Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes
On 2 October 2013 10:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 September 2013 08:12, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 29 September 2013 10:05, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: How about saying that 70mph can only be valid on a way tagged as one-way? In a word, I believe the answer is 'no'. I say that because the legal definition of a dual-carriageway appears to be vague, with unclear edge-cases. There are certainly examples of one-way national speed limit trunk and primary roads which are not 70 mph. But that's not what Colin was saying. He was suggesting, 70mph implies one-way, not one-way implies 70mph. Or to put it another way, he was saying 70 is not allowed on a two-way road rather than a one-way road must be 70. I see what you mean. I agree than one could use the 70mph/not one way pair as an indicator that either a one-way tag is missing or that the 70 is in error. It is for these reasons that I advocate setting maxspeed:type simply to 'GB:national' and then interpretting it to the best of our current knowledge as a numeric limit in maxspeed. Possibly we should err on the side of caution with the numeric limit. In that case, surely it is better to make use of the more definite tags GB:nsl_single and GB:nsl_dual when we are sure of the type of road (which will be the majority of cases), and only use GB:national for the cases where we aren't sure. (Ok, so you can work out which is implied by looking at the maxspeed value, but that's additional work for data users, and means that it's less clear how the mapper has come to their maxspeed conclusion. Also, with your suggestion of caution on unclear cases, there would be no way to distinguish between a definite single carriageway road and the unsure situation, since both would use maxspeed=60pmh and maxspeed:type=GB:national.) Agreed. Fyi, Ed Loach has just emailed me with a load of analysis of where 'dual carriageway' signs are used and should be used. I suggest we may also want to make more use of a separate tag associated with those signs. I have encouraged him to post this to the list, although he had a technical error with posting to the list a few days ago. On 27 September 2013 15:40, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Based on that, where you've changed e.g. GB:nsl_single to gb:national would it be possible for you to revert your changes? There's clearly a discussion to be had going forward about which one of GB:blah, UK:blah, gb:blah and uk:blah we need to keep, but based on the replies so far there doesn't appear to be a concensus to support merging of everything into gb:national. I don't hear a clamoring for such a reversion, and indeed I don't think anyone in OSM is sufficiently knowledgeable able the law to say for sure which tag should be used in all cases as I have indicated above. If there have been bulk changes from more specific things like GB:nsl_single to the more general GB:national, then I have already said in a previous message that I think those changes should be reverted. There had been no previous discussion or agreement about making the changes (which is reason in itself for reverting), and there still doesn't appear to be a consensus. Also, it's arguably loosing information (whether it's right or wrong) captured by the original mapper. In almost all cases it will be obvious whether a road is a dual carriageway or not. I don't believe the few edge cases warrant removing the majority of good information. There has not been any bulk changes to my knowledge. I for one have not done any, and this is not the first time in this thread that I have had to clarify that I have not done so, can we now drop this suggestion please. To be clear, I have been moved some gb:national style tagging from source:maxspeed to macspeed:type to allow source:maxspeed to be used for information about the data gathering process and may have simplified with to GB:national in the process (apologies), but I have not done any bulk or mechanical edits - every change has been manual and associated with adding speed limit data in a neighbouring area. Peter Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Peter Miller CEO +44(0) 7774 667213 ITO World Ltd - Registered in England Wales - Registration Number 5753174 Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ. Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ. Telephone - 01473 272225 www.itoworld.com IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies
Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes
On 29 September 2013 10:05, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: ** Peter, I say this because the '70 mph' value for maxspeed can only be used case where a road is a dual-carriageway. What about link roads and slip roads? Sometimes they seem to go on for miles without an obvious other carriageway. Yet the correct maxspeed is often 70mph, is it not? How about saying that 70mph can only be valid on a way tagged as one-way? In a word, I believe the answer is 'no'. I say that because the legal definition of a dual-carriageway appears to be vague, with unclear edge-cases. There are certainly examples of one-way national speed limit trunk and primary roads which are not 70 mph. Possibly it would be best to discuss some actual situations. How about Junction 31 on the A14 junction to the west of Cambridge. Most slip roads are currently 60 mph, but one is 70 mph. A short section of parallel ways of the Huntingdon Road is shown as 70 mph however I am not now clear if that short section constitutes a dual carriageway. http://www.itoworld.com/map/124?lon=0.07067lat=52.23321zoom=15fullscreen=true How about the many short sections of 'dual-carriagway' on the A120 in Essex such as this one. Dual carriageway or not? I am not clear. http://www.itoworld.com/map/124?lon=1.21929lat=51.92823zoom=17fullscreen=true Or this junction between the M1 and A421. Again, short sections of 'dual-cariageway' and slip roads to both a motorway and a trunk road. What is their status? http://www.itoworld.com/map/124?lon=-0.60951lat=52.02764zoom=16fullscreen=true It is for these reasons that I advocate setting maxspeed:type simply to 'GB:national' and then interpretting it to the best of our current knowledge as a numeric limit in maxspeed. Possibly we should err on the side of caution with the numeric limit. Regards, Peter Colin On 2013-09-29 10:14, Peter Miller wrote: To attempt to summarise the situation: - The maximum legal speed for any vehicle should be a number in maxspeed following by mph. - There should also be information available to say if this speed is defined as a number in a circle or a black and white sign - There is also benefit, for various reasons, to know if a road is single carriageway or dual carriageway. - There also seems to be agreement (in the form of silence from some) that there is no clear definition of what is and is not a dual-carriageway in the UK without going to court! - OSM tagging policy is generally that one should tag what one sees. As such, it seems unreasonable to ask a new mapper to great a situation requiring a court case for every ambiguous section of road in the country to establish if they are dual carriageways or single carriageways. This is why I suggest we use GB:national to indicate that the speed is set by a black/white sign. We could however compromise and suggest 'GB:nsl_dual' where we know if is a dual carriageway, 'GB:nsl:single' where we know it isn't and GB:national where we aren't sure. Alternatively, we could always use 'GB:national' for the maxspeed type and add other tagging to indicate dual carriagewayness, either using 'carriagway=A/B' tag or a relation with type=dual-carriageway or similar. Or.. and this is the simplest approach in the short term as far as I can see which I have been advocating, we can imply dual-carriagewayness by a combining a highway tag with the tag pairs 'maxspeed=70' and 'maxspeed:type=GB:national'. I say this because the '70 mph' value for maxspeed can only be used case where a road is a dual-carriageway. As we get clearer about what constitutes a dual-carriageway or not we then only need to change with speed between 70 mph to 60 mph. We can then also populate approach dual-carriageway tagging on these roads. Regards, Peter On 29 September 2013 00:45, Nick Allen nick.allen...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, After your first post on this, my initial thought was that you were correct and the simpler tag you were proposing was enough. I started following your proposal, but I've thought a little more feel that the more involved 'GB:nsl_single' type tag is actually needed I'll be going back through my work over the last couple of days and changing it back. My thinking is; i/. The basis of GB law is that it is up to the individual to know what the law states, and to comply with it. No matter what your SatNav tells you it won't help you when you are standing in a court explaining your actions - the SatNav is a guide only and some maintain that they are unsafe as they distract the driver who may therefore miss the speed limits being displayed. ii/. If you are driving a motor vehicle with very few exceptions you should comply with the law regarding speed limits. iia/. A built up area with street lighting (I'm not entirely sure how you define built up area, and I seem to remember something about the street lights being no more than 200
[Talk-GB] Fwd: National speed limit changes
I have just noticed that this response went only to Andy. Forwarding to to the list now. Peter On 24 September 2013 14:26, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Hi Peter, Thanks for replying here. Peter Miller wrote: So...on the basis that we should tag what is there, we see a white sign with a black diagonal line on it then that is what we should indicate. We do of course interpret that by putting what we believe if the correct legal speed limit in maxspeed. As such a single carriageway national limit is coded as maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=60 mph. As dual carriageway is tagged as maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph. The motorway version is highway=motorway,maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph. I understand the potential problem (does a national speed limit dual carriageway slip road count as a dual carriageway or not?) but am concerned that changing e.g. GB:nsl_single to gb:national will: o potentially obscure any underlying data errors (imagine something tagged maxspeed=70 mph, maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single) o