Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?
On 10 August 2018 at 21:06, Blake Girardot HOT/OSM wrote: > Hi Frederick, > > I appreciate the thoughtful reply. > > I think for the most part we all agree on the technology solution > really looking like the best option. But it is the best option in the > medium and long term. > > In the short term, putting a few thousand plus-codes in as addresses, > while the local community tries them out. Who know if they work for > local folks, but just jamming a few thousand in will allow all the > stake holders to trial these codes. Print maps, put signs on > buildings, communicate with each other using them. But exactly *how* does adding the OLC as a tag to the object in OSM help them do that? Why do they need them as tags to do any of printing maps, putting signs on buildings or communicating with others using them? What actual process, manual or programmatic, are you imagining here? The only way to make use of OSM is to write software which processes the database (creating geocoders, rendering maps etc). That software could *so* easily inject OLCs in whatever way you want. The only possible reason to have OLCs as a tag is if people are reading the raw XML OSM data as text printed on paper and want to find out what OLC a certain way has. No one does that. To make any meaningful use of these tags they will have to write software designed to extract the OLCs and interpret them at which point they could simply *generate* the tags at point-of-use (they are effectively just an encoded lat/lon). This avoids any onerous manual tagging and makes anything they create immediately useful as widely as they wish. I agree with others in this discussion that it's bizarre that anyone thinks that adding these codes as tags to all the buildings in a city is a sensible thing to do or a good use of anyone's time. Matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Strange changeset comment
I've just seen some very strange edits from the user ExperimentalNarratives showing up in Coventry: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ExperimentalNarratives/history I'm not sure whether the change itself makes sense (I no longer live in the area) but the changeset comment is odd. Could anyone from the are take a look and see if they can work out what's going on? Cheers, Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Dodgy edit in Coventry
Hi all, I don't have time to check it in full right now but I saw a suspicious edit crop up today in Coventry http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43006455 Given that they titled the shop 'lol' I'm guessing it is semi-deliberate vandalism. I seem to remember that we have a process in place (some boiler-plate comment) for this but couldn't find it in my brief search. If anyone wants to contact them, please do. Cheers, Matt ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Tuesday March 1st is Night School
I like the idea. I think that some central location where people can chat will help a lot. It will help create a sense of a group activity. I would recommend IRC but I know some feel that it is too geeky and not newbie-friendly enough so alternatives are welcome! Cheers, Matt On 24 February 2016 at 09:42, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone > > Let's try an experiment for the OSM UK Quarterly Project on Schools: on the > evening of Tuesday March 1st let's all try and edit some schools and see how > many people we can get editing and how many schools we can add. Start when > you like and finish when you like and map where you you like. Ideas for > making the evening more fun welcome! > > Even at this stage of the project new people are joining, so spread the word > on other channels to see who we might attract. > > Don't forget the discussions on Schools Quarterly Project that are taking > place also here on Loomio as a trial for a possible platform for OSMUK > member decision-making > > Regards > > Brian > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Search but cannot find
On 18 March 2015 at 09:13, Paul Sladen o...@paul.sladen.org wrote: On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Pmailkeey . wrote: Anyone know why the search facility can't find Waingatebridge Cottages ? Presumably this terrace in the Lake District which has no 'name='; http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/314851241 and which is on a street that also has no 'name=': http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323083782 On that note, I see that nearby Millom has an awful lot of U roads marked on the map http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323083782#map=16/54.2101/-3.2701 I'm surprised that they have them all signposted since we agreed that we should record U names since they're just for internal council bookkeeping? Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 01:22, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote: AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted but not that I'm aware of any explicitly. Whether any of these have ever been captured in OSM is hard to tell. Near where I used to live there's an explicit C-ref signposted. You can see it on Street View at https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.904271,-1.021604,3a,53.7y,41.45h,81.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdOSZUFI5BkWGJB-Pw4RU-A!2e0 I mapped the road as tertiary but haven't yet added the ref to the way. However, I am planning on doing so next time I'm in the area and can check the sign is still there. I think that this is a case where it is useful to have the ref recorded and shown on the map. Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Azimuth measurement
There's at least one case where using a way for a bench makes more sense than a node: the 120m long bench in Geneva [1] Matt [1] https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=La+Treille+benchtbm=isch On 9 April 2014 09:21, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/04/2014, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 08.04.2014 11:45, François Lacombe wrote: In JOSM, you can then start drawing a way from the bench to your reference point. While the unfinished way segment hangs from your mouse cursor, it will show the angle at the bottom of the window. Cancel drawing that way and type that angle into the tag's value. For my needs, this is precise enough. For the specific case of benches, if you care about orientation you might as well draw a way instead of a node. It's easyer to map, and less ambiguous (tag name ? value format ? mapper error ?). One thing the wiki doesn't specify for way-benches is the viewing direction (left or right of the way). But following the same conventsion as for water and cliffs, view on the right sounds intuitive. Somebody should check actual usage and update the wiki. There may be other usecases where tagging the geometry instead of drawing it makes sense, but I find it unlikely. One counter-exemple is roof:shape, but it describes a 3D shape, which the osm data model is ill-suited for. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Warwickshire County Council releases aerial imagery
On 14 January 2014 14:06, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 14/01/14 12:02, Grant Slater wrote: On 14 January 2014 10:43, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone Warwickshire County Council have released 3 sets of aerial imagery under OGL. Brian: Where did you get this information? I cannot find any public reference to the imagery being released under OGL. I recommend that mappers DO NOT use the imagery until usage of the imagery has been out-of-band confirmed as permissible for mappers. It has, Jonathan Moules of Warwickshire County Council came to a midlands OSM meet on Saturday and told us about it, and subsequently confirmed in email to several of us that it is OGL v2.0. That's great but I guess we're going to need at least that email put somewhere on the wiki so it's documented or maybe an email from him to this list? Cheers, Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Lloyds TSB
On 4 October 2013 09:42, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.com wrote: As you might all know, Lloyds TSB split to become Lloyds Bank and TSB a couple of weeks ago. To help find those that still need remapping I had a quick play and came up with http://www.loach.me.uk/osm/LloydsTSB/ I've not added a key, but used logos I found off the internet (with a bit of a disclaimer about them in the about page). The horse with the green/blue background is the old Lloyds TSB logo we want to clear. Hopefully it helps someone. It is using the name value (starting with Lloyds TSB, or Lloyds Bank, or exact match on Lloyds or TSB). This looks really useful, thanks. It might also be worth checking the 'operator' tag as well as many banks have that tagged rather (or maybe as well as) than the name http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=bank#combinations Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging Banquetting Halls (neither hotels, not community centres)
On 21 August 2013 00:00, OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.com wrote: I've come across a building that provides the sort of facilities that one might find in some hotels for day time and evening functions (weddings, posh birthday parties, etc.), but does not have any overnight accommodation. It is too commercial/up market for a village hall type community centre category (I don't believe they'd host local society meetings or keep fit classes, but without the accommodation, it doesn't fall into the hotel category, either. Pubs sometimes provide this sort of service as well, but this one doesn't take any walk in trade and and provision and the bar is an optional extra, or you can go on a corkage basis. Does anyone have suggestions on how to tag it. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=banquet#values suggests amenity=banquet_hall which makes sense. If you want to start using it then just go ahead. It would also be great if you could document the definition of the tag and how it differs from hotels, pubs etc. at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=banquet_hall Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcodes
On 29 July 2013 13:15, Nick Allen nick.allen...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I was wondering if there were any updates / progress on UK Postcodes. I have seen that the Land Registry Price Paid data is partially available on the 'Postcode finder website', but don't seem to be able to contact 'Milliams' to see if any updates will be released (I'm probably looking in the wrong places!). The http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors page has an entry; Land Registry - Price paid data OpenStreetMap contributors use the Land Registry Price Paid Data as a source for address data. This data is published under the OGL and the following attribution is required. This data covers the transactions received at land Registry in the period 01/02/2012 to the last day of the current month. © Crown copyright 2012. If you have found an error with the data please contact Her Majesty's Land Registry (HMLR) which looks promising. I've been busily working away on the BR8 *** postcodes am hoping the 'http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/landregistry/' site will have regular updates (monthly?) which would be very helpful. Sorry, this is my fault for being unresponsive. I'm very busy at the moment finishing my PhD thesis so I've found it difficult to find time to keep this up to date. I'm currently running an update to renew the data from the OSM database and then I'll start adding in the last few months of Land Registry data. They seem to be releasing it fairly promptly these days so I should be able to it more regularly. However, the files are still not named in any regular format so updating them has to be done manually. I also see that they've now also released a bunch of semi-historic data from 2009-2011 (before we only have 2012 onwards) so I'll work on incorporating that soon which should greatly increase the coverage of the tool. I am also giving a talk at State of the Map about the tool so I'll be around there to talk to people about extra features etc. that they might want from it. Cheers, Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags
On 25 April 2013 16:23, John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com wrote: To be honest I am struggling to see anything wrong with what I have done. Let take grass in your example Jerry. There are always more suitable tags than natural=grass, landuse=grass being the most obvious there is also natural=grasslands as was pointed out by Tom. I am aware of these. I am surprised at the assumption that I am not. Now I said I did not update if there was an existing tag. So for landuse=farmland I left it. But if there was no existing landuse tag what is the harm? Even if a soccer pitch was changed from natural=grass to landuse=grass what is wrong with that? It still states in the tag that is is grass. It was tagged wrong to being with as it should be surface=grass but now it will be tagged slightly less wrong as it is at least following some standards. None of the cases mention I can see that I did any harm. The potential for harm arises from your assumption that some tags are implicitly more wrong than others. natural=grass and landuse=grass are not the same thing. One has not replaced the other. On a case-by-case basis, one might be more correct than the other but it's plain silly to say that 'landuse' is de jure more correct than 'natural'. Your later talk of 'RFCs in the wiki' shows you don't understand the subtleties of the OSM tagging schema and the way we choose what tags to use where. This makes me very dubious about you running scripts to 'correct' anything. Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] BBC News - Google Map Maker edit tools extended to cover the UK
In case people haven't noticed, the article has been updated with a quote from Chris about OSM. Matt On 11 April 2013 14:44, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 11 April 2013 14:14, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: Great. I did approach him on Twitter; he's @LeoKelion, but hasn't replied. And a few others :-) https://twitter.com/firefishy1/status/322285311587655680 https://twitter.com/firefishy1/status/322286200058687488 https://twitter.com/smsm1/status/322286570034044928 https://twitter.com/richardf/status/322286644499722240 https://twitter.com/GeorgeCredland/status/322288544850776064 https://twitter.com/rfsql/status/322318091382030336 https://twitter.com/gregorymarler/status/322327967718068224 Pre-empt https://twitter.com/firefishy1/status/322313548787249152 https://twitter.com/firefishy1/status/322313855634120705 / Grant ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] SOTM 2013 Birmingham
On 11 March 2013 15:55, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone I'm composing a press release and want to compare this year's event with the previous conference in the UK - Manchester 2007. Can anyone who was there remember how many delegates there were? Has anyone got any group photos from then? Also any can any sysadmins give me an idea of comparable database sizes July 2007 and today - also how many servers then/now and disk capacity then/now Editors love stats like this and it's better than just asserting we've been the subject of explosive growth in the last 6 years Any help much appreciated I count around 50-60 in http://www.chrisfleming.org/gallery2/d/6094-2/Everyone.jpg Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution required?
