Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 55, Issue 44
Hi I think - and it's only my opinion for what it's worth - that Nick's point may fall into a grey area. My understanding is that there are in practice at least four kinds of way that get called permissive: a. Ones where there has been a formal written agreement made with the Highway Authority (often as part of a negotiation around the diversion of a public right of way). These are usually waymarked - at least at each end - with the usual white plastic disc - but in this case the disc should carry the word permissive (amongst any other wording) and/or carry a white arrow on a black background (not black on yellow or any other combination including yellow). b. Ones where there has been an agreement made on a less formal basis with the Highway Authority but where no written agreement is on file (sloppy practice but ...). These may or may not be waymarked as above. c. Ones which are informal in the sense that everyone knows (basically meaning the locals) that it's OK. May or may not be waymarked in some way or other. Includes paths created by local charities, parish councils, etc. where there is no formal agreement or actual legal right of way. d. The fourth category is formal inasmuch as the landowner is in receipt of public funds for allowing the use of the way. These are often called DEFRA paths and all listed on http://cwr.naturalengland.org.uk/ . These should be signed at each end with a posted map. The maps are also available at the URL given in the previous sentence. As we all know, the OS also depicts some permissive paths on some of their mapping (in orange rather than green). Personally, I don't know what status these paths are or where the OS gets its information (I would assume from Highway Authorities so the paths concerned are probably type (a) in my listing above). As for OSM use, my own feeling - and it is no more than that - is that assuming one of us has walked and recorded the path on the ground: 1. Type (a) could be recorded as a permissive path if the information comes from the Highway Authority e.g. the existence of the written agreement - but not based on its presence on an OS map. 2. Type (b) like type (a) but probably not on the OS map anyway. 3. Type (c) - based on local knowledge. 4. Type (d) - I simply don't know! Perhaps someone could take a look at the web site I have mentioned and offer a view! Mike On 22/04/2011 12:00, talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to talk-gb@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Definitive Public Right Of Way map for Northumberland (Nick Whitelegg) 2. Re: National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap (monxton) 3. Re: National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap (Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)) 4. Re: National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap (David Dixon) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Public Right Of Way map for Northumberland
Hi The council concerned was Cheshire County Council - which is now two Councils as it was split under Local Government Reorganisation into Cheshire East and Cheshire West Chester who have not revoked the earlier position. But I would want to be careful not to overstate what they are saying. They are saying it is OK to use the public rights of way information shown on the definitive map (and described in the corresponding definitive statements) as this is seen as data which the public can use as of right. They are not saying that we can use the definitive map per se as (whether or not it meets the description of a derived work) it is a composite of the underlying OS mapping and the lines that are drawn on it showing the public rights of way based on the original surveys and research by the then Local Authority - physically drawn originally and now as a separate GIS layer in the current definitive map copies. The ONLY data that I use is the numbering of the rights of way (which is used as an identifier e.g. if a member of the public wants to talk to them about a way). This information is also held by them and made publicly available as an Excel spreadsheet (no map). To be extra careful I ONLY map in OSM ways which I have physically walked in person and for which I have personally recorded a GPS trace - but I do add the descriptor from the information that the Council says I may use. For this reason, the line of a way that I might draw on OSM might differ from the line on the OS map (as I always walk the definitive line if it is physically possible as well as walking the line shown on the OS map). IMHO with these permissions, caveats and provisos I can use the identifiers (path status and number) from Council sources. The absolute 'must' for me is that I have personally walked the line and recorded my own GPS trace (from my GPS receiver) and annotations (from my digital voice recorder). I would be careful with FOI for the reasons stated by Tim and - in practical terms - because an FOI costs the Council a great deal of money (and they have none) and would likely harm otherwise excellent relations. Cheshire West has also just completed a very detailed on-the-ground survey of the PRoW network in their area using (a lot of) public money to pay a contractor to use top-of-the-range GPS and photography of every stile, gate, details of path surface, level of disabled access etc. Unfortunately they are still trying to find out how to use the software output properly in GIS (or elsewhere) (!!) and also how to redact from the data confidential information such as the names and addresses of landowners and tenants. We are making slow progress on these technical issues but if they are resolved at the technical level I intend then to tackle with them the issue of whether this (much more detailed) data can be made available for OSM purposes (don't hold your breath - the wheels move VERY slowly) as it would appear to be uncontaminated by the dreaded OS! As for OS out-of-copyright 7th Series in this area there are many very significant differences from the present day status of ways as rights of way so - even if the paths still exist where shown on the 7th srs mapping I would personally not dare to assume anything about status as rights of way as based on the mapping. Indeed even the most current OS digital mapping has many errors despite the work the Council (and I and my colleagues!) do to notify OS of changes to the PRoW network - and errors persist for 10 years or more before the OS catch up. Hope that the above is clear and uncontroversial - but knowing OSM I doubt the latter (smiles!). Mike On 21/04/2011 13:50, TimSC wrote: On 21/04/11 12:14, Graham Stewart wrote: Where do we stand if I manually create a way (i.e. by tracing from Bing imagery or by surveying it) and then refer to this published definitive map to determine if it is a designated footpath/bridleway/BOAT? (And possibly get other details that could be used in tags/notes like an identifier). Presumably this would be using the council's data and we would need some form of agreement with them? The most I do is to compare the maps and how well or badly we are doing. It might also inspire me to go and find a footpath in the real world. In the end, all data should come from direct observations (or legally compatible data sets). I usually take extra care to photograph the signs and upload traces to show we actually surveyed things. I would strongly advise against taking the classification or route number from any council map or data set without permission (and some apparently do have permission). (Robert just made the same point.) If we can get agreement from them and OS, we can use the data in OSM. Some councils seem to have a more permissive attitude. Mike Harris mentions two councils that have no restriction on the definitive map (as long as the underlying OS map not covered) [1
[Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Re: Fwd: Re: Other Routes with Public Access
Original Message Subject:Re: Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Other Routes with Public Access Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:30:56 +0100 From: Mike Harris m...@delco.idps.co.uk To: Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com CC: talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Dave Some of the documentation to which I have access as a member of the public uses the acronym ORPA, some spells it out. The following quotes are from Rights of Way: A Guide to Law and Practice, 4th Edition; John Riddall and John Trevelyan (2007). A. ... the Hobhouse Committee recommended (paragraph 45 of its [1947] report) that the information contained in those [definitive] maps should also be shown on OS maps. ... that recommendation was accepted in 1958 by OS ... IMHO this indicates that the data on definitive maps is not the property of the OS. Rather that a government Committee recommended that they make use of it and they agreed. Thus it is - in this respect - the OS map that is a derivative work rather than the definitive map. Any copyright issues therefore relate to the Highway Authority's definitive map and not to the derived OS map. B. ...They [the OS Explorer© maps] also show 'other routes with public access' (ORPAs). These are routes which are not shown on the definitive map and not shown coloured on the OS map, (thereby leading to uncertainty about their status) but which are recorded in the highway authority's list of streets ... C. ...Section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 requires every highway authority to make, and keep up to date, a list of streets within its area which are highways maintainable at public expense. The list must be available for inspection [by the general public] free of charge at the council's offices ... some authorities regard themselves as complying with section 36(6) by maintaining the relevant information in the form of a map ... there will be many streets shown in the list which do not appear on the definitive map ... the inclusion of a way on the list of streets is evidence of no more than that it is a highway, inclusion of a way on the list gives no guidance as to the nature of the rights that exist over it (other than that inclusion on the list foes prove that at least a right of way on foot exists) ... IMHO B and C together indicate that information contained in the list of streets has nothing whatsoever to do with the OS and lies in the public domain. I would deduce (possibly incorrectly, but not assume or guess) that if the OS choose to depict upon their maps something that lies in the public domain they cannot then claim copyright over it. The question is then whether the phrase or acronym by which they choose to describe it is subject to copyright or whether others may use the phrase or acronym without a licence to do so. In other words, I deduce that there is no problem for OSM over depiction of the way (always assuming - by which in this instance I mean on condition that - the way has either been surveyed on the ground (as all mine are) or are derived from a legitimate licence-free source. Nor is there any difficulty over adding a key or value that states that the way - if an ORPA - has public rights on foot. When (if?) OSM says something is an ORPA, this is surely shorthand for saying that it does not appear on the definitive map but does appear on the list of streets. The question is only what may we call it, i.e. whether we are free to use this shorthand. The use of the acronym ORPA or the phrase other routes with public access is a term invented by the OS. Does this mean that as a result we cannot use the term? I would be interested to hear views from others on this specific point. At present - but subject to change - my own view is that: - the OS never wished to (nor could) restrict the use of the phrase or acronym - indeed it is difficult to discuss ORPAs unless we do use the phrase or acronym! - they cannot (and I doubt they would wish to) restrict the use of the information that the way has rights of access on foot - they themselves got this information from someone else (the highway authority) who has a statutory obligation to make that information public. - they might wish to restrict the copying of the way itself from some of their maps (but no difference here from anything else on a restricted OS map) and we shouldn't do it. In other words: - the depiction of the way is OK subject to the usual OSM conditions (approximately: surveyed on the ground by us or derived from a licence-free source). - the information as to rights on the way is OK if not simply derived from its depiction as an ORPA on an OS map but from its presence in the list of streets and absence from the definitive map (or other non-OS sources of such information). - as to the usefulness, I would submit that it is useful to know that public rights on (at least) foot exist - i.e. as opposed to other ways where no such rights
[Talk-GB] Other Routes with Public Access
PLEASE do not remove the ORPA designations - they are meaningful and important (in the UK). An ORPA is a way that is not a public right of way (i.e. public footpath, public bridleway, restricted byway or 'byway open to all traffic') but nevertheless has legal rights for at least pedestrian use. The designation was created by the OS to cover ways whose precise legal status had not yet been fully determined but which had at least rights on foot. (In fact many probably have higher rights as well). High way Authorities recognise that these ways have at least public access. Many of them - but not all by a long stroke - are on the relevant 'List of Streets'. The freedom of the public to use these ways - particularly those not on the list of streets - is threatened by the failure of the government's Lost Ways project and there is action taking place to try to record all of these by the 2024 deadline and to secure as much access as is possible. Many of them provide vital links to public rights of way that would otherwise be cul-de-sacs. Mapping them on OSM - on the basis of local knowledge of various kinds - is a valuable contribution to this effort to protect public access. Thank you for asking before taking any destructive action! Mike Harris On 23/03/2011 12:00, talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to talk-gb@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest... Today's Topics: 1. Codepoint postcode layers (Chris Hill) 2. Other Route with Public Access (ORPA) (Dave F.) 3. Re: Other Route with Public Access (ORPA) (SomeoneElse) 4. Re: Other Route with Public Access (ORPA) (Richard Mann) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Other Routes with Public Access
Original Message Subject:Re: Other Routes with Public Access Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:10:19 + From: Mike Harris m...@delco.idps.co.uk To: Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu CC: Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com, talk-gb@openstreetmap.org I would assume that information that is, for example, based on personal local knowledge or on personal conversations with people having such knowledge (including but not restricted to public servants in the Highway Authority) is a legitimate and unencumbered source. There are also, in some areas at least, lists of ORPAs that are publicly available (in the same way that the 'List of Streets' is publicly available). I am not aware of ORPAs ever being signed as such (although a few do have some sort of signage indicating that there is a public right of access - and others illegally indicating otherwise!). I am not insensitive to the need for OSM to remain free of any copyright or similar restrictions but I do not think absence of physical signage /ipso facto/ constitutes such a barrier to use. Mike Harris On 24/03/2011 09:37, Tom Hughes wrote: On 24/03/11 09:10, Mike Harris wrote: PLEASE do not remove the ORPA designations - they are meaningful and important (in the UK). An ORPA is a way that is not a public right of way (i.e. public footpath, public bridleway, restricted byway or 'byway open to all traffic') but nevertheless has legal rights for at least pedestrian use. Nobody has questioned the importance of the information or whether it should be recorded. What has been questioned is whether the information that a particular path has that designation has come from a legitimate unencumbered source that we are able to use or whether it has come from sources which are subject to copyright and/or database right and which hence should not have been used. If the information has been acquired in a legitimate way then I don't think anybody has a problem with it staying - if it hasn't then it will need to be removed. Tom -- *Mike Harris* -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Other Routes with Public Access
Dave I am interested in your opinion but please hold back slightly from giving me instructions as to what to do or not do. There might be other opinions. My use of the verb assume was more to ask for other opinions - and thank you for yours - than to claim that my personal assumption (or anyone else's for that matter) was a valid basis for OSM work. Assumption differs from guessing inasmuch as there needs to be at least some basis for the former! To help me decide where I stand, please could you provide me with the evidence for your statement that the acronym ORPA is copyright to the OS? I have not seen it registered as a trade mark or similar? but perhaps I have missed that. Does the copyright you mention extend to the English language phrase other routes with public access - I would have thought that such a phrase would be difficult to protect with copyright? I won't enter hear into the debate as to whether OSM should record only and exclusively what can be seen on the ground as this has been discussed endlessly. I suspect that your opinion is currently a minority view. It seems to me that there are countless (in all sorts of contexts) examples of people including in the database information that cannot be seen on the ground e.g. the source tag. Let's not get too dictatorial in this discussion! Mike On 19:59, Dave F. wrote: Hi I've had a reply from the user who admits he based the tagging on an on-line OS map has subsequently removed the specific tag. The ways still have access tags such as foot, horse etc.. On 24/03/2011 10:11, Mike Harris wrote: I would assume that information that is, for example, based on personal local knowledge or on personal conversations with people having such knowledge (including but not restricted to public servants in the Highway Authority) is a legitimate and unencumbered source. Assumption is the same as guessing not good for OSM. There are also, in some areas at least, lists of ORPAs that are publicly available (in the same way that the 'List of Streets' is publicly available). I am not aware of ORPAs ever being signed as such (although a few do have some sort of signage indicating that there is a public right of access - and others illegally indicating otherwise!). Do these lists use the name OR PA? If not, then the only source is the OS which is copyrighted. Tag what you see on the ground Cheers Dave F. -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Other Routes with Public Access
On 24/03/2011 15:51, Mike Harris wrote: Good advice, Andy. I need to make more use of that source:designation key! Mike On 19:59, SomeoneElse wrote: On 24/03/2011 10:11, Mike Harris wrote: I am not insensitive to the need for OSM to remain free of any copyright or similar restrictions but I do not think absence of physical signage /ipso facto/ constitutes such a barrier to use. I don't either - but think that a source:designation would be really helpful in those cases where signage isn't obvious (and not just in the case of ORPAs - if someone's had a look at a definitive statement and identified that's something's a bridleway (and there's no sign on the ground) it's really useful to know that. Cheers, Andy -- *Mike Harris* -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS, OSM and field boundaries
Although the OS has at last been forced into releasing some data we have paid for, it is still withholding field boundaries (as per OS 1:25k). These are invaluable for footpath walkers in agricultural areas (i.e. most of England and parts of Scotland and Wales) even though inevitably out-of-date (and the poor registration between the rights of way GIS layer and the base mapping can all too often leave you backtracking after walking a few hundred metres on the wrong side of the hedge!). Clearly most boundaries cannot readily be surveyed on the ground by OSM workers (short of triangulation) although satellite mapping is a big help where licence-free and clear enough. (Nick and others - thanks for the great work). Sadly I still cannot really use OSM for footpath walking away from conurbations. On a smart phone the zoom limitations make the OS 1:25k mapping of limited use (although Multimaps' OS version is better). Google satellite mapping is often too dark to read out of doors (and tiles cannot be downloaded for outdoor use because of Google's fair usage terms - as I have learned the hard way after having my IP address blocked by Google for 24 hours!); Google Maps is of little use out of town. What is needed in OSM for walkers - but how to do it? (thanks to Nick and others for great work) is (a) contours and (b) field boundaries. Mike On 11/03/2011 12:00, talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to talk-gb@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest... Today's Topics: 1. OS and OSM (Steve Chilton) 2. Re: OS and OSM (Nick Whitelegg) 3. Re: OS and OSM (Tom Chance) 4. Re: OS and OSM (Chris Hill) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2
Interesting. I wonder whether the references to government data in the link to the OS blog refer only to central government or also apply to local government? What do our OSM experts think? Mike On 07/01/2011 12:00, talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to talk-gb@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest... Today's Topics: 1. OS have switched to Open Government License today... (Peter Miller) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Local walking routes
Hi As someone who does quite a bit of work on adding paths (including public rights of way) and walking routes to OSM my personal view would be to add relations only for routes which are either (a) waymarked as a route, and/or (b) carry a specific name e.g. Little Sodding Millennium Walk. This is to avoid a proliferation of routes simply created locally - I create a good few each week! But it's a free country! Mike On 19:59, David Ellams wrote: Where I live there is a Parish Paths Partnership (P3) Group, where volunteers work with the council on projects to maintain and improve access to public footpaths and brideways, e.g., waymarking, replacing stiles with gates, etc. They publish a number of suggested walks on their website (the walks for the most part just have descriptive titles such as Circular walk - Pontesbury Hill and Polesgate Coppice). With one exception, the routes themselves are not signed/marked (though they follow waymarked paths). I am thinking that, once I've got a bit more of the footpath network mapped, I might ask them whether they would like some maps of their routes for their web site, etc. (if I'm feeling really ambitious, I might one day even try to get them involved in the surveying/mapping - a footpath mapping party?). My question is whether I should record route relations for these (perhaps slightly unofficial) unsigned walks (ranging from 1.5 to about 5 miles). The Walking Routes page on the wiki suggests that lwn is to be used for signed routes. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes This question seems equivalent, to an extent, to this question about the CTC National Byways Network: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Cycle_routes#United_Kingdom_.2F_CTC_National_Byways_Network.3F I realise there is nothing to stop me from adding these walking routes (as relations) to OSM, but I'd welcome feedback on whether folk think it is appropriate. Has anyone done anything like this elsewhere? I would not have to add them to OSM in order to produce some maps, so quite relaxed if there is a consensus that it is not appropriate. There is also a local Walking For Health group, with some involvement from the council, which publishes routes, but as far as I can see these are waymarked specifically, so I probably will consider creating route relations for those. Likewise, the P3 Group's one specifically waymarked (and named) route, I feel is a good candidate to record in OSM. So shout if you think I'm wrong on that one, too. Cheers David (davespod) -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 70, Issue 76
