>> are correct.
> 
> I don't want to edit things based solely on what they're saying - I know
> that property owners sometimes have different ideas about which paths
> are private than the law.
> 
> Maybe if someone passes that farm on a weekend out they can survey the
> situation and mark things as private where necessary.
> 
> I'll place a note there linking to this message.
> 
> 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] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi Luke



It is a nice looking map you have produced.  As has been mentioned, I have
put in quite a few of the field boundaries in the Peak District and have also 
tried to
get the footpath network completely mapped over the last few years.  There are 
still a few to go
but not many.  



I think others have already commented about marking PROW's along driveways
etc.  You do get cases where footpaths go through a property but there is
no access along the driveway to the property so it is good to have this
detail.  To try and help with this I do try and add the designation tag
and access=private tag where relevant.I don't think this is universal 
practice and this style of tagging isn’t complete for the Peak
District so you may have to rely on other data sources if you want to render
PROWs along driveways etc.



Having looked at the map around the Peak District you may want to look at the
rendering of quarries.  Whilst there is a label for these there seems to be no
outline so I might currently think these were disused.   The outline of the 
quarry on OSM is sometimes the hole but can be cover the full operation.   Many 
quarries in
the Peak District and probably other areas still have PROWs through them that
still exist in the published PROW datasets and in theory will be put back or
have been rerouted (permanently or temporarily).You may want to give some 
priority to OSM footpath
data in such areas as this is likely to be actually what is on the ground.



If a footpath isn’t accessible by a walker then I don’t
generally put it on OSM or I will end it at the obstruction.  It looks like you 
are treating this as
incomplete data and filling in the footpath according to the published PROW 
data.  Perhaps we need some way of tagging/putting these ways
in OSM so they can potentially be eliminated when rendering a map that is 
designed to
reflect footpaths that are accessible to walkers.


Kind Regards
  

Dudley




From: luke.sm...@grough.co.uk
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:02:32 +0100
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

I mentioned a while back that grough was developing a composite map, blending 
OSM data with OS OpenData to fill in the gaps, and using public rights of way 
data directly from the local authorities which have released it. Over time, 
hopefully we will rely progressively less on other data sources.
I'm happy to say there's now a beta available, at http://geo.gy/ with more 
details about the project at http://map.grough.co.uk/. 
There'll also soon be a 3D version available, building on the prototype at 
http://3d.geo.gy/ to cover all of Great Britain and improve the controls.
The source code behind generating the maps is open source, although not 
suitable for on-the-fly tile generation because of the preprocessing. The idea 
was to create a map which could be printed and used at a fixed scale (1:25,000 
scale), with labels moved around to avoid obscuring detail etc.
If anyone has comments or advice for us, it would be gratefully received. We're 
aware of some issues already, so this is only a beta release. Similarly if 
anyone would like to use the maps, we'd be more than happy to help if you run 
into problems.
Luke



___
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] Other Routes With Public Access

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

Many thanks for this.  I take your point about the use of an OS specific term.  
It would be good to have a consensus on a suitable designation tag and an 
addition to the wiki on UK rights of way to cover its use.  

As suggested, I will try and contact the highways department to see if they 
will confirm the actual access for this particular highway.

Kind Regards

Dudley

> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 18:34:29 +
> From: robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com
> To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Other Routes With Public Access
> 
> On 13 February 2016 at 14:57, Dudley Ibbett <dudleyibb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I came across a paved single lane "road" on a recent walk that was sign
> > posted in both directions as a "Public Road" It makes a loop between two
> > "unclassified" roads.
> > Functionally, is seems to be a service route for an isolated farm that sits
> > at the top of the loop, although it would make quite an useful link road
> > between the two "unclassified" roads .  I crossed it at the top of the loop
> > so I don't know what there was with regards to signs at each end.  On the OS
> > 1:25 it is marked as "Other Routes With Public Access".  Is there anything I
> > can infer from the use of the term "Public Road".  i.e foot, horse, bicycle,
> > vehicle = yes/no? How are people tagging the "designation" of such routes,
> > i.e. are people using  "designation=other routes with public access"?
> 
> Routes marked by OS as "Other Route with Public Access" will most
> probably be routes that appear on the local Highway Authority's "List
> of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense", but are not maintained
> to a standard for regular motor traffic. They will generally be
> Unclassified Highways (i.e. not an A, B or C road) and unless there is
> a specific Traffic Regulation Order to the contrary, there will be
> full vehicle, horse and pedestrian rights over them.
> 
> As far as tagging is concerned, I would strongly advise against
> designation="other routes with public access", designation=orpa and
> similar. The "Other Route with Public Access" is an OS-specific term,
> and even if that status hasn't been copied from OS, such tagging may
> give the impression that it may have been -- which is not something we
> want to give or accidentally encourage.
> 
> Instead, I would suggest that mappers do their best to determine the
> precise status of the route in question -- which is most likely to be
> an Unclassified Highway. Then an appropriate designation=* tag can be
> given (e.g. designation=unclassified_highway). Despite a route
> technically being an Unclassified Highway, if the route isn't suitable
> for general motor traffic, I would avoid tagging it with
> highway=unclassified -- as that would be misleading to data consumers.
> Instead I'd give it a suitable highway tag based on the physical
> condition of the route -- probably highway=track or highway=service.
> 
> Appropriate access tags should also be used (access=yes if everything
> is allowed, and foot=*, horse=*, bicycle=*, motor_vehicle=* etc if
> not) since routers and other tools shouldn't be expected to translate
> UK-specific terms into access defaults. There are some more details
> about different types of Rights of Way and the implied access rights
> at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Table
> 
> To determine the precise classification of a road/track, you'll need
> the "List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense" from the
> local Highway Authority (usually the County Council or Unitary
> Authority). Some councils will have online maps of their Highways, but
> these will generally be derived from OS data, and so we're unable to
> make use of them. For details about getting hold of this "List of
> Streets" and permission to re-use it in OSM, see
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html . There's a
> (short) list of councils known to have given permission so far at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Information_in_the_.22List_of_Streets.22_maintained_by_local_councils
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> Robert.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Whittaker
> 
> ___
> 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] Other Routes With Public Access

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I came across a paved single lane "road" on a recent walk that was sign posted 
in both directions as a "Public Road" It makes a loop between two 
"unclassified" roads.
Functionally, is seems to be a service route for an isolated farm that sits at 
the top of the loop, although it would make quite an useful link road between 
the two "unclassified" roads .  I crossed it at the top of the loop so I don't 
know what there was with regards to signs at each end.  On the OS 1:25 it is 
marked as "Other Routes With Public Access".  Is there anything I can infer 
from the use of the term "Public Road".  i.e foot, horse, bicycle, vehicle = 
yes/no? How are people tagging the "designation" of such routes,  i.e. are 
people using  "designation=other routes with public access"?

Many Thanks

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Next UK chapter concall

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi Brian

I think we should have "ordinary" members with full voting rights.  Another 
class of membership should be for "organisations".  They should be required to 
nominate an individual to represent them.  Their voting rights should be 
limited so they cannot vote for committee membership or stand on the committee.

At this time I would also suggest we set a minimum age for any type of 
membership to 18. I believe this would simplify issues when it come to 
complying with child protection legislation.

Apart form the initial cost of setting up any organisation.  I would guess the 
main annual cost will be insurance and auditor fees for the accounts.  This 
assumes that we won't be paying the committee expenses!   I'm aware of a couple 
of organisations that seem to do this for an annual fee of £25-£35 for ordinary 
membership.  Any "organisation" type of membership would need to be excluded 
from the insurance unless we got down an affiliate model along the lines of 
mountaineering clubs that affiliate to the BMC for example.

Kind Regards

Dudley




Sent from my iPad

> On 25 Jan 2016, at 18:36, Brian Prangle  wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone
> 
> Don't forget this is scheduled for 8pm Wed this week 27 January
> 
> 0800 22 90 900  Pass code 33224
> 
> We'll pick up on Rob's summary email i.e objectives;legal stucture; 
> constitution
> 
> If we can I'd like to start discussing:
> 
> Name (not what it will be - but a mechanism for choosing one)
> Membership classes, rights and costs
> 
> On objectives:the ensuing silence since draft 2 I'm not sure to take as 
> indifference or approval, but let's use the text as a starting point:
> 
> 1.To increase the size, skills, toolsets and cohesion of the OpenStreetMap 
> community in the UK.
> 
> 2.To promote and facilitate the use of OpenStreetMap data by organisations in 
> the UK.
> 
> 3.To promote and facilitate the release by organisations in the UK of 
> OpenData  that is suitable for use in OpenStreetMap.
> 
> On legal structures, please read Rob's excellent summary before the concall. 
> I've read it and my conclusion so far, and I'm still not clear on some 
> things, is that we shouldn't go for unincorporated society (unlimited 
> liablity for officers) or charity (we don't have a charitable purpose and the 
> legal strictures are a bit more complex than we'd want). From the rest I 
> think company limited by guarantee (that's what OSMF chose) suits us best. 
> Not sure yet whether CIO or CIC, given that we'd be non-profit, are worth 
> considering.
> 
> Look forward to "seeing" you Wed
> 
> Regards
> 
> 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
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] "UKOSM" Aims draft 2

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi Brian

This is looking good.  

We don't seem to be covering "development" of the actual database in the 
context of increasing the amount of data in it with regard to the UK.  i.e. 
"improving the UK map".  I think it would be good to capture this as an aim but 
I'm not sure about how you would word this.  

Kind Regards

Dudley

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:25:11 +
From: bpran...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] "UKOSM" Aims draft 2

Hi  everyone

Thanks to those who commented on Draft 1  in a previous  thread. 

I've  redrafted to:



1.To increase the size, skills, toolsets and cohesion of the OpenStreetMap
community in the UK.

2.To promote and facilitate the use of OpenStreetMap data by
organisations in the UK.

3.To promote and facilitate the release by organisations in the UK of OpenData  
that is suitable
for use in OpenStreetMap. 



Activities and services to achieve these aims can go in
separately in the remainder of the document subsequently, as can how we define 
the UK to include territories such as Channel
Is, IoM etc. 
Look forward to your comments and draft 3!
BTW next concall scheduled for Wed Jan 27 at 8pm - same no and passcode. I'll 
issue these again nearer the date as a reminder

Regards
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] UKOSM or OSMUK or OSMGB proposed aims

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi Rob

 

It seems that if we are thinking about charitable
organisation we need to be careful about whether we are talking about “aims” or
“objectives”.  Quoting : 
http://www.ces-vol.org.uk/about-performance-improvement/about-monitoring-evaluation/planning-for-monitoring-evaluation/aims.html
“Aims are the changes you are trying to achieve.” and “Objectives are the
methods or activities by which you achieve your aims”.  

 

My initial thought for an objective was:  “To facilitate and encourage the 
development
and use of Openstreetmap in the UK”. 
Although this looks like more of an “aim” according to the above.

 

I do think including “use” is important.  There are clearly large data users 
but this
also works down at an individual level.  I
started by using an OSM map on my Garmin for example before I then became
involved in improving the map.  So
encouraging use could well lead to more development.  I also think that using 
the map helps
feedback into improving the overall quality of development.

 

Personally I’m not sure about “increase the number of data
contributors” as a primary objective.  I
know of a chair for one organisation that decided that this was very important
and ended up undermining the aim of the organisation.  I also not that keen on 
“keep their
motivation”.   It strikes me as quite a
difficult objective to achieve and assess the organisations success against,
given how many individual motivations seem to exist in the OSM community.

 

Perhaps we need to restructure this with aims and objectives
to achieve these.  If we want to keep the
option of a charitable organisation open then presumably the aims will also 
need to
be “charitable”.

 

Kind Regards

 

Dudley



Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 23:12:25 +
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org; rj...@cantab.net
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] UKOSM or OSMUK or OSMGB proposed aims

On 3 January 2016 at 16:45, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>> Proposed aims for UKOSM:
>>
>> The aims of (eventual name) are:
>>
>> To increase the number of data contributors;develop their skills and keep
>> their motivation so that new contributors become active mappers to improve
>> and maintain OpenStreetMap data in the UK.
>>
>> To provide a national point of contact for UK organisations wishing to use
>> OSM data or contribute data to OSM.
>>
>> To engage in  activities and provide  services that are consistent with
>> achieving these aims.



Robert W wrote:
>I think those are all good. From a personal point of view (and to
>allow more flexibility if we want to) I'd also like to see:
>
>* Something more explicit to allow the group to create / support /
>encourage the use of tools to improve OpenStreetMap data in the UK.
>(The first point above could be read as just focusing on the mappers,
>rather than the wider aim of improving the data by any other means.)>
>

Hi Robert,

I think your first point is already covered in Brian's first. As a general note 
(as I was getting confused whilst discussing this at the mapping event last 
week) the aim here is to get a high level set of aims. To test them you should 
ask yourself "does my project idea fit within the aims". In this case I think 
tools to improve data ("the project") would be one solution to the "keep them 
motivated [...] to improve [...] OpenStreetMap data" in Brian's first point. To 
use the earlier phrase Get, Train, Retain (or Obtain, Train, Retain if you 
prefer :-) ) then this would be part of the Retain strategy. Shout out if you 
disagree and I may be incorrectly interpreting.

Your other point on data users is a good one. I'll let others weigh in with 
their views but I was also thinking that "facilitate the [...} contribution of 
data [...] to OSM" is needed. This is the "promote the release of OpenData" but 
put in a way that also covers other data sets. I like your wording here.