On 7 March 2013 13:27, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I noticed this site is using OSM via MapBox: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/8352035/Map-of-NZs-best-swimming-holes Should 'stuff.co.nz' add attribution to the map as described here? http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright i.e. add “© OpenStreetMap contributors” on the slippy map, probably in the corner where it says © Stuff interactives. If so, why. Or why not? They should indeed be providing attribution. However, it doesn't *have* to be on the slippy map itself but it should be in an obvious place on that page or maybe on a page obviously linked from there as 'copyright' information. However, in this case, they're claiming © Stuff interactives on the slippy map which is incorrect and 'copyfraud'. Probably a polite email is in order. Cheers, Matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Coventry new edit
On 27 February 2013 12:07, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Coventry folks. Is this kosher? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2177040650 I'm fairly sure those are all just residential houses along Albany Road and so it's likely a 'joke' edit. Matt ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [OSM-talk] Wow, Google Maps now has detailed maps for North Korea!
On 29 January 2013 10:52, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/1/29 Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu: Hey all, The Wall Street Journal and other news has this breaking news: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578271201719130798.html Normally I try to refrain from Google bashing, but this is just a matter of good PR on Google's side. Our map is a zillion times better than Google Maps: http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=mapnikmt1=googlemaplon=125.7375lat=39.03865zoom=12 (left is OpenStreetMap, right is Google Maps) I wanted to comment on the article but unfortunately it seems as if you are required to be a subscriber to their newspaper in order to comment. I tried that too and gave up. However, it's also covered by CNN (edition.cnn.com/2013/01/29/tech/north-korea-google-maps/index.html) and I left a comment there. It's currently in the moderation queue but I would encourage others to leave a comment there too. Another article is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/Google-unveils-detailed-map-of-North-Korea/index.html Finally, there's also a discussion on Reddit at http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/17gy1m/google_unveils_detailed_map_of_north_korea/ currently with a small mention of OpenStreetMap Matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode data
On 15 January 2013 19:28, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Matt, I'm getting results from other cities in the Land Registry tool. Should this apply the same +- 0.1 degrees logic? Would also be nice if you could add the edit this way in external links (like those on a way's page on OSM.org). If you search for a more precise postcode, do you still get matches from far away? Could you give me an example so I can see if I can track it down? I'll add 'edit this way' to my TODO list. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode data
On 17 January 2013 23:01, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: I would imagine that this would add a fair number of postcodes, and although those interested in address lookup can just use the centroid database without needing to go to OSM, this requires knowledge of the database (which non-UK developers might not have) and does not link postcodes back to address numbers and street names. Also recall that the Auto industry asked in 2012 how OSM intends to bridge the gap between us and commercial map providers. Something like this would be a good step in the right direction in my opinion. From what I have heard, this sounds like a very cautious import and I am happy to support it. It may even have lower error rates than some manual edits!! RobJN p.s. Matt, if you are reading this, do you still update your graph of number of postcodes added to OSM? Might be interesting to see it. Sure, the latest version (from the update a few days ago) is attached. The vertical axis represents my interpretation of how many delivery points we have with an address in the UK in OSM at the moment. This means I've expanded out interpolated ways and buildings with multiple addresses. The big straight section in the middle is from where I didn't update the tool for ages. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com attachment: postcode_houses.png___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Balsall Common armchair mapping cake
Hi all, As discussed at the last meetup (http://blog.mappa-mercia.org/2012/11/november-pub-meeting.html) a few of us are thinking of doing a little armchair (followed by a survey?) mapping of Balsall Common, particularly focusing on buildings. I see that Brian has already started a bit and I've been doing a little today. To make sure that we don't have more than one person doing the same area of the town, I thought I'd put together a cake using MapCraft. You can view the cake at http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/164 and you can reserve (and mark as in-progress/done) the various slices if you log in with your OSM account. I haven't really used MapCraft before but I know the Londoners use it for their mapping parties so we should see how it goes. Matt ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Office of National Statistics data
On 30 October 2012 19:24, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: The UK Office for National Statistics has released some data [1] under the Open Government licence [2] . I've extracted the postcode data from it and created a tile overlay which can help find a postcode for a building in GB, excluding Northern Ireland. More info is at http://onspd.raggedred.net including using the tiles layers in Potlatch 2 JOSM. Fantastic work Chris. This is very much appreciated. I will add it as a recommended source of postcodes for the Postcode Finder as soon as I get the chance. Speaking of which, I still need to put together my statistics tool to see how the coverage grows. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ambiguous restrictions sign
On 31 October 2012 14:37, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, The pedestrianised main shopping street in Croydon has a sign with the following wording: Pedestrian Zone. No vehicles except cycles and for loading 6pm-10am. How would you interpret that? I see at least 3 possibilities: (a) Cycles permitted at any time; loading only permitted 6pm-10am (this is what I guess is the correct one) (b) Cycles and loading only permitted 6pm-10am (this would also make sense; i.e. cycling only outside shopping hours) (c) Restrictions apply 6pm-10am (clearly ludicrous!) (d) Something else? I'm guessing it's meant to be (a), but just thought I'd canvas opinion before tagging. I think I agree with (a). I would find it a little strange to disallow cycling just during the day (why not just ban it entirely?). -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Knight funded work and OSM dev blog
On 23 October 2012 15:45, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: Hello everyone - We just kicked off our MapBox OSM Development blog [1] as a place to keep people in the loop of our Knight funded OpenStreetMap work [2]. We'll be updating there regularly on where work stands and use it as a casual space for bigger picture posts. We'll be keeping the [talk] list here updated, too. Much of the discussion around development priorities has been happening on the [dev] list, if you're interested in a finer grained picture of ongoing dev work, I recommend you head over there. Excellent. I also suggest you add it to http://blogs.openstreetmap.org/ -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Mapping parks
On 23 October 2012 15:29, Graeme Mulvaney web@gmail.com wrote: Would I be able to use openstreetmap to map all of the trees in the war memorial park in Coventry? - each tree represents a citizen who was killed during the world wars. We did something similar a while back which you can read about at http://blog.mappa-mercia.org/2012/08/a-exercise-in-micro-mapping-national.html and see at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.72784lon=-1.72855zoom=17layers=M Matt ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Tagging Parcel Depots
On 22 October 2012 13:35, Nick Verdegem digital.dia...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Just updating my local area and want to add a couple of Parcel Depots, one for the Royal Mail, and one for TNT. The Royal Mail one is *not* amenity=post_office as it does not accept parcels/letters for onward delivery, only collection of undeliverables. The TNT one will send/receive parcels/packages, but I'm not sure if post_office would be acceptable and it would appear that amenity=cargo has been abandoned. Anyone got any guidance/suggestions on how to effectively tag these? According to taginfo, the most commonly used tag (that I can find) is amenity=post_depot [1] with 36 uses. I'd suggest that we start using that and that if noone objects, we should add a wiki page [2] for it and link to it from the post_office page. Matt [1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=post_depot [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=post_depot ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] importing house shapes
On 19 October 2012 11:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: That's pretty much entirely a relation-as-category, though, isn't it? I would argue not. Don't use relations as categories was devised to combat people doing things like adding all buildings designed by a particular architect to a relation or adding all motorways to a relation. Relations are (and should be) used to group related items to make associations explicit. This isn't very different to using relation for bus or walking routes. group ≠ category Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] help.osm.org - platform migration research
On 15 October 2012 09:43, Paweł Paprota ppa...@fastmail.fm wrote: Hi again, I think I have finished the research[1] before today's EWG meeting. I have focused on Shapado since it looks most promising and has a great i18n support. Migration effort would be large but in exchange we would get a truly international QA platform. For migration, it's probably worth only focusing on questions and answers with a large number of upvotes (or at least ignoring those with no upvotes or negative votes) since there's a lot of 'bad' questions (i.e. questions not appropriate for the venue) on there. As for Shapado, I've heard good things, particularly with respect to the i18n support. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Searching OSM
On 1 October 2012 16:43, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Is there a way to search for a node type where it is on a way of a type, or types? An example would be gates on trunk or primary roads. The reason is, I was using OSRM to plan a route yesterday and spotted that it was avoiding a section of primary road. Closer investigation found that where a footpath joined the road, there is a gate tagged access = foot which was on the node where the footpath joined the road. Thus made the road passable on foot only. I have fixed this one, by moving the gate to the hedge, using bing, and created a short section of path to link back to the road. It looks like an easy mistake, so am wondering if there is a way to swatch for other similar problems. In general I would question the accuracy of any node at the intersection of two navigable ways being marked as a gate. I just cant visualise it physically. Therefore any tool which could look for these generically (OSMI for example) would be useful. Matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Land Registry postcode tool now running
On 13 September 2012 02:16, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi FYI a 6 digit code with no space gives a 'TypeError at /landregistry/search/ 'NoneType' object is unsubscriptable' error. I've now 'fixed' that. Unfortunately, I don't have a way at the moment to allow you to search for postcodes without the space since it's just doing a SELECT in the SQL.I can have a think about how best to manage this though. If I search my code (with a space) it finds it, but if I search by street name it only finds ones State side. Is this a nominatim problem? Could you be more explicit in the steps you took? My postcode finder doesn't use Nominatim inside at all. However, occasionally, when it can't find anything using its internal database, it will offer you the option to do a simple search using Nominatim instead. This is when it says Search for foo in OSM. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Land Registry postcode tool now running