There may be a caveat here regarding the use of 'unclassified' - at least in the UK where it tends to have a specific meaning, i.e. C-roads and below (the ones usually rendered yellow on OS mapping), rather than its straightforward meaning of 'not otherwise specified'. Clearly there is room here for national / regional differences and I am not suggesting a definitive answer. However, I would not use 'unclassified' for the above reason nor 'residential' if there were no houses and it was rural rather than urban. I would normally go for track - but add sufficient further tags (tracktype= and/or surface=) to make the physical condition clearer. This also helps with the rendering - although we don't map fr the renderer do we ;-) ;-) Mike On 28/06/2010 21:40, talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send talk mailing list submissions to talk@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of talk digest... Today's Topics: 1. rural highway tagging: residential or track (Stan Berka) 2. Re: rural highway tagging: residential or track (John Smith) 3. Re: rural highway tagging: residential or track (Maarten Deen) 4. Re: rural highway tagging: residential or track (Chris Hill) 5. Re: rural highway tagging: residential or track (John Smith) 6. Re: rural highway tagging: residential or track (Pieren) 7. Re: rural highway tagging: residential or track (Greg Troxel) 8. Re: rural highway tagging: residential or track (John Smith) 9. Rendering: nature_reserve and national_park (yvecai) 10. Centre for Spatial Law and Policy Launched (John Smith) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- */Mike Harris/* ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 38
Hi Much of the discussion in this thread relates to the presumed dedication of a right of way - particularly for pedestrians - along a highway that is 'unadopted' by the local Highway Authority for maintenance at public expense (often loosely called a 'private road'). I am not a lawyer - only a 'footpath worker' - but I would just make the following points: 1. Like almost everything to do with public rights of way in England and Wales, the situation is extraordinarily obscure and complex in law. 2. There is a mechanism for the 'statutory inference of dedication' (under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980) and also a residual principle of 'implied dedication' in Common Law that is not extinguished by the Highways Act or any other statute. In practice, however, it is usually the Highways Act that is called into service. 3. What the Highways Act creates is a (rebuttable) presumption that a right of way exists. It does not actually create the right of way - an application still has to be made to the Highway Authority to add the way to the Definitive Map. 4. The evidence for the presumption is what is often loosely referred to as the 20 year rule - but it is not as simple as it seems! (Surprise, surprise). 5. The wording is: Where a way over any land, other than a way of such a character that use of it by the public could not give rise at common law to any presumption of dedication, has been actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of 20 years, the way is deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it The period of 20 years ... is to be calculated retrospectively from the date when the right of the public to use the way is brought into question whether by a notice ... or otherwise. Almost every word in these sections of the Act has been argued over in court. 6. In particular: a. The '20 year' period requires that there has been a challenge of some kind - usually by the landowner. Otherwise the section that creates the presumption has no force as it speaks to a 20 year period that is explicitly defined in the following clause as being calculated on the basis of the right having been 'brought into question'. b. The use must have been 'as of right' - which loosely means that the relevant use must have been /'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario'/ - i.e. without force, without secrecy and without permission'. It is the last of these three conditions that is often misunderstood. If, for example, the landowner specifically gives permission (e.g. by creating a 'permissive path') then Highways Act 19980 s31 cannot apply. I conclude, therefore, that an 'unadopted highway' cannot necessarily be presumed to be a public right of way after 20 years of use (see above) and that - even if it /can/ be so _presumed_ it does not become a public right of way until it is added to the Definitive Map by a Definitive Map Modification Order under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. OK - I have now exposed myself to challenge, criticism, mockery and general abuse by daring to try to create a layman's summary of a painfully complex bit of English law - but I thought it was worth trying :-) . As for the Park Estate in Nottingham - it will be 'very interesting' to see what the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) decides ... mikh43 On 26/05/2010 18:24, talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to talk-gb@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible (Ian Spencer) 2. Gates (was: Private roads...) (Ed Avis) 3. Re: Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible (Jerry Clough - OSM) 4. Re: Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible (Ian Spencer) 5. Re: Gates (was: Private roads...) (char...@cferrero.net) 6. Re: Gates (was: Private roads...) (Ed Avis) 7. Re: Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible (Jerry Clough - OSM) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
Hi My understanding of PRoW law is that: 1. The definitive statement (which is prepared by an actual survey on the ground - not from a map - although it might subsequently be plotted onto a map) takes precedence over the definitive map where there are differences between the two. Thus the statement should not involve the OS. 2. The definitive map - properly defined - is the copy kept by the Highway Authority (HA). There may be 'definitive map copies' issued in hard copy to involved parties (like the charity for which I work) or in electronic form (some HAs issue full 'interactive' versions of the definitive map on the web). These have no legal standing - although very useful - and may not be as up-to-date as THE definitive map. 3. Even the definitive map may be a bit out of date as HAs often have a backlog in creating the Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs) that enshrine a change in the PRoW network (diversion, creation, extinguishment, dedication) - this backlog may be more than a year in some areas and will worsen as funds disappear under present financial constraints. 4. OS mapping at 1:25k of PRoWs relies (especially outside of urban areas and ways on the 'List of Streets') on the OS being notified of any changes. This is often done (but rather haphazardly) by the HA - but can equally be done by a member of the public. They do not keep PRoWs up-to-date pro-actively. Even when notified, the OS may take years to do an update. In theory the update should be on the next copy of the relevant 1:25k map (and does tend to appear earlier on digital than on paper versions) but it can - and often does - take several years. Complex and major changes in my area have taken over 10 years of constant nagging to get the OS to update! 5. Anomalies on the ground with OS mapping are common. I log about 100 per annum in my area. There may also be anomalies on the ground compared with the definitive map. These two sets of anomalies may themselves differ. Anomalies include: - minor unofficial diversions made by the landowner (or sometimes the general public!) for convenience. This does not change the line of the PRoW. - major unofficial diversions made by a landowner for his/her convenience (sometimes with the legal route being blocked). This does not change the line of the PRoW. - official diversions not yet recorded by the OS (see above). This does not change the line of the PRoW. - genuine legal anomalies such as a path ending at a parish boundary (often because the magistrate charged with making the definitive map record was also the local landowner and 'forgot' to record the path on the original definitive map). - 'lost ways' that got missed off the original definitive map (and under current legislation will be lost for ever if not added by 2025). It's complicated and I'm not advising anyone what to do or not do (apart from forcing the OS to come clean and disavow any copyright interest in PRoW data - as others have said, the HAs are usually more than happy to release PRoW data as part of their public duty but unfortunately the OS have lost all sense of public duty - as opposed to commercial self-interest - unless pressured). mikh43 On 12/05/2010 12:00, talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to talk-gb@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB)) 2. Re: National Byway cycle route (Dave F.) 3. Re: National Byway cycle route (Sam Vekemans) 4. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)) 5. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)) 6. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (James Davis) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
Whoops - resending as I used the wrong account at my end and got bumped by the lists moderator - silly me! Original Message Subject:Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 15:44:31 +0100 From: Mike Harris m...@delco.idps.co.uk To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com CC: 'Mike Harris' mik...@googlemail.com, talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Andy I could do that - but which wiki page do you think would be the most appropriate? Obviously this is 'only' an 'England and Wales' issue - albeit important for those of us who OSM etc. around this patch of the world! Mike On 13/05/2010 10:51, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: Mike, A very comprehensive reply, thanks for that. It would be worth having what you have written on a relevant wiki page as its probably the best write-up of the arrangements as we know them. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Mike Harris Sent: 13 May 2010 9:06 AM To:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 Hi My understanding of PRoW law is that: 1. The definitive statement (which is prepared by an actual survey on the ground - not from a map - although it might subsequently be plotted onto a map) takes precedence over the definitive map where there are differences between the two. Thus the statement should not involve the OS. 2. The definitive map - properly defined - is the copy kept by the Highway Authority (HA). There may be 'definitive map copies' issued in hard copy to involved parties (like the charity for which I work) or in electronic form (some HAs issue full 'interactive' versions of the definitive map on the web). These have no legal standing - although very useful - and may not be as up-to-date as THE definitive map. 3. Even the definitive map may be a bit out of date as HAs often have a backlog in creating the Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs) that enshrine a change in the PRoW network (diversion, creation, extinguishment, dedication) - this backlog may be more than a year in some areas and will worsen as funds disappear under present financial constraints. 4. OS mapping at 1:25k of PRoWs relies (especially outside of urban areas and ways on the 'List of Streets') on the OS being notified of any changes. This is often done (but rather haphazardly) by the HA - but can equally be done by a member of the public. They do not keep PRoWs up-to-date pro- actively. Even when notified, the OS may take years to do an update. In theory the update should be on the next copy of the relevant 1:25k map (and does tend to appear earlier on digital than on paper versions) but it can - and often does - take several years. Complex and major changes in my area have taken over 10 years of constant nagging to get the OS to update! 5. Anomalies on the ground with OS mapping are common. I log about 100 per annum in my area. There may also be anomalies on the ground compared with the definitive map. These two sets of anomalies may themselves differ. Anomalies include: - minor unofficial diversions made by the landowner (or sometimes the general public!) for convenience. This does not change the line of the PRoW. - major unofficial diversions made by a landowner for his/her convenience (sometimes with the legal route being blocked). This does not change the line of the PRoW. - official diversions not yet recorded by the OS (see above). This does not change the line of the PRoW. - genuine legal anomalies such as a path ending at a parish boundary (often because the magistrate charged with making the definitive map record was also the local landowner and 'forgot' to record the path on the original definitive map). - 'lost ways' that got missed off the original definitive map (and under current legislation will be lost for ever if not added by 2025). It's complicated and I'm not advising anyone what to do or not do (apart from forcing the OS to come clean and disavow any copyright interest in PRoW data - as others have said, the HAs are usually more than happy to release PRoW data as part of their public duty but unfortunately the OS have lost all sense of public duty - as opposed to commercial self-interest - unless pressured). mikh43 On 12/05/2010 12:00,talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to talk-gb@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19)
for that. It would be worth having what you have written on a relevant wiki page as its probably the best write-up of the arrangements as we know them. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Mike Harris Sent: 13 May 2010 9:06 AM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 Hi My understanding of PRoW law is that: -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19)
I would record both - but only if I walked both with GPS in hand - and add status where I know it - as per my previous response to Ian. On 19:59, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: Ian Spencer wrote: Sent: 13 May 2010 12:17 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19) I think it would be useful to have a think about how we might tag validated definitive ways in addition to the public footpath recognising that there are potentially 3 different versions of a path: 1) The official published rights of way - say from OS. 2) OSM interpretation of rights of way (sourced from a combination of survey, reinterpretation of LA data and OS data) which could differ. (The difference between (1) (2) is the to-do list with the LA effectively) 3) The walkable paths which are considered by the public to be the way, even if they are not the formal definition. While I wouldn't argue with a farmer based on OSM, if we knew what the derivation was, and the status of any diversions, then at least you can stride across that newly planted crop with a bit more confidence. I don't think the current tagging regime exactly covers the above - and I doubt there is great confidence in the legal validity of of a footpath tagged in OSM as a Public Footpath. I just wouldn't go there. It's a big can of worms. If I find a path on the ground that's what goes in OSM. I try not to worry about whether it's a public right of way, permissive path or path that might or might not have rights because its not currently in the LA's ROW statements. Huge numbers of the latter type of path about of course. Where I end up doing a walk which takes me across a field (according to the current OS 1:25k map), but where I don't see any footfall, either across the field or around it, then I make that first footfall on the alignment of the OS map as best I can discern it. And the tracklog from that I upload and use for OSM. If on the other hand I see the OS has the path going straight through the sugarbeet but the footfall is clearly around the edge of the field, then it's the field boundary route what I walk, log and put in OSM. In my view it's not for us to try to be definitive, that's not our role, it is for us to map footpaths. Cheers Andy It seems to be that there should be a definitive-way tag with status of yes, disputed, (and implicitly, no) and another of definitive-way-source as you cannot establish a definitive way by GPS, even though you can for the de facto line of the path (being able to see the difference could be useful). Ian Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote on 13/05/2010 10:51: Mike, A very comprehensive reply, thanks for that. It would be worth having what you have written on a relevant wiki page as its probably the best write- up of the arrangements as we know them. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Mike Harris Sent: 13 May 2010 9:06 AM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 Hi My understanding of PRoW law is that: ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2870 - Release Date: 05/12/10 19:26:00 -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19)
Richard - good thought - I hadn't thought about using a designation tag without a highway tag to avoid the rendering - it might solve my problem of unwalkable public rights of way in forests around here. On 19:59, Richard Mann wrote: If you've got reasonable non-copyright evidence that there's a PROW across the field, use designation=public_footpath. If there's a path that people seem to use, use the highway=path tag (or some other highway tag if you prefer), and maybe a surface tag. You can have a OSM way with just a designation tag; it doesn't have to have a highway tag. Mapnik won't render it, but someone else might want the info; may as well record it while you're there. Richard -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19)
+1 On 19:59, Nick Whitelegg wrote: If you've got reasonable non-copyright evidence that there's a PROW across the field, use designation=public_footpath. If there's a path that people seem to use, use the highway=path tag (or some other highway tag if you prefer), and maybe a surface tag. You can have a OSM way with just a designation tag; it doesn't have to have a highway tag. And how would I verify that way on the ground then? What I tend to do is, if there are 2 stiles at either end with waymarks on, just draw a straight line between the two. In the absence of other evidence, it seems the only logical thing to do. Having said that, I tag highway=path as well as designation=public_footpath in these cases, even if there's no physical path on the ground. I do think it's very important to put the designation in, or at least foot=permissive, so that paths where there is a definite right to walk along (legal or permissive) are clearly separated from those which are not. Nick -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB Chapter
WetMidlands? Has has there been a weather event that I haven't heard about? Or is this just a political description? Should we be doing some emergency mapping of the flooded areas? O:-) Or perhaps it is simply that a meet of this kind could not be dry mikh43 On 19:59, Gregory wrote: For finding out when is a good date: http://doodle.com/gbm9zezspi9tz6m4 Add your name, tick the dates that are good for you. I see this is on the talk-gb-wetmidlands list, so I'm also sending to talk-gb-thenorth for anyone who just reads that. We're planning a get together on a Saturday (for some mapping and) to discuss the formation of a GB chapter. Somewhere between Birmingham and London. On 26 April 2010 11:09, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com mailto:ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote: Nick Black [mailto:nickbla...@gmail.com mailto:nickbla...@gmail.com] wrote: Sent: 26 April 2010 6:45 PM To: Emilie Laffray Cc: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists); talk-gb OSM List (E-mail); talk-gb- westmidla...@openstreetmap.org mailto:westmidla...@openstreetmap.org; Richard Fairhurst Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Chapter I would be super keen on Charlbury. Richard's beer pitch sold perfectly :- ) It'll need to be somewhere needing mapping to get me interested though and Charlbury should be a done deal by now ;-) Cheers Andy -- Nick On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com mailto:emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 April 2010 15:18, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com mailto:ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote: Replying to myself here. Northampton would be another location option. Its on the London Midland line which has some cheap fares. It's also a very very unloved town. For those living near Croydon and not afraid of me driving, this could be a possibility at some point. Emilie Laffray ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- -- Nick Black twitter.com/nick_b http://twitter.com/nick_b No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2835 - Release Date: 04/25/10 19:31:00 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com mailto:o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=byway
Pieren may be missing the point that Richard is making - and I think Richard makes quite an important point (at least for England and Wales). highway=track describes what is seen on the ground (and can usefully be refined with tracktype=* as per the wiki definitions). designation=* makes a statement about legal status - which may or may not be capable of determination in the field (but there are other open sources for this information). As a minor difference from Richard's designation=byway tagging I would prefer to see (again this is England and Wales specific) the use of either: designation=BOAT - for byway open to all traffic (this is a legal term and does not necessarily mean what it appears to say as there are often restrictions on vehicular traffic specific to a particular 'BOAT') or designation=restricted_byway for restricted byways (again this is a legal term) the wiki does make this distinction but tends to use the term byway when it means BOAT. If we are to continue this thread it should probably be in talk-GB as it is probably not of relevance elsewhere - although of considerable importance to walkers and other off-road users in England and Wales. Mike (mikh43) On 19:59, Pieren wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: Yes its a relic. Use highway=track+designation=byway instead Richard I'm not sure it's a relic but it's a UK specific tag. I asked the question some time ago: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-July/028091.html or here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-July/028052.html Saying use highway=track+designation=byway instead of highway=byway sounds like the endless discussion about highway=path+designation=* vs highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway. Pieren -- */Mike Harris/* ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] VectorMap District: Completely crazy idea, maybe, but...
Dave So sorry to hear that you only walk in good weather. Approx. 240 km of walking with GPS receiver so far this year ;-) ... but of course you are right in saying that field boundaries near paths (whether or not PROWs) are the most important. My point was simply that OSM is unlikely ever to be able to match OS on field boundaries (although admittedly even auntie OS is often years out of date on these). Cheers On 11/04/2010 02:51, Dave F. wrote: Mike Harris wrote: The lack of public right of way information is disappointing - but it is within OSM's capabilities to walk and map it. However, the lack of field boundary information is a serious deficiency as these are invaluable in practice to walkers attempting to plan, navigate, record and publish walks - especially in the more lowland and more farmed areas. Without the OS's right to enter onto private land without any advance permission, OSM mappers will remain seriously hampered in any attempt to map field boundaries. Hedges may be visible in good quality satellite or aerial photography but fences (and especially electric fences) will be very difficult. I agree field boundaries are valuable for walkers, but only those abutting or near PROWS are relevant these are obviously obtainable by walking there. Spring is in the air, put your boots on a go walking! Cheers Dave F. -- */Mike Harris/* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for walkers / hikers - getting it going!