Best,
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] Mapping Meet Abbots Bromley 30th Dec

[Dudley Ibbett]

I would also add my thanks.

I've added the footpaths etc around Colton where I went after lunch.  There are 
more building to be added to the village but the Bing imagery isn't that good.  

I've not looked at the walk we did in the morning yet so there might be a few 
more details to add north of Abbots Bromley.

Regards

Dudley



To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
From: ajt1...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 23:18:59 +
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Meet Abbots Bromley 30th Dec


  

  
  
Many thanks from me too.  



Here's one quick view of the progress so far:



http://i.imgur.com/UPTks3v.png



It might be missing some updates (and is certainly missing the town
detail) but does show a very different picture to what there was a
couple of weeks ago.



Cheers,



Andy





On 30/12/2015 18:10, Philip Barnes
  wrote:



  On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 17:46 +, SK53 wrote:
  

  Many thanks to all who came despite the weather: a very
decent turn out of 7 people from 4 Midland counties.



  
  Jerry


  
  

  
  Thank you for organising it Jerry.
  

  
  A good day, despite the weather.
  

  
  Phil 
  


  On 29 December 2015 at 13:47, SK53 
wrote:


  

  Just a reminder that this meeting is tomorrow.
I've added some details on the wiki.



  
  Meeting times: 10:30 Buttercross, Abbots Bromley

  
 12:30-12:50 Coach &
Horses.

  
  

  
  The weather forecast is not promising, wrap up well.
  I'm afraid it's a bit difficult to predict a few weeks
  in advance with what seems like an endless sequence of
  winter storms coming in.

  


I'm now going out to enjoy some sunny weather.





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




  


___
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] 10th Anniversary Rutland Mapping Party?

[Dudley Ibbett]

Spring next year would be my preference.   Realistically I would only be able 
to make Rutland.  If it does go ahead I wonder if we could use the Hot Tasking 
manager and Mapillary.  Neither were presumably available in 2006.  I guess 
there would be other tools we could use to highlight which footpaths need 
adding for planning etc.

Dudley

From: nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:16:50 +
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 10th Anniversary Rutland Mapping Party?












Well IoW is obviously easier for me but a) I suspect I'm in a minority there 
and b) to be quite honest it looks pretty much complete from the POV of ROWs.



Rutland would also be somewhere new for me so would be potentially interested. 
However my preference would be not to have it in October (when the original 
party happened) due to work commitments, but instead some time between Apr-Sep 
inclusive, which has the
 advantage of more daylight.





Nick









From: Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com

Sent: 24 August 2015 07:54

To: SK53

Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 10th Anniversary Rutland Mapping Party?
 


I'm up for this  Brian




On 22 August 2015 at 13:23, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote:





I'm just back from my annual trip to the Rutland Bird Fair.




Each time I'm struck by the fact that Rutland still needs a lot of ground 
survey work for OSM. Oakham for instance has a prodigious number of new houses, 
the PRoW network is pretty incomplete, and there are lots of other details 
missing in villages.



Next year will be 10 years since the big 
Rutland Mapping Party. Might it be fun to reprise it and make Rutland best 
mapped countryside in UK?





Obviously another alternative would be reprise the 
Isle of Wight Workshop.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi Rob

My approach is a pragmatic one.  I've come to the conclusion that it isn't 
reasonable to expect the default OSM website to render the specialist 
features that a UK walker would want.  The gold standard for UK walkers has 
to be the OS 1:25 so you would need contours, the British National Grid, public 
rights of way etc.To be honest, even with these additional features we lack 
the basic data in many parts of the UK to provide the coverage needed for an 
alternative to the 1:25.  It does however appear that where the data is 
reasonable we are being used.  The following provides an example of a definite 
map overlay.   
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/leisure/countryside/access/rights_of_way/rights_of_way_network/default.asp#14/53.1728/-1.6869
   Presumably this is a vector overlay of the type being referred to and 
perhaps this could be one way forward.  I guess we could do something like this 
using the designation tag. 

I believe the UK public right of way access is rather unique in the way it 
gives access through farmland, farmyards, residential properties etc.   I find 
it quite bizarre at times that you can end up walking through someone's garden 
quite legally.  I does potentially provide some unique rendering issues in the 
UK as a consequence.  

In the field, most walkers will actually use an offline map and wouldn't want 
to rely on internet access and the OSM website.  I guess OSMand with a suitably 
rendered UK vector map would be the alternative.

Kind Regards

Dudley





Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 23:25:35 +0100
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

Thanks Andy,

Fully aware of access land, undocumented rights of way and permissive paths. I 
just need to remember to be careful of what I write on this mailing list (but I 
was trying not to write an essay).

I'm surprised if this is just England and Wales as I would have thought some 
other country has some way of documenting paths in a legal context and as such 
this may be relevant for other countries, but the real question is: would 
having some way to show the importance of particular paths/footways (just like 
roads have a classification) help, and if yes, how should we do this?

So far there is little interest to do this on the OSM default render style 
which seems odd to me given how much fuss there has been on this list to recent 
changes to the footway/path style (over the last year)!

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] Paths and Footways

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi


My thoughts as follows:


This is really going to be something for a UK specific rendering.  It is 
actually quite useful as a QC exercise to rendering footways/paths with and 
without a designation tag.  Something I do on my own Garmin map.  The 
presumption on my part being that ideally we would like to see all 
footway/bridleways etc have their appropriate designation tag.


I think this is really something for a specialist site.  “waymarkedtrails” does 
this very well.  


I would not be in favour of this.  It would be very subjective and would vary 
throughout the year for many footpaths and depend on who and how many people 
had walked it recently. 



I guess if the new rendering for footway throws up significant problems there 
will be more interest in a UK website.


Regards


Dudley





Sent from Windows Mail





From: Rob Nickerson
Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎16‎ ‎August‎ ‎2015 ‎18‎:‎27
To: Talk-GB












Hi all,


Given that paths and footways are now rendered the same way in the default OSM 
style I wonder whether it is time to look at how the map can provide better 
information.

For rural mappers tagging a path/footway as unpaved surface results in it 
having less prominence on the map. As most major public rights of way are 
unpaved this makes these paths harder to view on the default OSM map.

Some possible changes:

1. Render all paths/footways that are tagged as designation=public_footpath (or 
other RoW) more prominently.
2. Render those paths/footways that make up a long distance walking route more 
prominent (relation data).

3. Render based on another tag such as trail visibility [1] or maybe we need a 
brand new tag to indicate path dominance (like we have 
motorway/trunk/primary/etc for roads).




What are people's thoughts on this? The second has a request on github already 
[2]. 

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
[2] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1750

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK/GB OpenStreetMap survey results

[Dudley Ibbett]

This looks to be quite a good list of objectives.  I would suggest adding 
discussions with the
existing local groups.  How might they
fit in should a national group be formed? 
What might a national group be able to provide in the way of support to local 
groups.

 

I would hope that any national body would have some “weight”
compared to individuals and the existing local groups in terms of engaging with
“major organisations” , potential Corporate support and sponsors.  I’m not sure 
I see the point of a national
body if it isn’t able to facilitate this. 
I say “facilitate” because OSM seems to be very much about local
and individual initiatives and I think it is important that this doesn’t change 
significantly if such a group is formed.

 

When it comes to an “engagement initiative” this could in
theory be the launch of a new UK rendering of OSM data but as suggested it is
probably unrealistic, if an inclusive new rendering is to be developed, in the 
time scale.  Personally
the idea of a vector based system appeals as it seems you could render a
“specialist” map with very little server resources.   If my
understanding is correct you would only need to “serve” the script to render
the vector data which would come from a central server, so I’m hoping a £35/pa
LAMP account might be all that you would need. 


 

Another possibility for an engagement imitative might be
some sort of “state of the UK map” event.  
I doubt SOTM will be returning to the UK any time soon and it would seem
appropriate for a national body to look at supporting this type of event.

 

I guess developing some sort
of “policy”/constitution under which it will operate will be a reasonable
priority.  Hopefully this can be based on
another (national) organisation rather than starting from scratch.
Regards
Dudley




Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:18:50 +0100
From: bpran...@gmail.com
To: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] UK/GB OpenStreetMap survey results

Seeing as the survey put technical stuff like a new render low on the priority 
list ( it got one of the lowest strongly agree scores) lets refocus on the 
community stuff that the survey indicated should be more of a priority.  A new 
UK render should be a separate task and discussion in my opinion. Here's my 
tuppence worth on 100 days 

100 members

10 Corporate members (if we decide that's what we want)


1 Flagship sponsor

1 Engagement Initiative launched with 1 new instance
underway 


Website and social media in place

Online shop with merchandise (e.g hiviz vests)


5 contacts identified in 
major organisations

discussions underway with OSM data user organisations

Committee/Board 2 meetings

1 online policy vote

Sponsor pack in place

Media Pack in Place

1 Press release

1 indepth piece of media coverage
Regards
Brian


On 1 August 2015 at 12:53, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,

Thank you for taking the time to fill out the A UK OpenStreetMap group? 
survey. In the 3 weeks since the survey first opened we received a total of 101 
responses. This is a great response rate and indicates that many people are 
interested in the prospect of such a group.

So what do the results show? Please follow the link below for a break down of 
the results and some suggestions as to next steps for this group.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A8rKyKUW0X01n-JEMLwEUT4ktX-7WrxNP03YTkZs6lU/edit#

I look forward to hearing your views on this. If possible please send replies 
to talk-gb@openstreetmap.org so that other members can view your comments 
(emails sent to this address are publicly visible).

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Open Access Land

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I do survey where possible but the signs for access land are generally limited 
to access points.

There is the following copyright statement on Natural England's data:

© Crown Copyright and database right 2015.  All rights reserved.  Ordnance 
Survey Licence number 100022021.

I'm guessing this means I cannot use it unless the situation has changed with 
regard to OS data and this particular license.

Regards

Dudley

Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 21:12:23 +0100
From: dave...@madasafish.com
To: dudleyibb...@hotmail.com; talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Open Access Land


  

  
  
Hi

  

  Survey it? But I guess you're referring to armchair mapping. So
  try Natural England?

  

http://www.openaccess.naturalengland.org.uk/wps/portal/oasys/maps/MapSearch/

  

  

  On 02/08/2015 18:10, Dudley Ibbett wrote:



  
  Hi



Am I correct in assuming that there is still no source of data
that can be used to draw these areas?



Regards



Dudley

  
  

  
  

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




  













This email has been checked for viruses by 
Avast antivirus software.

www.avast.com





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

[Talk-GB] Open Access Land

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

Am I correct in assuming that there is still no source of data that can be used 
to draw these areas?

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Derbyshire County Council Rights of Way

[Dudley Ibbett]

It is a while since I have reported a footpath issue.  Their reporting website 
now provides openstreetmap as a map layer which is good to see.They offer 
the standard OSM layer and also a walking layer.  The latter is unforunatley 
the cycleing layer which doesn't really do the map data justice in the context 
of a walking map.OS remains the default.   

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] British National Grid File for JOSM

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I was wondering if anyone knows of a program to generate British National Grid 
files (ideally with labelling options) that can then be combined with an osm 
data file.  What I'd like to produce is a osm datafile with a british 
national grid that I can then be rendered within Maperative.

Many thanks

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hanbury Meeting

[Dudley Ibbett]

I would also like to add my thanks.  It was good to meet up with others.  The 
format, of walking together, stopping for lunch and then splitting up to cover 
more ground worked well for me.   I did overlap a little with Andy but it was 
good to walk West and fully appreciate Hanbury's location.   I wonder if there 
is a way we could coordinate seperate surverying next time.

I've put my GPS trace on OSM and will fill in the footpaths and any additional 
details but it probably wont be until the end of the week.  I'm happy to fill 
in the gaps.  It seems buildings and field boundaries have already been added 
around Draycott so it shouldn't be a big task.  Thanks to those that have 
already done this.  

There appears to be a couple of trees in the road in Hanbury.  Junction between 
Hanbury Hill and Martin's Lane!   
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.84721/-1.74407

I was wondering about the highway classification.  Hanbury Hill is tertiary but 
not much wider than a single lane.  Wood Lane is unclassified but it actually a 
wider road.  i.e. two lanes with white lines.  It seems this may be the main 
route into Hanbury from the A515.  Should this also be tertiary?

Regards

Dudley

Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 13:20:45 +
From: li...@atownsend.org.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hanbury Meeting


  

  
  
On 03/01/2015 21:01, Philip Barnes
  wrote:



  Thank you Jerry for organising it, really enjoyed myself.




Thanks from me also - and apologies to anyone now coming down with a
cold that I unwittingly brought down from York the day before.



I notice that some edits from trigpoint
and Math1985
are already in - I'll probably get around to mine at some point over
the next week (may need some co-ordination with Dudley as we both
did bits between Hanbury and Draycott).



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-westmidlands] [Talk-GB] Post-Christmas Midlands OSM Meet-up

[Dudley Ibbett]

I am also hoping to attend.

Regards

Dudley
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 18:12:47 +
From: sk53@gmail.com
To: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
CC: talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org; talk...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Post-Christmas Midlands OSM Meet-up

Well if nothing else we can talk about whether landuse=cemetery is an 
appropriate tag for the crater!

Jerry

On 29 December 2014 at 17:42, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 December 2014 at 17:06, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for Rob for adding the missing footpaths (although I've read his blog 
posts about using umap, seeing is believing). 