On 13 September 2012 10:29, Nick Allen nick.allen...@gmail.com wrote: Matt, Thanks for your work on this. I've had a little play it looks ideal for my purpose you should see an improvement in the BR8 area as a direct result. If your not doing it already, could you put somewhere on the front page when the data was updated. My initial plan is to have one session a month correcting adding postcodes, but you may get other views. Yes, I've been meaning to do this. I'll add that ASAP. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Land Registry postcode tool now running
On 13 September 2012 12:08, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 13/09/2012 10:38, Matt Williams wrote: Could you be more explicit in the steps you took? Typed postcode clicked Search Under the 'search address' column I clicked [search] Next window said 'Search for 10 Downing Street in OSM. I clicked it. It took me to somewhere in the states on the Nominatim site. That sounds like either a Nominatim bug or a lack of data in OSM for Nominatim to find. Incidentally search for the PM's office (SW1A 2AA) doesn't find any addresses. That's because the Land Registry search only shows houses that have sold in the last few months. I will add some text to the page to make this clear. If you search for the postcode in the main search part, you'll find http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/SW1A%202AA/ -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Land Registry postcode tool now running
Hi all, During the discussion about the Land Registry 'Price Paid' database discussions I promised that I'm put together a tool to make it more useful. As such I've now got working (to a state I'm happy with) a sub-website on my Postcode Finder to provide an interface to that data. Currently running at http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/landregistry/ (there's no public link to it yet so you'll have to bookmark it) it does the following: Given a postcode (or postcode fragment) it finds all the houses in the Land Registry database and tries to match each of them up to an address in my Postcode Finder database. If it finds a match it classifies it into one of three classes: - The postcode matches between OSM and the Land Registry - The postcode doesn't match - There's no postcode If you perform a search (like http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/landregistry/search/?postcode=CV4+8) you see that I've sorted the classes by 'importance' order so wrong postcodes are first, followed by missing postcodes. Then the ones that couldn't be matched to any address and finally the perfect matches. Give it a try yourself. It should be able to handle anything from CV4 level (will take around 10 seconds to load (probably more for big cities like Birmingham and London) down to CV4 8DU. It will almost certainly struggle if you try to put in B or something big like that. If you want to search for all the B1 postcodes but exclude B10, B11 etc (since that would be a very slow query) then just put a space after it in the search box (B1 ) or a plus in the URL (?postcode=B1+). It's probably best to only give it as specific a postcode as is possible (XXN N is quite quick) to keep the load low on the dev server. There's still some things I want to do with it but it's now in a workable state. The data from the OSM database is a few days old now. I'll wait for Geofabrik's ODbL extracts to be released before I update again. It should also be possible for me to extend the service to include and data source which contains house number; street name; postcode so I'll look into that in the future. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Resgistered places of worship (inc UIDs, postcodes)
On 10 September 2012 20:22, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: Many places of worship in England and Wales, other than CoE/CoW premises, opt to be included on a government register (though this is not compulsory): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_of_Worship_Registration_Act_1855 and as such have a unique Worship Number, which we could tag (note though that defunct PoWs may not be removed fro the register, in a timely manner). A copy of the register was published in 2010 and is available in spreadsheet format: http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2011/places-of-worship-in-england-and-wales-1999-2009/ It may be useful in a number of ways: * determining postcodes as discussed recently in the context of other lists * checking formal names of such premise * finding premises inside other buildings, inc. private residences etc, to enable follow-up surveys Perhaps we can obtain an updated copy, via a new FoI request, or asking for it to be published as open data (link to FOI http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/places_of_worship_registration_a#incoming-84116) It's certainly an interesting data set but in it's current for it's hard to use. We would need it as a CSV or similar rather than a PDF. From the postcode point of view, it looks like very few of the entries actually have a postcodes so it would be of limited use. However, if we could get it in a machine readable format then it would definitely be useful for the other points you mention. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] UK Postcodes - Potential data source
On 31 August 2012 12:26, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: The other problem with the Companies House data is that there is no clear statement of the licence other than free. Come on CH please be more specific! Indeed. It looks like it could be another quite useful source of postcode and address data but we need to know the license. Does anyone know who is best to ask? Matt ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] UK Postcodes - Potential data source
On 31 August 2012 16:50, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: I think that translates to Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL) then? Probably, but I wouldn't feel comfortable using the data without an explicit set of license terms. Unless they have done and I just don't understand their terminology. Matt ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcodes - Potential data source
On 27 August 2012 23:18, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Please correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my understanding we are still struggling to find a good source of postcode data under an open licence. From what I understand the CodePoint data set is currently seen as not available for use in OSM. That is where this data set available under the OGL licence may help: http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/information/public-data/price-paid-data It's not perfect as it does not provide lat/lon co-ordinates, but it does include full addresses for residential properties sold within each month. This means that it gives us a link between address (something we can survey) and postcode (which we can't easily survey). It also states which properties are new (i.e. new builds, new addresses). Any thoughts? If this is a useful source I was thinking a simple database where we can look up an address and find a postcode for adding to OSM. Going one step further we could try to find automatic matches between OSM addresses and this dataset and therefore generate a list of postcodes that could be suitable for import. I guess for someone with experience this would be quite an do-able hack? Hi Rob, This does indeed seem like a very useful data source. Great find! However, I'm struggling to think of a nice way of visualising it to make it useful. What I've got so far in my mind is: - Take an entry from the list - Take its postcode - Search for the postcode (I've got a curated list of postcodes as part of my PostCodeFinder [1]) - Get the location of the nearest match (hopefully, we'll find at least a CV4-type segment match) - Search for roads within an x mile radius with a matching name - Associate that entry with that road Then we'd need to provide a sort of map or search tool where mappers can get all the entries of interest for their local area. Everything after that would have to be manual. I will try to start to put together some scripts to process and analyse some of this data if I get the chance. Of course, if anyone else wants to jump in, feel free. Matt [1] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Very Happy - Looking forward
On 23 July 2012 16:54, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Sören Gasch said: * Improve ease of editing (like wheelmap, a simple editor that lets you amend JUST the tags - name, opening hoursm, url etc..). There will be the Amenity Editor which kind of does what you propose. See - http://ae.osmsurround.org/ - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_Editor and Roland Olbricht said: * Make it easy to users to view the data (eg clicking a node/way could bring up data about it - the url and opening hours tags are not visible in map renders but is very useful to many end users) There is already a prototype that does show all data http://overpass-api.de/open_layers_popup.html Wow these both look really good. The editor would really decrease the barrier to entry (e.g. shop owners could easily add their opening hours). What's holding this project back from being more prominently placed on the map front page / How can I help? Also, there's also the newer iD (http://www.geowiki.com/, http://www.geowiki.com/iD/) which is aiming to be a simple tag and POI editor. It's not fully working yet but I imagine that development will happen fast. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Houses and other buildings
On 8 June 2012 22:12, Big Fat Frog bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, When I look at a lot of towns all the houses etc have been traced but not in others, I can't beleive someone has sat down and done each house one by one? Where is this coming from and how can I get it for my area? It depends on where you're looking but I think that in most areas, the building have been traced manually. For example almost all the buildings at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.39399lon=-1.57597zoom=15layers=M have been traced by me from Bing aerial imagery. It can be tedious but sometimes my OCD gets the better of me :) Cheers, Matt ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Addresses for blocks of flats
On 3 May 2012 14:42, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Is there a good way to tag flats within a building so that it is clear the flat numbers (e.g. 1-12) correspond with the building and not with the street? These are two examples I'm struggling with: A block of flats, 1-12 Honor Oak Mansions, sits on Underhill Road. The block doesn't have a number for Underhill Road itself that I can see. If I add the block to the associatedStreet relation and say addr:housenumber=1-12, or just go by addr:street instead of a relation, it looks like that building contains 1-12 Underhill Road. It seems I can only omit the flat numbers and leave it as Honor Oak Mansions on Underhill Road to avoid confusion, and perhaps leave the flat numbers in a note or stick them into the addr:housename. Or more complicated: a block of flats that itself is numbered 234-236 Peckham Rye, and within that block there are flats 1-18. If I add the building to the associatedStreet relation with addr:housenumber=234-236, there's no way to also say how many flats there are. But if I say addr:housenumber=1-18 it looks like that building contains 1-18 Peckham Rye! The only hacky solution I can think of is to put the flat numbers in the addr:housename value so it's there, albeit not easily found by a machine. I haven't come across this problem myself but a first guess as to how to solve it would be: addr:housenumber=234-236 addr:flatnumber=1-18 i.e. we will assume that 'housenumber' means the number associated with the street, while 'flatnumber' is a different sub-numbering. In your first example I would probably go with something like: addr:housename=Honor Oak Mansions addr:flatnumber=1-12 and have no addr:housenumber since it has no Underhill Road address number You can still add it to the associatedStreet relation for Underhill Road. I don't claim that this is the cleanest solution but it's the easiest to use and understand. Regards, Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Reminder: Hampton-in-Arden meet up this Thursday, Coventry next month.