make things more difficult for data consumers (if only by changing the data from something that they might be expecting) o confuse new mappers who see data that they've entered being changed because it's wrong, when in reality there really isn't a concensus on this. I fully accept that national speed limit tagging in the UK is a mess (at the time of writing 4 of the top 6 values for http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/maxspeed:type#values could mean the same thing) but any consolidation must proceed following discussion. Sure, and I am politely inviting people to discuss the subject now and am suggesting that it makes a lot of sense to consolidate around a tag value which describes what one sees in front of one on the ground, ie a black and white sign. To be clear I in the habit of using the nsl_single and nsl_dual format until PinkDuck politely pointed out that I was tagging some slip-road etc incorrectly and we agreed that is made more sense to avoid the confusion in the first place and use the simpler gb:national. With regard to the other point: For avoidance of doubt, all my edits have been fully manual. I don't believe that anyone has suggested otherwise I was responding to Roberts comment above that I certainly don't think there has been any discussion of or agreement for a mass mechanical edit to change existing values. although I have certainly suggested that you may not have visited all of the places that you have been changing the speed limit for. There is clearly a sliding scale between I've surveyed an area, and everything that I've edited is based on the results of that survey, aided by e.g. Bing, OSSV, and other named sources and I've changed a bunch of tags worldwide based on who knows what information without even looking where I've changed them. The wiki's mechanical edit policyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy (as currently written) suggests that changes of this type may be covered (search-and-replace operations using an editor... unless your changes are backed up by knowledge or survey) - I guess that it depends on what you mean by knowledge **. Clearly no-one's going to object to some tag-changing edits (designation=public_fooptath to designation=public_footpath for example) but in this case there's enough doubt - other mappers have said I think the changes should reverted and This tag is vital in the replies to my original mail. Based on that, where you've changed e.g. GB:nsl_single to gb:national would it be possible for you to revert your changes? There's clearly a discussion to be had going forward about which one of GB:blah, UK:blah, gb:blah and uk:blah we need to keep, but based on the replies so far there doesn't appear to be a concensus to support merging of everything into gb:national. I don't hear a clamoring for such a reversion, and indeed I don't think anyone in OSM is sufficiently knowledgeable able the law to say for sure which tag should be used in all cases as I have indicated above. Peter Cheers, Andy ** In which case quite possibly mea culpa for the changesets that I refer to herehttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-September/015227.html- it's not black and white. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Peter Miller CEO +44(0) 7774 667213 ITO World Ltd - Registered in England Wales - Registration Number 5753174 Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ. Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ. Telephone - 01473 272225 www.itoworld.com IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system
Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes
Barry, Are you saying that a road marked with a numeric sign of '60 mph' defines a different legal maximum speed for some vehicle types from a single carriageway road marked with a white sign and a black diagonal? For example that a bus/coach/car+trailer/HGV less that 7.5 tonnes are only be able to operate at 50 mph on a national limit single carriageway road (for examples one tagged marked maxspeed=60 mph,maxspeed:type=gb:national), but can operate at 60mph on a dual carriageway road signed numerically (ie maxspeed=60 mph;maxspeed:type=sign)? Peter On 24 September 2013 16:04, Barry Cornelius barrycorneliu...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Richard Mann wrote: So...on the basis that we should tag what is there, we see a white sign with a black diagonal line on it then that is what we should indicate. We do of course interpret that by putting what we believe if the correct legal speed limit in maxspeed. As such a single carriageway national limit is coded as maxspeed:type=gb:national,**maxspeed=60 mph. As dual carriageway is tagged as maxspeed:type=gb:national,**maxspeed=70 mph. The motorway version is highway=motorway,maxspeed:**type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph. I was once on a speed awareness course. Many of the attendees were unaware of what the limits were on the different kinds of road. So the question was raised as to why a black diagonal line is used and not a value like 50 or 60 or 70 which make life a lot easier. The reason is that the maximum speed is dependent on the kind of vehicle you are driving. It's defined in Rule 125 of the Highway Code which is at: https://www.gov.uk/general-**rules-all-drivers-riders-103-** to-158/control-of-the-vehicle-**117-to-126https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/control-of-the-vehicle-117-to-126 So I wonder whether it is appropriate to include maxspeed=70 mph in OSM as it could be misunderstood. It is only appropriate for some road users. This was certainly the argument being proposed for not having 70 on road signs. Of course, another reason for not using numerical values on road signs is that if the UK were ever to change the value of the national speed limits then it would mean a lot of signs to change! I guess this does not apply to OSM as global editing is a little easier. Although I lurk on this list, I'm not an OSM contributor. -- Barry Cornelius http://www.northeastraces.com/ http://www.thehs2.com/ http://www.rowmaps.com/ http://www.oxonpaths.com/ http://www.barrycornelius.com/ __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Peter Miller CEO +44(0) 7774 667213 ITO World Ltd - Registered in England Wales - Registration Number 5753174 Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ. Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ. Telephone - 01473 272225 www.itoworld.com IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes
Apologies for being slow to pick this one up. I was in private discussion with Andy on this using OSM messaging which appeared to have come to a conclusion. I now notice that it had moved to talk-gb. For avoidance of doubt, all my edits have been fully manual. Here is the explanation I gave to Andy for using and preferring gb:national. I would be happy to hear from others on the matter. As you will notice this was worked out with PinkDuck up in Nofolk: Andy: Regarding gb:national, I use that tag because that is what the sign says. gb:nsl_single and gb_nsl_dual are interpretations of the actual sign based on one's understanding of exactly what constitutes a dual carriageway which is not always clear. The Highway Code defines it as 'a dual carriageway is a road which has a central reservation to separate the carriageways.' I suggest that the status of divergent roads, very short sections on the approach to a roundabout and slip roads is uncertain and that the correct interpretation could only be agreed in a court. This is the conclusion that PinkDuck and I came to anyway. He asked the DfT of someone and learnt that trunk road slip roads were 60mph but that motorway ones were 70mph. etc etc. You will notice that I have corrected the limit on the roundabout to 60 mph. So...on the basis that we should tag what is there, we see a white sign with a black diagonal line on it then that is what we should indicate. We do of course interpret that by putting what we believe if the correct legal speed limit in maxspeed. As such a single carriageway national limit is coded as maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=60 mph. As dual carriageway is tagged as maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph. The motorway version is highway=motorway,maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph. Thoughts? Regards, Peter Miller (PeterIto) On 23 September 2013 09:34, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Sat, 2013-09-21 at 22:09 +0100, Andy Street wrote: I'd agree that maxspeed=national is insufficient as it is impossible to tell what speed you can do in a built up area. National speed limits rarely apply in built up areas, other than sometimes on faster feeder roads. The built up area limit in the UK is 30mph, unless signposted differently. This is implied by the presence of street lighting. 30mph limits, where there are no streetlights, require repeater signs. I'm also not a huge fan of the current practice of placing single or dual in the maxspeed:type tag either as I consider the number of carriageways to be feature of the road rather than the speed limit. This tag is vital, as in the UK on roads where the national speed limit applies, it is much more than a mere feature of the road as you put it, but defines the speed limit. When roads change between single and dual carriageway the speed limit changes, there are no signposts. 60 mph on single carriageways, 70 mph on dual carriageways or 70 mph on motorways in England and Wales are never explicitly signposted on NSL roads, but are indicated by the black diagonal, or motorway chopsticks signs. There are a few exceptions on special roads, hence the A55 in North Wales and the Edinburgh City Bypass do have 70mph signage. Phil (trigpoint} ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Peter Miller CEO +44(0) 7774 667213 ITO World Ltd - Registered in England Wales - Registration Number 5753174 Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ. Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ. Telephone - 01473 272225 www.itoworld.com IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 mapping