Obviously we can potentially knock more of these on the head if we split-up, 
but then we can't map  chat. One benefit of mappers from different places is 
the chance to share perspectives on how, what etc. one maps. 

So I'd like to suggest everyone meets at the rendezvous, and that at least the 
first short walk is done as a group. 

Sounds good. It will be interesting to see this crater near the pub. Depending 
on the number of people we can probably split into 2 or 3 groups afterwards 
(and then catch up again in the pub).

Also if anyone wants to do some mapping from home before we head out there's 
quite a bit to be done aligning roads, mapping landuse and/or tracing buildings.

Rob  
 Regards,

Jerry

PS. There is also a good opportunity to clarify if mapped paths which dont have 
the designation tag are rights of way. I'll try and produce a file of nodes 
where PRoWs end up on roads, for checking.







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

Re: [Talk-GB] Post-Christmas Midlands OSM Meet-up

[Dudley Ibbett]

I am also hoping to attend.

Regards

Dudley
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 18:12:47 +
From: sk53@gmail.com
To: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
CC: talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Post-Christmas Midlands OSM Meet-up

Well if nothing else we can talk about whether landuse=cemetery is an 
appropriate tag for the crater!

Jerry

On 29 December 2014 at 17:42, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 December 2014 at 17:06, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for Rob for adding the missing footpaths (although I've read his blog 
posts about using umap, seeing is believing). 

Obviously we can potentially knock more of these on the head if we split-up, 
but then we can't map  chat. One benefit of mappers from different places is 
the chance to share perspectives on how, what etc. one maps. 

So I'd like to suggest everyone meets at the rendezvous, and that at least the 
first short walk is done as a group. 

Sounds good. It will be interesting to see this crater near the pub. Depending 
on the number of people we can probably split into 2 or 3 groups afterwards 
(and then catch up again in the pub).

Also if anyone wants to do some mapping from home before we head out there's 
quite a bit to be done aligning roads, mapping landuse and/or tracing buildings.

Rob  
 Regards,

Jerry

PS. There is also a good opportunity to clarify if mapped paths which dont have 
the designation tag are rights of way. I'll try and produce a file of nodes 
where PRoWs end up on roads, for checking.







___
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] News Paper Article

[Dudley Ibbett]

There have been a number of articles in the Guardian about Google maps.  It was 
therefore good to see something on Openstreetmap in this Friday's edition .  
The online version can be found at:

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/06/missing-maps-human-genome-project-unmapped-cities

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] FW: Wrongly mapped Lake District ways

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

Sum Wum has replied and was apologetic.  They have attempted to correct their 
edits but several footpaths were still distorted.  I have therefore reverted 
this changeset and the original edits.

I think this now looks OK. 

Regards

Dudley

  From: dudleyibb...@hotmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 16:02:09 +
Subject: [Talk-GB] FW:  Wrongly mapped Lake District ways




Hi

No one has responded so I have sent a message to Sum Wum suggesting they may 
not have realised they were actually editing the map.  I have suggested they 
look at the begginer's guide, help and mail groups for further assistance.  I 
have pointed out that the edits need to be corrected and suggest they could do 
it themselves or I will reverse the changes if I don't hear from them in the 
next couple of days.

I've not dealt this this type of incident before so hopefully it is the right 
approach.  They've made no further edits.

I will attempt to use JOSMs revert plugin in the next couple of days to revert 
the changesets.

Regards

Dudley

From: dudleyibb...@hotmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 19:20:00 +
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Wrongly mapped Lake District ways




Hi

I'm not in or near the Lake District but am reasonably familiar with this area. 
 Has anyone approached Sum Wum.  Presumably they probably didn't know they 
were actually editing the map. 

These all need reverting.  I have never reverted anything using JOSM before but 
am happy to give it a go.  The instructions seems to be fairly simple!

Regards

Dudley



Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 07:47:30 +0100
From: bcmo...@ntlworld.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Wrongly mapped Lake District ways


  


  
  

  Hello There, 

  Would someone in/near the Lake District, UK care to check on
four recent changesets by Sum Wum
namely these :-

  crinkle crags and pike o blisco draft
Closed about 22 hours ago · #22299350

crinkle crags close up
Closed 1 day ago · #22288398

langdale map10
Closed 1 day ago · #22288304

Crinkle Crags via Pike o' Blisco
Closed 1 day ago · #22287273

  They seem to be seriously in error cutting across paths, roads
and waterways.


Regards
Bernard


  


___
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] FW: Wrongly mapped Lake District ways

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

No one has responded so I have sent a message to Sum Wum suggesting they may 
not have realised they were actually editing the map.  I have suggested they 
look at the begginer's guide, help and mail groups for further assistance.  I 
have pointed out that the edits need to be corrected and suggest they could do 
it themselves or I will reverse the changes if I don't hear from them in the 
next couple of days.

I've not dealt this this type of incident before so hopefully it is the right 
approach.  They've made no further edits.

I will attempt to use JOSMs revert plugin in the next couple of days to revert 
the changesets.

Regards

Dudley

From: dudleyibb...@hotmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 19:20:00 +
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Wrongly mapped Lake District ways




Hi

I'm not in or near the Lake District but am reasonably familiar with this area. 
 Has anyone approached Sum Wum.  Presumably they probably didn't know they 
were actually editing the map. 

These all need reverting.  I have never reverted anything using JOSM before but 
am happy to give it a go.  The instructions seems to be fairly simple!

Regards

Dudley



Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 07:47:30 +0100
From: bcmo...@ntlworld.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Wrongly mapped Lake District ways


  


  
  

  Hello There, 

  Would someone in/near the Lake District, UK care to check on
four recent changesets by Sum Wum
namely these :-

  crinkle crags and pike o blisco draft
Closed about 22 hours ago · #22299350

crinkle crags close up
Closed 1 day ago · #22288398

langdale map10
Closed 1 day ago · #22288304

Crinkle Crags via Pike o' Blisco
Closed 1 day ago · #22287273

  They seem to be seriously in error cutting across paths, roads
and waterways.


Regards
Bernard


  


___
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] Wrongly mapped Lake District ways

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I'm not in or near the Lake District but am reasonably familiar with this area. 
 Has anyone approached Sum Wum.  Presumably they probably didn't know they 
were actually editing the map. 

These all need reverting.  I have never reverted anything using JOSM before but 
am happy to give it a go.  The instructions seems to be fairly simple!

Regards

Dudley



Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 07:47:30 +0100
From: bcmo...@ntlworld.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Wrongly mapped Lake District ways


  


  
  

  Hello There, 

  Would someone in/near the Lake District, UK care to check on
four recent changesets by Sum Wum
namely these :-

  crinkle crags and pike o blisco draft
Closed about 22 hours ago · #22299350

crinkle crags close up
Closed 1 day ago · #22288398

langdale map10
Closed 1 day ago · #22288304

Crinkle Crags via Pike o' Blisco
Closed 1 day ago · #22287273

  They seem to be seriously in error cutting across paths, roads
and waterways.


Regards
Bernard


  


___
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] Mapping Indoor walkways

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I visited the NEC this week and tried using Osmand to navigate between 
Birmingham International Railway Station and the Hilton Hotel.  Whilst the map 
was very helpful and has lots of detail, the suggested route took you via 
roads.  How might you map the walkways through the NEC building which would 
hopefully provide the actual walking route you would take, assuming the 
building is open?  Or is this something that isn't suitable for OSM mapping?

Regards

Dudley


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence use of data

[Dudley Ibbett]

Only a few weeks ago I was talking with a Council Officer involved in 
developing a new way with a local walking group.  They've discovered that 
many of the footpaths that make up the way no longer follow the definitive map 
and are now debating as to who is going to pay to get the map changed.  I 
should imagine they cannot endorse the work unless this is resolved but the 
cannot reasonably ask the landowners to pay up as the line of the footpaths 
have changed due to usage rather than the landowners redirecting or obstructing 
the paths.

Personally I am using the www.rowmaps.com for research, i.e. identifying paths 
that aren't in OSM, and then going out and walking them.  It is certainly 
becoming more challenging as many of these are rarely walked.  

Interestingly enough I used the row data  from the above site to inform 
Staffordshire Council of an obstruction only earlier this week.  I provided all 
the numbers for the row along with a GR for the obstruction.  An email came 
back, telling me the GR was in Derbyshire, so they totally ignored all the row 
numbers/descriptions I had provided.  I doubled checked the GR by putting it in 
the OS website and responded that it was in Staffordshire.  I've yet to have a 
response!

If I have to go round boggy parts of a field etc. I ignore this and just put in 
a straight line.   If landowners are concerned about keeping walkers to a 
particular line I generally find they put up fences and lots of way 
markers/signs.  Alternatively, they remove every possible evidence of a row in 
the hope you'll think it no longer exists and take an alternative route.  The 
one great thing we can do in OSM is put in the detail as actual walkers (i.e. 
on the ground surveyors).

Regards

Dudley
  





 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 02:52:58 +
 From: m...@wintonian.net
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence  use of data
 
 Really what I meant was where the is a RoW (as evidenced by the 
 definitive map) but the actual line that is used has moved over time, 
 perhaps to avoid a fallen tree or an area that has become wet and boggy 
 over the years or otherwise more difficult to traverse than the new line.
 
 Therefore what happens is that that actual line used becomes different 
 to the legal line, sometimes the definitive map is updated to reflect 
 this but this seem to be normally only when there is another reason to 
 modify the entry.
 
 I hope that's clearer.
 
 Regards
 Robert
 
 On 04/12/13 02:24, Andy Street wrote:
  On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:00:20 +
  Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Can someone clarify the situation for me.  I'm in Worcestershire
  where permission was previously sought to use the Worcs CC PRoW.
  However, what is the advice in a situation where you can't use
  official PRoW data, Bing shows a path across a field, a ground survey
  also shows a clear path across the field but the signs show a Public
  Footpath along the edge into another field and rejoining on the other
  side.
 
  Do we map where people are trespassing, maybe with a bland
  highway=path tag and source=bing;survey or just map the official
  PRoW.  Further more, if there are no clear signs somewhere (often the
  case), do we just leave it blank, even though the CC show it on their
  copyright map or again show a highway=path marking the tresspassing.
 
  Map what you know, leave whatever remains for other people or a
  later date. If you know they are trespassing then it's highway=path,
  access=private, otherwise just add highway=path as it could be either
  permissive or private.
 
  If you are unable to follow a PRoW on the ground then please consider
  submitting a fault report to the council. Not only will you be helping
  fellow mappers who follow in your footsteps but other path users too.
 
 
 ___
 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] Cycling

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

On the subject of cycling the December/January CTC Cycle magazine doesn't have 
a very favourable write up for the Garmin Edge Touring Plus which comes with 
the Open Street Map project data.  It makes the comment that OSM like 
Wikipedia, is neither complete nor entirely accurate!.  It also seems the 
routing software was directing the user along muddy bridleways and grotty 
gravel paths! when then set it to avoid narrow trails and also unpaved 
roads.  It is a bit disappointing as previous articles that have mentioned OSM 
have been quite supportive.

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping climbing routes/areas.

[Dudley Ibbett]

I'm a retired climber.  It would certainly have been useful to have had maps 
of crags (the old guidebooks just had drawings of the crags and an OS 
reference) and a smart phone to locate the general area of a climb if not the 
actual start.  From memory, many of the larger crags also have named areas so 
this would be a useful.  Knowing the location of the most famous climbs on a 
crag can also give you a good reference point.  Abseil points in a place likes 
Gogarth would also be good.   A couple of friends convinced themselves they had 
done a climb in Wales only to discover they had done the wrong route on the 
wrong crag in the wrong valley!!

I'm not sure I would get out my old climbing books to do this even though the 
names aren't copyright but walking along a crag and asking people what climbs 
they were on and waypointing this information would seem a reasonable thing to 
do.  From the sounds of it I could also take the guidebook into the field and 
do this.  Putting some information on the wiki about the legal situation would 
be helpful as it will probably be some time before I might do this on some of 
our local crags.  

Regards

Dudley

From: rasilo...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:26:47 +0100
To: bigfatfro...@gmail.com
CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping climbing routes/areas.

I think a certain amount of judgement has to be applied when mapping, and 
recognising that trademarks are limited in scope.  I suspect mapping the route 
Nike Air Max http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=233225 might be a bad 
idea.  But mapping Nike http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=17702 when 
it's sat next to Pegasus is probably in the clear.



For me, mapping the crag and one or two landmark routes would provide most of 
the usefulness; Do they mean that cliff with a tree half way up, or /that/ 
cliff with a tree half way up, and which of these vague paths through the woods 
do I take to get there?



The wiki proposal suggests mapping a vertical climb as a POI at the botom (and 
making that the minimum for climbs), and creating a way where there's 
significant horizontal distance (which ountain multi-pitching often has).




On 23 October 2013 12:12, Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote:



  

  
  
As I said, I'm not a lawyer, just
  erring on the side of caution.  My worry is that if you add the
  Nike Chimney (fake name) as a climbing route, we may be using
  something that is not without legal encumbrance.  I'm just
  paranoid :-) 

  

  I would suggest that if anyone goes out, surveys and climbs their
  own route and then uploads to OSM then that would be fine.

  

  On a further note, I don't know how you map a vertical route on a
  flat map?

  

  Jonathan

  

  http://bigfatfrog67.me


  On 23/10/2013 11:54, Derry Hamilton wrote:



  

  Hi Jonathan,

  
  I believe the lack of copyright on route names and location
  was settled in BMC vs Rockfax, when the BMC sued on exactly
  that basis and lost, but I don't have a cite to hand.