Hi I've been looking at this thread with interest and it is probably at risk of resurrecting the endless (?) debate about the use of foot-way, path etc. tags. Without expressing any personal view, to avoid reopening that debate, I would merely note that - rightly or wrongly - the highway=footway tag has been enormously used both for smooth paved urban and suburban paths (wheelchair / pram / shopping trolley friendly) and for invisible-on-the-ground rural or back country paths that are interrupted by obstacles such as gradients, gates, stiles, scrambles, etc. - and for everything in between. Equally, the highway=path tag has been used widely - but not often for the most urban paved paths. This is - whether or not we like it - the current situation. There have been many proposals for change, rationalisation or consolidation - some are very good, maybe others less so! Such is life. The use of the sac scale is - perhaps not surprisingly - mostly restricted at present to paths in the more 'challenging' rural areas - e.g. hill and mountain country, especially in continental Europe (again not surprisingly given its origins). It provides very valuable information for walkers in this sort of area - but (again unsurprisingly, given its pedigree) does not differentiate well at the bottom end of the scale between various kinds of 'easy' paths - e.g. (a) a well marked and signed path in a 'honey pot' region of the countryside that is unpaved and has stiles and/or gates that would make e.g. wheelchair or pram access difficult vs. (b) an urban paved footpath that gives access, for all classes of user, say, to a town park or a shopping mall. I cannot really make any recommendation beyond the usual one - dredge through the numerous wiki entries and the numerous threads on talk lists! I suppose that this has not been very helpful ... sorry! Mike On 19:59, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote: .. I'm still unclear how one is supposed to distinguish between a smooth, wide urban footpath and a hiking trail. A footpath can be traversed by a weelchair, perambulator or shopping trolley? Regards, Nick *** WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print or copy this email without appropriate authority. If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not waived or destroyed by that mistake. It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with your computer system). Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Maritime Safety Queensland or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. *** -- */Mike Harris/* ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Thoughts on OSM design, and looking forward - and back
provider and not a mapping site, I don't think all of the end user functionality necessarily has to be in house (although probably more than we have at the moment). But it has to be reached very easily and quickly by new people and not strewed arbitrarily and difficult to find on hundreds of different servers. The Openstreetmap.de Schaufenster ( http://www.openstreetmap.de/schaufenster/index.html ) I think is a good starting point for that. In many ways, we do indeed already have a lot of the necessary end user tools. Like the garmin maps, like the various routing providers, like the examples of how to embed OSM into your own website, like navigation tools for many other mobile platforms, useful utilities somewhere in our SVN repository... What we probably are lacking is a good integrated experience so that newbies can find these resources, start using OSM data and eventually they will hopefully become mappers if they notice issues in the data while using it. All that said, I am definitely not saying we don't have a need or shouldn't improve our editing tools to lower the barrier of entry. There is definitely room and need for improvement, but perhaps we shouldn't forget this other side of usability as an additional option. Kai P.S. one thing that has to be kept in mind though if we would push additionally more towards an end user site, is, do we have the technical and financial resources to support that? Running a large end user site requires a lot of resources and we might end up needing a yearly donation drive like Wikipedia. Do we really want to get into that (already)? -- */Mike Harris/* ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 66, Issue 47
I'm not sure whether this will do what you need - but I think it will. Take a look at Exifer at: http://www.friedemann-schmidt.com/software/exifer/ The program is no longer maintained but I find it works fine for the things I need. It has the advantage of being very simple, low overhead ... and free. The link page also gives the author's ideas of alternatives that he considers better - so plenty to research from there. Have fun 8-) 8-) Mike Harris On 21/02/2010 13:28, talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send talk mailing list submissions to talk@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of talk digest... Today's Topics: 1. Photo_mapping - How to put EXIF data into a jpg image (Niklas Cholmkvist) 2. Re: Inquiry about Egnos / Indoor mapping (Aun Johnsen) 3. Re: Photo_mapping - How to put EXIF data into a jpg image (Sebastian Klein) 4. Re: [OSM-dev] OSM front page design concept (Frederik Ramm) 5. Re: [OSM-dev] OSM front page design concept (John Smith) 6. Re: [OSM-dev] OSM front page design concept (Chris Hill) 7. Re: Photo_mapping - How to put EXIF data into a jpg image (Greg Troxel) 8. Re: OSM2PQSQL / PostGis: Coordinate Conversion (d8930) 9. Annotated Haiti video (Yves Moisan) 10. Re: [OSM-dev] OSM front page design concept (Robert Funnell) 11. Re: OSM2PQSQL / PostGis: Coordinate Conversion (Jon Burgess) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- */Mike Harris/* ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Revisited: how to edit GPX tracks?
GPS Utility This is multifunctional - conversions, editing and more - the freeware version is a bit limited but the shareware version is imho well worth the small fee. http://www.gpsu.co.uk/index.html Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Craig Wallace [mailto:craig...@fastmail.fm] Sent: 28 January 2010 17:24 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Revisited: how to edit GPX tracks? On 28/01/2010 14:14, Steve Bennett wrote: Some comments on the ones of these I've used: Solutions proposed: - GPSbabel: only does conversion afaik, not editing. GPSBabel does have various options for editing tracks, though they are not all available in the GUI (some of them are, click the Filters button). eg to merge multiple files, just specify them all as inputs. And there is a simplify filter. You can also extract parts of tracks based on time etc. Some more details here: http://www.gpsbabel.org/htmldoc-1.3.6/Advanced_Usage.html http://www.gpsbabel.org/htmldoc-1.3.6/filter_track.html - JOSM: promising, but JOSM is always very slow on my machine, and I can't figure out how to edit gpx traces directly, other than converting them to data layers first. not sure if this will solve all my needs. I do like the colour highlighting though. Have you tried the EditGPX plugin? It automatically converts the tracks to a separate EditGPX layer to allow editing, and converts back to GPX. - Garmin BaseCamp: may actually be able to do some of this, but unusably slow on large amounts of data, and has some really funky ideas about how to manage a collection of tracks. - Garmin MapSource: no editing of traces that I can see. MapSource has some options for track editing. First, make sure you have a fairly recent version. There are options on the toolbar for track draw, erase, select, join, divide. And you can simplify tracks (right click on the track, then Track Properties - Filter). You can also have several MapSource windows open and copy and paste between them. I have found MapSource can be a bit slow at opening large GPX files, but its usually OK once they are open. I have noticed that if you save the track as a GDB file it loads much quicker in MapSource. Craig ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Public notary (Map feature POI proposal)
In England the work of what our colonial brothers and sisters on the paranoid side of the Atlantic call a 'public notary' is one of the things done by a 'solicitor' - whereas over there a 'solicitor' is more likely to be working in the less salubrious parts of town and may need the services of an 'attorney' (aka 'lawyer'). Of course, it is not entirely unknown for an 'attorney' to use the services of a 'solicitor' - which may or may not be legal, according to the jurisdiction. Whereas in England there is nothing dubious about a 'lawyer' employing a 'solicitor' - or even a 'barrister' ... But maybe that's enough ... PS. In the 1960s in order to get my then fiancée a US visa I had to swear an oath (that we would marry at a given time and place) in front of a 'public notary' in the USA and she had to do likewise in front of a 'solicitor' in England. Which produced a letter from the US Immigration Naturalisation Service allowing her entry into the land of the free on condition that (and I quote) the marriage is consummated prior to entry into the United States of America. Those were the days when a body scan on entry to the USA was a really serious matter (;) ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: David Paleino [mailto:da...@debian.org] Sent: 05 January 2010 19:48 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Public notary (Map feature POI proposal) John Smith wrote: 2010/1/6 Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com: Yet the same English word notary. It gets even more fun in Australia, we have JPs (Justice of the Peace) to stamp/witness documents being signed, but in the US a JP is something like a judge. In Italy JPs are something like a judge, and notary has the same meaning as the one Serge pointed out for France (i.e. part of the Judiciary, not an attorney, but needed for legally binding things) joke amenity=notary notary=american-like|european-like /joke :) -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to manage GPX files?
Highly recommended - independent of expensive mapping software (although will calibrate and use custom maps) - handles gpx - and more formats than you could ever want to know about it - try the freeware version but you do need the (good value for money) shareware one for full functionality. http://www.gpsu.co.uk/index.html Mike Harris _ From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com] Sent: 29 December 2009 21:26 To: Open Street Map mailing list Subject: [OSM-talk] How to manage GPX files? What software do people use to manage their GPX files? Mainly I want to be able to upload sections of GPX – rather than the whole thing – to Potlatch. And it might be nice to be able to combine a couple of traces into one long trace. Thanks, Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] tagging Greenways
Mike Harris -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Paul Johnson Sent: 20 December 2009 22:31 To: tagg...@openstreetmap.org Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] tagging Greenways Greg Troxel wrote: I don't follow this. I think that in the US a cycleway would be called either a bike path or rail trail, depending on origin. You'd likely be wrong. Willamette Greenway is a very long, very popular bicycle arterial in Portland. The only thing it implies is non-motorized, vehicular traffic. I would use greenway to describe a large linear park that might contain a bike path and footpaths, as in http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/ While greenways are often in linear parks, not all greenways are in linear parks, and not all linear parks are greenways. See my earlier contribution ... 'greenway' means something totally different in N America and in Europe (at least UK) ... The linear park definition tends to approximate to the N American but in the UK it tends to mean a 'way' that is usually multi-user, permissive (not an existing public right of way), created in order to encourage off-road activity ... And suburban. I have suggested that we do not use the 'greenway' tag as it is so ambiguous and we are unlikely to agree on either definition. Greenways could be tagged like any other way - especially as the tagging for footways, paths, tracks, bridleways and cycleways is so clear and uncontroversial (OK guys ... Only kidding on the last point). ___ Tagging mailing list tagg...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] tagging Greenways
Mike Harris -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Greg Troxel Sent: 18 December 2009 13:48 To: Paul Johnson Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; tagg...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] tagging Greenways Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org writes: Sam Vekemans wrote: Where the only way i know to map it is to use a relation and call it route=greenway and dont have it render on the cyclemap. Just map the sections as appropriate. Greenway is the US/Canadianism for cycleway. I don't follow this. I think that in the US a cycleway would be called either a bike path or rail trail, depending on origin. I would use greenway to describe a large linear park that might contain a bike path and footpaths, as in http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/ Using greenway to describe a cycleway seems odd to me, although I suspect that the term greenway does not have an established meaning, and people think it means whatever the local Foo Greenway is. Mike Harris says ... Tentatively ... I fear that 'Greenway' is one of those words where the English language is a bit unhelpful. I certainly recognise the US/Canadian definition from my sojourns there ... But equally I find that here in England it tends to mean a linear way (rather than park), usually multiuser, usually not a public right of way, usually created by a local authority to enhance local leisure / environmental facilities and usually in an urban or suburban area. Maybe we should avoid the term ... And thus the considerable ambiguity? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.716 / Virus Database: 270.14.113/2573 - Release Date: 12/18/09 07:35:00 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
I encounter a similar situation all the time - usually in the context of public footpaths with short foot plank or sleeper bridges over ditches or very small streams in the countryside. My practice - which is open to change if there is a better solution that is widely accepted - is: 1. Split the way over the bridge even though it is short (in fact I sometimes have to go further and also split the way in the middle of the bridge if it is on a boundary and the footpath reference number changes!). 2. Tag the bridge as bridge=yes and layer=1. 3. My rationale for layer=1 (rather than tagging the ditch / stream as layer=-1) is that the ditch / stream (as and when fully mapped) will run at the same level into bigger streams, rivers etc. and these will almost certainly already be tagged (imho correctly) as level=0. Although there may be no physical ascent to get onto the bridge plank (indeed it is often a descent either side as the plank may be a little below the surrounding field level even though it is above the stream) the concept in my mind is that we have gone 'up' relative to something that is at the general level of the countryside to the same extent as, say, a river is at the same general level even though it flows between banks and the surface of the water is actually below the land (most of the time anyway - not last month!). Mike Harris _ From: Anthony [mailto:o...@inbox.org] Sent: 15 December 2009 02:31 To: openstreetmap Subject: [OSM-talk] Ditches In a park is a ditch. There is a very small bridge going over the ditch. I've tagged the ditch with barrier=ditch. Should the ditch be layer=-1? Even though the park is layer=0? Should I use barrier=entrance on the node where the ways overlap, bridge=yes on the bridge (which means splitting the way for a very short bridge), both, something else? (Actually, there are three bridges, one of which carries motor vehicle traffic and two which do not.) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:IMG_6784.JPG http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:IMG_6783.JPG ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
+1 Mike Harris -Original Message- From: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Sent: 15 December 2009 03:36 To: Steve Bennett Cc: openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches 2009/12/15 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: In a park is a ditch. There is a very small bridge going over the ditch. I've tagged the ditch with barrier=ditch. Should the ditch be layer=-1? Even though the park is layer=0? Layers are only there to explain the relative heights of things when they meet. No harm will result from marking the ditch as layer -1. Whether or not it needs to be a lower number than that of the bridge is an unresolved question. I tend to mark bridges as layer=1 and anything at ground level I don't set a layer tag, which seems the most logical to me since ditches aren't under the ground etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com] Sent: 15 December 2009 03:38 To: John Smith Cc: openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I tend to mark bridges as layer=1 and anything at ground level I don't set a layer tag, which seems the most logical to me since ditches aren't under the ground etc. The one benefit of marking waterways layer=-1 (particularly for long ones) is that it's protection against anyone else forgetting to set layer=1. That is, someone else might draw a bridge over it somewhere and not set the layer. Well, if the waterway itself is -1, that will still behave the same. (And there's no downside) I think there are two quite serious downsides: 1. When the waterway (e.g. ditch or stream) eventually links into other, bigger downstream waterways (probably mapped by different people at different times) these are very likely to be tagged (or assumed) as level=0. But there is not usually a reverse waterfall at the junction! (this would be water flowing uphill - as we go upstream the level changes from 0 to -1 !!!). 2. Forgetting to draw a bridge - and give it a layer higher than what is underneath - is naughty (:) - but surely two wrongs don't make a right? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 December 2009 02:43
To: Anthony
Cc: openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In a park is a ditch. There is a very small bridge going
over the ditch.
I've tagged the ditch with barrier=ditch. Should the ditch
be layer=-1?
Even though the park is layer=0?
Layers are only there to explain the relative heights of
things when they meet. No harm will result from marking the
ditch as layer -1.
See my separate reply - I disagree - what happens when the level=-1 ditch
runs downstream into a level=0 stream / river - without a waterfall?
Whether or not it needs to be a lower number than that of the
bridge is an unresolved question.
I disagree - surely the bridge is above the water in the ditch and so - by
your own defintion ('relative heights') it must have a higher level value?
Should I use barrier=entrance on the node where the ways overlap,
bridge=yes on the bridge (which means splitting the way for a very
short bridge), both, something else?
There shouldn't be a junction between the bridge and the
ditch, so no need to mark anything barrier=entrance. Just
mark the whole bridge bridge=yes.
Agree - but the way has to be split for the bridge=yes section.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:IMG_6784.JPG
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:IMG_6783.JPG
The path:
highway=footway
(possibly bicycle=yes)
It then meets a bridge:
highway=footway
bridge=yes
layer=1
Then another path:
highway=footway
Meanwhile, unconnected, but crossing the bridge:
waterway=drain
Not sure I'd even mark it barrier=ditch after all that. I'd
also only specify a layer for the bridge, not the ditch/drain.
Agree - enough to mark it as a stream or, if that is felt to be too 'big'
then waterway=ditch.
Also agree that the bridge, rather than the ditch, should carry the layer
tag (see my comment above). Doesn't this rather imply that the ditch has the
same layer value as the level=0 surroundings (as I suggest) rather than
level=-1 (as per your 'no harm' suggestion) - and that the bridge has a
layer value higher than 0, so presumably level=1 (as I suggest)?
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
Fair points ... If it really doesn't matter to routers and other mappers and
doesn't interfere with anything else then I am happy to accept that there is
no fully logical solution and that it shouldn't matter to me either!
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 December 2009 11:18
To: Mike Harris
Cc: openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Mike Harris
mik...@googlemail.com wrote:
Layers are only there to explain the relative heights of
things when
they meet. No harm will result from marking the ditch as layer -1.
See my separate reply - I disagree - what happens when the
level=-1
ditch runs downstream into a level=0 stream / river -
without a waterfall?
Asbolutely nothing. You're wy overthinking this, both of you.
Layers are just a hack to make stuff render. It's not like
bicycle=no or something where we're making some statement
of fact about the real world. Layers are *not* a statement of
fact. Layer=3 does not, in the absolute, mean anything
different from Layer=2.
Whether or not it needs to be a lower number than that of
the bridge
is an unresolved question.
I disagree - surely the bridge is above the water in the
ditch and so
- by your own defintion ('relative heights') it must have a
higher level value?
You're trying to apply some sort of intuition or logic to this. Don't.
It's not some logic puzzle where the layers all have to mean
something. I've worked in areas where someone, for some
reason, has tagged all the bike paths in a park as layer=1.
It didn't matter. I eventually deleted the layer tags because
they interfered with my own tagging scheme, but it was
nothing more than personal preference.
Not sure I'd even mark it barrier=ditch after all that. I'd also
only specify a layer for the bridge, not the ditch/drain.
Agree - enough to mark it as a stream or, if that is felt
to be too 'big'
then waterway=ditch.
I doublechecked the wiki, looks like barrier=ditch, waterway=drain
might be the right way to go. Belt and braces, you know.
Also agree that the bridge, rather than the ditch, should carry the
layer tag (see my comment above).
It. Really. Doesn't. Matter. :)
Say you have a stream at layer=3, and somewhere else it
crosses a big complicated bridge which for some reason
someone has tagged layer=-2.
You know what you do? You don't panic. You break the stream,
you set the new part as layer=-3, and you carry on.
Doesn't this rather imply that the ditch has the same layer
value as
the level=0 surroundings (as I suggest) rather than
level=-1 (as per your 'no harm' suggestion) - and that the
bridge has
a layer value higher than 0, so presumably level=1 (as I suggest)?
Overthinking.
I am curious to know if any routers look at layers when you
have something like a big routable area (eg,
highway=pedestrian) with barriers within it, though.