On 30 April 2012 16:07, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Just a quick reminder that the next social meet up for OSMers in the Midlands is this Thursday (3rd May, 2012) 8pm-ish to 10pm-ish at The White Lion, Hampton-in-Arden. Feel free to come early and get some mapping done before meeting in the pub (you can indicate this at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hampton-in-Arden_May_2012_Cake). I'm going to try to make it along tomorrow. This will be my first time meeting fellow OSMers in person after nearly 6 years of mapping. I won't have any time for mapping beforehand but I should be there for drinks. Matt ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Island House
On 28 March 2012 17:51, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: The much-talked about Island House, in Birmingham's Eastside, is now, controversially, demolished, and someone has tagged it 'building:demolished=yes'. Is that correct? Or should it be building=demolished, or some other tag? Depending on what remains of the building now I'd recommend landuse=brownfield [1] Cheers, Matt [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbrownfield ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On 26 March 2012 21:42, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Delighted to report that Andy Street has agreed to the CTs. Thank you Andy. This is great news. Thanks Andy and I'm glad you were able to resolve any problems you had with the CTs/license. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] No attribution on osm.org?
On 9 March 2012 10:50, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2012-03-09 11:36, Floris Looijesteijn wrote: No. That page only talks about how you should attribute if you're using OSM yourself. I nowhere read the required © OpenStreetMap contributors, CC BY-SA for the map on osm.org. Maybe my remark was a bit blunt, and indeed didn't recently change but I still think it's not setting the right example. The layout of the map page did change recently. The tabs above the maps are in a different style (don't look like tabs anymore) and the style of the links in the bottom right have changed. I don't know if that coincides with the removal of the attribution, but I also remember is was there. It can't have been removed that recently as we had this exact same discussion on this mailing list 9 months ago http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-June/059056.html Matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Licence change - one month to go
On 2 March 2012 14:35, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: We change to the new licence in just under a month's time, so it's a good time to look at the current state of the UK. What's likely not to be carried through to the new database? The good news is that the UK is in a very healthy state overall. Just under 99% of nodes will survive (98.68% according to odbl.poole.ch, and there have been a couple of acceptances since then), 97.64% of highways, and 99.48% of other ways. But there are a few significant problem areas: - NE Surrey/SW London - Hertfordshire (Luton, Hemel etc.) - the Wirral There are also milder problems in Manchester, Coventry and Hampshire, and, of course, isolated pockets here and there. For the record, I'm working on Coventry at the moment. I hope to have time over the next month to blitz it clean but I welcome any other mappers in the area to help out too. Fortunately the majority of Coventry was mapped by DamoCov (agreed) before sherbourne (undecided) made his changes. Most street names were entered by DamoCov and any that weren't are available from OS OpenData StreetView; for those few that remain I'll have to do a personal survey. I'm mainly focusing on the road network first since I feel that's something that we don't want to suddenly be broken on the 1st of April and is most easily verifiable from Bing/OS. Overall I think that Coventry will come out of this in better shape as I'm trying to take the time to clean things up wherever possible. Cheers, Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
On 10 February 2012 14:13, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote: I've started to remap an area that I don't know from first-hand experience, as it's got a particularly high concentration of data that was mapped by a decliner. I'm remapping it from Bing (deleting old data and re-tracing it) which means that I lose the road names. I don't think this is particularly satisfactory, I'm just doing it so there won't be a gap from the switchover date. I've realized from doing this (and from guessing I won't be the only remapper working this way) that it might be worth re-instating the noname option to the slippy map, for a period around the changeover date (perhaps from around now, until remapping has largely been done). Any thoughts on this? It is indeed a problem. However, you should be able to use OS OpenData StreetView [1] to get the names. Otherwise, in some cases you can use the name from the original way (probably assuming the way wasn't originally created or named by a decliner). [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#OS_StreetView -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Wolverhampton Gritting Routes
On 6 February 2012 17:10, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone Wolverhampton City Council comms team have been in touch saying the gritting routes have been changed . They want to add our map to their facebook page which has 7000 followers. They say they have a lively debate going on about gritting. I've got the new winter service plan 2011-12 and I've gone through 2 of the 17 routes checking for accuracy and changes. I estimate it takes about 30 minutes per route. Anyone up for helping with the remaining 15 routes? Perhaps those of you who helped out originally? If you let me know I'll get a new wiki page set up. Perhaps a candidate for the Night of Living Maps tomorrow? I've already alerted Christoph for a new map render (or perhaps we could make use of Stuart Lester's alternative gritting map?). I've proposed to the contact from Wolverhampton Council that maybe they could free up one person for me to show them how to edit and we just bash through it, but it would be good to show them that we can move quickly as a community. The Winter Service Plan has also all the grit bin locations, so if we could complete the routes they could add the grit bins? On a related note, could someone remind me where the gritting route info for Coventry is. I seem to remember that some was published last year but no-one uploaded the data to OSM. Cheers, Matt Williams ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness
On 11 January 2012 09:15, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: On 10/01/2012 19:34, Jason Cunningham wrote: Can anyone provide more detailed info on the final stance of the of the top decliners? Looking at one of the websites, some are Guy, Ed Avis, Andy Street, Simon Ward, Paul Martin and ulfl. I'd given a bit of though to mapping some of the areas that are to be affected by the loss of 'Guy's data in the southwest (a lot of data!). Would be upset to spend time remapping and then find out someone was in talks with him. Jason, As I understand it, ulfl will never agree to the new terms and I remap everything I find in the UK and Sweden. Ditto with JohnSmith fixme edits. You should find that ulfl edits are constructive but bot-like POI corrections of tag keys and their spellings and forcing to lower case of religions on churches ... just check that the IPR (Intellectual Property Right) value comes from you or other accepted contributors. Guy was contacted in November and again by me very recently but has not responded. Not known if contact details valid. A large part of his contributions are unrefined waterway and road digitisations from NPE and there is now much better complementary OS25k/Bing/StreetView. I feel that we should make a start on these now, (I have, please join me), as it is worthwhile whether or not he agrees ... it is just that they get replaced rather than refined. Paul Martin was contacted by me very recently but has not responded. Not known if contact details valid. Apparently very unhappy with ODbL. I have been talking to Ed Avis, Andy Street, Simon Ward. All are reasonable people but with particular defined concerns. I believe I have directly met Andy's concerns as per http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Andy%20Street but he has not responded since early December. I do not believe I can meet Ed and Simon's concerns other than to be very aware of them and pledge to make sure that they get properly aired and discussed on an ongoing basis; so I appreciate that they have a difficult choice to make. Same with 80n. Do you or anyone else know the status of Peter sherbourne Millar? I emailed him about a month ago and have heard nothing back. He's responsible for (or has touched) much of Coventry which is very well mapped and it would be a shame to lose his contributions. Does anyone have an alternative contact route for him as otherwise I'll have to start remapping Coventry myself soon (maybe an excuse for a mapping party?). -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Postcode Finder update
Hi all, I know it's been a long time since any update on my postcode finder (http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder) but I've implemented a few new features and fixed a couple of bugs so I thought I'd advertise it again. If you haven't seen it before, take a look at the About page [5]. New features: * Add Schema.org microdata to house page. E.g. http://schema.org/Place on [1] gives [2] * Use Leaflet for info pages * Add a potlatch editor (not customised yet) [3] * Add 'edit' link to Error page [4] (click an error icon and then click 'Edit') * Information about data sources on About page [5] Bug fixes: * Fix searching by house number and street name * Fixed link to street relation page on house info page I still maintain a TODO list at [6,7] but if there's any ideas you have, please let me know. The data import is only a few days old so please report any missing-data bugs. Cheers, Matt Williams [1] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/house/way/102862467/7/ [2] http://linter.structured-data.org/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmilliams.dev.openstreetmap.org%2Fpostcodefinder%2Fhouse%2Fway%2F102862467%2F7 [3] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/edit [4] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/errors/?zoom=18lat=52.391lon=-1.506 [5] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/about/ [6] http://gitorious.org/postcodefinder/postcode-analyser/blobs/master/TODO.rst [7] http://gitorious.org/postcodefinder/postcodefinder/blobs/master/TODO.rst -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Use of official names Re: shortened names
On 28 July 2011 16:41, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/7/28 Kay Drangmeister k...@drangmeister.net: Yup, my favourite is Europe's most important country: http://osm.org/go/0B2j- covering the country name for UK, Germany, and other nearby countries :-D If you're referring to Belgium: they actually do have 3 official names. Not sure how to deal correctly with this naming only one without insulting one or the other. What's often done in this case is not putting anything in the 'name' key and only filling in name:fr, name:en etc. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap 7th Birthday Party
On 22 July 2011 12:37, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Parveen Arora wrote: Why birthdays of OSM are not being celebrated on same day, Can't we declare one particular day as OSM's Birthday? Kenneth replied: that will create a huge thread of hundreds of messages debating this mission critical point. Well let mine be the next :) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/History suggests either 9th August (anniversary of domain name being registered) or 20th August (Steve's presentation at EuroFOO) are worthy candidates. As presumably though the idea predated registering the domain name, I'd argue that the 9th August would be the obvious choice of something to base anniversaries on. Makes sense to me, especially given http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2005-July/000830.html -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 12:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: did you see this? http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution. No it isn't. There's a 'Copyright License' link in the sidebar on the left. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Onward travel posters