  


Thanks,

Derry

  
  



On 23 October 2013 11:13, Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com
  wrote:

  Hi Derry,



I'm no lawyer, but if the route name was first used in a
copyrighted publication and never used before that
publication then they *may* have claim to it.  Bear in mind
that while a route name may not be covered by copyright it
may be covered by a trademark!?



Jonathan



http://bigfatfrog67.me


  

  On 23/10/2013 07:43, Derry Hamilton wrote:

  
Opinions I've seen are that route names are not
copyrightable, any more than road or mountain names.

  
  

  



  
___

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Unclassified and Tertiary Roads

[Dudley Ibbett]

Many thanks for all the responses.  I've changed Roach Road (it is free of pot 
holes at the moment!) to unclassified but will survey the others before 
changing them.  

Regards

Dudley

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Unclassified and Tertiary Roads

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

In Upper Hulme (Old Buxton Road and Roach Road) and on roads above (Back of the 
Rocks) and below (Blackshaw Lane) there seem to be odd changes between 
Unclassified and Tertiary Road tags.  

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/53.1444/-1.9821

I've no experience with regard to tagging highways so I was wondering what 
information there is available to check whether this is correct of whether it 
is a judgement call?  Roach Road is mostly single track and has a gate on it.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Regards

Dudley


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Terrace

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

Not strictly GB questions but could anyone help on the following:

How do you tag outside seating areas for cafes, bars and restaurants that are 
not attached to the building.  i.e. separated by a path or even a road.  There 
is terrace=* listed under cafe.

How do you tag a self contained apartment/flat (i.e. includes cooking 
facilities) that is available for holiday rental?  This is distinct from a 
guest house, cottage etc as there could be several in the building concerned.

Many thanks in advance.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lines of Trees along river banks etc.

[Dudley Ibbett]

Many thanks for the information.  I'm afraid my knowledge of the detail you 
provide is quite limited.  I'll stick to natural=row_of_trees.  As you suggest 
it is likely to require the way to be marked on both sides.  I hadn't thought 
about using scrub on a way.  For some reason the JOSM preset is restricted to 
an area but it seems you can directly tag a way as scrub.

Regards

Dudley

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:30:23 +0100
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lines of Trees along river banks etc.
From: sk53@gmail.com
To: dudleyibb...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org

I don't think these are hedgerows at all. They are really relict river gallery 
woodland (usually Salicion albae, NVC W6) and I would expect are mainly Willows 
with the odd Poplar and Alder.


A photo example (and a location) might help.

Typical components along the Trent (Notts  Derbys) and Thames (Berks  Bucks)  
will be: 
planted trees, usually hybrid Poplar and White Willow, but some real oddities
Crack Willow and Alder as standard trees
pollarded trees, mainly Crack Willowshrubby trees, predominantly Osier and Grey 
Willow, but some Almond  Purple Willow
occasionally dense scrub with Hawthorn and Elder
The willows nearly always are self-set. Any willow twig broken off in a flood 
is capable of regenerating (for Crack Willow and Native Black Poplar this is 
the usual means of propagation), provided there is enough moisture. This means 
that river banks are naturally always getting new additions, and that clearance 
of willow scrub is a never ending task. However, the zone where this happens is 
quite narrow, depending of height of flood waters and maintaining the relevant 
moisture levels.


I don't know much about palatability of willows to livestock, but suspect they 
are not very tasty. When fields have grazing next to a river, usually cattle 
will have made a few gaps to get at the water, but my impression is that they 
don't graze on willows, although sheep probably do.

It may be useful to show that a water body is tree-lined. I personally use 
tree_lined=yes on tree-lined roads (more as a place holder), but there is also 
natural=row_of_trees. You might want left and right. For the scrub willow 
thickets I think natural=scrub is the right tag, even if you choose to put it 
on a way (these will be NVC W1-W3, with W1 being the commonest).

Regards,
Jerry



On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com 
wrote:




Hi

I was wondering if anyone has been mapping these?   Quite often I come across 
streams and rivers where there are dense lines of trees along the river banks.  
Occasional I find lines of trees which seem to be remnant hedgerows where the 
shrubs have been removed.


Looking on line it would seem that these are a hedgerow type.  

http://www.hedgelink.org.uk/images/bap/key%20to%20hedgerow%20types%20bigger.jpg


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69285/pb11951-hedgerow-survey-handbook-070314.pdf


This would perhaps suggest they should be marked as ways with barrier=hedge and 
hedge=line_of_trees or perhaps just the latter.

An alternative might be to use natural=tree_row which is defined in the wiki 
but the examples seem more to related to trees that have been planted at 
regular intervals and where there isn't generally an overlap in the canopy.  I 
have used this a few times but I'm not convinced it is the right way to tag 
this feature given that it seems they are a type of hedgerow.


This may be something for the tagging email group but these a quite common 
features in the UK so I thought it would be good to ask here first.

Many Thanks

Dudley




 
  

___

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lines of Trees along river banks etc.

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I was wondering if anyone has been mapping these?   Quite often I come across 
streams and rivers where there are dense lines of trees along the river banks.  
Occasional I find lines of trees which seem to be remnant hedgerows where the 
shrubs have been removed.

Looking on line it would seem that these are a hedgerow type.  

http://www.hedgelink.org.uk/images/bap/key%20to%20hedgerow%20types%20bigger.jpg

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69285/pb11951-hedgerow-survey-handbook-070314.pdf

This would perhaps suggest they should be marked as ways with barrier=hedge and 
hedge=line_of_trees or perhaps just the latter.

An alternative might be to use natural=tree_row which is defined in the wiki 
but the examples seem more to related to trees that have been planted at 
regular intervals and where there isn't generally an overlap in the canopy.  I 
have used this a few times but I'm not convinced it is the right way to tag 
this feature given that it seems they are a type of hedgerow.

This may be something for the tagging email group but these a quite common 
features in the UK so I thought it would be good to ask here first.

Many Thanks

Dudley



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Finding Unmapped public rights of way

[Dudley Ibbett]

I have tried increasing the memory allocated to JOSM but it is still a very 
slow process.  The most convenient way for me would be to download the 
Geofrabik file for derbyshire when I need and update but it looks like a merge 
with the derbyshire prow will take an hour or more at the current rate of 
progress.

Osmosis is unfortunately producing an error.  SEVERE: Thread for task 1-rx 
failed org.openstreetmap.osmosis.core.OsmosisRuntimeException: Node -272236 
does not ha
ve a version attribute as OSM 0.6 are required to have.  Is this a 0.5 file?

So it seems the file format may not be right.

I'm afraid the other types of analysis are a bit beyond me but it would be a 
useful tool to have is someone can highlight prows not mapped.  To be useful it 
would need frequent updates and enable walks to be planned to cover the ground. 
 I guess having some stats would be nice to monitor progress.

I do put in the designation on paths etc. when I find they are missing.  

At the moment I only put in new footpaths if I have walked them.  I assume this 
is what others have done before in my part of the world and it would seem the 
right approach at the moment and possibly a selling point for OSM maps in the 
future.   It seems a good approach given there is already reasonable coverage 
but it may not be so applicable where there isn't.  Something for debate 
perhaps.

Many thanks for the responses.

Regards

Dudley





Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:33:21 +0100
From: sk53@gmail.com
To: spam_from_os...@chezphil.org
CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Finding Unmapped public rights of way

Hmm, I have sitting on my desktop a whole load of QGIS analyses of OSM 
designation=* against the DCC rowmap TAB file, but as I'm on my way to SotM 
Baltics wont write this up until I get back.


I haven't looked in detail, but basic use of buffers seems to grab most 
matching footpaths (buffer OSM data, and then use the buffered data to clip the 
DCC PRoW data). Obviously crossing paths are also captured, but it should be 
relatively easy to find only those footpaths where more than n% of the route is 
within the buffered OSM path.


So far I've used buffers of 10, 50 and 100m against the OSM data.

I havent loaded the TAB file into PostGIS as there was some kind of geometry 
problem.

Jerry




On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Phil Endecott spam_from_os...@chezphil.org 
wrote:

Dudley Ibbett wrote:


I'm trying to make use of the row files on rowmaps for derbyshire and 
staffordshire and and merging these with and osm map file to then produce maps 
that can highlight which paths are and aren't mapped.




Thanks for doing this.



One suggestion - it would be great if the disgnation=public_footpath/bridleway

tags on existing paths could be tidied up at the same time.  Last time I looked,

too few had these tags to be able to use them exclusively to identify footpaths,

and the other tag combinations tend to have many false positives.





Regards,  Phil.











___

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Finding Unmapped public rights of way

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I'm trying to make use of the row files on rowmaps for derbyshire and 
staffordshire and and merging these with and osm map file to then produce maps 
that can highlight which paths are and aren't mapped.  I can put the derbyshire 
file into JOSM and download parts of the area and merge them to create an osm 
file that I can then save locally and import into Maperative.  A modified rules 
file allows me to produce the prow footpath ways and the osm footpath ways as 
different coloured dotted lines so I can see which are/aren't mapped.  
Unfortunately JOSM doesn't seem to be able to cope with merging large files.  I 
maybe asking to much of it as the files are quite big.  What I would like is to 
be able to get a merged file of the derbyshire, saffordshire row files and the 
equivalent osm map file on a regular basis (highlighting the rows that aren't 
mapped) so I can slowly pick away at the remaining footpaths the need mapping 
in this area.  Does anyone know of a simple way to do this?

Many Thanks

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Obstructed Rights of Way

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I was doing some walking/mapping in Rookhope (Weardale) a few weeks back.  
Whilst I have managed to map out some walls to the West of Rookhope I struggled 
with the footpaths that go through these fields.  Two I attempted were 
obstructed.  (I've marked them with fixmes)  I have reported the problems to 
Durham County Council but have had no response from their web page for 
reporting problems nor from a direct email request for feedback.

My general impression was that footpaths leading to the moorland are reasonably 
well marked but those crossing the fields neglected and not marked at all apart 
from the statutory signs by the metalled road.

I'm not really in the position (too far south) to follow this up and was 
wondering if anyone knows of a walking group in this area that takes an 
interest in maintaining rights of way access that might be willing to take this 
on?  

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Peak and Northern Footpath Signs

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I've now come across a few of these signs:

http://www.peakandnorthern.org.uk/signposts/about-our-signposts.htm

Is there a place for these in OSM?  

If so, how should they be mapped as they are in effect a destination sign in 
most cases although they can just provide information?  As a destination sign 
they often direct you to more than one location.  

Thanks in advance.

Dudley


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Neighbourhood Planning - data import proposal

[Dudley Ibbett]

I might have got this all wrong but taking a look at the node in the changeset 
for our NP it would seem that there has been an import of the data available on 
the Borough Council's website with regard to this.  It would appear this is 
part of the proposal.  i.e. nodes at the centroid of the NP and presumably the 
next step will be to tag the way forming the NP boundary.On a practical 
note I gave up trying to find the node in JOSM so it would be difficult to find 
and update.

Once thing that does concern me is that the Proposal is for a one off import 
and the level of detail in the proposal will mean much of it will be out of 
date quite soon as these projects progress.   I have tried and haven't been 
that successful in getting our NP to use OSM.  The Borough Councils are legally 
obliged and funded to provide information, including maps of the NP area with 
data they have.   Given the practical issues that seems to exist with regard to 
updating the node and that I'm up against the maps the BC can supply I'm afraid 
it isn't going to be a very useful import from our NP's perspective.

Regards

Dudley





Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:13:23 +0100
From: li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Neighbourhood Planning - data import proposal


  

  
  
stephen.pete...@sky.com wrote:



  



Hi all



Comments please on my
  proposal to upload new data about Neighbourhood Planning Areas
  in England.  This will involve re-using parish and electoral
  ward boundaries across the country.



Proposal is here
- 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Neighbourhood_Planning_data_loading_proposal 



Thanks very much.



Steve Peters (aka
  SemanticTourist).
  



Despite the lack of any positive feedback here some sort of
Neighbourhood Planning import seems to be continuing:



http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16081208



Can anyone explain what is going on?  



(this is in addition to the previous uploaded nodes in
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15772466 )



Cheers,



Andy





  


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Natural England Data

[Dudley Ibbett]

Never easy.  As requested I have registered a basic complaint about OS and 
Natural England data.  I must admit I don't comprehend all the issues.

I don't intend to import any of this information but am just looking for 
something I can use to draw areas on OSM if necessary.  I suspect that Ancient 
Woods for example are already in OSM but may not have tags to mark them as 
such.A quick search on wood  ancient in taginfo hasn't found anything.

I take the previous comment about the problems associated with tagging landuse 
etc.Ancient Woods, I am told are non-statutory designations.  I am 
wondering whether a similar tagging scheme to the one that has been developed 
for public rights of way could be used.  i.e. natural=wood, 
designation=ancient_wood  I guess one question might be, would it be a good 
idea to distinguish between statutory and non-statutory designations?

Regards

Dudley



Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 23:15:48 +0100
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Natural England Data

Urrgg.. It was [0] that all Natural England open datasets (with the exception 
of Local Nature Reserves), were plain OGL licensed and could therefore be used. 
Looking again, it seems like NE have now added that annoying line at the top of 
the OGL licence that seems be be raising a few eyebrows:


The same attribution statements must be contained in any sub-licences of the 
Information that you grant, together with a requirement that any further 
sub-licences do the same.