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches
Kylla .. tosi on ... I wouldn't normally put in a culvert anyway ... it was just an example ... The only trouble with letting the way and the waterway cross with no layers is that some of the validators object ... not sure how important that is ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Jukka Rahkonen [mailto:jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi] Sent: 15 December 2009 11:20 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ditches It feels sometimes ridiculous to add layer tag to ditches and roads because everybody knows that in majority of cases when road and ditch are crossing, the road is above. A very typical example is in picture: http://www.coquillewatershed.org/Project%20photos/pages/lampa- 199-culvert-03.htm There are millions of culverts like this. Are they really worth splitting the way and tagging a bridge? I do not bother myself, I just let road and waterway to cross without any layers. -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Vegetation page
... Yes, fully agreed ... (and I wasn't being terribly serious as it was getting near time to go and open a bottle of foreign wine (;) and watch a movie). Although it may sometimes be useful to supplement the internationally applicable / useful with an indication of regional / national differences where 'locals' may wish to add data to the database that might be of use for 'local' purposes ... Or where the use of the same word in one language (e.g. in British English) may have different meanings in different locations in order to assist with disambiguation. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Peter Körner [mailto:osm-li...@mazdermind.de] Sent: 02 December 2009 21:13 To: 'talk openstreetmap.org' Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Vegetation page Mike Harris schrieb: (... Not entirely seriously ...) If OSM is an international project - and IMHO it most certainly IS and should be! - then what can you possibly mean by your phrase 'foreign national'? Or are you extraterrestrial ... In which case 'welcome to planet earth' - but, as OSM is a community-drive project I am so sorry but 'we cannot take you to our leader'. My wife is only foreign when she is in England ... And I am only foreign when I am not ... Okay, okay, you're right. But maybe I get a second chance to phrase it like this: If this page is meant to give an overview, then, in a international project, it should only contain things that are useful all around the world. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Vegetation page
Excellent start to a useful bit of disambiguation. Thanks. Mike Harris _ From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 December 2009 01:10 To: Open Street Map mailing list Subject: [OSM-talk] Vegetation page I think I might write up some cross-cutting wiki pages like vegetation, pointing people in the right directions for the subtle distinctions between natural= and landuse= etc. Ok, I did it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vegetation Lots of common bush/tree words link there. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Vegetation page
(... Not entirely seriously ...) If OSM is an international project - and IMHO it most certainly IS and should be! - then what can you possibly mean by your phrase 'foreign national'? Or are you extraterrestrial ... In which case 'welcome to planet earth' - but, as OSM is a community-drive project I am so sorry but 'we cannot take you to our leader'. My wife is only foreign when she is in England ... And I am only foreign when I am not ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Peter Körner [mailto:osm-li...@mazdermind.de] Sent: 02 December 2009 18:41 To: talk openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Vegetation page Hi as an programmer my first bolean thoughts where An as a foreign national my thoughts were And I thought OSM was an international project... Ok, a couple of points need to be made here: 1) It's just a disambiguation page. It even says that the definitions aren't official. What the hell is official? This is a community driven project! 2) Your comment indicates that there is value in collecting together these definitions together in little knowledge bases to provoke discussion. 3) Yes, I think it's a dumb tag too. One of the legacies of its very English history. It would be much better off as a landuse=* tag describing it as publicly owned grass, with an amenity=* tag or something identifying it as the village green. But what can you do. We need to get a world-wide usable description for it. If we can't get one, we should mark it as deprecated. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Good routing vs legal routing (was: Path vs footwayvs cycleway vs...)
'Greenways' does have a specific meaning in England - doubtless subtly different from whatever the Canadian definition is! But they can all be covered, IMHO, by the tags usually used in England without introducing an additional one. Usually they are permissive ways for pedestrians and bicycles - usually in urban / suburban /near urban areas. Sometimes they coincide with a public right of way but they are usually additional. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Sam Vekemans [mailto:acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 December 2009 18:41 To: Steve Bennett Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Tim Hoskin; i...@tctrail.ca Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Good routing vs legal routing (was: Path vs footwayvs cycleway vs...) Hi all, just jumping in here, on my show today (if i have time) im going to talk about 'greenways' and how this concept works, and highlights a challenge for mapping. (path vs. Cycleway vs. Footway vs. Bridleway) Cheers, Sam ustream.tv/channel/acrosscanadatra tinychat.com/acrosscanada 6pm PST today On 11/30/09, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Interesting. I don't know if I agree with that or not. I certainly don't want to be involved in a project which encourages people to break the law, since encouraging people to break the law is in itself against the law where I live. If it helps you sleep better, presume that riding on a bike-prohibited footpath actually means dismounting and walking with the bike :) IMHO many places that the maps will say bikes aren't allowed will actually be grey areas. It's perfectly appropriate to leave that decision to the user, with appropriate caveats. (Pretty easy to do: the cue sheet can say Note: This section is not marked as legal for bicycles. Please respect your local laws.) Steve PS Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not some kind of biking hoon. I don't advocate riding at high speed through pedestrian-frequented areas, on footpaths etc. I'm more interested in finding places to ride that people hadn't thought of, rather than using paths that have been explicitly ruled out. -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org @Acrosscanadatrails ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
This may be too England-oriented to be generally useful but for what it is worth ... If the area of grass is a meadow or park over which there exists a large number of equivalent 'invisible' routes that could physically walked I would only use an area tag such as 'meadow' or 'park' and add 'path' for visibly walked routes. BUT ... and it is a big BUT in England and Wales ... if the area is crossed by a 'public right of way' (e.g. a 'public footpath') as defined in England and Wales then I would map the line of this (if known from acceptable sources) as highway=footway, designation=public_footpath, surface=grass, etc. whether or not the way was visible on the ground. My reasoning is (a) that it is useful and perhaps important to record the line of a way where the public has the legal right to walk and (b) that in practice many - and in some areas the majority - of public footpaths that cross pastures / fields / meadows (in particular), parkland (sometimes) and even arable / cropped land (sometimes) are not visible on the ground (even though in the case of arable land this is usually an illegal obscuration). This is so much the case that it applies quite often in my area even to named long-distance routes and to omit the segments would create unnecessary and misleading breaks in the continuity of a 'route' relationship. Just my thoughts for what they are worth .. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 30 November 2009 21:10 To: Anthony Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; m...@koppenhoefer.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes? That's how we represent infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a pedestrian mall. Not bad. But what makes that area of grass a path as opposed to just an area of grass you can walk on (e.g. landuse=meadow or something + foot=yes)? Is there a difference? I tend to think paths should be limited to elongated areas, designed for or used typically for travel (other than for large vehicles like cars), with usually a constant or slowly varying width. There's probably a better definition though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe that it is - in rural England at least ... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Anthony [mailto:o...@inbox.org] Sent: 01 December 2009 00:12 To: Roy Wallace Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; m...@koppenhoefer.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes? That's how we represent infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a pedestrian mall. Not bad. But what makes that area of grass a path as opposed to just an area of grass you can walk on (e.g. landuse=meadow or something + foot=yes)? Is there a difference? Well, I didn't know landuse tags were routable. And landuse=meadow sounds to me like a terrible tag (meadow is not a type of usage of land). But I think the key difference is that the area of land is located in a right of way. And a second key difference is that it's useful for routing purposes. I tend to think paths should be limited to elongated areas, designed for or used typically for travel (other than for large vehicles like cars), with usually a constant or slowly varying width. There's probably a better definition though. I'd say this strip of land qualifies by that definition. Length, about 80 meters. Width: about 10-15 meters. Used quite often for pedestrian travel (it's the way you get to the park, plus school children regularly walk across it on their way to/from school). The width is fairly constant. Frankly, I don't see much point in using an area, unless you're going to use an area for basically everything. I was kind of being sarcastic about that. But whatever. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
To quote from the wikipedia link I included Especially in the United Kingdom and Ireland, the term meadow is commonly used in its original sense to mean a haymeadow; grassland cut annually for hay I cannot see the difference between grassland cut annually for hay and hay production. By definition a meadow is not used for grazing (or there wouldn't be any hay) and only informally for recreation (lovers in the grass). Note the same wikipedia link defines 'pasture' where the land use is grazing. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Liz [mailto:ed...@billiau.net] Sent: 01 December 2009 09:01 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Mike Harris wrote: Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe that it is - in rural England at least ... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow meadow is a statement of what grows there landuse could be grazing or recreation or hay production ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
As an Englander who has lived, albeit briefly, in Germany I do perhaps recognise the difference between Germany and England as regards cycleways. I think - but am not certain - that Germany is relatively unusual in having a lot of cycleways that are NOT for pedestrians (foot=no) as Cartinus suggests. However, segregated cycleways are - I believe - common in both countries (and others) - i.e. there are parallel 'lanes' for cyclists and pedestrians (even if the separation / segregation is only by a painted white line - and [only in England, of course, never in Germany (;)] - often ignored by both classes of user). Rather than use something a bit complicated like highway=cycleway+footway=lane I tend to prefer the advice given in the wiki at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated which even addresses the dreaded snowmobile issue. In a more general vein the use of the designated= tag has 'solved' a number of related problems - at least for me. But long live chaos, anarchy and OSM ... (:) Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Cartinus [mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl] Sent: 30 November 2009 00:31 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... On Sunday 29 November 2009 23:10:15 Steve Bennett wrote: Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have consistency within each country? I'm not the one that leaves, but the answer would be yes. It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict. The often mentioned German paths with a white line in the middle (that separates cyclists and pedestrians) could have been done with highway=cycleway+footway=lane or something similar. That is analogous to how we treat e.g. a tertiary road with cycle lanes. etc. etc. etc. The path crowd however wanted one solution for everything and can't accept that people didn't want to redo all existing tagging. Especially not in places where it simply works. The result is that some people use path as it is designed, some people don't use path at all and other people use path for what the translated word path means in their language (often some kind of unpaved footway). -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Not to suggest that there is a 'right' or a 'wrong' approach - but merely to note that I (England mostly) - and I believe some others in England and perhaps elsewhere) have a different approach - this is, I stress, what I currently do - and has evolved as a result of my own (limited) experience in mapping and participation in various group discussions: 1. All ways that are not available other than to pedestrians are highway=footway - whether urban paved footways or rural unpaved 'footpaths'. Even a rural 'footpath' that is barely discernible where it crosses, for example, pasture, is highway=footway if it is a legal public footpath. 2. Highway=path is only used for a route - usually ill-defined and often in upland areas where the precise legal line of a public footpath is often less meaningful than the customary route (e.g. up a mountain) - in the sense that people walk it. 3. Highway=track is used similarly for something that is wider and, at least in principle, available for use by a four-wheeled (off-road e.g. a farm tractor) vehicle. 3. I would then define legal status, where known, using a designated= tag and surface condition using a combination of tracktype= and/or surface= as appropriate. I would also add ref= where the reference number of the way was known. 4. I would always add foot=yes (or at least foot=permissive) for clarity and also add bicycle ¦ horse = yes ¦ permissive ¦ no as appropriate. 5. I would reserve highway=cycleway for something that was (a) built primarily for use by bicycles - whether beside a motor road or not and was (b) (only relevant in England and Wales) not a public footpath/bridleway/byway (as these have legally defined rights for different classes of user). I would then add foot=yes (unless pedestrians were actually forbidden) for additional clarity and perhaps an indication as to whether it was a shared way for cyclists and walkers or a longitudinally divided dual use way. 6. I would use a route relation to define medium- / long-distance routes - e.g. a long-distance path or a national/regional cycleway - adding names and reference numbers to the relation. Again, I stress, this is just what I do - in the interest of transparency - and not in any way to suggest that it is better or worse than what Lesi or anyone else has adopted. This is OSM - the ultimate popular democracy! Have fun mapping! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Lesi [mailto:l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net] Sent: 28 November 2009 14:29 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest drawbacks of OSM. Here's my approach: - A footway is a mostly paved way in a city. It's a way which was mostly built by an authority. You can walk on it safely in high heels. - A path is a narrow way, which is mostly not paved and was not built by somebody. This can be short cuts in cities, ways in a forest which are to narrow to be tagged as tracks or hiking trails in the mountains. If it's raining you could get dirty shoes. You can indicate that the path is (not) suitable for bikes with bicycle=yes/no. You can ride with your bike everywhere in my area, so I do not use cycleway. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Btw - no need for highway=grass, why not use highway=path (or =footway, see previous message) + surface=grass (which seems well-established). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Anthony [mailto:o...@inbox.org] Sent: 29 November 2009 04:30 To: Roy Wallace Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag an area of grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would help routing. Analogy: 1) Just because you sit on something, that doesn't make it a chair; 2) Just because you want others to be recommended to sit on it, that doesn't make it a chair. Bad analogy. If I look in a dictionary under chair, there is no definition which says a thing that is sat upon. But if I look under path, there is a definition which says a route, course, or track along which something moves. A path, IMHO, is something that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e. usually you can *see* that it resembles a path). Usually, or always? Um... so the question is, if you can't see a path, can it still be a path? No, my question was whether you really meant to use the word usually. Answer: No, because otherwise your mapping is not verifiable: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability. The fact that an area of land is within a legally defined right of way is verifiable. The fact that it is suitable for travel is verifiable. The fact that people use it for travel is verifiable. I suppose in that sense I can *see* that it resembles a path. Oh, and if you like highway=grass, use that! I like highway=path. More general. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Steve This is a big topic that has been very extensively discussed in this group (and elsewhere). There is quite a range of opinion and, perhaps inevitably, to some extent the opinions reflect (a) whether mappers see themselves primarily as walkers, cyclists or ... mappers! and (b) the geographical location of the mapper. The UK (or at least England and Wales) has developed a quite sophisticated system based around the local legislation on public rights of way - but, given your reference to Albert Park, you will probably want to stand this on its head (:). There are quite a lot of tags to look at: Highway= Surface= Tracktype= Foot ¦ Bicycle ¦ Motorcar = yes ¦ permissive ¦ no Designated = I wont bore you with my own practice (and this will perhaps avoid starting up once more one of the long discussions we've had) beyond saying that I would recommend that you avoid the use of highway=path except for very ill-defined and unofficial paths (in your own words an unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass) and give preference to highway=footway ¦ track ¦ cycleway. Given the controversies over the relative rights and priorities for different classes of user (e.g. foot ¦ bicycle ¦ horse) and the large regional differences between what is or is not permitted on different classes of way (ranging from everyman's right to wander as in Germany and most Nordic countries) to the strictly legalistic public rights of way system in England where there is only a legal right where this is recorded and defined) I would suggest that useful general guidelines are: - record what is there on the ground by observation of state or signage. - do not tag to make the maps render nicely - the renderers will eventually catch up with what mappers do. - add legal rights where you are sure about them e.g. by using the designation= tag. - be as explicit as possible as to what class of user may be able to use the way (whether in practice or by right) as this will help clarify where one person might call something a 'footway' and another a 'cycleway' - something like foot=yes, bicycle=permissive is at least fairly explicit. Before I get flamed - these are only my ideas and others may well differ - but I've tried to keep it general as to practice and geography ... Give my regards to Melbourne! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com] Sent: 28 November 2009 08:24 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... Hi all, (Apologies if this is the wrong list - still getting my head around them all. Or this has been discussed extensively, please point me at it)... I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway, and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch describes path as unofficial path - making it sound like an unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass. Could someone give me guidance on a few specific scenarios: 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too. Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them highway=path, bicycle=yes (to be safe). 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved, and connecting streets together. 3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways. Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people think of them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too. highway=cycleway, foot=yes seems the most satisfying, but according to the definition, it should just be a path? I tend to assume it's a cycleway if the gap between two entrances ever exceeds a kilometre or so... 4) In Albert Park (home of the grand prix) near me, there are lots of sealed paths that are wide enough for a car. They're normally blocked off, and used mainly by contractors before and after the grand prix. The rest of the time, they're used by pedestrians and cyclists. I had marked them highway=unclassified but now I think highway=track surface=paved would be better? 5) Non-existent paths, but places where access is possible. For example, a bike path passes close to the end of a cul-de-sac. There's no actual paved or dirt path, but a cyclist could easily cross a metre or two of grass (possibly dismounting). It seems crucial for routing to make connections here. So I've been adding highway=path. Is there a better tag? 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most people wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the division of responsibility for correctly handling bike routing lies, between the OSM data, and the routing software. Is there any software smart enough to give options like how far are you willing to push the bike or are you willing to cut across grass? etc. An example
Re: [OSM-talk] positioning of barrier = stile
I always put stiles and gates offset from any vehicular highway just near the beginning of the relevant pedestrian way - even if this means creating a stub for the pedestrian way where this has yet to be surveyed (and then the stub also serves as a reminder to go back and do the additional mapping!). The problems with placing the barrier on the vehicular highway or at the intersection node are clear! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Lennard [mailto:l...@xs4all.nl] Sent: 15 November 2009 16:30 To: Talk OSM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] positioning of barrier = stile David Groom wrote: I have been doing the former, but it appears this might stop routing applications allowing a car to travel from c - d as the barrier = stile blocks the road to vehicle transport, and so the second tagging option might be better. It seems you already answered your own question. Having the node with the barrier in the c-d road would make it also be a stile that is blocking travel in that road. I've used your 2nd tagging, with the node with the stile a small distance away from the connecting road. -- Lennard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails
I always use layer= , even when there is only a single bridge. It avoids problems with the validator and - crucially - makes it clear that the two crossing ways do not have access to each other. (It also improves rendering but I probably shouldn't mention that or I'll get flamed!). Example - common in my area: If a hiking trail crosses over a canal (and its towpath) by a bridge then bridge=yes and layer=1 makes it clear that the canal and the trail are at two different vertical levels and that you cannot get from the trail to the towpath of the canal. If there is a ramp or steps from the hiking trail to give access to the towpath this can then be added as a separate way in the appropriate place. There is a theoretical dilemma as to what layer to give the ramp but I usually default to level=0 unless there is a special complexity at a particular junction that needs more explicit layering. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] Sent: 25 November 2009 21:58 Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge on Hiking Trails Shaun McDonald wrote: on the way use highway=footway; bridge=yes; layer=1. I didn't think the layer=1 was necessary when there's only one bridge - it defaults to display above other objects. I only use in there a multiple bridges crossing each other. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging for Seasonal/Dry Streams
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_bodies Mike Harris _ From: Dan Homerick [mailto:danhomer...@gmail.com] Sent: 25 November 2009 23:16 To: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging for Seasonal/Dry Streams On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Scott Atwood scott.roy.atw...@gmail.com wrote: I'm currently doing mapping for the island of Maui in Hawai'i. The leeward side of this island has a large number of streams that are dry nearly all the time, only containing water during periods of heavy rain. On maps, these streams are often depicted as dashed or dotted blue lines. Is there any existing tagging convention for such seasonal or dry streams? A typical example of such a dry stream can be seen in the satellite images at this location: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=20.62645 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=20.62645lon=-156.20935zoom=17layers=B0 00FTF lon=-156.20935zoom=17layers=B000FTF -Scott I used an 'intermittent=yes' tag for a county-wide import I did. I remember it as being an official tag, but when I can't find the documentation now, so it's likely that I am simply misremembering. There isn't support for the tag from Mapnik or Osmarender, so if there's another tag that does have render support, I'd like to know too. - Dan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] alley - for tree-lined roads?
Having lived in England, America and Germany ...