Nice, We are keen to add a heritage layer to the mapping. Nothing certain, but will be great to have more data for the route. Regards, Peter On 26 August 2013 21:52, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Peter I'm gradually adding listed buildings along the route in Warwickshire regards Brian On 21 August 2013 15:52, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Just to highlight some mapping ITO have just released, which was developed with CPRE showing the construction, landuse and operation impacts of the High Speed 2 line. Many thanks for the hundreds of people who have contributed to the base OSM data which is used within the maps. Needless to say, it also uses information from a number of other sources. Would be great to get more detail into OSM along the route, in particular footpaths and heritage details so the project is based on a thorough understanding of the impacts. We will update the maps from time to time, and use the latest OSM data when we do so. http://hs2maps.com/ Regards, Peter -- Peter Miller CEO +44(0) 7774 667213 ITO World Ltd - Registered in England Wales - Registration Number 5753174 Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ. Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ. Telephone - 01473 272225 www.itoworld.com IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Peter Miller CEO +44(0) 7774 667213 ITO World Ltd - Registered in England Wales - Registration Number 5753174 Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ. Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ. Telephone - 01473 272225 www.itoworld.com IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] HS2 mapping
Just to highlight some mapping ITO have just released, which was developed with CPRE showing the construction, landuse and operation impacts of the High Speed 2 line. Many thanks for the hundreds of people who have contributed to the base OSM data which is used within the maps. Needless to say, it also uses information from a number of other sources. Would be great to get more detail into OSM along the route, in particular footpaths and heritage details so the project is based on a thorough understanding of the impacts. We will update the maps from time to time, and use the latest OSM data when we do so. http://hs2maps.com/ Regards, Peter -- Peter Miller CEO +44(0) 7774 667213 ITO World Ltd - Registered in England Wales - Registration Number 5753174 Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ. Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ. Telephone - 01473 272225 www.itoworld.com IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail
Apologies about being very late to respond to this issue. I did use the historic:railway=* tag for old railway for a period of time having come across it somewhere in the DB. It was good because it was possible to tag which sort of railway it was However... I now only use it in very particular circumstances because it was hard to pick railway features out of the DB. I now always use a current railway purpose using a railway tag, for example railway=rail, abandoned, proposed or construction etc. If however there is also a secondary value for the tag, for example a former or proposed value then I would also use historic:railway=* or proposed:railway=*. For example with a railway that is currently part of a light_rail system but was formerly part of a main line railway the tagging would be railway=light_rail, historic:railway=rail. In one extreme case I found an old canal which then converted into a mainline railway and is now a cycleway which I think I tagged as tagged waterway=abandoned, historic:waterway=canal, railway=abandoned, historic:railway=rail, highway=cycleway. If there was a plan to bring the canal back into use (which there wasn't) I would have also addded proposed:waterway=canal! This allows one to reliably use the railway tag itself to pick up all ways that have relevance to a railway map without having to check loads of prefixes and also allow the feature to contain a lot of temporal information. I will put it on my very long list to do a cleanup of the orphan historic:railway tags which I added and which are not on ways with a railway tag unless someone does it first. Does that make sense? Regards, Peter On 13 May 2013 17:10, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2013 11:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground? I don't oppose the change in principle, but we need to be clear what you intend for all the various values. railway:historic = rail, railway:historic = light_rail and railway:historic = tram can't all go into one railway=dismantled tag without losing information. I expect you intend to use another tag (dismantled = light_rail etc) but that's worth stating. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Peter Miller CEO +44(0) 7774 667213 ITO World Ltd - Registered in England Wales - Registration Number 5753174 Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ. Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ. Telephone - 01473 272225 www.itoworld.com IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