This must be due to the Ordnance Survey as Natural England have not added this 
line to the NE non-GIS OGL licence [1]. Frustratingly this is a matter of much 
debate and is (hopefully) being addressed by both Office of Public Sector 
Information (the OS's regulator) and the Open Data User Group - slow progress 
I'm afraid.


I would recommend checking for the individual licence included within each 
dataset's zip folder. If it's standard OGL then I say go for it :-) As with any 
external dataset, a straight import should be discussed on the mailing list 
first. You should also note that not all of the data is appropriate to OSM.


Rob

[0] 
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120404182221/http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/copyright/

[1] 
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/open-government-licence-NE_tcm6-30744.pdf

p.s Please also register your concerns with the Office of Public Sector 
Information. Use the magic words I wish to raise a formal complaint against 
Ordnance Survey as this will ensure that your comments get logged and included 
in any stats OPSI can reference when leaning on the OS.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Natural England Data

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

Am I correct in assuming we cannot use this data.  It talks about OGL but also 
mentions 3rd party and OS (again!!)

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/data/

The reason I ask is because whilst I can go around our neighbourhood and put in 
walls fences, woods etc I don't seem to have anyway of putting in ancient 
woods, nature reserves, sssis etc (all of which are relevant to our 
Neighbourhood Plan) without having to look at this drawn on an OS map and 
therefore not being able to use it with regard to putting these features on 
OSM.  

Many Thanks

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

Re: [Talk-GB] walls versus landuse=field

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hope is slowly becoming reality in the Peak District.  We will eventually end 
up with a better map than the OS 1:25 because it will also be possible to map 
the types of barrier, the types of stiles, gates, kissing gates etc.

The current OSM website rendering seems to be geared towards urban environments 
but hopefully with the developments being walked about this will be improved.   
It can be difficult to get an overview of field boundary mapping as they don't 
appear until you use quite high zooms.  I have found Mapertive useful in this 
respect as you can export data, make minor changes to the rendering file and 
get field boundaries to appear at lower zooms.  It helps when you need to start 
filling in the gaps.  You can also colour code to differentiate between wall 
and fences etc if you want to.

One thing I have found practically when marking field boundaries on the ground 
is that a single gps waypoint isn't always that convincing if you think a shift 
in the satellite imagery is required.  If you have time, occasionally walking 
the wall/fence/hedge either side when you pass through it to produce a gps 
cross gives you more confidence with regard to satellite imagery alignment.

Like you, I generally only map field boundaries.  I do map scrub as it is a 
useful navigation feature for walkers.  I'm sure others will eventually put in 
landuse etc but my priority is to produce a walking map.

Regards

Dudley





 From: h...@cantab.net
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:38:14 +0100
 Subject: [Talk-GB] walls versus landuse=field
 
 One of my little hopes (which I'm very very slowly attacking) is to have
 OSM have all the walls and fences and suchlike to the same standard as
 OS (them being very useful to walkers and suchlike).
 
 I noticed that lots of fields, for example in
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.92332lon=-1.7091zoom=15layers=M
 are shown as closed loops of landuse=field. Clearly walls/fences and
 enclosed fields are somewhat equivalent, but subtly different in terms
 of what they describe (certainly, walls are not always around fields)
 
 Am I the only one that has been drawing walls and not fields? It's nice
 to have fields as individual logical units, but they're defined by the
 walls, so it strikes me the wall should be the defining characteristic.
 Is this a software problem in that the areas and the features are
 defined independently?
 
 Fields do at least render, but this seems like a poor reason to me.
 
 cheers,
 Henry
 
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] the brilliant and constantly improving Wikipedia of maps

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

The following was in today's Guardian paper in the G2 section.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/shortcuts/2013/apr/28/new-cartography-making-mountains-hills

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Using rights of way data

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

Has anyone tried to obtain the Definitive Statements from Derbyshire or 
Staffordshire County Councils in electronic format?

The Derbyshire website just talks about arranging a visit to see the document.

Regards

Dudley

 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:04:39 +0100
 From: robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com
 To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Using rights of way data
 
 On 28 April 2013 12:06, Will Phillips wp4...@gmail.com wrote:
  I notice rights of way data from a number of county councils is
  available on the rowmaps.com site. It is stated that this is available
  under the  'Ordnance Survey OpenData licence'.  Is there any consensus
  over whether it is considered permissible to use this data in OSM?
 
  I've been working on the understanding that OGL licensed data is
  acceptable (I always tag the source). But I am unclear on the current
  position regarding the Ordnance Survey OpenData licence.
 
 The OS OpenData Licence adds some additional obligations concerning
 downstream attribution that are not present in the Open Government
 Licence (OGL). My view is that these additional obligations make the
 OS OpenData Licence forwards incompatible with the ODbL+DbCL licence
 that OSM uses. But not everyone agrees with this view, and OS
 themselves have given indications to the contrary in the past.
 However, the most recent definitive statement from OS that I am aware
 of appears to say that OS's view is that the OS OpenData Licence is
 not forwards compatible with the ODbL+DbCL. For details see
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Licensing/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData_License
 and http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html
 
 The traditional position of OSM is to be cautious over copyright. So
 without any legal certainty in the interpretation of the terms, and
 with the licence owner now stating that the license is incompatible, I
 think there is no way we can use OS OpenData Licensed content in OSM
 -- unless we additionally obtain the explicit consent of the copyright
 holder(s). This is of course rather unsatisfactory, given then amount
 of Local Government data that is starting to be released under the OS
 OpenData Licence. Rob Nickerson and myself have tried to raise this
 problem with the Office of Public Sector Information and the Open Data
 User Group -- see the request at
 http://data.gov.uk/data-requests/all-datasets-available-under-the-os-opendata-licence-ordnance-survey
 , but so far we haven't had any success.
 
 There is, however, one set of OS OpenData Licensed data that we can
 use in OSM, and that is the OS OpenData products themselves. Here OS
 have given us special permission (at the request of LWG) to make use
 of OS OpenData (with the exception of CodePoint Open) in OSM. See
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata
 
 At the moment, if we want to make use of the GIS Public Rights of Way
 data that Local Authorities are releasing, I think we would need to
 get explicit permission from OS, and also permission from each Local
 Authority -- since both have IP rights in the data. This will be a
 real pain, not least because the Local Authorities are unlikely to
 appreciate the legal issues or want to go to the trouble/expense of
 getting their legal people involved.
 
 On the brighter side, there is one Rights of Way document that we can
 get to use in OSM, which avoids any OS IP issues. That document is the
 Definitive Statement -- a list of Rights of Way (with route
 descriptions) that each Local Authority is legally required to
 maintain. The route descriptions are variable, depending on the
 Authority, so some may be more use than others for OSM mapping. For
 some advice of how to get hold of this document and request permission
 to use it in OSM, see
 http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html .
 
 Robert.
 http://robert.mathmos.net/
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Robert%20Whittaker
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags

[Dudley Ibbett]

I suspect mapping meadows is a job for experts.  I tried asking one and was 
told there are no natural meadows in the UK and meadow is a landuse.  
Probably time to find another expert.  To this extent, for most mappers 
natural=meadow and landuse=meadow would certainly be interchangable.  If 
however people could avoid using meadow just because there is a horse in the 
field this would be good.  

If a mass edit removes information (i.e. the type of meadow) then I wouldn't be 
happy if this was done to my work.  Discussing such edits with the local 
community would seem the best approach.

More detailed mapping of the rural landscape does seem to be increasing so 
perhaps a GB guidance page on rural mapping with GB examples would be a good 
idea if a consensus can be found.

Regards

Dudley






  

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:57:10 +0100
From: bpran...@gmail.com
To: t...@acrewoods.net
CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags

Just to take take the conversation into another orbit simultaneously, I'd like 
to clarify Tom's remarks about natural=wood and landuse=forest being  
interchangeable in the UK. I always tag landuse=forest where aerial imagery 
shows a regular pattern of tree spacing which is a good indicator of planting 
following the wiki guideline for forest as being Managed forest or woodland 
plantation to differentiate from naturally spaced trees. Without surveying 
it's difficult to ascertain the managed bit though

Regards

Brian


On 25 April 2013 14:19, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:

I can sympathise with some of what Jerry, John and Frederik have said here.
There is undoubtedly a lot of slightly inappropriate tagging in the database, 
meaning that serious use of the data often requires a lot of cleaning up. I 
went around Southwark changing lots of land uses but based on surveys and where 
it was clearly wrong, so that I could do some analysis and make nice maps of 
green spaces in the borough. It used to be the case that 
landuse=recreation_ground was _the_ way that we all tagged any green space that 
wasn't a park. I routinely change these to landuse=grass when I come across 
them these days, unless they really are recreation grounds. I wouldn't want to 
be held back by having to divine (or enquire about) the intention of the 
original editor each time!


It's also annoying when the tag Jerry is looking for, according to the wiki, is 
natural=grassland not natural=grass as you would 
expect:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass



Also the tag natural=meadow has been merged into landuse=meadow. There is 
now another key meadow=agricultural/perpetual (oh joy) to distinguish between 
managed and unmanaged meadow, or what used to be the natural/landuse split!


There is, in general, a longstanding confusion about natural/landuse. The 
natural=wood/landuse=forest use is pretty interchangeable across the UK, so 
that we can only really treat them as equivalent and meaning some trees.


The problem that John, Jerry and I have all run into is the downside of a free 
tagging system without a mechanism to iron these wrinkles out. We can only 
really shrug our shoulders and accept that the data is really patchy in terms 
of coverage and appropriate tagging, and do our best to improve it after 
discussion. Incidentally, if you want to see a real basket case of a key, look 
at the values in Taginfo for the building key!


As Frederik said, it is best to discuss ideas for large scale corrections on a 
mailing list first. That way these issues come out and can be discussed before 
the edits, clean-up strategies can be improved, and people don't get upset at 
mistaken edits no matter how good the intentions.


John, I would suggest that you inspect each natural=grass object on a case by 
case basis to try and determine which of these it best 
fits:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass



Regards,Tom

On 25 April 2013 13:59, sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote:


Why do you assume that landuse=grass is more correct than natural=grass. This 
is precisely the problem I have with your edits. If I use natural=* for 
something someone comes and changes it to landuse=* which is not what I meant. 





I ONLY use landuse=grass for amenity grassland (mainly in cities) which would 
otherwise not be mapped. I would never use landuse=grass for grassland in a 
farm or a nature reserve, or on a sports pitch (we have a perfectly good 
surface=* for that). Unfortunately many people have used landuse=grass 
indiscriminately (for instance for farmland in 
Hollandhttp://osm.org/go/0E6w0ZK-- and here in Lancashire (the area around 
Garstang shows wholly inappropriate use of landuse=meadow too). It seems that 
people prefer the green colour rendering for these over the brown for farmland. 
I am unaware that landuse=farmland only refers to arable.





I don't know if you have heard of places like the Steppes  the Pampas, the 
American 

Re: [Talk-GB] Neighbourhood Planning - data import proposal

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi Steve

It would be good to know how this would impact practically.  There are Parish 
boundaries are on the map locally and we are developing a Neighbourhood Plan 
that covers two Parishes.  Would this be a relation joining the PCs that form 
the NPA with the additional tags you are suggesting on these ways?  I wouldn't 
want to see an additional way running in parallel.  

I don't know much about searching OSM data but by implication would you in 
future be able to find information on OSM (tags etc.) within the defined NP 
area?  

Regards

Dudley

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:53:15 +0100
From: stephen.pete...@sky.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Neighbourhood Planning - data import proposal


Hi all
Comments please on my proposal to upload new data about Neighbourhood Planning 
Areas in England.  This will involve re-using parish and electoral ward 
boundaries across the country.
Proposal is here - 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Neighbourhood_Planning_data_loading_proposal 
Thanks very much.
Steve Peters (aka SemanticTourist).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM on BBC TV

[Dudley Ibbett]

I must admit I am hoping that SOTM being in the UK this year will give us some 
good media coverage.   

Dudley

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:41:04 +0100
From: k...@k3v.eu
To: nomoregra...@googlemail.com
CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM on BBC TV


On 8 April 2013 12:13, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote:

...I think it was this website:http://www.netweather.tv/indeI think it would be 
nice to have a wiki page OSM spotted in the wild or notable OSM use, 
x.cgi?action=lightning;sess=



Nothing in the credits. Is it worth looking into this?
I also noticed this, probably because I have been using the netweather.tv site 
for quite a while. Free weather radar on an OSM basemap is pretty cool. The 
website attributes OSM which I think is all that could be expected. I don't 
think TV would ever be expected to attribute things which appear fairly 
incidentally and if anything they should have credited netweather rather than 
OSM.


Kevin


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

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

[Dudley Ibbett]

I have managed to get hold of a couple of maps from our Parish Council with the 
prow reference numbers written on them.  The map itself is marked as not to be 
photo copied and appears to have been issued by Derbyshire County Council.  It 
dates back to 2004.  

Is it going to be OK for me to use this map to put the prow_ref numbers into 
OSM?  I assume the base map is OS and subject to their copyright but the 
numbers appear to have been penned on.  I will only use it for the numbers and 
not for drawing anything else.  

When it comes to adding the numbers I actually have two maps as the PC covers 
two Parishes so the numbers are repeated.  I have read a suggestion somewhere 
that you could add the first letters of the parish before the number as a prow 
reference number.  Has there been any consensus on this.  i.e. are we just 
adding the number.  The Parish boundaries are in OSM so you can determine the 
parish related to the number.