In British English and avenue is usually used for a road (or sometimes another
way - e.g. in a park) that is lined with trees.
I agree with John's definition of the American English usage.
In German I agree with Robert that alley is a mistranslation ('false friend')
for Allee, which I would normally translate into (British) English as
avenue - just as I would puistotie from Finnish (which is a more
descriptive term anyway - 'park road').
To confuse matters further, my feeling is that in French the word allée can
be translated - according to context - into the British English avenue, the
American English avenue or the English alley!
Not quite sure about Chinese or Arabic (:)
I don't especially like tree-lined - but at least it says what it means and
avoids the linguistic mess!
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: John F. Eldredge [mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com]
Sent: 03 November 2009 13:40
To: Open Street Map mailing list
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] alley - for tree-lined roads?
Speaking as a non-German, I find tree-lined more specific.
In American usage, avenue is just a synonym for street or
road, with no connotation of tree-lined or not tree-lined.
An alley in American usage is a narrow service road,
generally only one lane wide, used for low-speed access to
the side or back of properties. It is distinguished from a
driveway in that a driveway is on private land and generally
gives access to just one property; an alley is on public
property and generally gives access to multiple properties.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is
better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria
-Original Message-
From: Robert rop...@online.de
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:54:32
To: Talk Openstreetmaptalk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] [tagging] alley - for tree-lined roads?
Hello,
We are discussing in talk-de (German board) just streets and
other ways with many trees nearby.
I found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/tree_row
alley=left/right/both
I think the tag “alley” is a mistranslation (false friends)
and 1. avenue or 2. tree-lined road is better for roads
marked by trees.
The tag alley is already used for highway=service;
service=alley for narrow ways.
I think the second version “tree-lined” or ”tree_lined” is
better than “avenue”.
With this key we can use it for other lines of trees, for
example near railways, rivers and so on.
At the moment this tag is probably only mainly used in Germany:
http://osmdoc.com/de/tag/alley/#values
comparison: http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Germany/De/tags.html
key alley with values: both (251), right (27), left (26), yes (8)
My questions:
Would we like to change this tag?
Robert
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Why not (a) convert the GPX layer to a data layer and then (b) use the simplify way tool from the JOSM plugin? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 November 2009 06:57 To: Shalabh Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM 2009/11/2 Shalabh shalab...@gmail.com: I will leave this open to discussion but I thought it better to bring this to everybody's notice, so JOSM can be made more user friendly. You can already convert a GPX layer to a OSM layer and then upload the results, just right click on the layer, however it can be very tedious to remove points if they are once a second and all points are imported etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE Maps Key
Power line with pylons. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] Sent: 11 October 2009 14:57 To: OSM Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] NPE Maps Key Hi I suppose this FAO of Richard F. Do you have a key for these maps? I've a continuous line on the map which has little chevron marks on alternate sides. What does that represent? Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Thanks to those who responded to this thread. Advice gratefully received. There seems to be a clear majority preference for option (b) - the more detailed approach that avoids superimposing boundaries of areas (and their nodes) on an adjacent way (and its nodes). I fully understand the two caveats: 1. It is only worth being precise if there is precise data available. 2. There are a few exceptions where, for example, the character of the adjacent area has access features more like that of a normal linear way - the pedestrian area is a good example. I am persuaded that the advantages of forward compatibility and a higher standard of mapping justify my small efforts (where I have good GPS data) in separating out superimposed areas/ways and using option (b). I am particularly pleased to receive support for splitting single large landuse areas (e.g. =residential or =farm) that cross large numbers of ways. It is a minor irritant and I didn't want to do the work - or mess with other people's mapping - without a bit of a 'reality check' with more experienced folk in the community. Thanks again Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 05 October 2009 15:52 To: Marc Schütz Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways 2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: 2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until someone with better information (like having aerial photography) remaps it as b) Yes, this is basically what I wanted to say. Leave it to the mappers whether they want to use a way or an area for a road. it will be much harder to add this detail, if all areas are merged though. Not really. JOSM supports disconnecting ways since a long time now. But anyway: doing things wrong just to make editing easier is not a good thing. +1. That's why adjacent landuses (see topic) shouldn't be extented to the center of the road. But with option (b) and a linear way you would have a gap next to the road. In the case of landuse, this is not a problem in practice, but if there is a place, there you need to insert artificial ways that are not there in reality, just to get the connectivity between the two objects: http://osm.org/go/0JUKytHID-- which objects are you referring to? parkings usually have those ways (for crossing the sidewalk) so they won't be artificial, and pedestrian areas are the exception I mentioned above. Look at the google sat image: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=degeocode=q=bayreuths ll=37.0625,-95.677068sspn=59.856937,107.138672ie=UTF8hq=hnear=Bayr euth,+Bayern,+Deutschlandll=49.946316,11.577148spn=0.000754,0.001635 t=kz=20 That's the mentioned pedestrian area. I agree with you here. Mapping it the way it is done there does not really make sense: Either the exact geometry is important for you, then you should convert both the plaza and the road to areas. Or it isn't, but then there shouldn't be a problem with extending the plaza so that it borders to the road. +1. but that's still pedestrian areas / highway areas. In these cases the areas _do_ connect to the road. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Chris Despite the well-argued views of a minority, I am persuaded by the equally well-argued views of the (considerable) majority who favour option (b). That is not to say that there isn't room for using a bit of common sense! I wouldn't divide up Delamere Forest into individual areas bounded by paths etc. - the paths in a sense form part of the forest landuse - but I would probably divide a residential area with, say, a major road going through it and would certainly divide landuse=farm either side of a road, for example, if I knew that it was a different farm on either side. Like everything else in OSM, it all a question of judgement! I asked the original question from a neutral standpoint but - in the light of the responses have now developed a preference for option (b) - with exceptions. Of course, nothing is ever final ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Chris Morley [mailto:c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk] Sent: 06 October 2009 15:46 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways Mike Harris wrote: Thanks to those who responded to this thread. Advice gratefully received. There seems to be a clear majority preference for option (b) - the more detailed approach that avoids superimposing boundaries of areas (and their nodes) on an adjacent way (and its nodes). I fully understand the two caveats: 1. It is only worth being precise if there is precise data available. 2. There are a few exceptions where, for example, the character of the adjacent area has access features more like that of a normal linear way - the pedestrian area is a good example. I am persuaded that the advantages of forward compatibility and a higher standard of mapping justify my small efforts (where I have good GPS data) in separating out superimposed areas/ways and using option (b). I am particularly pleased to receive support for splitting single large landuse areas (e.g. =residential or =farm) that cross large numbers of ways. Let me encourage you to use option a), based on the reasoning of Frederik Ramm. In detailed mapping, everything is an area way which share nodes with its adjacent areas. When roads etc. are linear features, it means they have *indeterminate* width and the only non-arbitrary representation of this in an editor is for the width to be zero, with adjacent areas on both sides sharing the nodes - option a). This makes it consistent with the detailed modelling approach. I would look at the linear road etc. as being, not a centre-line, but an indeterminately wide structure comprising the road surface, sidewalks, verges etc. up to a boundary (which in the British countryside would often be a hedge.) By mapping with option a) you are saying that the golf course, say, comes up to the road's boundary hedge but that you haven't specified exactly where that is. If you do know, you are into a detailed mapping approach. If a linear road is still used then it would now be interpreted as a centre-line, as is sometimes done with rivers. Since I map in the same are as you, I suspect that in most cases you do not have enough information to use the detailed mapping approach. Even with arial photography we have available, poor resolution and interference from tree cover and shadows often does not allow the separation between the hedges to be very reliable. Editor support for ways sharing nodes is certainly poor, but as with inadequate renderers, we should improve them rather than adding artificial data (arbitrarily positioned structures) into the database. Landuse areas which cross a large number of ways are very common. Surely you don't intend to divide say, Delamere Forest, into a large number of separated areas separated by the paths and tracks? When you do need to do it, separating an area into two at a road is certainly laborious and maybe somebody should build a JOSM plugin to do it. Chris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 05 October 2009 15:52 To: Marc Schütz Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways 2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: 2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until someone with better information (like having aerial photography) remaps it as b) Yes, this is basically what I wanted to say. Leave it to the mappers whether they want to use a way or an area for a road. it will be much harder to add this detail, if all areas are merged though. Not really. JOSM supports disconnecting ways since a long time now. But anyway: doing things wrong just to make editing easier is not a good thing. +1. That's why adjacent landuses (see topic) shouldn't be extented to the center of the road
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Yes - I think Anthony makes the case very well and gives a clearer response to Chris than I did! I think the distinction between landuse=forest (where the tracks - and even roads - are normally regarded as part of the forest) and some of the other landuse= is sensible. I also agree that there is a different set of criteria that apply between the abutment and the cut-across cases. As for a new landuse=road_something, that seems helpful for micro-mapping, especially in urban areas. I would counsel against using landuse=right_of_way, however, because the term right of way has specific legal implications in some jurisdictions and might not apply in all cases (e.g. a private or unadopted residential road). In the UK, at least, the highway in law usually extends for the whole area between the adjacent land areas - i.e. it includes the carriageway upon which vehicles travel as well as the verges, which might be grass, dirt, paved footways (with or without cycleways), etc. Thus this area would normally completely fill the real-world 'gap' between adjacent landuse areas, e.g landuse=residential, commercial, farm, forest, etc. [Chris: a nice rural example near you would be the several green lanes in and around Great Barrow; some are private and others are footpaths, bridleways or even restricted byways. Most of the area was owned by the Marquess of Cholmondeley but when he sold most of it to individual farming landowners in 1919 he retained ownership of many of the green lanes - and to the best of my knowledge he is still the landowner of these between the fences/hedges that separate them on either side from the adjacent farmland.] This suggests that the area tag might even be landuse=highway! Mike Harris _ From: Anthony [mailto:o...@inbox.org] Sent: 06 October 2009 17:30 To: John Smith; c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet it (not at intersections, though). There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding property boundaries. I'm quite aware of that, and that's why I think there should be a landuse=right_of_way, completely separate from the highway. I wonder, how do others define highway, if not as a path of travel? It contains such things as roads, sidewalks, and dirt paths, and presumably also includes paths of travel which are completely unbuilt (the unpaved grass on the side of the road gets a highway tag, right?). landuse=road_reserve ? I'm not sure they're always used for roads, but good enough! I'm planning on implementing this, probably in the next few weeks (though it may be a few months, and I may have a small scale run within a week or two). Should I use landuse=road_reserve, landuse=right_of_way, or not bother tagging those areas at all? On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chris Morley c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk wrote: Landuse areas which cross a large number of ways are very common. Surely you don't intend to divide say, Delamere Forest, into a large number of separated areas separated by the paths and tracks? In that case, you shouldn't, because the paths and tracks are part of the forest. Likewise, you wouldn't split the landuse at a service highway which goes through a landuse=commercial. But that's not an example of landuse abutting a highway, it's an example of a highway cutting through a landuse. Landuse and highway are really independent concepts, aren't they? The main counterexample where you *would* have a landuse abutting a highway is in the case of pedestrian areas, which are tagged as highway in addition to being tagged as landuse, right? Whether or not a highway should cut through a landuse=residential or landuse=farm is probably jurisdiction dependent. Where I live there are specific areas of land set aside for roads and other specific areas of land set aside for houses. Seems to me like a clear case for separate landuse areas, no? If you don't have the data to separate out the two, that's fine. I don't mind highway ways cutting through landuse areas so much. But that's not the same as using the highway way as the border to your landuse area. The only way I can see doing that is when the landuse area is *also* a highway area. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Why not - it seems as good as any other idea - of course someone is going to object (;) but ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: dipie...@gmail.com [mailto:dipie...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: 06 October 2009 19:03 To: Mike Harris Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote: This suggests that the area tag might even be landuse=highway! Hey, I could go for that. I've already clearly separated the meaning of the term highway when dealing with OSM from the meaning of the term highway that I'd use in non-OSM situations. landuse=highway an area of land set aside for public use in transportation Should I add it to the wiki as a proposal? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
I'm seeking advice as to best practice in the following type of situation: As an increasingly common example, now that people are getting around to mapping areas such as leisure=, natural= and landuse= ... Consider the case of landuse=farm on one side of a highway (say a secondary road) and leisure=golf_course on the other side of the highway. The easiest way to map this - and the one usually adopted it seems - is to make the boundaries of the farm and the golf course both coterminous with the highway so that the three lines are superimposed in the editors (not quite sure how the various renderers handle this) and the representation of the highway has zero width. There are, however, potential problems with this (quite apart from the slightly clumsy editing when several ways are superimposed) where detailed mapping would ideally show that in real life the golf course and the farm do not in fact have a common boundary but both are, for example, separated by hedges (which may or may not be mapped) from the road. It is clearly possible to map the farm and the golf course as separated areas with the road mapped as a line drawn between them - i.e. the mapping has three separate parallel lines. This assists with mapping more clearly features such as junctions of paths with the road (and stiles on paths at such junctions). But is this unduly messy or does it create rendering issues (e.g. if the lines are not absolutely parallel and just far enough apart to render with random gaps between, say, the golf course and the road. The situation is even trickier where, say, a farm has been mapped as a single area (same land use) with, say, a road crossing it - whereas in practice, this is two separate farms - one on each side of the road - that may at some stage need to be named separately. Then we have to go back and split the area, etc. This seems to be a quite a generic issue and I am wondering how people see the pros and cons of (a) the simple approach with coterminous lines giving a notional zero width to the highway, vs. (b) the more precise approach of mapping the areas either side of the highway as areas that are separate both from each other and from the highway. In practice, almost all mapping seems to use approach (a) - but would approach (b) be easier for subsequent editing and addition of detail, and rather clearer as it avoids superimposed ways and potential editing errors? Views? Mike Harris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shop=groceries?