On 10 June 2011 12:50, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 10 June 2011 11:31, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Ed Loach wrote: I can imagine the little M stickers being printed now... For those curious as to what these maps look like, here's one I photographed last week: http://www.systemeD.net/temp/onward_travel_falmouth.jpg (4.6Mb file) There is also the question as to how recent the OSM mapping is and whether the bus stops were taken from OSM or direct from NaPTAN. We will give a fuller debrief in due course. From Richard's map, I'd say that the OSM data is at least a year old since this (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=73100232) footpath isn't present on the printed map yet was added in August 2010 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/73100232/history). -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On 19 April 2011 15:50, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming his map layers view has some logic that layers tags only apply to ways that cross but I don't believe that to be true. Actually, that's exactly how I understood the layer tag to be used. It is simply there to disambiguate cases where there would otherwise be z-fighting. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Publishing Self-Devised Walks
On 9 April 2011 13:00, dan...@daniel-watkins.co.uk wrote: Hello all, Over the past couple of weeks, I've come up with a couple of interesting walks from my house. I would like to publish these on my blog, in the hopes that other people looking for walks in the area will find them. However, I haven't yet worked out a good way to do this. One thought I had was to add all the constituent ways to a relation, and then link to the relation shown on the OSM map (as in [0] and [1]). However, I wasn't sure if this was an abuse of relations, given that this isn't a walk that exists anywhere but in my head (as opposed to a more 'official' walk). At the other end of the spectrum is screenshots and using the GIMP to draw my route on (or using a mapping site like BikeRouteToaster to draw the lines on, and taking screenshots of that). However, this seems really lame (as you lose all of the slippy-map goodness, and the updating of the surrounding area/data), so I'd prefer not to have to resort to this. Has anyone else done something like this? Have I missed a project somewhere which is designed to store such things? Any input would be much appreciated. Maybe take a look at something like Show Your Journey http://syj.renevier.net/ -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] SureStart Children's Centres
On 21 March 2011 17:53, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Ed Loach wrote: Steve wrote: How do you tag these? I confess I don't really know what they are. I'd be tempted to make up a tag, or maybe use designation= as I think often the centres are primarily something else. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Preschooldevelopmentandlearning/ NurseriesPlaygroupsReceptionClasses/DG_173054 says what they are, and I know the nursery where my son goes has the logo on the outside, but they are definitely a nursery first and provide a room for the weekly health visitor where very young children can go and have their regular weigh-in. Doing a search for other centres locally and one is a kindergarten and the other is a family centre (whatever one of those is, but sounds like some council provided facility and an OSM wiki search suggests to me amenity=social_facility may be appropriate for that one.) I have mapped one as a school, but I guess it should be a kindergarten: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/58242208 Indeed. I've been tagging these as amenity=kindergarten [1]. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=kindergarten ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] SureStart Children's Centres
On 21 March 2011 18:16, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Matt wrote: Indeed. I've been tagging these as amenity=kindergarten My son's nursery is also tagged as a kindergarten (how did that tag value sneak in?) but I haven't tagged that it is also a designated SureStart centre, which was Steve's original question that I tried to answer. I am still tempted to use designation= for this, but whether to just use SureStart or something longer, and if longer with spaces or underscores I'm not sure. Is this not a suitable use of the operator= tag? Or is a SureStart centre so different that it deserves more differentiation? In whichever case, I think that 'SureStart' should be fine. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Postcode finder updates - postal addresses, house maps and error maps
I've made a few updates to the postcode finder [1]. There's a mixture of fixes suggested by you people and some other features I'd been planning on implementing anyway. The new things: - Postal address-like info on house pages [2]. It's not very extensive and for many houses you'll only get housenumber, streetname and postalcode but for ones with addr:city you'll get that too. I wish I had a nice way of getting more info. - Map of house location on house info pages [2] - Error map [3]. Things suggested in the other thread: - Case-insensitive search - Add addr:city to search results - Badly formed postcodes are now errors The errors on the map are the same as those which are shown on the house and street pages. Of course these 'errors' should be taken with a pinch of salt but make what use of them you can.If anyone has any suggestions for things to flag or ignore, please let me know. The error map can also be a bit slow due to the database queries needed so be patient. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com [1] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/ [2] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/house/node/441918634/26/ [3] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/errors/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder updates - postal addresses, house maps and error maps
On 20 March 2011 16:20, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 20/03/11 15:06, Matt Williams wrote: The errors on the map are the same as those which are shown on the house and street pages. Of course these 'errors' should be taken with a pinch of salt but make what use of them you can.If anyone has any suggestions for things to flag or ignore, please let me know. It's complaining about: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/89803436 with the following: Could not convert one of 6A or 6D to an integer but addr:interpolation is alphabetic so I think what it there is fine? Yup, you're right. I simply haven't implemented addr:interpolation=alphabetic yet due to a lack of consistency with how it's used. However, cases like the one you link are easily parsable so I'll be sure to process those soon. You'll have to ignore errors like that for now, sorry about the noise. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder updates - postal addresses, house maps and error maps
On 20 March 2011 18:00, Paul n...@pointdee.co.uk wrote: On 20/03/11 15:06, Matt Williams wrote: I've made a few updates to the postcode finder [1]. There's a mixture of fixes suggested by you people and some other features I'd been planning on implementing anyway. Call me a pedant but shouldn't it be database in the sentence You must be at zoom 13 or above to see the errors on the map. Give it a few seconds to get them from the databse. If none show then click the 'Permalink' button. Otherwise, there's no errors. Yay! ;) Yes, indeed it should Should be fixed now. Other than that keep up the good work. You've inspired me to start mapping houses on streets which is something I've not done before Excellent. I'm glad it's encouraging people to get mapping. That's the idea :) -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder updates - postal addresses, house maps and error maps
On 20 March 2011 16:06, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: I've made a few updates to the postcode finder [1]. There's a mixture of fixes suggested by you people and some other features I'd been planning on implementing anyway. As an addendum I've now also added Codepoint-augumented search. When searching for a postcode and it doesn't find an exact match in OSM it will see if it matches a Codepoint code [1]. It also now shows a map on Postcode overview pages based on the Codepoint coordinate [2]. Thanks to Chris Hill for providing me with the data. I wasn't expecting there to be quite so many postcodes. There's over 1.6 million in Codepoint (c.f. 11.5 thousand in OSM) :S -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com [1] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/search/?postcode=CO6+1PL [2] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/B72%201AF/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder updates - postal addresses, house maps and error maps
On 20 March 2011 21:08, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: The new error map is great, I'll add it to the set of 'lint' tools I keep an eye on. There is one false positive however: 'Postcode W9 is badly formed' - many streets are tagged with just the first part of the postcode (the outbound code). This is signed on the ground, and is useful to disambiguate street names, so it ought not to be an error. I think you are already allowing it on ways, but there are a few odd nodes that have it, usually road junctions. I wouldn't tag it on the junction node myself, but if it's there then it is not wrong. Yes, you're right that it's an overly harsh error message and it's by far the most common 'error' in my database. I do however want to flag these as, while they are certainly useful, they are not 'true postcodes'. What I plan to do is have different regexes to match and warn on: - Correct format but is lower case - Partial postcodes like the one you mention above - Completely wrong postcodes like [1] The first two will probably just be 'information class' errors but the last will be at least a 'warning'. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/99040953 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder updates - postal addresses, house maps and error maps
On 20 March 2011 21:19, Steve Doerr steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: On 20/03/2011 15:06, Matt Williams wrote: [snip] Keep up the good work! Possible bug: I just tried searching for my own address (42c Mulberry Road) and it returned no results, but if I search for my postcode (DA11 8PP) it returns '42c Mulberry Road'. This is not so much a bug as it is an omission in two parts. Firstly I don't do much with addr:street tags except add the information to the node for display purposes. This leads on to the fact that I don't do any search on addr:tags in the web interface. What I _plan_ to add it that if you search for '42c Mulberry Road' then it will indeed return a result as you'd expect but there's no way to do anything useful if you search for just 'Mulberry Road'. This is because since the house is not in a relation there's no way to group together disparate houses with addr:street=Mulberry Road into separate streets. Perhaps I could return all _houses_ which match the street but I don't see that it's very useful and very noisy. This is why I've been trying to map all my streets with associatedStreet relations since it makes it explicit. I'm open to suggestions though. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder updates - postal addresses, house maps and error maps
On 20 March 2011 22:21, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 20 March 2011 15:06, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: I've made a few updates to the postcode finder All good stuff. Any chance of you applying the microformat mark-up I supplied in the recent thread, please? Do let me know if it doesn't suit all cases and I'll happily assist in finding a resolution. Still on my TODO list :) Putting the 'postal address' on the house information page is the first step in this direction but other features/bugs kept getting in the way. I did look into using Microdata for it since I prefer its syntax but the http://data-vocabulary.org things seem to be restricted to addresses for organisations since it's a Google led project and that's what they want to collect information on. I'll stick with Microformats for now and maybe add Microdata as well when there's an appropriate vocabulary. I did wonder what I should do when I have links 'in the way' of the text. For example I have HTML like: 8 a href=http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38848696/;Frogmore Lane/abr/ a href=/PO8%209QQ/PO8 9QQ/a I guess for the postcode I just put the span class=postal-code between the a/a (or can I just put class=postal-code on the a itself?). But for the street-address I would have to put the span around the whole first line, thereby encompassing the a/a. What's recommended here? Putting a 'clean' version elsewhere on the page and marking it hidden (seems hacky)? Geo is less of a problem but I don't really want the coordinates appearing on my page as text. Should I just mark these as hidden (seems acceptably hacky)? -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Codepoint duplicates