Many Thanks

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

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

[Dudley Ibbett]

As suggested I've downloaded the kml file for Derbyshire and found a plugin to 
view it in JOSM.  The paths have a code DY|AV3|3/1 for example.  It would seem 
County Council=Derbyshire (DY), Borough Council= Amber Valley (AV).  The number 
3 appears to relate to the parish.  (i.e. it changes as you change parish 
boundary.  The last two numbers related to the path.  The first one appears to 
correspond to the numbers I have on my map (30-40 in each parish) but it also 
appears they segment the path with the last number.  I don't mind splitting 
paths (ways) to the first number but it would be a lot of work to the last 
level.  i.e. where there are currently 30-40 ways it could turn into 3-4 times 
this.

I guess the only debate is whether to use the whole number or drop the DY|AV3| 
given that in theory these area already mapped.  i.e. county, borough, parish, 
although the latter is a namer rather than a number.  Presumably there is no 
harm in using the whole and having a degree of data redundancy.

So,  should it be DY|AV3|3 or 3?

It is useful data as it has highlighted a path that I didn't know existed near 
to me so I will need to go and explore.  I'm not sure I would use it for 
actually mapping as it doesn't seem to correspond to what is on the ground in 
some cases having had a quick look around the parish.  I presume it hasn't been 
imported for this reason.  Has anyone developed any tools to highlight missing 
paths in OSM using this data?

Many Thanks

Dudley

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:32:22 +
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

The conclusion seemed to be to add the reference in the same format as used by 
the Local Authority. Some include the parish name, some also include FP for 
footpath etc. As your data is from a Parish level it's unclear whether the 
Local Authority will include the parish name before any numbers - are the 
numbers small (1, 2, 3) or up in the hundreds?


Where are you looking (geographically)?

Rob


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

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

[Dudley Ibbett]

Many Thanks

I'll use the code without the county council letters as this is what is in the 
name tag in JOSM.  I'll debate as to whether to split the path number according 
to the last number as this would require quite a bit of work and I've still not 
mapped all the paths in the parish yet!

Dudley



 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:01:52 +
 From: barrycorneliu...@gmail.com
 To: dudleyibb...@hotmail.com
 CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref
 
  Is it going to be OK for me to use this map to put the prow_ref numbers into
  OSM?  I assume the base map is OS and subject to their copyright but the
  numbers appear to have been penned on.  I will only use it for the numbers
  and not for drawing anything else. 
 
 The Council provides an online map at:
 http://derbyshiremaps.derbyshire.gov.uk/launch_portal.asp?
 
 From that source, you can get details about a PROW, e.g.:
 Prow label:   Sutton cum Duckmanton FP 19
 Routecode:NE18/19/1
 Parish:   Sutton cum Duckmanton
 Prow status:  Footpath
 Prow number:  19 
 I'm not sure about the licensing of this information.
 
 Steven mentioned my web site:
 http://www.rowmaps.com
 I've been using the FOI Act to request data about public rights of way 
 from councils.  Often a council will have this data in an ESRI Shape File 
 or MapInfo files.  So far I have seen data from 52 councils.  Whenever I 
 get new data from a council, I update the wiki page:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils
 All the data I receive from councils is released with an Open licence.
 
 I convert this data into KML and GeoJSON.  One reason for doing this is 
 that I use the GeoJSON on my web site in order to display public rights of 
 way on maps from the Ordnance Survey, OpenStreetMap, Google or Bing. 
 This works seamlessly across council boundaries.
 
 As far as Derbyshire is concerned, I've obtained some MapInfo files. 
 These have been released with the Ordnance Survey OpenData licence:
 
 http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf
 
 The data I obtained from Derbyshire is available from:
 http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/DY/
 
 I have converted the MapInfo files into KML:
 http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DY/
 and released the KML with the Ordnance Survey OpenData licence:
 
 In particular, from the file:
 http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DY/original.kml
 you can get:
 SimpleData name=RouteCodeNE18/19/1/SimpleData
 SimpleData name=ParentRouteCodeNE18/19/SimpleData
 SimpleData name=ParishCodeNE18/SimpleData
 SimpleData name=PROW_Number19/SimpleData
 SimpleData name=LinkNo1/SimpleData
 SimpleData name=PROW_DistrictNorth-East Derbyshire/SimpleData
 SimpleData name=ParishSutton cum Duckmanton/SimpleData
 SimpleData name=PROW_StatusFootpath/SimpleData
 
 I would recommend tagging with either:
 Sutton cum Duckmanton FP 19
 or:
 NE18/19/1
 as this is what is used on Derbyshire's online map.
 
 -- 
 Barry Cornelius
 http://www.northeastraces.com/
 http://www.thehs2.com/
 http://www.rowmaps.com/
 http://www.oxonpaths.com/
 http://www.barrycornelius.com/
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Highways Leading to Farms and single residential properties in rural areas

[Dudley Ibbett]

Many thanks for the comments.

I will now stick to Highway=Service for direct access from roads to Farmyards.  
I will also use this for residential properties set back from the road as there 
are quite a few old farms/farm buildings being converted into residential use.

I will also try and remember to use Access=Private when there is no public 
right of way designation.  I doubt that there will every be rendering for UK 
public rights of way on the main OSM map but it does render Highways that are 
tagged as private differently and it is helpful to know when a path goes 
through a Farmyard etc if the Highway connecting the Farmyard is a public right 
of way or not.

Regards

Dudley

 From: nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:47:18 +
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Highways Leading to Farms and single residential 
 properties in rural areas
 
 
 Oops - highway=service, not surface...
 
 -Nick Whitelegg/FT/Solent wrote: -
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 From: Nick Whitelegg/FT/Solent
 Date: 12/03/2013 11:46AM
 Subject: Re: Re: [Talk-GB] Highways Leading to Farms and single residential 
 properties in rural areas
 
 
 This may be a matter of style but it seems that both Highway=Service and 
 Highway=Track are used for the access highways to farms and also residential 
 properties in rural areas.  I must admit I was using High=Track based on 
 whether it was paved (tarmac) or not.  i.e. tarmac would suggest 
 Highway=Service but looking closer at the wiki it appears that 
 Highway=Service isn't dependent on this.  It would also appear that there 
 has been an import 
 (source tag) that has tagged Highway=Service in some areas for Farm access.
 
 I would generally always use highway=surface for these, plus surface=unpaved 
 if necessary.
 
 The exception is where it appears to be a public road rather than private 
 drive. Diagnostic features for this would include Give Way markers on the 
 road, the T no through road sign, or a road name.
 In these cases I would use highway=unclassified.
 
 Nick
 
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Gaps in Barriers

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I could also do with some comments on the use of barrier=entrance or 
entrance=yes when there is a gap in a barrier (i.e hedge or wall) i.e. no gate 
or stile.  I appreciate you could just draw two ways with a gap but sometimes 
the gap is quite small and a node would seem more suitable.  The former 
(barrier=entrance) seems more sensible in the context and is described in the 
context of a barrier but the latter is more widely used.  The wiki however very 
much describes (entrance=yes) in relation to an urban context i.e. entrances to 
buildings etc. 

I am wondering whether there is a need to distinguish between these types of 
entrance or whether to stick to the more widely used entrance=yes?

Many Thanks

Dudley


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Highways Leading to Farms and single residential properties in rural areas

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

This may be a matter of style but it seems that both Highway=Service and 
Highway=Track are used for the access highways to farms and also residential 
properties in rural areas.  I must admit I was using High=Track based on 
whether it was paved (tarmac) or not.  i.e. tarmac would suggest 
Highway=Service but looking closer at the wiki it appears that Highway=Service 
isn't dependent on this.  It would also appear that there has been an import 
(source tag) that has tagged Highway=Service in some areas for Farm access.

Is there a correct answer for this or is it a matter of mapping style?  I am 
leaning towards using Highway=Service for these and keeping Highway=Track for 
tracks that link from fields to farms or roads to fields (i.e. not from roads 
to farmyards or residential properties).  It would seem to suggest this in the 
wiki on Track.  The wiki would also suggest the use of Service=Driveway when 
using Highway=Service.

Has anyone come to a conclusion on this?

Many Thanks

Dudley







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

Re: [Talk-GB] London Tube Tagging Problems

[Dudley Ibbett]

I recently visited London and looked at the OSM map around London Bridge for 
the tube station.  It was difficult to find as it appears to have the same tag 
as the main line station.  My particular reason for looking at the map was to 
see where the exit/s were.

What would be the correct way to map these?

Thanks

Dudley

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 09:45:51 +
From: aidmcgin+openstreet...@gmail.com
To: jameschurch...@gmail.com
CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] London Tube Tagging Problems

Looking at your Kew Gardens tag it looks excellent with just one
issue. It's correctly tagged for all 3 networks in one as National
Rail;London Underground;London Overground but it does tag both stop

positions on the two oposite direction tracks as railway=station
which i feel should both be changed to be railway=stop or
public_transport=platform and a new, single node should be

railway=station for the entire station?
I must have missed those station tags on the stop positions first time round,  
I did say I attempted to do it :)I've removed those now, and I think the 
station property is captured in the area represented by way 199669935 which 
surrounds the whole station.


On 8 March 2013 23:49, James Churchman jameschurch...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Aidan, thanks for such a fast reply!



Yes very messy indeed!!

Great i had a good read of that link you sent along with

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dstation and a few

others.



Reading :

---

* For simple modeling of simple stations with a single track (or one

in each direction) just add a node with railway=station and name=* at

an appropriate point on the railway (tagged railway=rail,

railway=subway etc).

* For complex or larger stations it is often best to create a node

within the main concourse area and use a public_transport=stop_area to

associate this with the rest of the elements of the station.

---



It sounds like uk tube stations that are largely underground the best

thing is just a node. For larger stations there should still be a node

but also but add it to a relation and additionally tag the Node as a

Stop Area and along with an Area for the building=station .. but

the building=station Area is not sufficient to be a station its

self.. it needs a node



Further down :

---

* There should only be a single railway=station tag for each station.

Where there are multiple nodes for a single station then consider

converting the station to the area format and moving the relevant tags

(including the name etc) to this area and remove the station tag from

all the existing 'station' nodes.

* Where a mainline station and metro station (or other railway like

station) are physically connected, consider if they should be modeled

as separate stations or as a single station. The associated Wikipedia

article for the facilities might assist with the decision. If the

facilities are run by separate organisations (for example a heritage

station next to a mainline station) then it is probably better to map

them using two separate railway=station tags.

---



So this would indicate that only one station tag should ever be used ..



Looking at your Kew Gardens tag it looks excellent with just one

issue. It's correctly tagged for all 3 networks in one as National

Rail;London Underground;London Overground but it does tag both stop

positions on the two oposite direction tracks as railway=station

which i feel should both be changed to be railway=stop or

public_transport=platform and a new, single node should be

railway=station for the entire station?



Think i am starting to understand how it should be done :-)



BR



James



On 8 March 2013 21:35, Aidan McGinley aidmcgin+openstreet...@gmail.com wrote:

 James,



 Seems like a bit of a mess alright.  Take a look at the approved proposal

 for public transport which should be the standard to work towards I would

 think -

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport



 I attempted to apply this to Kew Gardens station a while back

 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.47707lon=-0.28496zoom=17)  it's not

 exactly straightforward, and I'm not sure how well it would work when the

 station is entirely underground like much of central London.



 Aidan



 On 8 March 2013 21:05, James Churchman jameschurch...@gmail.com wrote:



 Hi Guys



 I was originally attempting to get all the London Underground Tube

 stations and Rail stations from OSM ( london xml file )



 The issues with the data I have had are :



 1) Some stations are tagged as Nodes, some as Ways and some as Relations



 London Bridge is large area Way:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.50426lon=-0.084887zoom=18

 and is tagged as a building of type station and railway station



 Westminister Tube station is tagged as a Node

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.501144lon=-0.125211zoom=19

 of type railway station this possibly makes sense to be a Node 

Re: [Talk-GB] Dartmoor needs fixing (heath area missing a chunk)

[Dudley Ibbett]

Looks like I'm missing something here as I always assumed Dartmoor was a moor, 
given its name.  Is there a reason for moors being tagged as heaths?

There are some moors, in name, locally which need mapping.

Dudley

Kevin Peat k...@k3v.eu wrote:

On 28 Feb 2013 23:08, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:

 ...looks excellent as a get away from it all destination...

Bring some good boots as it's pretty muddy after 6 months of rain.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere)

[Dudley Ibbett]

I am a novice when it comes to road names. I've probably only done a 
couple, if that, so apologies if I'm stating anything that is already 
well known.

A friend was involved in the construction of these 
bypasses.  I understand that the body for this was the Highways Agency 
and through their build they were known as the . bybass.  They would 
say they are still known as such.  It could well be argued that these 
are official names.  It appears that the Highways Agency has its own 
gazetteer for road descriptions (TRSG) and these are available on this 
website.  http://www.thensg.org.uk/iansg/welcome.htm  Perhaps he has 
access to this.   Unfortunately it seems to be tied up with OS so I 
doubt it is a resource OSM mappers can/should use.  

I certainly wouldn't defend his attitude.  

Dudley

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:01:27 +0100
From: colin.sm...@xs4all.nl
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere)



Aha, it's Mauls is it... He is indeed very prolific, and adds a lot of missing 
details across the whole planet. However he never seems to disclose his 
sources, either in the source tag or in changeset comments.
Colin
On 2013-02-20 14:18, John Baker wrote:

I have had more correspondence from Mauls.