I would agree that it is completely wrong to change =groceries to =greengrocer. It would be nice if farlokko would revert these changes except where (s)he knows that only fruit and vegetables are sold. The descriptions given by Martin are also correct in the UK. I tend to use =convenience, as it is there on the wiki, but can see value in rehabilitating =grocer (perhaps rather than =groceries for consistency with =greengrocer) for small or specialist food stores that do not sell non-food items. Although grocery stores are disappearing in the UK and US and being replaced by more generalised convenience stores, they are still very much present in the more cultured countries of the European continent (e.g. France - épicerie, and I'm glad to learn that CZ is another of them!). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: MP [mailto:singular...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 October 2009 22:07 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] shop=groceries? I notices few days ago user farlokko changed many shop=groceries into shop=greengrocer worldwide. The changeset is http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2562959 I think this change is wrong, at least for most nodes in czech republic - I know about nodes that I've added and only small part (perhaps one out of ten) of them are actually greengrocers, according to my knowledge. Most of them are ordinary grocery stores. Some of them even have no or very little selection of fruit and vegetables. The greengrocer is shop that sells fruits and vegetables (in czech language usually called Ovoce a zelenina) and no other type of food - according to what is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dgreengrocer and what would the name suggest. The groceries (I found shop=groceries at rejected features, though it was widely used, JOSM has it in presets, etc ..) should be used for shops selling general food (not only fruit and vegetables), but that do not sell anything other than food (like shop=convenience) and are small (so shop=supermarked won't fit to them) - at least this is what I think. In czech these are called Potraviny, or Večerka if they have closing time very late in night. So the question is how to tag shops selling only food that are small? Should shop=groceries be used (and perhaps somehow added to map features or proposed features, or some other tag should be used? And should that changeset that converted shop=groceries into shop=greengrocer be reverted? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
Not sure I entirely agree ... 1. Many of the public rights of way drawn on OS maps - especially in upland areas - are approximations done by someone sitting at a desk - so the GPS work on the ground is invaluable. Even the lines on the definitive maps are often approximations drawn by a desk worker with a ruler rather than by someone in the field. 2. Having said that, the line in the definitive statement (and the definitive map if not contradictory to the statement) is usually the legal right of way (until altered by a DMMO) - even if it's nuts. 3. Wouldn't have so much faith in landowners - many of them don't really know where the rights of way lie until there is an issue (so many problems arise from sloppy conveyancing survey practices and people tend to believe their solicitors (;). The Highway Authority holds the definitive map and statement. Both are open on request to public inspection and are authoritative - whatever the landowner may say! (again - even if nuts!). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) [mailto:ajrli...@googlemail.com] Sent: 30 September 2009 09:52 To: 'Dave F.' Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries Dave F. wrote: Sent: 24 September 2009 6:36 PM Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries Mike Harris wrote: Dave makes a good point - the most important thing for walkers in farmed rural areas is often to know on which side of the hedge / fence they ought to be. OS 1:25k is fairly useless for this as the difference between one side of the hedge and the other is usually less than the registration error between the OS overlays for public rights of way and the base map! Larger scale OS does not afaik show public rights of way as such - just 'paths' and 'tracks'. So OSM can offer something here. I will try to record fence / hedge stubs more often - especially when I note that they do not agree with OS mapping! Mike Harris I've always been disappointed with the quality of the OD 1:25k. These are now all digitally stored yet the printed versions look like they've been drawn with swan quills. I've never understood why they used thicker linestyles to represent paths than the 1:50k's . It just blocks out detail underneath it. Many a time I have descended from the fells using OS 1:25k and compass only to find the bearing was wrong because the footpath on the OS map has been poorly drawn. And this situation is unlikely to change because the OS has no surveying capacity to update this aspect of their mapping and it's not something that can always be reliably adjusted from aerial photography. You will generally find that the older 1:25k maps are better than current day ones. Although the old maps don't have public rights of way they do show many of the footpaths that later became public rights of way. On the old maps they are drawn more finely so its much easier to see where they were originally surveyed [1]. May help in some cases work out where a path goes when its not clear on the ground although the best way to address that issue is by asking the landowner. They normally now precisely and are probably a better source of info than the local authority. Having said that there are still paths on the old maps that appear to be drawn on a boundary rather than to one side of it. [1] for an example see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/a/a9/Portland_snip001.png (bottom half of image) Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
... Are you sure about the spelling of ... fork off American ... - doesn't sound quite right but perhaps it's just my mid-Atlantic accent? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Sent: 29 September 2009 02:16 To: Russ Nelson Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Richard Fairhurst Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? 2009/9/29 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com: Richard Fairhurst writes: Nick Whitelegg wrote: One council (West Sussex) referred to its data as public domain when I last looked. I'd guess that's the same for all councils. Bear in mind that public domain meaning free of copyright is a US term. The traditional UK meaning is quite different. Lawds, I wish the English could speak English. Who decided it would be a good idea to fork off American into a whole 'nother language? Actually American english is behind the times, it's an older form that never kept up with the rest of the world :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - landuse=orchard
... Not a farmer but a country boy ... my ha'porth ... Orchards (including olive groves etc.) seem sufficiently distinct (and permanent - not rotated) to justify a tag of their own. Same might apply e.g. to vineyards. Some plantations e.g. bananas, oil palm also seem semi-permanent given the life-span of the crop plants. Arable land (which is normally under rotation between plough, various crops, hay, rice, flax, resting non-permanent grassland) is fairly distinct - but the individual crops would probably be too ephemeral. Pastoral land - semi-permanent grassland for cattle and similar livestock - is also fairly distinct and characteristic e.g. of much of the dairy farming countryside around here. Permanent non-cultivated grassland - e.g. natural meadows, uncropped marshland meadows, alpine meadows might be another category. Would it be fairly simple then to go along the lines of: Landuse=agricultural vs. Landuse=grassland And for the former: Agriculture=arable / pastoral / orchard / plantation Maybe a fairly limited number of tags would cope - or am I being too limited geographically to be useful? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Peter Childs [mailto:pchi...@bcs.org] Sent: 29 September 2009 11:24 Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - landuse=orchard 2009/9/29 Claudius claudiu...@gmx.de: Am 28.09.2009 20:40, Pieren: Hi all, This is not my proposal but this tag is used by the Corine Land Cover current import in France corresponding to the class 2.2.2 of this european program (Agricultural areas - Permanent crops - Fruit trees and berry plantations). I would like to push this for improvements and a proper adoption. Please check the proposal and add your comments here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/orchard Pieren I'd rather like to see this merged into some more generic landuse=agricultural tagging-scheme. Which would cover general farmland (currently tagged as landuse=farmland) as well. Any farmer within the OSM crowd that could lend her/his expertise? Claudius Not being a Farmer I'm not 100% sure but I think we need to split up how a feed is used. ie Ploughed Field, Changed Every Year. Grass for grazing animals Orchard, permanent or semi-permanent trees/bushes While some farmers may rotate there land, partally with Orchards this is not as likely as with grassland and ploughed Fields Just my 2pence worth. Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
... Except from definitive maps based on OS mapping that is more than 50 years old (see my earlier message) - and I suspect that quite a lot of it is. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] Sent: 28 September 2009 14:23 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? Bear in mind that public domain meaning free of copyright is a US term. The traditional UK meaning is quite different. In the UK, if you say the map is now in the public domain, that means that the map is now available to the public - i.e. it's not solely an internal publication. It does not have any implications about copyright. Indeed, the map may well still be copyrighted. Coincidentally I have just had a meeting with someone from one of the local councils who is interested in using OSM data for their online services. I brought up this issue and he explicitly said that the coordinates of the footpaths on the definitive map were derived from Ordnance Survey data. So this seems to be a definitive statement that you can't copy courses of paths from definitive maps. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
... At least I don't spend all my time on OSM - sometimes I'm one of those guys who puts the waymarks in place (sometimes after walking down the wrong side of the hedge because the by OS 1:25k has a registration error (or is just plain wrong!). I do always try to orient the waymark with enough exaggeration to indicate which side of the hedge is going to work! (Straight ahead is not much use if it points along the hedge!). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] Sent: 25 September 2009 10:43 To: Dave F. Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries I believe Andy R is. Field boundaries would also be a great help in the 3D navigation stuff I'm working on. I think most people who map the countryside do map gates and stiles btw. Nick We do, I know, because I'm one of them ;-) but sometimes that's not quite enough. I had a path that ran parallel to a hedge but there was no clear indication which side it was on either on the ground or the OS 1:25k. Just to check, and apologies if I'm telling you the complete obvious: make sure that the OS 1:25000 map is not the only evidence you have of which side of the hedge the path goes. Make sure there's some evidence on the ground as well e.g. a way marker. Otherwise if you use that to decide where the path goes it's probably breach of copyright. I went down the wrong side had to double back. It's happened to me before where a way marker tells me I went wrong at the other end. I think I've doubled back once or twice but sometimes haven't bothered because the difference between one side and the other is less than the GPS resolution. It would be more important in these cases to note where the hedge is with respect to the correct course of the path. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
I do not work FOR a Highway Authority but I do work very closely WITH one. My HA's view is much as Dave F reports - there is no copyright for the rights of way (we the great unwashed public own them) and the data on definitive maps and their electronic equivalents held or published by the HA is free to use BUT the HA licenses the base mapping from the OS so we have to be careful not to use that even in a derivative fashion. My practical interpretation of this is that we still have to do the work on the ground with GPS etc. to find where a path IS on the surface of the planet - but we are free to add tags for its legal status, reference number etc. as this is public domain material. In practice there are lots of errors in the OS mapping for rights of way (and not merely Easter Eggs) and there is no substitute for doing the mapping itself the hard way with the trusty handheld GPS and a pair of muddy boots! It is indeed the HA who provide the PRoW data to the OS - who - some time in the following decade or so - might get round to putting it onto their maps. (I have examples around here where changes properly notified to the OS are still missing after 10 years). So as long as the phrase data of the paths means their status, numbering etc. but not their position or shape on the ground then we should be in the clear according to my contacts (some of whom are HA lawyers). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] Sent: 25 September 2009 13:16 To: OSM Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? This is a continuation of the thread [OSM-talk] Field boundaries, specifically the message on the 25th at 10:42 I started a new one because it would stray from the original topic. Nick Whitelegg wrote: Just to check, and apologies if I'm telling you the complete obvious: make sure that the OS 1:25000 map is not the only evidence you have of which side of the hedge the path goes. Make sure there's some evidence on the ground as well e.g. a way marker. Otherwise if you use that to decide where the path goes it's probably breach of copyright. Hi Nick You bring up a point that I think needs expanding on for clarification. I decide where I'm going to go for a walk by looking at a combination of my OS and OSM maps. I look for /indications /of rights of way on my OS map. Initially this is the only evidence I have. If I see it's not indicated in OSM I go walk it. I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one who does this. Is this a breach of copyright? On a second related point: Who has the copyright for the rights of way information? My understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's not OS. I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a copy of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way onto their own maps. He provided me with a map that the council created of legally recorded public rights of way for the city, again intimated that I was free to copy the data of the paths to OSM. Is he correct? I'm aware he put a couple of caveats in the message such as I suspect I would imagine. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
If your HA supplies you with a copy of e.g. the definitive map (physical or electronic) you will almost certainly find that it is watermarked with their logo (and possibly with an OS licence statement). So I don't think we can use the base mapping but we can use the information about the rights of way. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Sent: 25 September 2009 13:29 To: Dave F. Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? 2009/9/25 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: Is this a breach of copyright? I've already been in a similar discussion about using google maps to plan routes, some suggest this is breach of copyright, but then anyone using a map for any reason would be in breach of copyright so I doubt this is true, copying from a map directly is different than just using a map to work out where you plan to go. I'm aware he put a couple of caveats in the message such as I suspect I would imagine. I have no idea and I'm not a lawyer but I suspect OS has a right to publish and copying from their maps would be in breach of copyright, getting a copy from the local council on the other hand with permission to copy would be a different matter. What matters most is what you copied from, GPS trace or someone else's map, I would genuinely be surprised if you could be in breach of copyright for just looking at a map or using information for journey planning based on a map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Dave I don't think you can transfer the paths from the definitive map - they get there by being a GIS layer superimposed on and rectified to the OS base mapping even though they may have been separately surveyed (which I rather doubt). The dates of most original definitive maps are such that GPS did not exist and they were drawn by clerks onto OS base mapping on the basis of written descriptions in surveyors' notebooks etc. Again _ I think you are free to use the reference numbers and status descriptions from the definitive map but not the path traces. If I am wrong I have been wasting my time walking a 1000 km a year along rights of way with a GPS in my sticky little hand! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] Sent: 25 September 2009 14:30 To: Tom Hughes Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? Tom Hughes wrote: On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote: I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a copy of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way onto their own maps. In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the council has referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right of way. If they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and infected by their copyright etc. Tom The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce the definitive maps. It would come down to what you, I, council OS mean by 'define' I suppose. This is the copyright at the bottom: Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Note it says 'reproduced' not produced. Not sure if that is significant or not. If I was to transfer the paths, I wouldn't be copying the OS underlay map just the ways of the path. Does that make a difference? Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
There may be a misunderstanding here - the Definitive Map is a legal document and was (in almost all cases produced a long time ago - interesting thought in passing - if it is 50 years old would it be out of copyright! The initiating legislation is the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 so some could be almost that old). Almost all Definitive Maps are years earlier than GPS. The nice men from the council with cheap yellow GPS units (they can't usually afford good ones) are surveying the paths with respect to the definitive map to build a database on path condition to assist their statutory duties of maintenance etc. and to cover their backsides in case of legal action against them e.g if someone gets hurt on a path - this wonderful litigious modern world! Very few Councils indeed (exceptions may be one or two major cities who were initially exempt) are still producing definitive maps - just amending them from time to time in respect of a particular path. Mike Harris _ From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] Sent: 25 September 2009 15:16 Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? Tom Hughes wrote: On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote: The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce the definitive maps. Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was gathered from first principles like that? If it was then it is a very unusual bit of local council mapping as they are not generally that scrupulously careful... Well... not every detail, no, but there was a report in the local newspaper: Two surveyors will be walking virtually every one of the 560 miles of footpath in the area. And also in the Council produced pamphlet where two people were shown holding their very nice big yellow GPS units. Isn't every council having to do the same to produce their Definitive Maps? The reason of course is that they have a license to do what they like with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether they derive things from it (well at least until they try and overlay that data on a google map and get nastygrams from the OS). Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Jon makes a good point about the Definitive Statement - at least in principle - indeed it is the process I described in an earlier message to this thread describing how the Definitive Maps were originally created. There is a big 'but' though - from my own experience the Definitive Statements are almost or completely empty for hundreds of paths - sometimes not a single path in a parish has a meaningful Definitive Statement! This is an illegal state of affairs but that is simply the case and cannot now be changed (other than by a Definitive Map Modification Order - of which, with current resources, you are unlikely to see more than a few dozen (at most) per year per county. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Jon Stockill [mailto:li...@stockill.net] Sent: 25 September 2009 15:54 To: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? Tom Hughes wrote: On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote: The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce the definitive maps. Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was gathered from first principles like that? If it was then it is a very unusual bit of local council mapping as they are not generally that scrupulously careful... The reason of course is that they have a license to do what they like with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether they derive things from it (well at least until they try and overlay that data on a google map and get nastygrams from the OS). The simplest solution would be to work from the definitive statement, rather than the definitive map, except where the statement includes OS grid references. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Lucky you - I have never seen a Definitive Statement that is that detailed - in fact it is not a Definitive Statement (upon which the original Definitive Map will have been based)! It is the text of a Definitive Map Modification Order making a specific amendment to a specific path or paths (in this case footpaths 6 and 26 in the parish of Dullingham). The DS is likely to be decades old - a DMMO is current. The second issue is that the text uses OS GRs throughout - so what is the status as a derivative work? Mike Harris _ From: Barnett, Phillip [mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk] Sent: 25 September 2009 18:24 To: 'Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)'; 'Dave F.' Cc: 'OSM Talk' Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? +1 The 'definitive statement' is the only thing from the local authority that we can really use, but that is surprisingly detailed. Here's an example of a path modification in Cambridgeshire The above Order made on 30 May 2006, if confirmed as made, will modify the Definitive Map and Statement for the area by adding to them two public footpaths. The first (No. 26) starts on the southern side of Stetchworth Road, passes through a field gate at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference TL6340 5783 (point A) and runs as a grassed path in a southerly direction on the eastern side of a mature hedge for approximately 283m to OS GR TL6344 5755 (point B), then turns to run in a westerly direction for approximately 220m as a grassed path on the southern side of a ditch and hedge to join Public Footpath No.6, Dullingham through a field gate at OS GR TL6323 5752 (point C). The width is 2m from A-B and 1m from B-C. The second (No. 27) starts at a point on Public Footpath No.26 Dullingham at OS GR TL6344 5755 (point B), and runs through a field gate, continuing as a grass path in an easterly, southerly and then easterly direction for approximately 320m around the western and southern edges of the properties at Dullingham Ley to join Ley Road at OS GR TL6370 5749 (point D). The width is 1m. Phillip http://www.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? _ From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) Sent: 25 September 2009 16:16 To: 'Dave F.' Cc: 'OSM Talk' Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? It does seem that what is needed here is not the definitive map but rather the survey data the two surveyors gathered. As others have said if that data has been overlain onto an OS map there is no way of knowing what is derived and what is not. Not unless the bod from the council is prepared to stick their neck out and confirm otherwise. As a result the OS would take issue because their data forms part of the definitive map. Cheers Andy _ From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Dave F. Sent: 25 September 2009 3:16 PM Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? Tom Hughes wrote: On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote: The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce the definitive maps. Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was gathered from first principles like that? If it was then it is a very unusual bit of local council mapping as they are not generally that scrupulously careful... Well... not every detail, no, but there was a report in the local newspaper: Two surveyors will be walking virtually every one of the 560 miles of footpath in the area. And also in the Council produced pamphlet where two people were shown holding their very nice big yellow GPS units. Isn't every council having to do the same to produce their Definitive Maps? The reason of course is that they have a license to do what they like with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether they derive things from it (well at least until they try and overlay that data on a google map and get nastygrams from the OS). Tom Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Still the Council's budget though - so don't hold your breath - my lot can only afford a couple of cheap units although they are trying to get the funds for a top-of-the-range ±1m jobby! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] Sent: 25 September 2009 18:29 Cc: 'OSM Talk' Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? Mike Harris wrote: There may be a misunderstanding here - the Definitive Map is a legal document and was (in almost all cases produced a long time ago - interesting thought in passing - if it is 50 years old would it be out of copyright! The initiating legislation is the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 so some could be almost that old). Almost all Definitive Maps are years earlier than GPS. The nice men from the council with cheap yellow GPS units (they can't usually afford good ones) are surveying the paths with respect to the definitive map to build a database on path condition to assist their statutory duties of maintenance etc. and to cover their backsides in case of legal action against them e.g if someone gets hurt on a path - this wonderful litigious modern world! Very few Councils indeed (exceptions may be one or two major cities who were initially exempt) are still producing definitive maps - just amending them from time to time in respect of a particular path. Mike Harris Some cities, including mine, have never had one, but must have had a kick up the ass, because last year the were signs tied to lampposts asking the public if, when how they used these various paths. They were produced for the surrounding country side, and are being updated, but not for the urban city centre. The job of surveying was tendered out to a (hopefully) professional surveying company so hopefully they're top of the range yellow units! Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
Nick Sounds great and as if I should be very grateful to Andy R! As a sort-of 'countryside mapper' I do try to include stiles, kissing gates (would be nice to have them rendered some time), gates, footbridges, steps, tracktype - and where relevant to a special path difficulty short sections of fence/hedge boundary to explain an obstruction or similar - as well as 'designation' (legal status) and 'ref' (path number) where known. I also add key farmhouses where the name is visible and they are useful for orientation. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] Sent: 24 September 2009 10:30 To: Mike Harris Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries Hi Mike, OS one-inch (or 1:50k) mapping does not show field boundaries. But is anyone working on out-of-copyright 1:25k (or larger scale) mapping? Mike Harris I believe Andy R is. Field boundaries would also be a great help in the 3D navigation stuff I'm working on. I think most people who map the countryside do map gates and stiles btw. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
Dave makes a good point - the most important thing for walkers in farmed rural areas is often to know on which side of the hedge / fence they ought to be. OS 1:25k is fairly useless for this as the difference between one side of the hedge and the other is usually less than the registration error between the OS overlays for public rights of way and the base map! Larger scale OS does not afaik show public rights of way as such - just 'paths' and 'tracks'. So OSM can offer something here. I will try to record fence / hedge stubs more often - especially when I note that they do not agree with OS mapping! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] Sent: 24 September 2009 13:18 To: Nick Whitelegg Cc: Mike Harris; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries I believe Andy R is. Field boundaries would also be a great help in the 3D navigation stuff I'm working on. I think most people who map the countryside do map gates and stiles btw. Nick We do, but sometimes that's not quite enough. I had a path that ran parallel to a hedge but there was no clear indication which side it was on either on the ground or the OS 1:25k. I went down the wrong side had to double back. In these cases where footpaths cross boundaries/barriers I try to map as much as I can see, even if it's just looks like short stubs on the map. A full set of field layouts would be ideal, but just an indication of where they are when met by a way can be just as useful. Good use of the word lacuna, Mike H. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
Right to roam in England and Wales exists only on Open Access Land - which is most unlikely to be cropped. Elsewhere our rights are only on public highways (which include public rights of way) or by permission. Where a public right of way crosses a crop it is likely to be a trespass too go around the crop (off the right of way) but there is a legal right to walk through the crop (and a legal duty on the tenant or landowner to reinstate the right of way through the crop). It would be great to get the field boundary data as in farmed rural areas this is the most useful means of navigation (other than a GPS!), the greatest use I make in the field of OS 1:25k mapping and - for me - the greatest lacuna in OSM! Beyond actual surveying by bearings from points where I have the right to be (which is always going to be a slow, laborious and incomplete process) I cannot see a practical solution other than open-source aerial/satellite photography. OS one-inch (or 1:50k) mapping does not show field boundaries. But is anyone working on out-of-copyright 1:25k (or larger scale) mapping? Mike Harris _ From: Jack Stringer [mailto:jack.ix...@googlemail.com] Sent: 23 September 2009 22:07 Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries Well if somone does map the fields please could they put the gates on there. It would be nice to route people to the nearest gate. We do have the right to roam but those of who live in the countryside have always had that option we just used our common sense by not walking down the middle of crops. I keep thinking there must be a way to get the field data from the farmers if only it was to sit down and draw from a walking street map. Jack Stringer On Sep 23, 2009 2:39 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Someoneelse lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk writes: In the UK, certainly large-scale Ordnance ... Hmm, perhaps then tracing it from out-of-copyright maps is not such a bad idea... Although most likely the one-inch maps currently emerging from copyright do not have the field boundaries. That doesn't mean they don't have some other more accurate data in a format not readily reprod... Hmm, where do you see field information on that? In areas where there's complete public access (Open Access Land) Ah yes, Open Access... http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/places/openaccess/ lets you see these areas superimposed on OS maps, but I didn't see a place to download the whole data set. Has anyone asked? As for adding field boundaries by doing ground surveys, I think this is too impossibly enormous a task, even for enthusiastic OSM mappers. Perhaps we could install GPS devices on every tractor in the country and over a couple of years record ploughing patterns, which would let you deduce the shape of arable fields... -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http:/... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] NaPTAN bus stop import
Hi Can someone expand a little on what is happening with the NaPTAN bus stop import apparently ongoing in some UK areas? I have taken a look at the wiki but am still a little unsure about a couple of things and don't want to cause any problems with what appears to be a potentially valuable addition to OSM. Pity it wasn't announced on this talk group? 1. What are the basic import and rendering rules? Bus stops seem to appear in various places - all as a relation with two members but rendered variously (but different from the usual bus stop rendering, least in JOSM, my main editor), sometimes only one is rendered, creating the risk that one tag of the pair gets accidentally deleted as an orphan node. 2. If the two members of the relation are supposed to be two stops either side of the road, how does NaPTAN handle where there is physically only one - i.e. one stop on one side of the road is for both directions? Is this the reason for the un-rendered nodes? 3. Where a bus stop has already been manually added prior to the import do we just leave well alone at the moment until the merge process is more advanced? i.e. there will be 3 or 4 bus stops where there should be one or two. Messy - but I can understand the need for consistency in the longer run. 4. The positioning of the NaPTAN-imported bus stops seems generally to be very good vis-à-vis GPS surveyed manually entered bus stops (at least the ones I've stumbled across so far) - but where there is a discrepancy are we allowed to correct yet or not? The bigger issue seems to be where there is only a NaPTAN import but it is out of line with the relevant way - this seems to be much more common in my limited experience. I suspect that the ways may be off (e.g. created from NPE or Yahoo tracing - or simply surveyed at speed from a bike or even a car - which I find significantly less accurate than walking surveys). But I am reluctant to move ways unless I have a GPS survey in which I have confidence (e.g. I know the data point recording frequency and the reported error re the satellite reception). Sorry to ask so many questions but like all innovations - and this one seems potentially very powerful - there are bound to be teething troubles and while I don't want to meddle unnecessarily there are a few issues arising. Cheers - and congratulations to those ho have facilitated this import. Mike Harris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NaPTAN bus stop import
Ed Thanks a lot - that is all very clear and helpful and makes perfect sense. I will follow your example. I already tend to average ways where necessary in similar manner to your description and, as I almost always am doing walking surveys, any bus stops that I have manually added have indeed been done stationary at the stop. Kind regards and thanks for the good information Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Ed Loach [mailto:e...@loach.me.uk] Sent: 21 September 2009 10:30 To: 'Mike Harris'; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] NaPTAN bus stop import Mike asked a few questions about the NaPTAN import. There is information on the wiki here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Surveying_and_Mergin g_NaPTAN_and_OSM_data about surveying (Short: http://is.gd/3w8tv ) I've just been updating some stops that I surveyed on the way to Tesco this morning, and a few I verified when out and about yesterday. I'll try and summarise answers to your questions, based on my limited understanding. The relation is where two stops are known by NaPTAN as a stop area, and is a relation containing related stops. Usually these are pairs of stops on opposite sides of the road I believe, though bus stations (for example) may contain more. As you pointed out sometimes the stops are only one side of the road, and the stop the opposite side is known as a customary stop, naptan:BusStopType=CUS. As per the link above, those CUS stops I've encountered where I've seen a bus stop (or where the opposite stop is labelled buses stop here and opposite) I've been tagging physically_present=no, highway=bus_stop. Where I'd already added bus stops before the import I've been moving tags to the NaPTAN one (such as shelter=yes, layby=yes, route_ref=whatever), then deleting my node, and positioning the NaPTAN node based on the original survey, the verification survey and the NaPTAN location, averaging the three. Your last point, where bus stops import to the wrong side of ways I've been checking all the public traces available in JOSM and repositioning the OSM way to the average of those. If the bus stop is still the wrong side, I nudge it across presuming sufficient inaccuracy in the NaPTAN data to be the width of a road out. All my verification surveys of bus stops though are done standing still under the bus stop flag (where present, or where there is both a flag and an electronic sign, somewhere between them). There is more information about NaPTAN on the wiki, and discussions on the talk-transit list. I believe that the import would happen was announced on this list (or maybe talk-gb) some time ago before talk-transit was started to discuss how it was to be done. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
From time to time I have a related problem, viz. a bridge carrying a public right of way and crossing both a physical feature, e.g. a river, and an administrative boundary. The result is that the ref= key changes value on the boundary, typically in the middle of the river, thus creating two consecutive bridges. This is basically only a rendering problem but I wonder whether anyone has any thoughts? Mike Harris _ From: d f [mailto:fac63te...@yahoo.com] Sent: 19 September 2009 13:30 To: Talk OSM Subject: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways? Hi I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (with central reservtion) footpath. As far as I can see is they each need there own bridge the result gets a bit crowded. Is there a way to simplify this? If the bright was independent it could also mean that the ways wouldn't need to be split! Saving a hell of a lot of work. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?