I've started work using Codepoint Open to perform completeness studies of OSM postcode data. My plan is to do a rendering like [1] based on the codepoint data but colour each cell according to whether there's any matching OSM postcodes. The problem I have is that there seems to be a large number of codepoint centroids with exactly the same coordinates (e.g. CV21 1WA, CV21 1WS, CV21 1YF plus about a few hundred more are all at -1.2504281683345,52.3798116758619). Are these postcodes which have no address points and so the OS have just put them all at a random point 'out of the way' or is it some error in the data? I'm hoping I can ignore them since they mess up the Voronoi diagram. ... Ahh, looking at the map [2] it seems that they are all located at the Royal Mail distribution office. My question still stands though: are these just surplus postcodes or some error? There are still other cases of duplicates though like can be seen nearby at [3]. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com [1] http://random.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodes/?layers=000F0F0FBT [2] http://www.raggedred.net/codepoint/?zoom=17lat=52.37981lon=-1.25043layers=B0T [3] http://www.raggedred.net/codepoint/?zoom=18lat=52.37459lon=-1.2629layers=B0T ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 12:09, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote: Nice work Matt, I look forward to an alternative to RM's postcode finder. - Largely based on the Karlsruhe Schema (including the associatedStreet relation for grouping houses together) A question with regard to your handling of associatedStreet; how do you tag for and 'parse' multi-segment streets? I've been using addr:street but the idea of the associatedStreet relation does appeal to me. However having just experimented with it, its not clear to me what the current 'popular' practice is for associating houses with multi-segment streets? The 'spec' for associatedStreet directs processors to consider type=street relations to be equivalent, but differs (cf. [1] [2]) in only allowing one instance of the street role. One might naturally create a separate street relation that defines the street and then add that as a child of associatedStreet, but this seems to be precluded by the 2 relations being considered equivalent. A practical approach would seem to be for an implementation to accept multiple instances of the street role, as either ways or relations. Where a child-relation of role=street is treated as a collection of segments. In my mapping and in the Postcode Finder I've been simply adding multiple all the relevant street ways as role=street such as at http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/555028. The 'street' and 'associatedStreet' relations are technically different and I've only been looking for associatedStreets but perhaps that will change. I would prefer if people would settle on just one of the two relations and in my mind associatedStreet seems simpler (with the addition of multiple role=street members) and so that is what I've been using in my mapping and parsing. I had considered grouping all the street segments together into a sub-relation and then adding that relation as the role=street in the associatedStreet but that didn't really seem to add any useful information to the database and seems over-engineered. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 12:09, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Matt Williams wrote: Greetings all, For the last week I've been working on a sort of 'replacement' for the Royal Mail's postcode/address finder (you know, the one with the ~5 queries a day limit without an account) [1] but based entirely on data in the OSM database. You can find my site at [2]. Awesome; I tried my own code, which I've mapped, and it works. However, I don't quite understand the sorting algorithm :-) : http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/NW6%206TB/ It sorts first by the number and then by the letter. It wasn't really prepared for spaces between the two. You'll also notice on some pages that it doesn't sort by street name yet so the streets will be mixed together. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 12:13, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Matt Williams wrote: On 16 March 2011 21:16, Tim François timhafranc...@gmail.com wrote: Good work! I just tried searching based on house number and street name, and it didn't work if I didn't capitalise the first letters of the street name. Is this a feature or a bug? That would probably be a bug. I've now made it a case-insentitive search which also matches sub-strings. Thanks for trying it. That doesn't work for me yet for the house number: http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/search/?housenumber=63Gstreetname=victoria+road vs http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/search/?housenumber=63gstreetname=victoria+road Indeed, I missed out making housenumber case-insensitive. I'll add that this evening. Also, sometimes a point has multiple addresses. I have separated those by a ;. Right now, it doesn't split on the ; (or , I guess) to be able to find both addresses: http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/house/way/69081058/63;63A/ The schema used is detailed at the bottom of the tagging page at http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/tagging/#multiple_numbers. It doesn't recognise semi-colons as a list separator for house numbers, only commas. I could change this to be more lenient but I think I prefer the use of commas so I would probably flag semi-colons as a 'bug' (where of course 'bug' means Matt Williams thinks this is a bug, not anything official). -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 12:29, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Craig wrote: A practical approach would seem to be for an implementation to accept multiple instances of the street role, as either ways or relations. Where a child-relation of role=street is treated as a collection of segments. It does seem logical. Especially as any street currently mapped with an associatedStreet relation which is then split at a later date (by someone adding a bus route, change in speed limit, or whatever reason they split it) will end up as an associatedStreet relation with two street members anyway in all likelihood. I doubt the editors are at a stage where they can split such a relation into two separate relations and get the right houses with the correct street section automatically (and for some streets I can imagine this will never be possible automatically reliably anyway). I'd be surprised if there aren't already a number of associatedStreet relation with more than one street member, but not sure how easy it would be to find out. I'm commonly creating associatedStreet relations with multiple role=street members since there's no other way to easily map reality. I don't think it should be a problem. Most likely the people who first defined the relation didn't consider the possibility of split streets. I certainly don't consider it a 'bug' in the postcode finder. As for statistics on this, it should be quite easy for me to make a measurement this evening. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 13:04, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Excellent work Matt. http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/search/?postcode=B72 Yup, that's the page I'm most likely to show off to people. Good work. If you want to extend, then a custom P2 to enable folks to trace a house and tag it with their address data would open up contribution and be really cool. Then with a few other bits of data from the OSM database you have the makings of a replacement for the National Street Gazetteer and the proposed GeoPlace offrering. That is indeed the direction I was planning on taking this. I'm slowly making my way there :) As for P2, I hadn't thought of that but it sounds like a very cool idea. I'll have to see what it entails. It won't be at the top of list anyway. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 13:17, Ben Pollinger benpollinger+...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 March 2011 19:51, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: For the last week I've been working on a sort of 'replacement' for the Royal Mail's postcode/address finder (you know, the one with the ~5 queries a day limit without an account) [1] but based entirely on data in the OSM database. You can find my site at [2]. Thanks for doing this, a very useful development. I tried a few UK streets I had tagged with postcodes and it didn't work, but I guess that is because they use http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Postal_code Could this tag be supported too? It seems quite widely used http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/?key=postal_code TagInfo says 48 306 values altogether for postal_code, versus 60 941 for addr:postcode. It doesn't currently parse any postcode tag on highway=* roads since strictly it's not the roads themselves that have postcodes, but the houses themselves. I didn't want to encourage this too much I guess. It is however a shame that your data isn't showing up; maybe I'll reconsider my position. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 13:37, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 16 March 2011 19:51, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: For the last week I've been working on a sort of 'replacement' for the Royal Mail's postcode/address finder That's great; and I trust that my constructive feedback won't be taken as dissing your achievment... No, I'm happy for people to point out problems with it. Otherwise it'll never improve :) You return nothing for B1 1BB (Birmingham Council House), which is tagged addr:postcode=B1 1BB This is most likely a bug in my parser. I'll have to take a look at it this evening and see why it's being ignored. Thanks for the report. This is exactly what I need to find bugs. For a common address, such as 2 High Street, you return multiple results, with no obvious distinguishing feature. Please include the addr:city value in the results (if present); and allow searches to be limited by that tag. Yes, I'd realised this would be a problem but I hadn't been sure how to fix it. Adding the addr:city tag to the search results would be a good start but without a full reverse geocoder (or full PostGIS database) there's only so much I can do. I didn't want to bombard Nominatim all the time for these results. I'll be happy to log these in a bug tracker, if you have one. I don't currently so just send them to this list or to me directly. Maybe I'll get up a project on the OSM Trac. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 13:40, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: On 17 March 2011 12:17, Ben Pollinger benpollinger+...@gmail.com wrote: I tried a few UK streets I had tagged with postcodes and it didn't work, but I guess that is because they use http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Postal_code Could this tag be supported too? It seems quite widely used http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/?key=postal_code TagInfo says 48 306 values altogether for postal_code, versus 60 941 for addr:postcode. I've been switching any feature I find over to addr:postcode. Much easier. Making developers work out these wrinkles so they have to support multiple tags is one of a few good reasons for us to have a process to just update the db and translate all postal_code keys to addr:postcode (if it were accepted by a process more valid than wiki votes). I currently accept both equally since postal_code had been around a long time before the Karlsruhe Schema. However, I would be happy for a tag convergence on addr:postcode since it makes things a little easier. These days I only add addr:postcode and this is what I recommend on the tagging page of the postcode finder. I wouldn't be averse to a mass 're-tagging'. If people want to discuss this though I suggest we start a new thread. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 13:49, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 16 March 2011 19:51, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: For the last week I've been working on a sort of 'replacement' for the Royal Mail's postcode/address finder That's great; and I trust that my constructive feedback won't be taken as dissing your achievment... Same here, I like this! Thank you :) You return nothing for B1 1BB (Birmingham Council House), which is tagged addr:postcode=B1 1BB I found something else odd too: http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/search/?postcode=NW6 returns: # NW6 7JN http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/NW6%207JN/ # nw6 7ny http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/search/?postcode=NW6 http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/NW6%207JN/ works http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/NW6%207NY/ (can't find) and http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/nw6%207ny/ (404) do not work Hmm, this seems like a bug in my code somewhere. Thanks for the detailed report, I'll look into this as soon as I get home from work. For a common address, such as 2 High Street, you return multiple results, with no obvious distinguishing feature. Please include the addr:city value in the results (if present); and allow searches to be limited by that tag. Actually, city wouldn't always work. There are f.e. 3 Victoria Roads in London. Very true but at least it's a good start. As I said in another message, I either need to do some spatial processing myself (which I can't at the moment since I'm simply parsing the planet file in a SAX-type way) or use Nominatim somehow. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 14:02, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: P.S. on an individual address's page, such as: http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/house/way/99795053/69/ it would be helpful to add hCard (venue), ADR (address) and GEO (coordinates; if shown on the page, which would be good) microformats, so that the details can be added easily to electronic address books. The mark up for this change is at: http://pastebin.com/fsuZg1C4 More on microformats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microformat I'm happy to beta-test or assist further. I had indeed been considering this and so I'm glad that someone else thinks it would be useful :) The website is already HTML5 and so extending it with as much semantic markup as possible (whether that's microformats or microdata or both) can only be a good thing. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 16:25, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Matt Williams lists@... writes: I'm not sure that adding the postcoded street itself to my database would work since the base unit I work with is the 'house' or 'delivery point' whereas the street is simply part of the address. That's absolutely right but it might still be useful to provide a postcode-to- street lookup if only this lower-resolution data is there. Adding postcodes at the street level might be a useful halfway step between no postcode data and the exhaustive tagging of every building. Agreed. I'll see how it fits into my database model. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 14:35, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: On 17 March 2011 13:37, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 16 March 2011 19:51, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: For the last week I've been working on a sort of 'replacement' for the Royal Mail's postcode/address finder That's great; and I trust that my constructive feedback won't be taken as dissing your achievment... No, I'm happy for people to point out problems with it. Otherwise it'll never improve :) You return nothing for B1 1BB (Birmingham Council House), which is tagged addr:postcode=B1 1BB This is most likely a bug in my parser. I'll have to take a look at it this evening and see why it's being ignored. Thanks for the report. This is exactly what I need to find bugs. I just spent a very confused half-hour trying to work out why this one was being ignored until I noticed that the addr:postcode tag was only added yesterday morning and the planet extract I am using is few days old. Fixed now: http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/B1%201BB/ For a common address, such as 2 High Street, you return multiple results, with no obvious distinguishing feature. Please include the addr:city value in the results (if present); and allow searches to be limited by that tag. Yes, I'd realised this would be a problem but I hadn't been sure how to fix it. Adding the addr:city tag to the search results would be a good start but without a full reverse geocoder (or full PostGIS database) there's only so much I can do. I didn't want to bombard Nominatim all the time for these results. I've now added this functionality. It only shows up in a few cases (e.g. search for street name 'Almond') but it's a little better than it was. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 17 March 2011 18:55, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: On 17 March 2011 17:44, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: A few weeks ago I did pull out postcodes from all tagged objects compared them with CodePoint, IIRC OSM had about 0.6% of them (around 7000 in addr:postcode format, and another 4000 in postal_code tags). These figures will have increased substantally since then (B72 was only 41% complete at the time). Yeah, it looks a lot better now. I count 70,608 houses with postcodes in OSM. This will more than you measured because this is expanding out interpolated address ways and buildings with more than one house number. And interestingly that 70,608 number was from an extract a few days old. The latest extract (about a day old now) pushes the number up to 74,942 so we're doing well :). Perhaps it would be interesting to keep track of this data. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
On 16 March 2011 21:12, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: For anyone wanting to add postcodes to addresses you can use the postcode layer in JOSM or Potlatch 2 described here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Chillly/codepoint If your postcode area is not yet in the layer (see the list on the page above, send me a message off list and I'll add it. I decided not to add them all until I knew how the site would perform. I must thank you for that map, It's been very useful in Canley for adding postcodes to some of the more regularly-shaped estates. I'm planning on using Codepoint Open to augment my postcode finder by using to assist searches and reporting missing and misplaced postcode centroids in OSM. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey Public Sector Mapping Agreement
On 7 March 2011 18:17, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: For those that haven't seen, the Ordnance Survey is going to provide local authorities with access to its maps free of charge from April 1st. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk /oswebsite/business/sectors/government/publicpsmafaqs.html This doesn't directly affect OSM but it will provide tougher competition when we try to persuade local councils to use OSM. On the other hand, it's great to see that our gratis offering is already pushing down the price of the opposition. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] all our addresses are belong to you
On 2 March 2011 21:54, flambe...@gmail.com flambe...@gmail.com wrote: MapQuest is providing several address files that contain user-provided latitude and longitude locations across the world. Our users provided these exact locations to us so that they could be mapped correctly on our MapQuest maps. There are currently three (3) main files - one for the United States, one for Canada and one for Europe. More information can be found on our wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/MapQuest/Critical_Addresses We didn't want to just import these addresses directly into OSM, but wanted them to be available to anyone that wanted to have them. To be clear: 1. these addresses are user provided 2. there is a high degree of ground-truth from these users 3. they WANTED to be in the data and be correctly mapped 4. we've checked with our lawyers, and yes, you can have them - UNENCUMBERED! Fantastic. Perhaps the best way to incorporate this data would be some sort of data layer that mappers can load for their local area in JOSM? Since this data set doesn't have too many data points and obviously a straight import won't work it might be a good approach. I've heard ideas for this method mentioned before but I'm unsure if it's been done? Also, can we expect an extension of this data set in the future as more users add their addresses? -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 10 February 2011 14:33, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Am I the only one who is wondering what this whole thread is about? Has Anthony's edits been removed? If so, why? I haven't heard of the license change actually being implemented ATM, and certainly not that edits are being removed. So, what is this all about? See the other thread What the license change is going to do to the map from yesterday. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What the license change is going to do to the map
On 9 February 2011 18:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Joseph Reeves iknowjos...@gmail.com wrote: But that's got nothing to do with the licensing change - that's an issue of you ripping off Google Maps. It has nothing at all to do with me ripping off Google Maps. And regardless of the *reason* the contributions are deleted, the *impact* is going to be the same. Bottom line, due to the board's utter lack of comprehension with regard to copyright law, they have deemed it necessary to decimate the map. That's true of the ODbL switch, and that's true of the deletion of my contributions. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.0748lon=-82.5394zoom=14layers=M So what I think we should all do is roll up our sleeves and just remap this area from the usual sources (aerial imagery if necessary) and it will be back to normal before long. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Update to OSM Analysis
On 20 January 2011 16:42, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: ITO are pleased to offer out updated version of OSM Analysis with a thematic overview page allowing us to see how we are getting on in different parts of the county. To get the top prize 95% of the roads represented in OS Locator need to be in OSM and there are 17 districts which achieve that today. We also have 88 districts with less that 50% coverage which need a little TLC and the rest are in-between. Check out our announcement here and give it a whirl! http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2011/01/openstreetmap-gb-progress-report.html Is there any chance of this (or similar tool) being run over historical database versions, extract an overall percentage for the whole country and then plot it as a function of time to see the rate at which this metric in evolving. The reason I ask is that in Andy's recent blog post [1] he suggests that extrapolating the current rate means the country will be finished in 13 months. Of course it's unlikely that we are progressing linearly but I wonder what shape this evolution does have (maybe this is a physicist thing). [1] http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2011/02/02/the-london-streets-challenge/ -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
On 31 January 2011 15:44, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/1/31 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: I think I agree with your earlier point that mp's are better than colinear ways, but colinear ways are still better than parallel ways for areas that do actually touch. Yes, parallel ways are actually to be considered errors in the case that the polygons really do touch Agreed, although I'd like to point out that in a case where one of the features is physical and one is virtual (for instance, a road and an administrative boundary), I wouldn't classify that as features which touch, and I think parallel ways *are* a viable solution. To wit, I'd say parallel ways are the proper solution for TIGER boundaries which coincide with TIGER lines. Especially when the way is a dual carriageway. Fixing dual carriageways which share nodes with TIGER boundaries sucks. Fortunately most TIGER boundaries themselves suck, so a simple fix is to just delete the TIGER boundary. (Note that there's no problem with two *boundaries* sharing nodes or (preferably) ways. I'm talking about a road sharing a way with a boundary, which maybe is okay sometimes, but sometimes definitely is not.) The example that come to my mind is the case where an administrative boundary is _defined_ by a river or stream for example. In this case I'd say that the boundary and way should share nodes. However, I agree that this might get messy in the case of a dual-carriageway. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode centroids
On 21 January 2011 13:50, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: I know that storage is cheap, but there seems little point having the full address attached as tags to every house. Just as other information that is available at 'higher level' does not need to be duplicated every time. If one looks up 'road' one should see a list of attached houses. How one finds 'road', be it name or postcode, does not matter. Having all that 'road' information on every building is just wrong ... just as having 'is_in' for every higher level search term would be. But then no one has ever agreed with my suggestions on hierarchy :( This is why I've been using the associatedStreet relation suggested by the Karlsruhe Schema (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema#Using_relations_to_associate_house_and_street_.28optional.29) -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On 8 December 2010 13:18, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and call it policy. I have been under the impression that this _has_ been the policy for years. Certainly as long as I've been a member of the project people have been saying things just like this. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Anyone read the CC0 legal code?