He is adamant that he is correct and that I don't know what I am doing (mainly 
because he has contributed way more  than me and doing it a lot longer. 104k 
nodes me vs 140k node Maulsyeah way more and I started with this (did some 
minor stuff before) account in 2009 vs Mauls in 2008 ). 

His attitude is that he will do what he wants.

Anyway the exchanges are getting rather nasty now so I may give up 
communicating with him or might embark on some more troll baiting later.

So maybe someone else (...well anyone else not necessarily user SomeoneElse) 
can talk sense to him.

John



 
 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:42:03 -0800
 From: rich...@systemed.net
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere)
 
 Philip Barnes wrote:
  I did briefly discuss this with Andy on IRC and the other issue is 
  the insertion of soft-hyphens into the names so Hatton becomes 
  Hat-ton. Not sure why, is he trying to make a satnav pronounce 
  each syllable?
 
 Or copied and pasted from a document?
 
 cheers
 Richard
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 View this message in context: 
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/road-names-along-the-A50-and-elsewhere-tp5749880p5750045.html
 Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



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


 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-newbies] Wiki documentation on GPS devices - please help answer some questions

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi Rob

As a UK countryside mapper using a Blumax and Garmin 62s and JOSM I'd make the 
following comments:

At this time my personal answer would be almost anywhere (path, tracks, roads 
etc. etc.).  I also understand that the accuracy of the GPS trace will vary 
with time due to the position of the satellites (particularly when you're in a 
valley or on the side of a slope and I guess the same goes for when your in an 
urban environment.) so recording the same route repeatedly at different times 
would also be helpful.   When editing having more gps traces certainly gives 
you greater confidence when drawing and/or adjusting elements.  I suspect the 
answer to the use of phones, tablets etc is it depends on where/when you're 
mapping and how good the reception and therefore accuracy is.  I always assumed 
the 62s would have better accuracy with an external aerial but experience shows 
that this isn't always the case and sometimes the Blumax, with its internal 
aerial is better. 

My suggestion would be just to encourage people to record and upload gps tracks 
rather than make any recommendations.

I would also add that the section on PDOP is rather technical for a newbie.  
Perhaps this could be moved to a separate wiki page and the answer to the 
question changed to be more general.   If your GPS has a display then this is 
more likely to be given as a distance.  I must admit I never bother with this 
and generally leave determining the accuracy to when I use the traces for 
editing.  However this only works if you already have map features of other gps 
traces.  If the trace looks awful in the editor then I also wouldn't upload it. 
 This work with JOSM but I don't know how this practice would fit with other 
editors. The section in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Accuracy is a much 
better answer to this question but even this could do with some diagrams to go 
with the text.  I don't know what the rules are about moving or duplicating 
content on the wiki but as a newbie this is much more useful that PDOP.  I get 
the impression that satellite numbers 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ConstellationGPS.gif) and positioning in the 
sky is a bigger issue than multipath reflection but might be wrong.  Apparently 
the latter is less of an issue when moving quickly in a car.  Something to be 
added to the section on the in vehicles section? 

I use the BT747 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/BT747) application for 
talking to the Blumax and converting traces to GPX format.  

Hopefully others will comment as it is good to see these pages being updated 
and make more user friendly for newbies.

Kind Regards

Dudley



Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 13:54:16 +
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
To: talk@openstreetmap.org; newb...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-newbies] Wiki documentation on GPS devices - please help  answer 
some questions

Hi All,

I have been updating the wiki pages about recording, converting and uploading 
GPS tracks. My aim is to have these 3 pages (record, convert, upload) acting as 
a nice guide.

== Progress so far ==
1. I updated the Upload page [1] to bring it up to date with the fact that 
GPS data is just one part of the picture. The original page was from a time 
when aerial imagery and other data sources were not available. I also moved FAQ 
questions to this page.


2. I rewrote the Making GPX Tracks tool to include the fantastic online 
conversion tool at GPSVisualizer.com (no need to confuse people with GPSBabel 
software). A simple how to for conversion is now prominent at the top of the 
page. Technical details at the bottom.


== Current project - Where I need your help ==
3. I have started to update the page on recording GPS tracks [3]. This is where 
I need your help. There are some obvious questions that should be addressed on 
this page:


* Can I use a iPhone / Android phone? What is the accuracy like? Which Apps are 
best?
* Where should I record tacks? If the answer is anywhere, then where would you 
recommend I focus my attention (e.g. rural roads)? Is this the same globally?


What should the page say in regard to these questions? All thoughts welcome.

== Future ==
Really the page titles should be updated to Recording GPS traces, Converting 
GPS traces and Uploading GPS traces. How do I move the pages without messing 
up the language stuff? Is it possible to mass move all translations at the same 
time?


Regards,
RobJN


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Upload
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Making_GPX_Tracks

[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Recording_GPS_tracks


___
newbies mailing list
newb...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries

[Dudley Ibbett]

Given there is probably no right way to do this I would adopt the same 
approach in this situation and keep it simple.  Wall (the origin of the 
boundary) or fence the actual barrier at this time, it is up to you.  My 
preference would be wall.

Dudley

Sent from my iPad

On 3 Jan 2013, at 14:57, cotswolds mapper osmcotswo...@gmail.com wrote:

 The problem I have mapping field boundaries round here is that they are very 
 difficult to categorise.
 
 Historically, they were all dry stone walls.  However, dry stone walls need 
 rebuilding periodically, which is expensive. If the fields are used for 
 livestock, farmers put up posts with a single strand of barbed wire along the 
 top, to make them stock proof. If this is done on both sides of the wall, 
 this produces a strip of ground up to six feet wide in which anything can 
 grow. So in some places the wall is still in good condition and would be 
 tagged as a wall;  in some places the wall has largely collapsed so the 
 barrier is effectively the two fences with a heap of stone between; and in 
 some places lots of hedgerow plants have taken root and the barrier is a 
 hedge (and maintained as such by the farmer to the extent of getting an 
 annual trim).
 
 All three types can occur within say a 20 metres length of field boundary.  
 Trying to tag metre by metre depending on appearance would be tedious and 
 produce (IMO) a very ugly map, and impossible to do reliably from aerial 
 imagery;  but any single tag seems misleading.  Any suggestions?
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries

[Dudley Ibbett]

Personally, it is good to see others adding field boundaries.

I thought it might be useful to describe my current practice with regard to 
mapping field boundaries.  In making the following comments, I would say that I 
am interested in landscape maintenance and presevation and not just navigation. 
 We have had to fight several planning applications in our valley and 
have won theses based on the quality of 
the landscape.  Having good maps of this is important.  OSM could be 
useful tool in this context.

I started mapping field  boundaries as a Newbie (I'm not sure when you stop 
being one) about 10 months back.  At the time I made some enquires on the 
Newbie mailing list about how to handle field boundaries and roads.  From this 
I concluded that you shouldn't join field boundaries to roads.  I also started 
mapping the field boundaries along roads.  The suggestion seemed to be that 
this should be done for completeness.  Drawing field boundaries along roads is 
diffcult to do neatly and looks messy at high OSM zoom.  However when you scale 
back, the road rendering masks this.  It is probably worth going to more 
trouble where main roads are concerned and their line is unlikely to be 
adjusted.  In JOSM you can create a parallel way from the road which can help.  

I don't join field boundaries to rivers.  This is a bit problematic as where I 
live rivers can have quite dense tree coverage and are part of the landscape 
character.  I have yet to decide how this should be mapped.  The same issue 
relates to the railway embankments which have trees lining them although there 
is fencing.  Hepful suggestions would be welcome!

When it comes to dry stone walls that have collapsed in places and been patched 
up with fencing, old gate or anything else the land owner has to hand I just 
mark the whole boundary as a dry stone wall.  I live in hope they will be 
reparied!  If there are clear, sizeable, lengths where the stones have been 
removed.  i.e. there is no chance it will ever be repaired I would try and mark 
out the fence but it would 
only be an estimate.  Perhaps rather more contraversaly if the wall has 
collapsed in its total length, and a wire fence has been put up but all the 
stones remain in place I still am inclined to mark it as a wall.  I am 
thinking more in the context of the field boundary.  i.e. If the 
stones weren't there the fence probably wouldn't be.  If the wall is heavily 
overgrown and looking like a hedge I would still tag it as a wall.



When it comes to hedges that have been patched up with small sections of
 fencing or have a fence parallel to them as they are no longer stock 
proof I would again just mark this as a complete hedge.  Hedges that have not 
been cut for the last 10 years+ (we have a road locally where one side is cut 
every year and is about 2 meters hight and the other side must be more than 10 
meters) I still tag as hedges.  Again, if there were obvious and large sections 
of just fence or stone wall come to that I would tag these but they would only 
be an estimate.

If the hedge has become a line of trees (i.e. no longer used as a stock 
boundary) then I use natural=tree_row.  It seems the most suitable tag 
available but doesn't render on the OSM map.

Where paths pass through gaps in boundaries I tend (if the gap is small) to map 
this as a complete boundary with an entrance node where the path passes 
through the boundary.  

I do tag the source as survey;bing if I have seen it or just bing if it from 
the imagery only.  If I have walked along it or have waymarked the end I would 
probably add gps.

If your using JOSM it is well worth hacking your own preset to do the above.  
You can also add a source drop down list to make adding this easy to do.

When it comes to drawing the ways that make up a field I'm afraid I am not 
consistant in how I do this.  i.e. I don't draw each side of a field as a 
seperate way and the ways may make up more than one field.  This I'm sure isn't 
compatable with tagging individual field landuse at a later date.  Sorry.  I 
would add on this subject that there is an area where someone has gone to a 
great deal of trouble to map out all the individual fields as seperate fields 
with a landuse=field tag.  I don't currrently know how to tag these with a 
boundary tag as it would seem I would end up with a wall on top of a wall for 
each field if I just added barrier=wall to each area.  Any suggestions on how 
to do this would be appreciated.  

Apologies for going on a bit but I though the above comments might be helpful.

Regards

Dudley  


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries

[Dudley Ibbett]

My main motivation for getting involved with OSM was to get a better walking 
map on my garmin.   To this extent I have been adding lots of barriers in the 
southern part of the Peak District.  So it is being done.  Whilst it is time 
consuming I wouldn't say it is difficult.  I do survey with a GPS and camera as 
much as possible, mainly on foot.  It can be difficult to determine the type of 
barrier from satellite imagery so having pictures to refer to makes it easier.  
JOSM supports photo mapping really well.  You do need to check GPS tracks 
against the imagery and be prepared to adjust the imagery offset.  I wouldn't 
get overly concerned about the accuracy of the position of the barrier.  A 
fairly good job can be done with the existing tools available and people can 
always adjust as these improve.

I must admit I don't map land use if it is farmland.  To me if it isn't mapped 
it is farmland.  It would seem a reasonable default.

Please give barrier mapping a go as we are out there.

Dudley



Sent from my iPad

On 31 Dec 2012, at 22:00, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:

 I would like to see field boundaries and land uses in OSM, for the same 
 reason as you.   I think the main reason that there are not many in there, is 
 that they are very difficult to survey.  I have just added them from memory 
 when I have been able to remember enough - it is more realistic to add them 
 now that we have high resolution Bing imagery for countryside areas, but it 
 is a lot of work, even from an armchair.
 
 Graham.
 
 On 31 December 2012 21:17, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote:
 Personally I would love to see fields (landuse) and the walls/fences that 
 make this up marked on OSM but as per the Wiki this is a complicated area: 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Land_use_and_areas_of_natural_land
 
 I mapped a small area with landuse and some fences months ago but refrained 
 from doing anymore because not many others appear to be doing it. You can 
 see what I did here: 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.72508907318115lon=-1.7569917440414429zoom=17
 
 Some of this I need to fix, it was my early days of OSM editing.
 
 I would love to use OSM one day as a replacement for Explorer (25K) maps but 
 until things like walls/fences are shown it would be hard to do. My idea was 
 to use the OSM to produce some walking guides in printed or static form but 
 they would need this data added for those areas.
 
 I know everyones view is different but do others on here use the landuse and 
 barrier=fence tags in the same way or does it make it look too complicated. 
 
 Steven
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 
 
 
 -- 
 Graham Jones
 Hartlepool, UK.
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[Dudley Ibbett]

Please be careful with the ™doesn't actually exist™ as the owner may not have 
maintained the access point in the hope that people will stop using the path. 
I've seen this on a number of occasions.  I would investigate further and raise 
it with the PRoWO.  I believe there is a deadline coming up for identifying all 
PRoWs, so it is worth checking.

Dudley

SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:

Steven Horner wrote:

 I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering
 how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed
 the guidelines at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
 should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which
 would aid logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths
 http://www.free-map.org.uk/hampshire/, if so how?


First things first, I'd definitely go out and survey them.  The OS
hasn't surveyed these paths (if at all) for years, and important details
such as the path surface and which side of a hedge it runs often aren't
recorded.  That'll create a series of ways within OSM, broken up by e.g.
surface changes and whenever there's a bridge. I'd also add
designation=public_footpath, of course.

Previously I would have taken that designation to mean Someone has been
there and can verify that there is a public footpath sign, although if
people are going to import footpath information from councils without
survey then perhaps we all ought to be adding source:designation as well?

Personally I'm not convinced by adding reference numbers that don't
exist on any signs (some, but very few, authorities put them there).  If
you can't refer to it anywhere, it's not exactly a reference number, is it*?