Claudius - I think you may have answered the question I just asked - thanks - I must admit that I hadn't seen this proposal before. Once again, relations prove powerful! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Claudius [mailto:claudiu...@gmx.de] Sent: 19 September 2009 14:12 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways? Am 19.09.2009 14:39, Martin Koppenhoefer: 2009/9/19 d ffac63te...@yahoo.com: Hi I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (with central reservtion) footpath. As far as I can see is they each need there own bridge the result gets a bit crowded. Is there a way to simplify this? If the bright was independent it could also mean that the ways wouldn't need to be split! Saving a hell of a lot of work. There is indeed a problem with bridges (in cases like yours it looks like several bridges where in reality there is just one, then there are bridge-names that can differ from the streetname, etc.), but what do you intent by independant? Do you propose to connect all ways to one bridge? I would recommend a relation to unify several bridges in one (which gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but resulting more accurate and probably could also render nicer. cheers, Martin See this bridge/tunnel proposal for reference: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_ and_Tunnels Claudius ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=residential for rural ways?
Agree that service roads are not usually public highways - although they may have public access (e.g. car parking aisles). Tracks may be public highways - e.g. bridleway, restricted byway etc. - but are not usually confused with streets. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 16 September 2009 21:18 To: Iván Sánchez Ortega Cc: Mike Harris; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=residential for rural ways? 2009/9/16 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es: El Miércoles, 16 de Septiembre de 2009, Mike Harris escribió: AFAIK there is really nothing smaller than unclassified unless it is (a) residential (b) an urban 'living street' (c) a track You forgot service roads. all of them are IMHO classified by usage / legal dedication not physical status (they might even be wider than an unclassified street). Residential are with residences nearby, living_streets are signed as such, service are no public street and tracks neither (the latter are for agricultural / forestal / etc. use). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=residential for rural ways?
Yes, Dorothy, some people DO reside in the country. So I regularly use highway=residential 'out-of-town' where a road is minor, does not go anywhere in particular and has residences (houses) along it at least to some extent (unless it was unsurfaced and so rough as to merit nothing more then =track). If the road is minor and has no houses other than the occasional isolated house or farm I would normally tag highway=unclassified (bigger roads - either more important or physically bigger - but let's not get back into THAT debate!) I would tag =tertiary, =secondary, etc. As a rule of thumb I believe this to be broadly similar to UK Ordnance Survey practice in using yellow coloration for most of the roads OSM would usually call unclassified or tertiary and white for most of the roads (rural or otherwise) that OSM would usually call residential (whether urban or rural). Clearly there cannot (and should not) be a 1:1 correspondence with OS practice - but it is sometimes useful to look at it for comparative purposes. There are so many different wiki pages relating to the highway tag that I hardly would know which one to update! (Least of all in the middle of voting on a more general aspect). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Valent Turkovic [mailto:valent.turko...@gmail.com] Sent: 16 September 2009 13:26 To: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: [OSM-talk] highway=residential for rural ways? Hi, should highway=residential be used only in cities or also for rural ways? Currently: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_samples/out_of_town I see that residential roads aren't supposed to be used outside of towns, is that right or wiki needs an update? -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=residential for rural ways?
+1 (short answer for long debate?) Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] Sent: 16 September 2009 14:34 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=residential for rural ways? Hi, My understanding is that rural roads (country lanes as they are called in the UK) should be highway=unclassified. However if there is a small housing estate or residential road in a village, it should be highway=residential. Cue long debate on this ;-) Nick Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.com Sent by: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org 16/09/2009 13:26 To Talk Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org cc Subject [OSM-talk] highway=residential for rural ways? Hi, should highway=residential be used only in cities or also for rural ways? Currently: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_samples/out_of_town I see that residential roads aren't supposed to be used outside of towns, is that right or wiki needs an update? -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=residential for rural ways?
AFAIK there is really nothing smaller than unclassified unless it is (a) residential - i.e. houses along a significant part of it and not really a route to anywhere except those houses or a nearby similar road, or (b) an urban 'living street' with pedestrian priority (can't remember how to tag - I have never found one round here and the wiki is nearly dead at the moment so I can't check!), or (c) a track - bearing in mind that a track with tracktype=grade1 could also be surface=paved. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Valent Turkovic [mailto:valent.turko...@gmail.com] Sent: 16 September 2009 19:54 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=residential for rural ways? On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:34:28 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: My understanding is that rural roads (country lanes as they are called in the UK) should be highway=unclassified. However if there is a small housing estate or residential road in a village, it should be highway=residential. How do you then tag roads that are smaller than unclassified, are narrower or have lesser importance? -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=residential for rural ways?
I did some of that mapping (especially the off-road) and would defend most if not all of the road tagging - there is nothing wrong with 'unclassified' when it goes between villages or between parts of a village and does not have much in the way of continuous housing. Take a look at Google Earth or similar satellite imagery and see whether you would agree - bearing in mind that I live only about 25 km from there! (;) Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Valent Turkovic [mailto:valent.turko...@gmail.com] Sent: 16 September 2009 19:56 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=residential for rural ways? On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:34:28 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: My understanding is that rural roads (country lanes as they are called in the UK) should be highway=unclassified. However if there is a small housing estate or residential road in a village, it should be highway=residential. I took a random look at UK: http://www.openstreetmap.org/? lat=52.79617lon=-0.03229zoom=15layers=B000FTF and it seams like unclassified tag is also used in villages/towns, generally overused... IMHO. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RR8 - Possible International Vandal
Peter Excellent summary - very well balanced. I would get particularly suspicious of motivation where there was no response to courteous attempts to get in touch to discuss. Slight word of caution on the thought of not being expert in both 'Ireland' and 'Iceland' for example. I hope to be just as competent (or not!) when on vacation in 'Peru' as when near home base in 'Algeria' - although I would be more cautious when on vacation (no local knowledge) I would hope that the gpx traces would be as good and - hopefully - as useful and my level of experience (or not!) much the same. Would be good to have this on the wiki. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Peter Miller [mailto:peter.mil...@itoworld.com] Sent: 03 September 2009 22:58 To: Someoneelse Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RR8 - Possible International Vandal On 3 Sep 2009, at 22:17, Someoneelse wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: ... But I really need people familiar with the region who tell me that they are reasonably sure that the edits are bogus. If it helps, I've just looked at a selection of 20 of the 60 ways edited in changeset 2308178 by RR8. This covers north Nottinghamshire in England. One edit looks possibly correct (a road number has been continued from an adjacent stretch of road; it's possible that that that could be legitimate, the other 19 edits do not look likely to be valid I've added an entry to the table in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log as that's been suggested as a way of keeping track of requests. I've looked at a smaller number of ways in other changesets by RR8 in the surrounding area (Derby / Notts / Sheffield). All look similarly suspect. Just because someone made bogus edits in Iceland doesn't automatically mean he's messing up Ireland as well etc. It certainly looks like he/she/it is messing up Northern England. I think we need to agree on some guidance for response to possible vandals and what level of checking should be performed prior to reversion. Personally I would suggest:- 1) We should expect that all contributors should at all time attempt to make good, accurate and well researched changes 2) We need to ensure that every contributor is on-balance making the dataset better, not worse. If the contribution is in doubt we owe it to other contributors to investigate and respond. 3) We should be aware that people make mistakes, need time to learn and newbies often need and will respond to support 4) We can request, but not require contributors to add a comments to their changesets and to have created a useful personal page with some details about their interest and knowledge. Doing this makes reversion less likely and make it more likely that the person will be helped if needed. 5) In the event that someone seems to be doing strange edits one should initially assume 'good faith' but should watch carefully and discuss with others if appropriate. 6) If a significant number of edits to ways can be definitively proved to be malicious, obscene, libelous or it is considered that they might bring the project into disrepute then the related change-sets can be reverted immediately without discussion and without 100% checking of the rest of the change-set. 7) If the edits are dubious but it can't be proved to be incorrect then one should contact the person and ask for some additional information. If one don't get a reasonable response (or gets no response) and the dubious edits continue and there are not a good number of balancing clearly positive contributions then one should look to prove at least one bad edit and may then come to the decision in discussion with others that it is appropriate to revert the change- set in question and potentially all changesets by that person. 8) Once someone has been identified as a problematic contributor then one only needs to perform a brief of inspection of subsequent edits before reversion future changesets. Liam123 is in this category now. 9) If the problem continues (Liam123 is actually probably in this category) then one puts then on 'virtual ban' where their edits get reverted with no inspection of the merit of the changes unless the person contacts a sys-admin and says they have grown-up and want another chance. 10) I someone performs bad edits in any part of the world then they can expect to be a global response because it seems very unlikely that someone would mess with Ireland and do good work in Iceland and I am not sure I would want to work out what was going on in their head - I would prefer to protect the good work of others from mischief that allow good work to be messed on the off-chance that some good edits are also made in amongst the nonsense. 11) People who revert other people's work should expect to be able to demonstrate that the reversion was well
Re: [OSM-talk] Path in JOSM preset and motorcar=yes/designated
Support addition of motor_vehicle to presets for highway=track ... This would usefully match a 'restricted byway' in England - as opposed to a 'byway open to all traffic' (BOAT). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Craig Wallace [mailto:craig...@fastmail.fm] Sent: 30 August 2009 15:56 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path in JOSM preset and motorcar=yes/designated On 30/08/2009 08:24, Christoph Eckert wrote: If a car can use it, it's a track, not a path. I better should resist to abuse my dictatorship for tagging politics ;-) . Anyway, I have removed motorcar from the list of options, as tagwatch does not show significant use (10 times motorcar=no in Europe). If the removal triggers some complaints, I'll reenable it. There seems to be something wrong with those Tagwatch stats, as Tagwatch lists over 4000 uses of motorcar=no for highway=path for Germany. Though I suspect many of them are set by people just because its listed in the JOSM presets. I would agree with its removal anyway from the prests anyway, as it just causes confusion. Maybe it would be more useful to have the option for motorcycle or motor_vehicle instead? And on a related note, it would be useful to have motor_vehicle in the presets for highway=track. It would save having to set both motorcar and motorcycle, as both are usually prohibited on most tracks around here. Craig ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
Gervase Thanks for the tip - I like the idea of using a relation here. Non-rendering is a downer (yes - I know - don't tag for the renderers) but sounds like some Good Samaritans have it in hand. If fully and universally implemented, this solution - which I feel is technically the right one - would create a huge number of new relations (a lot of bridges in the world!) - is this a problem anywhere in the software chain? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv-gm...@gerv.net] Sent: 28 August 2009 09:41 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock On 27/08/09 14:27, Mike Harris wrote: On a related canal issue, I have a problem with deciding how to tag a canal bridge as a segment of a way. The way will often already have name= and ref= tags as a highway; but I want to add a name= and ref= tag for the canal bridge. Not keen on name_1 or ref_1 - any better ideas? I did wonder about adding a node in the middle of the bridge and then tagging this with the canal bridge information and reserving the name and ref tags for the highway segment. The correct solution here is to use relations. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_ and_Tunnels The relation should be as follows: type=bridge across=the road under=the waterway ref=bridge number Optionally: maxwidth= maxheight= name= However, no renderer yet shows this, although I've been working with Steve Chilton for a while to get it done. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Peteris Krisjanis [mailto:pec...@gmail.com] Sent: 28 August 2009 12:44 To: Alex Mauer Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism I second option that highway tag isn't used for physical purposes. Physical status of road *can* define it's importance (legal or subjective), and I think there is where disagreement is. More or less comon practice is to follow some kind of rules/laws when tagging roads. But it is also clear that it won't work for all 100%, there will be small perntage when road shall be tagged by user's judgement. What I think that user should have very clear guidelines how to act in scenario like that. For example, in my country there were discussions how to tag backstreet streets. I was thinking about living_street, but there were arguments, that Living street (Dzīvojama zona here) is legal term and there is special sign which indicates start or finish of such zone. However, after careful vetting, one of us found that law already says what I have suspected - backstreet streets are living streets by definition. The law may say that in ?Poland? (apologies if I've guessed the wrong Slavic language) - but I don't think it does in - for example - England. Here, I have hardly ever - if ever - seen a 'living street' - at least as I understand the wiki definition. I tend to use =residential for the backstreets (assuming they have vehicular access). Am I wrong? Am I alone in this? So I think wiki must have clear rules how to act when highway's importance status is not known and trust people instincts - but in same time, user should investigate situation before doing so. Agree with this - whether or not importance is the criterion! Cheers, Peteris. 2009/8/28 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net: On 08/28/2009 03:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: If dieterdriest has found a number of people who've been ignoring the definition, Nobody (that I know of) has been ignoring the definition. It's just that the definitions didn't match the top-leveldescription. *None* of the definitions of the highway values has ever described the physical characteristics of the road, apart from motorway in a very limited sense. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- mortigi tempo Pēteris Krišjānis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
... Because in England locks almost always have unique (and often fascinating and historic) names that are nothing to do with the canal name. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: wynnd...@lavabit.com [mailto:wynnd...@lavabit.com] Sent: 28 August 2009 13:07 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. Why would you want to repeat the name of a canal on its individual nodes? Isnt that repeating the mistake of the TIGER node tags? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
I agree with Aun .. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) [mailto:skipp...@gimnechiske.org] Sent: 27 August 2009 01:05 To: Frederik Ramm Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; lulu-...@gmx.de Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:43:22 +0200, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, lulu-...@gmx.de wrote: There was a change on the highway key wiki page, that interferes with the concept presented here. Have you read the following relevant thread on talk-de: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2009-August/052258.ht ml Since both you and dieterdreist are speakers of German, I'm surprised that you didn't speak up when the issue was raised on talk-de three weeks ago and now start a discussion on this list. The German speaking community on OSM is large, but not large enough to form a majority, this sort of discussions should be brought forward to the general talk if the national lists agrees in some form of change so that those of us that doesn't speak german can take part in the process. IMHO this is a new dimension of vandalism. The acronym IMHO is not well placed if you throw around such accusations. What you're saying here is not a humble opinion. I also think we need a consensus that tag descriptions for tags that are used more than 100.000 times shall not be changed without a proposal. That seemed to be the consensus on talk-de as well (or at least without prior discussion, not necessarily on the Wiki - personally I dislike proposals, discussions and voting on the Wiki). If such discussions on national/lingual mailing lists isn't brought to other lists, and mainly to talk, than the Wiki is the only common medium. All proposal of this scale should have an english page (though I guess there will be discussions in several linguas as well) and consesus have to be reached among all groups of OSM, not a couple of selective groups, even if it is the larger communities. Adding new tags, and changing widely used tags are two very different topics, and the bar of changing a tag such as highway should be much higher than to add a new type of amenities. -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