On 31 October 2010 16:32, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Read it and I've come to ask if anyone has read http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode too. (it is a waiver of copyright so don't be afraid to read it. It is very short, for a legal text, that is) After all.. if there is a checkbox called public domain in the OSM registration page which is pretty 'abstract', it doesn't really mean anything(public domain is not a license, but a statement of purpose). While the link I provide is a legal waiver = something practical and useful. Do you have anything for or against this text, regarding using it for Openstreetmap data? legal-t...@openstreetmap.org -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Introducing Taginfo
On 5 October 2010 15:37, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: For the last months I have been working on a software called Taginfo that brings together information about OSM tags from the OSM database, the wiki and other places. Somewhat like Tagwatch, Tagstat, and OSMdoc, but more ambitious. :-) I am happy to announce that the beast is now available at http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de There are still some bugs and lots of missing features, but its already usable. Updates are currently done manually, but I will do automatic daily updates soon. All the software to run this is Open Source so please go ahead, run your own versions and send me patches. More details and background in my blog entry at: http://blog.jochentopf.com/2010-10-05-introducing-taginfo.html Bug reports and feature ideas welcome. It seems to be a great tool but the ability to search within tag values would be nice. For example I wanted to find how I should tag a supermarket so I type 'supermarket' into the search box. As you can see [1] the only match it finds is for the _key_ 'supermarket' which is an extremely uncommon tag with only three uses [2]. Now, since I know that really the tag to use is shop=supermarket I searched for shop [3] and as it turns out, supermarket is the most common value for the shop tag [4]. An awesome tool though, good work! [1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/search?search=supermarket [2] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/supermarket [3] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/shop [4] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/tags/shop=supermarket -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins
Item 7 I really want to be able to click 'Agree' and 'make it PD' but section 1 worries me as it states that I agree to only add Contents for which [I am] the copyright holder. This seems to preclude me being able to add any data I've imported from an outside source (like tracing from OS Street View) since, while the license is compatible (given OS attribution), I am not the copyright holder. Am I just misunderstanding the legal talk in the CTs or is this sort of importing currently unacceptable under the CTs? Perhaps this is covered in the CTs summary but as I said, the link doesn't work. Many thanks, Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins
On 12 August 2010 11:01, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: On 12 August 2010 09:18, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade has arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing [1] has begun, and you may indicate your acceptance of the new Contributor Terms for your existing OSM API account. To accept the terms visit http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may be asked to login first), or your user settings page. Please note that OpenStreetMap is not changing the license on any published data at this point. Existing contributors are being asked to permit re-licensing of their data in the future when it makes sense to do so. There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet. Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the terms and get on with mapping. We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see the progress in terms of users and re-licensed data. We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL for each of your user accounts if you have more than one. ** Why are we doing it like this? ** What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. Those that simply want to get on mapping and accept that we won't doing anything daft, can sign up. Those that are worried about data loss and that the OSMF will make a stupid decision, can wait and see. We'll show how much of the database is potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got some help on modelling that, and we'll aim for at least a weekly update if not daily. We'll also make all the data available needed to calculate that, so if you want to try a different metric or just see what is happening in your local area, everything will be transparent. If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike license written especially for databases. If you are a Public Domain license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do urge you to give this one a good try. The Contributor Terms are expressly written to allow us to come back in future years and see what is best without all this fuss about procedure. And if you'd just really like all this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes. ** Some supporting notes: ** () The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have contributed over 98% of the pre-May data. () I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place so that my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really don't want us as a community to shoot ourselves in the head and divide. I pledge to continue working with *both* objectives in mind. () The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the license if data loss is unreasonable [3]. We will issue a formal statement to that effect and are attempting to define better what unreasonable means. A totally quantitative criteria is extremely difficult to define ahead of actually seeing what specific problems may arise. But I understand the concern that we are tempted to do something wild. () The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar statement. () We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a regular basis how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how much not. We will make all the data needed to do that public so that anyone can analyse using their own metrics. Work on this is active and being discussed on the dev mailing list. You will need: - An ordinary planet dump. - Access to history data. A public 18GB history dump is available http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2. The intent is to make this available on a regular basis with difffs. A full re-generation takes several days. - A list of userids of who has and has not accepted the license. Work in progress. () A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let us see first if data loss really is an issue and what the specific problems might be. Regards to all, Mike License Working Group [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28started_10th_August_2010.29 [2] The new Contributor Terms: It's great that this is being put to a vote so that those of us who really are happy with the re-licensing can make that clear. The following link (to the contributor terms summary) doesn't seem to work. I'd like to be able to read a nice human-readable version to clear up some questions I have. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary - Summary http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms - Full text and links to translations [3] https
Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins
On 12 August 2010 11:18, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating complain about section 3. I assume you're worried about the the potential license incompatibility caused _if_ the OSMF (along with a 2/3 majority of contributors) decided to change the license to a non-SA license when your data (perhaps from imports) has an SA requirement? If so then I guess that it simply means that since there is an incompatibility then the non-SA license cannot be used (i.e. it _can't/won't_ be voted in) or the incompatible data will be removed. No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :) -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins
On 12 August 2010 11:39, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 12/08/2010 09:18, Mike Collinson wrote: As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade has arrived. Phase 2... Am I going blind? I can see no 'decline' button, only 'accept'. Obviously users can just close the page, but that doesn't give a clear representation on how people vote. As Mike said, There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet. Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the terms and get on with mapping. Also there is a discussion of this going on in the ODbL Vote thread. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begin
On 12 August 2010 11:58, Markus marku...@bigpond.com wrote: On 12 August 2010 11:18, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating complain about section 3. I assume you're worried about the the potential license incompatibility caused _if_ the OSMF (along with a 2/3 majority of contributors) decided to change the license to a non-SA license when your data (perhaps from imports) has an SA requirement? If so then I guess that it simply means that since there is an incompatibility then the non-SA license cannot be used (i.e. it _can't/won't_ be voted in) or the incompatible data will be removed. No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :) Why couldn’t this be added to CT Section 3 saying. If the OSMF does decide to change the licence, any existing data that may then not be compatible will need to be removed. Perhaps you're right. However, I would recommend that if you have any suggestions of improvements to the CTs then you bring them up on legal-t...@osm.org or contact the LWG (whichever is best for them). -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Mapping Priorities
On 24 June 2010 13:46, Ian Spencer ianmspen...@gmail.com wrote: Andy Allan wrote on 24/06/2010 12:41: I just had a look at the UK Mapping Priorities page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Priorities and I noticed that Darlington has gone from unmapped to awesome over the last few months. Who wants to step up and take credit for such immense progress on what was the UK's highest mapping priority? In addition, I've recalculated some more and now we have no area with a score of more than 100, which is good news. Anyone fancy updating some more of the figures so we can see if anywhere else can be graduated off of the list? Cheers, Andy It is a shame you can't easily look at the editing history to answer your question as to who to credit. What would be quite helpful would be if it were possible to exclude the large edits from the change history as at the moment local edits are drowned out by global changes, often of no interest to the UK, let alone the area being looked at. If I knew who to poke for a fix, I would poke them. ito world's osm mapper (http://www.itoworld.com/static/openstreetmap.html) should be able to help you with that. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Stack Overflow-like site for geographic information systems
On 22 June 2010 17:44, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 22/06/10 17:35, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: You may have used questions and answers sites such as Stack Overflow (http://stackoverflow.com/) or its siblings - I like them a lot. There is a proposal for such a site dedicated to geographic information systems - and it would be a very nice place for Openstreetmap support. If you believe that this is a good idea, you may take a look at the proposal and maybe vote for it at http://j.mp/cqyYn0 I think it would be rather bad of us to try and take it over and use it for our own ends like that. Some of us have already been talking about setting up an OSM specific QA site like this which would be a much better fit than trying to use something that is intended to be more general. Especially with things like Shapado (http://shapado.com and http://gitorious.org/shapado) allowing you to set up our own site or be hosted on the main Shapado site (http://shapado.com/groups/new) I think that having a service which is more under our control is a good idea. Though this is perhaps more appropriate for OSM specific questions. Either way I think it would be a good idea to have a question/answer site for OSM questions -- as a complement to the osm-newbies list. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-GB] Mappa-Mercia social - July 1st - Bedworth
On 4 June 2010 12:31, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote: The next Mappa-Mercia social evening will be on Thursday July 1st in Bedworth to the north of Coventry. Mapping till 8pm and then in a local pub (venue to be confirmed. The Bedworth cake and signup table is on the wiki page [1] Hopefully we might see some of the other Coventry folks there? Peter (sherbourne) is a regular traveller to the Brum meet-ups. I'm based in Canley (west Coventry -- near Warwick Uni) so I shall aim to get there. I'll see if I can drag along some people too. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Mappa-Mercia social - July 1st - Bedworth
On 4 June 2010 12:31, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote: The next Mappa-Mercia social evening will be on Thursday July 1st in Bedworth to the north of Coventry. Mapping till 8pm and then in a local pub (venue to be confirmed. The Bedworth cake and signup table is on the wiki page [1] Hopefully we might see some of the other Coventry folks there? Peter (sherbourne) is a regular traveller to the Brum meet-ups. I'm based in Canley (west Coventry -- near Warwick Uni) so I shall aim to get there. I'll see if I can drag along some people too. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 1 June 2010 13:33, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: 1... What's the correct way of tagging a street as 'dangerous/suicidal' for pedestrians in OSM? (Couldnt find an answer in the wiki) Recently come across a road in my area (London, UK) that had no pavement and which clearly should be avoided by pedestrains, but there were no restrictions in place for pedestrians (apart from common sense). The UK also does not have restrictions on pedestrains being on roads that some other countries have. So, in my opinion, foot=no would be wrong because it incorrectly indicates pedestrians are not allowed. I guess foot=dangerous would be useful for routing software, but is there agreed way of tagging these problem roads. The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk. Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid subject assessments like how dangerous a road is. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Partial Roads in Route Relations
On 14 April 2010 13:53, Tim Francois sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Hi guys, This should be quick. 1) Say I had a bus route which turned onto a street. This turn in to the street is halfway down, and the route does not encompass the first half of the street. What's the correct thing to do here? I've been splitting the street where the bus joins, so only the relevant part is added to the relation, but this brings me onto part 2... Yes, I believe that it's conventional to split the way and make only that part of it a member of the relation. 2) Does splitting a street destroy any existing relations on that street? It seems like I may have broken the ncn through town here...! When you split a way which in in a relation editors should automatically add both the new halves to the relation in the same spot as the original way was. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On 5 April 2010 16:28, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 05/04/10 15:43, Tim François wrote: I understand that with an area mapped there is less impetus to head on over and start making tracks and surveying. But just leaving the area blank when we have this fantastic opportunity to populate seems silly, no? This far down the line, it doesn't look like there are any mappers in the immediate area of which I was talking about. I speak from personal experience - when we first got the Yahoo imagery I enthusiastically traced the nearest largely unmapped area to me (Harlow) from the images. That was several years ago and to this day most of the roads in Harlow exist but are unnamed because nobody has taken up the baton. On the other hand, when I first started in OSM I didn't have a GPS logger. However, I was lucky enough to live in an area where despite having no roads yet in the database we did have fairly good Yahoo coverage. I traced all the roads in a ~2 mile radius. Since then I have had plenty a nice walk around the area naming roads, finding addresses and other POIs. For me it was enough to get over the initial barrier and now the area round me is one of the most complete in the area. I think we can all agree than mass imports of OS data into OSM isn't the way to go, but providing raster images for tracing and comparing can really help. We must of course be careful that people treat it with the caution it deserves - going out and surveying the roads yourself should always be done but quickly getting roads traced/surveyed lets us OSMers get on to mapping the stuff that gives OSM the advantage over the 'competition' -- the POIs, local knowledge, secret footpaths, traffic restrictions etc. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