I notice in taginfo that there are 10 footpath_ref and 2
source:footpath_ref already.  Perhaps something would that would do?
Personnaly, if I was going to add footpath_ref I'd definitely add
source:footpath_ref to make it clear where it came from.

 The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council 
 Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is
 incorrect on the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX
 tracks and local knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the
 PRoW isn't recorded as I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I
 have, add both tagged differently or some other way?


I'd definitely tag what's on the ground.  If there's a path that people
use, add that as highway=footway (or whatever).  If there's a public
footpath sign pointing down it, add designation=public_footpath.

If the public footpath sign points in a different direction to the
path that everyone uses, I'd tag both.  Here's one I found in
Leicestershire:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.915121lon=-0.783637zoom=18

If the local authority or the OS have some path route that isn't marked
on the ground, I personnally probably wouldn't bother adding it, since
it doesn't actually exist.

 Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as
 two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been
 discussed somewhere before and I have missed it?


If you use something like footpath_ref then you'll have to do this,
but of course you'll probably split into much smaller segments anyway
when you take into account surface changes, bridges, etc.


Cheers
Andy

* I have exactly the same issue with people adding reference numbers
(from who knows where) to C roads.  The only effect surely is to confuse
foreign visitors.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Byway between Muston and Belvoir (was Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM)

[Dudley Ibbett]

I tried searching on Weardale but there doesn't appear to be a POI marking the 
Dale!

For those that know this area where would make a good base for walking and also 
have a Pub with wifi for updating OSM in the evening?

Thanks

Dudley

Sent from my iPad

On 31 Dec 2012, at 16:47, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:

 Even smaller - I am pretty sure the problem I had was just to the North of 
 Stanhope
 
 You are right, there are plenty of opportunities to add footpaths to 
 Weardale.  
 I concentrated on the Weardale Way (which you can see on Lonvia's Hiking Map 
 if you are interested 
 (http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=11lat=54.72073lon=-1.8885)).  
 
 When we met a branching footpath I tried to record a short stub to show it is 
 there, but we have not followed most of them.There is also a marked 
 'Mineral Valley's Walk' through the area that we will probably try to follow 
 during 2013but there are huge numbers of 'normal' public footpaths 
 too.my challenge is trying to incorporate these into a nice walk, as we 
 don't tend to go 'mapping' - we go for a walk, and I take my GPX receiver 
 with me!
 
 Cheers
 
 
 Graham.
 
 
 
 On 31 December 2012 16:20, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote:
 It's a small world, the incident I described was also in Weardale near 
 Thimbleby Hill South of Stanhope. I didn't use OSM then and checking OSM the 
 path is not marked. A path on the opposite side of the wall where the farmer 
 was stood is marked which is incorrect and will lead to someone else being 
 shouted at unless I fix it.
 
 There is a massive job to add all of the paths in Weardale to OSM. I will 
 gradually add them as I am out walking. I have GPX tracks of many previous 
 walks and good records.
 
 Steven
 
 
 On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 I have had similar issues, but without the abusive farmer in your part of 
 the world? (Weardale).  My old OS map said the Weardale w
 Way went through this field, and there was a waymark at the junction with 
 the road, but once in the (very large!) field, there was no obvious way out 
 - just rusty gates and barbed wire - I think the route was changed, but 
 they didn't take down all the old waymarks, which left a lot of paths to 
 nowhere.   Can't remember how I mapped that in the end
 
 Graham.
 
 
  
 I had walked across his field according to the map which was a couple of 
 years old and got to the end of the field to find a padlocked gate. I 
 returned back to the sign and it was pointing in a different direction 
 (straight ahead) and also had 3 way markers all pointing straight ahead. I 
 presumed the route had been changed so followed the arrow after a about 50 
 yards I heard various abuse from over the wall. The farmer was angry that 
 we weren't following the map and could we read one. We explained (or tried 
 to) but he said the gate was someone elses and that was the only way we 
 could go. There were no visible paths on the ground in any direction.
 -- 
 Graham Jones
 Hartlepool, UK.
 
 
 
 -- 
  www.stevenhorner.com 
  @stevenhorner
  0191 645 2265 
  stevenhorner
 
 
 
 -- 
 Graham Jones
 Hartlepool, UK.
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I use to walk this route before the tunnels were open.  Please keep the paths 
that use to run around the tunnels.  The might be less used with the tunnels 
now open but they have spectacular views.  I was never sure of their 
designation but presumably if the stiles still exist access can still be 
obtained.  It also appears to be open access South of the Trail so the 
designation may not matter.

In terms of tagging it appears that highway=cycleway is used for the Tissington 
and High Peak Trails (also disused railway lines in the region), although 
cycleway=track has been used on the Tissington Trail as well.

Horses are allowed to use the trail so: horse=yes would be appropriate.

Regards

Dudley

 From: p...@trigpoint.me.uk
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:30:52 +
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire
 
 On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 06:22 -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
  Someoneelse wrote:
   o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path 
   and highway=track that exists currently, replace with 
   highway=track throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail 
   maintenance folks' Land Rovers)
  
  To my mind, the duck tagging principle means that highway=cycleway is more
  appropriate. It quacks like a shared-use cycleway so we should tag it as
  one, unlike a track that is (say) regularly used by forestry traffic or
  agricultural vehicles. There are lots of 'rail trails' around Britain that
  are tagged as highway=cycleway and it would seem a shame to depart from
  established practice.
  
 +1
 I have walked the Monsal Trail many times, and cycleway does seem to me
 the way it should be tagged. Maybe add horse=yes if appropriate.
 
 Phil
 
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Telegraph releases Green Belt data

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

This is a topical subject for me as I'm a Parish Councillor and we're looking 
to develop a Neighbourhood Plan.  Ours is a small rural Parish and I'm hoping 
to use OSM to map it in more detail and then use Maperative to produce maps of 
specific features.  

I'd suggest contacting your local Parish Council as I suspect thery will have 
no knowledge of OSM and jow it might help them.  There is a requirement for 
community engagement.  What better way than to get people to map their 
neighbourhood.

We don't have a new housing quota but permitted development is a constant 
threat.


Regards

Dudley

 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:57:28 +
 From: j...@spiffymap.net
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Telegraph releases Green Belt data
 
 On 28/11/12 20:46, Tom Chance wrote:
  On 28 November 2012 19:40, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com 
  mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Some of the area’s most certainly are not “protected” as they are
  actively being discussed for development. 
 
 
  These are probably areas that have been de-designated, or are being 
  considered for this fate, since the Telegraph's data source was compiled.
 
  This points to the major flaw with importing this data - it changes 
  year to year, and we can't easily observe the changes on the ground. 
  We might spot development on green belt and so remove the designation, 
  we don't spot where new green space is designated as greenbelt. Unless 
  we had ongoing co-operation from local authorities, within a year we'd 
  be hosting a dataset that's out of date and impossible to check.
 
 Hardly impossible, since it's public information. Green belt land is 
 supposed to be permanent, if I remember the Town and Country Planning 
 Act correctly, so it should change less often than local government 
 boundaries, which have no evidence on the ground at all in most places - 
 yet we still maintain them in OSM.
 
 Local authorities normally publish green belt maps as part of their 
 planning statements. Unfortunately these are often in hard-to-use 
 formats like PDF.
 
 I'm not arguing for a rush to import this dataset, but it would be great 
 to have this information in OSM and much easier to maintain it after 
 import/tracing than to author it by hand. When I say it would be great 
 to have it, in fact I believe this is a huge opportunity for OSM to play 
 a vital role in local democracy. And when I say vital, I'm not exaggerating.
 
 The Localism Act 2011 sweeps away a lot of restrictions on planning. 
 There is now a thing called neighbourhood planning which means that 
 communities - or in practice, the tiny proportion of people who take an 
 interest in planning - will be able to grant planning permission where 
 they want to see things built. It limits the powers of professional 
 planners to place restrictions on what will be built where - if the 
 community votes to allow building, it will be allowed without any 
 professional input. (Sorry, I mean interference from government.)
 
 This means that property developers will be able to convince just a 
 few people to vote in favour of a development (you can use your 
 imagination how this convincing might be accomplished) and it will go 
 ahead. The only safeguard left against this will be to get enough people 
 involved in the process, and that requires people to be well informed.
 
 I had some discussions with someone at the Campaign for the Protection 
 of Rural England a while ago and they sound very keen to provide tools 
 to help communities understand their local geography, given these huge 
 new responsibilities that we have been given. Maps are of course key to 
 this. If we can present this sort of information in OSM, it could even 
 become the de facto source of information for community planning activities.
 
 Worth a shot, no?
 
 J.
 
 -- 
 Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd
 
 m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
 The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK
 
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Stiles (and gates) on roads

[Dudley Ibbett]

Having recently started mapping paths, stiles etc I did find this in the 
documentation for stiles and gates.  There is nothing in barrier=entrance but 
presumably this isn't an issue for routers.  

A general page on mapping the UK countryside might be useful for new mappers.

Regards

Dudley

 From: p...@trigpoint.me.uk
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 23:15:58 +0100
 Subject: [Talk-GB] Stiles (and gates) on roads
 
 I have recently found a fairly common problem with stiles and pedestrian
 gates where footpaths join roads.
 
 Often a stile, or gate tagged for access on foot only, is used at the
 junction with a road. Routers then assume the road is for foot only and
 route around.
 
 I am not finding any users are making this error a lot, but a lot of
 users who have mapped a few paths have made this error. So not something
 that can be fixed by a few emails. I guess it is in a similar vain to
 the common error of ending a footpath at the hedge and not joining it
 with the roads way.
 
 The scale of the problem is shown here, some are stiles which continue
 from dead end roads, but most cause OSRM to avoid the node
 http://www.overpass-api.de/api/convert?data=way%2849.2%2C-7.6%2C59.2%
 2C3.5%29[highway%3D%22unclassified%22]%3B%28node%28w%29[barrier%3D%
 22stile%22]%3B%29%3Bouttarget=openlayers
 
 It will take a minute or so to load.
 
 It mostly affects unclassified and tertiary roads, which is probably why
 it is not being reported through map dust. But I have already fixed a
 few on primary and trunk roads. My solution has been to move the stile
 node away from the road slightly and create a short section of path to
 link back to the road. 
 
 I am gradually working through the problem and will carry on until it is
 fixed, but am wondering.
 
 Is there a list of pitfalls for new user that this can be added to?
 
 Is it something that can be added to keep-rights list of problems?
 
 Thanks
 Phil
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Hadrian's Wall

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I'm trying to do a bit of mapping near Once Brewed following a walk this 
weekend.  Hadrian's Wall seems to be tagged as historic=ruins, name=... at 
one point and historic=wall, name=... at another.   The former seems to be 
trying to create an area in JOSM.

Given that I am trying to add barriers.  i.e. walls, fences, gates, stiles etc 
it would seem that where Hadrian's Wall is actually a physical barrier it 
should have the tag.  i.e. barrier=wall and historic=wall.  I note that the 
documentation for historic suggests that historic=yes should be avoided.

I assume that Hadrian's Wall has been mapped as a historic wall whether it 
still exists as a barrier or not.  Does anyone know the source of the wall data 
 (there is no tag in the section where I am mapping) as having walked the path 
that is directly to the side of the wall some of what is currently mapped seems 
to need adjustment?  Bing appears to be reasonably accurate when compared to 
the my own and others GPS data in this area.

Many Thanks

Dudley








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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Field Boundaries

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

Over the last few months I've been mapping field boundaries in Derbyshire/Peak 
District.  The condition of dry_stone walls varies greatly.  One thing I 
would also like to do is tag the condition as this information could well be 
useful in preserving the landscape character.  There are grants available for 
repairs etc.  I am also tagging stiles but again the condition varies 
significantly.  Our local Parish Council actually has money to repair stiles 
but doesn't spend it.  I have been asked to carry out a survey of the footpaths 
and it would be good to tag the type of stile at its condition.

Searching on the web I can find reports on surveys that define systems for 
classifying the conditions of stone walls.  I've emailed the British Stone Wall 
Society to see which they would recommend.  A DEFRA approved system would seem 
to make sense should anyone want to use the information to get funding for 
repairs.

I have yet to find any system for classifying the condition of stiles.  I've 
only found comments with regard to the land owners requirement to ensure they 
are safe.  Has anyone come across a system?  I have also asked the BSWS about 
this.

The other issue I will have is how to tag the condition.  I've found 
building:condition=  as a tag so I guess you could use 
dry_stone:condition=.  I might actually be easier just to use an additional 
tag condition=.

I've no experience of using maperative to make maps but was wondering if anyone 
knows how easy it would be to change its set up with regard to the about tags.  
i.e. would dry_stone:condition=  be more difficult to work with if you wanted 
to produce a map of walls with the condition identified against them than a 
separate condition= tag.

condition is also something that will change with time.  Given the 
possibility of developing mobile phone apps to do updates of this, would again 
having a separate condition= tag be easier?

I should add that I currently mark a barrier as a wall=dry_stone even though 
it may be a long pile of stones and a fence now runs parallel to it.  I take 
the view (it is one I checked with a landscape architect) that the landowner 
would probably not have the fence there if the old wall wasn't there.  There is 
also the hope that it might one day be rebuilt. 

Any comments about the use of dry_stone:condition= or condition=  would be 
helpful.  (Having written this I'm leaning towards condition= as a separate 
tag)  Any views on a system for classifying the condition of stiles and stone 
walls would also be useful.

Best Regards

Dudley


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