Oxford can't be unique ... Surely it is common worldwide to assume that the decisions of administrators and bureaucrats are just a load of bollards ... Sorry about any spelling mistakes in the preceding ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Sent: 27 August 2009 09:03 To: OpenStreetMap generic wibble Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism (uk-specific, suggest follow-ups to talk-gb@) Peter Childs wrote: I'm sorry what's this Oxford High Street Rule? In cases of clear insanity you can tag according to what the road ought to be, rather than the administrative classification. Oxford High Street is the A420 so should be highway=primary, at least. However, it has a bollard halfway down making passage impossible (except for buses) throughout the day. We settled on highway=tertiary for that. I'm trying to figure out what should be what in Gravesend, Kent, Uk and currently I've got difference classifications for similar roads in the east and west of the same town. Looks pretty good to me, but do ask on talk-gb if you need help. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
Jack I have tried various systems for this one. At present I favour tagging two nodes - one for each gate (or multiples of 2 for complex locks e.g. Vale Royal where there are two parallel locks, each with - of course - two gates), isolating the section of canal between and giving this the tags name= and ref= . I have no strong opinion - beyond wishing to record the name and number of the lock - and would be interested in other views. Not keen on using name_1 - prefer the ref= tag. Not quite clear whether you add identical name= and ref= to each of the two gates? On a related canal issue, I have a problem with deciding how to tag a canal bridge as a segment of a way. The way will often already have name= and ref= tags as a highway; but I want to add a name= and ref= tag for the canal bridge. Not keen on name_1 or ref_1 - any better ideas? I did wonder about adding a node in the middle of the bridge and then tagging this with the canal bridge information and reserving the name and ref tags for the highway segment. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Jack Stringer [mailto:jack.ix...@googlemail.com] Sent: 27 August 2009 12:14 To: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock Just looking at Keepright and I can see loads of waterway=lock What is the preferred way to record the information? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dlock_gate Shows to tag both ends of the lock. If there is a name just to use name. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lock Says to tag either both ends or just use a single node. Problem I see is that there are 2 ways to name a lock and 2 ways to indicate one exists. For example, waterway=lock_gate name=Withrington Bottom Lock or lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock I have then seen people use name_1=5 to tell you the lock number. I would suggest, waterway=lock_gate name=Withrington Bottom Lock ref=5 Discuss... Jack Stringer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to get a notification email for a change on a watched wiki page
Thanks Lulu-Ann - I've been a lazy boy, haven't I! (:) Tsk, tsk. Done now. -Original Message- From: lulu-...@gmx.de [mailto:lulu-...@gmx.de] Sent: 27 August 2009 14:35 To: Mike Harris; frede...@remote.org Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: How to get a notification email for a change on a watched wiki page Hi Mike, 2. Wiki vs mailing list: I use both - but the mailing list appears automatically in my in-tray every day and gets read whenever I have time to log on; the wiki seems to need me to watch a particular page and, simple person that I am, I haven't found out how to get changes notified to me - probably missed a 'watch this page' link or something! Whichever one prefers, common courtesy perhaps dictates that before making major changes to the wiki a check is also made with the mailing list community - overlapping but not identical. Here is how to get a notification email: 1. Put the pages on your watch list 2. Go to your preferences and configure your tab watch list. 3. On the first tab in your preferences you can choose to get emails for changes on pages on your watch list. Regards Lulu-An -- Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3 - sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
There seem to be three issues here: 1. Vandalism - perhaps we'd have a better discussion without the emotive language. 2. Wiki vs mailing list: I use both - but the mailing list appears automatically in my in-tray every day and gets read whenever I have time to log on; the wiki seems to need me to watch a particular page and, simple person that I am, I haven't found out how to get changes notified to me - probably missed a 'watch this page' link or something! Whichever one prefers, common courtesy perhaps dictates that before making major changes to the wiki a check is also made with the mailing list community - overlapping but not identical. 3. Highway tag: I won't reopen the very long and intense discussion we've had in the last 2-3 weeks on the mailing list (during which many of us probably concluded that the subject was so complex and important that it would be a breach of netiquette to make major edits to the wiki until the discussion had gelled a bit more. The suggestion of a working group was a good one that got some support - and then faded away into cyberspace - pity. For the present I will stick to the concept that highway= is essentially a tag to describe the physical characteristics of the way (and remember it applies to ways other than roads - where it is perhaps very important for other reasons than routing). There are other tags (probably too many of them!) to describe usability, access rights, legal standing etc. ... and finally - a tag that is largely subjective is likely to lead to more problems and conflict than one that is largely objective - and this suggests we should avoid words (in any language) that are largely subjective (especially when translated). IMHO (and remember that 'humble' can be a descriptor of the quality of the opinion - like 'humble abode' - as much as the attitude of the writer! - so there's no need to take this all too seriously (;)) ... let's stay civil and objective! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Frederic Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] Sent: 26 August 2009 14:10 To: lulu-...@gmx.de Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism Hi, lulu-...@gmx.de wrote: Dieter and any other supporter of the concept is free to start a proposal to change the most important tag of all. But please stay in the common conventions for such an important change and give *all* users the chance to vote, and do not make changes on the wiki because of an agreement of few persons on the mailing list(s). I think that a discussion on the mailing list reaches more people than a proposal on the Wiki, so I don't see why the latter should be preferred ;-) Granted: talk-de is not the place to discuss stuff that is internationally relevant, even if the .de community makes 40% of all edits. But if ever people on talk should agree on something I don't think it is required to make a Wiki proposal as well. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - incline up down
I just tried to apply the 'architects' convention' of steps 'always' being from bottom to top. Then for unrelated reasons I reversed the way. Unlike 'oneway' this does not reverse the direction of the steps - i.e. the software doesn't know about the architects' convention. So I have to conclude that - at present at least - the assumption of an implicit sense is risky. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 25 August 2009 12:08 To: Roy Wallace Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - incline up down 2009/8/23 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: hard-to-verify data - I don't see why incline=* is any harder to verify than ele=* - as you said yourself, if you have one you can calculate/verify the other... I think that incline up/down is much easier to verify and much more unambigous (e.g. which elevation-model is used to express the elevation?), but also far less usefull. Everybody can see on the ground if a street goes up or down. What? The key question is if a tag is verifiable. Incline=* is just as verifiable as ele=*. It's just in a different form. The good argument for adding incline=* is that it is 1) easy to read off a sign (say, source:incline=sign), I think you're confusing 2 things here: the sign AFAIK doesn't tell the inclination but the maximum inclination that occurs on a certain road. 2) provides valuable information in the meantime, while we wait for you to develop and import your ele=* solution. the ele-solution is already established. Please see the wiki. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - incline up down
I am not an architect (!) and didn't know there was a convention for steps. So I expect 50% of my steps are wrong as I have always simply mapped them in the direction of (my) travel (:). If everyone agrees that the architects' convention should be adopted, could we document this? It seems to have been left open on the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Steps . Elevation-derived tagging is rarely possible on steps as the elevation difference is usually small compared with the typical GPS vertical error. But the existence of steps will be important for many users - cyclists, wheelchairs, etc. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 22 August 2009 13:22 To: Mike Harris Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - incline up down 2009/8/22 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com: I'm with Martin on this one - up/down is better than nothing and is useful in its own right on steps for example. actually I wrote that it's IMHO not needed for steps: I draw them from down to up, they already have their direction. This is IMHO the natural way of doing it (as it is done like this worldwide in architecture, and I'm an architect ;-) ). I don't see much of a benefit for ways either, but I agree that ele-nodes have their own problems, and therefore the incline-tag on ways could at least indicate some kind of inclination (probably you could use this in hilly city centres, where SRTM is not sufficient, to avoid inclinations on bike or something like this). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
Could I ask the architects whether their down-to-up convention applies to escalators as well (cf. current discussion on 'steps') - given that they are moving steps - or only to up-escalators (;) ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Peter Childs [mailto:pchi...@bcs.org] Sent: 22 August 2009 16:23 To: OSM-Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Escalator I'm trying to work out how to tag Escalators I'm not sure the current tagging it clear, or even partially useful. This ties in Greatly with the long running Path discussion.. There seams to be no clear way to tag Moving Walkways or Travelators these are Esclators without steps, so the current tagging steps with an extra tag just does not work, spouse you could tag a path, but that just makes it worse. one_way would seam to make as much sence as escalator_dir currently, and maybe this could be unified. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - incline up down
I'm with Martin on this one - up/down is better than nothing and is useful in its own right on steps for example. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Morten Kjeldgaard [mailto:m...@bioxray.au.dk] Sent: 21 August 2009 17:11 To: m...@koppenhoefer.com Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - incline up down On 21/08/2009, at 03.00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Yeah, numeric value is better, but up/down is better than nothing. I think both should be allowed and within the scope of the proposal. if you already have good elevation data you can also tag the nodes with ele=xy (but nodes can always be moved, so this data might not be most reliable). Inclines are easy to calculate if elevation data is available. IMHO tagging data with incline=* is the wrong solution to an important problem, and it signals the beginning of an immense and never-ending task of maintaining hard-to-verify data. It would be much better to work on a proper solution that involves designing a system for registering topographical data within street maps. Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] FW: [OpenStreetMap] Deine E-Mail- Adresse bestätigen
Can someone out there help Andreas with his issue re confirmation of his user account (see messages in German below)? He has sent this directly to me and I don't know how best to help him. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Andreas Tille [mailto:andr...@an3as.eu] Sent: 21 August 2009 07:50 To: webmas...@openstreetmap.org Cc: mik...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [OpenStreetMap] Deine E-Mail-Adresse bestätigen [Hi Mike, I'm sorry to CC you in this request to webmas...@osm.org but I'm heavily afraid that this mail will probably end up in any SPAM folder. So I picked an obviosely active person answering questions on OSM-newbies who might perhaps give me the address / foreward this mail to a person responsible for creating accounts which failed somehow with an error message in my case. Thanks for any help and sorry for the nuisance Andreas ] Hallo, wenn ich dem Link unten folge, und auf Bestätigen klicke, bekomme ich: Ein Benutzeraccount wurde bereits mit diesem Link bestätigt. Der account ist aber noch nicht aktiviert. :-( Liegt es an meiner verspäteten Rückmeldung? (Ich hatte das whitelisten der Addresse doch etwas zu spät gemacht und Eure Mail landete tatsächlich im SPAM Ordner ...) Vielen Dank für Eure Mühen um OSM Andreas. On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:41:57AM +0100, webmas...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Hallo! Jemand (hoffentlich du) möchte ein Benutzerkonto erstellen für www.openstreetmap.org Wenn du das bist, Herzlich Willkommen! Bitte klicke auf den folgenden Link unter dieser Zeile, um dein Benutzerkonto zu bestätigen. Lies danach weiter, denn es folgen mehr Informationen über OSM. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/confirm?confirm_string=gm72vSHgOpiV8 jU1rTkvYDhyR59piC Ein Einführungsvideo zu OpenStreetMap kannst du dir hier anschauen: http://showmedo.com/videos/video?name=180fromSeriesID=180 Weitere Videos gibt es hier: http://showmedo.com/videos/series?name=mS2P1ZqS6 Weitere Informationen über OSM findest du in unserem Wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Beginners_Guide OpenGeoData.org ist das OpenStreetMap Blog; dort gibt es auch einen Podcast: http://www.opengeodata.org/ Im Wiki von OpenStreetMap kannst du dich ebenfalls registrieren: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Special:Userlogintype=s ignupreturnto=Hauptseite Es wird begrüßt wenn du dort eine Benutzerseite erstellst, welche einen Kategorie-Tag enthält der auf deinen Standort hinweist, zum Beispiel [[Category:Users_in_München]]. Eine Liste mit allen Benutzern in einer Kategorie, die anzeigt wo sie auf der Welt sind, ist hier verfügbar: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_by_geographical_regi on -- http://fam-tille.de Klarmachen zum Ändern! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FW: [OpenStreetMap] Deine E-Mail-Adres se bestätigen
Hi Kein Sprachproblem! Nur dass ich wüsste nicht, wie ich könnte sein Problem erlösen! Mit freundlichen Grüßen -Original Message- From: Jonas Krückel [mailto:o...@jonas-krueckel.de] Sent: 21 August 2009 09:06 To: Mike Harris Cc: newb...@openstreetmap.org; talk@openstreetmap.org; andr...@an3as.eu Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] FW: [OpenStreetMap] Deine E-Mail-Adresse bestätigen I translated the german part below so you're able to help him: Personally I have no idea why this failed. We (TomH and I on dev) have seen such a problem some time ago and thought we've fixed it. I'm pretty sure that this fail has nothing to do with the localized email in this case. Jonas Am 21.08.2009 um 09:51 schrieb Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com: Can someone out there help Andreas with his issue re confirmation of his user account (see messages in German below)? He has sent this directly to me and I don't know how best to help him. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Andreas Tille [mailto:andr...@an3as.eu] Sent: 21 August 2009 07:50 To: webmas...@openstreetmap.org Cc: mik...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [OpenStreetMap] Deine E-Mail-Adresse bestätigen [Hi Mike, I'm sorry to CC you in this request to webmas...@osm.org but I'm heavily afraid that this mail will probably end up in any SPAM folder. So I picked an obviosely active person answering questions on OSM-newbies who might perhaps give me the address / foreward this mail to a person responsible for creating accounts which failed somehow with an error message in my case. Thanks for any help and sorry for the nuisance Andreas ] Hallo, wenn ich dem Link unten folge, und auf Bestätigen klicke, bekomme ich: If I click on the link below to verify/activate my account, I get the following message: Ein Benutzeraccount wurde bereits mit diesem Link bestätigt. An useraccount has already been activated with this link. Der account ist aber noch nicht aktiviert. :-( But my account is still not available/active. Liegt es an meiner verspäteten Rückmeldung? (Ich hatte das whitelist en der Addresse doch etwas zu spät gemacht und Eure Mail landete tatsächlic h im SPAM Ordner ...) The mail got in my spam folder and it took me some time to get it out of there, maybe this timespan was too long? Vielen Dank für Eure Mühen um OSM Andreas. On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:41:57AM +0100, webmas...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Hallo! Jemand (hoffentlich du) möchte ein Benutzerkonto erstellen für www.openstreetmap.org Wenn du das bist, Herzlich Willkommen! Bitte klicke auf den folgenden Link unter dieser Zeile, um dein Benutzerkonto zu bestätigen. Lies danach weiter, denn es folgen mehr Informationen über OSM. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/confirm? confirm_string=gm72vSHgOpiV8 jU1rTkvYDhyR59piC Ein Einführungsvideo zu OpenStreetMap kannst du dir hier anschauen: http://showmedo.com/videos/video?name=180fromSeriesID=180 Weitere Videos gibt es hier: http://showmedo.com/videos/series?name=mS2P1ZqS6 Weitere Informationen über OSM findest du in unserem Wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Beginners_Guide OpenGeoData.org ist das OpenStreetMap Blog; dort gibt es auch einen Podcast: http://www.opengeodata.org/ Im Wiki von OpenStreetMap kannst du dich ebenfalls registrieren: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php? title=Special:Userlogintype=s ignupreturnto=Hauptseite Es wird begrüßt wenn du dort eine Benutzerseite erstellst, welche einen Kategorie-Tag enthält der auf deinen Standort hinweist, zum Beispiel [[Category:Users_in_München]]. Eine Liste mit allen Benutzern in einer Kategorie, die anzeigt wo sie auf der Welt sind, ist hier verfügbar: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ Category:Users_by_geographical_regi on -- http://fam-tille.de Klarmachen zum Ändern! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Selecting cycleways
In England and Wales, byways that are either Restricted Byways (RBs) or Byways Open to all Traffic (BOATs) may be used by cyclists as of right - i.e. not merely 'available'. Mike Harris _ From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com] Sent: 21 August 2009 08:16 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Selecting cycleways You could also assume byway and track (tracktype=grade1/grade2, at least) are available for cyclists (neither would be likely to have bicycle access specified). Richard On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Rahkonen Jukka wrote: Cartinus wrote: You'd want to exclude cycleway=opposite as well, because that is just removing the oneway restriction for bicycles. But isn't it still kind of a cycleway and thus worth making it visible on a cyclemap? I forgot cycleway=opposite in my first reply, but it really isn't a cycleway. Imo, cycleway is a bad choice of key for this, something like oneway:bicycle=no would be much more appropriate. Unlike cycleway=opposite_lane and cycleway=opposite_track, there isn't any road or section of road specifically intended for bicycles, so it isn't more of a cycleway than any ordinary road. Of course, a cyclemap should still make sure to visibly indicate whether an oneway rule applies to bicycles. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GSoC End: signFinder
UK - usually black on white. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Erik Johansson [mailto:e...@kth.se] Sent: 19 August 2009 12:26 To: Tijs Zwinkels Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] GSoC End: signFinder On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Tijs Zwinkelsopenstreet...@tumblecow.net wrote: The project is right now trained to read dutch street-signs, but as long as they have a distinct color, there's no reason why it couldn't read foreign street-signs. Read this: http://code.google.com/p/signfinder/wiki/TrainingOtherCountries Since this version can't be trained to handle white background signs, I wonder what color are streetname signs around the world? Netherlands white on blue Sweden black on white -- /emj ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