Just spotted all the activity on this thread which is great to see. Personally I am reasonably neutral on what policy emerges from this conversation. I do agree that few schemes are really really certain until the diggers arrive. By way of example, I personally removed the Longdendale bypass ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longdendale_Bypass) from OSM a few years ago after the HA pulled out of the public inquiry when the inspector had rejected their traffic predictions for the seventh time! I do also agree that it is also far from certain that HS2 will be built whatever the administration is saying at present. I would therefore understand the view that nothing should be added as proposed until it is 99% certain that it will be constructed. By way of example it would be most remarkable if the A11 Fiveways scheme was not completed now that work has started. It would also be remarkable if Crossrail was not completed (but there is a bit more risk there). Some people however seem to believe that it is never appropriate to add content until construction has actually started for that bit of the infrastructure which seems a bit extreme. As people may know, I am very interested in understanding and modelling how our transport system is likely to develop and I if it is agreed that information about less certain schemes does not belong in OSM then we at ITO will devise a system to hold this information separately and allow people to contribute to it. We will combine it with OSM so that people can see what it might look like. You can see an example for the Norwich Northern Distributor Road (which is not in OSM btw) here: http://www.itoworld.com/map/245# Another approach would be to allow 'aspiration' as a tag prefix for roads that have considerable support but which do not yet meet the strict requirements for 'proposed'. Can I suggest that we work out what we believe are appropriate guidelines here and then get them discussion on an appropriate international list and also on the wiki? Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd On 12 December 2012 09:37, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Jason Cunningham wrote: (just noticed my work on the South Devon Link Road and surrounding area has been deleted, then the same info re-added by someone else! I've been cleansed from the history.) This is the more 'irritating' bit here. People spending a substantial amount of time doing work that someone else simply removes! I'll bang on again about secondary databases where the likes of these 'proposals' can be staged prior to their physical appearance, but the more annoying aspect of this moving forward is the simple scrapping of the current on the ground situation which IS perfectly valid information. Taking the A11 developments as an example, all of the current routing is nicely mapped, so displaying '2012' version of the map requires no 'extra' mapping. It would be nice to be able to roll back show the roads development over time, and there are people around who would contribute that material if a mechanism was available to fill in the gaps. It's the current lack of a mechanism to use/display current historic data that needs addressing? A slightly different example of this is looking at historic data in change sets. I'm probably spoilt with some of the comparison tools when looking at differences between versions of a file or changeset. But it would be nice to see a graphical 'diff' between version of object history in OSM ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=**contacthttp://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.**ukhttp://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN Bus Stops
Sounds good. Do however check out the code Thomas Wood wrote for a complete NaPTAN importer a long time back. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Import Regards, Peter On 11 December 2012 21:55, Barry Cornelius barrycorneliu...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2012, Donald Noble wrote: I tried downloading the XML file from data.gov.uk: The XML file is mentioned at: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/**naptan http://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan and it is available as a zip file at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/NaPTAN/**snapshot/NaPTANxml.ziphttp://www.dft.gov.uk/NaPTAN/snapshot/NaPTANxml.zip I think it gets regularly updated. but when I opened it the 500MB file was all on the second line, apart from the XML version tag on the first line. This meant I struggled to even look at the file to see if I could do anything useful with it. The file NaPTANxml.zip is about 31MB and, as you say, after unzipping it NaPTAN.xml is about 500MB. If you're using linux, you can format NaPTAN.xml using: xmllint --format NaPTAN.xml format.xml The file format.xml is about 750MB. I think xmllint is in the debian package called libxml2-utils. Therefore I was wondering if anyone has (or is able to produce) an extract for the area around Glasgow (or even for Scotland) preferably already in osm format that I could use. I haven't done that. However, in case it's of any use, I've put a zipped version of format.xml at: http://www.rowmaps.com/**temporary/format.ziphttp://www.rowmaps.com/temporary/format.zip It's about 36MB. I regard this directory as a temporary space and so I will delete this file later. Regard it as having the same licence as the original file: http://www.nationalarchives.**gov.uk/doc/open-government-**licence/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ To whet your appetite, here's an extract: StopPoint CreationDateTime=2003-08-**27T00:00:00 ModificationDateTime=2012-07-**02T14:24:40 Modification=new RevisionNumber=0 Status=active AtcoCode60901000/AtcoCode NaptanCode45238737/**NaptanCode Descriptor CommonNameBalmore Square/CommonName LandmarkBalmore Square/Landmark StreetBalmore Road/Street Indicatorbefore/Indicator /Descriptor Place NptgLocalityRefN0076070/**NptgLocalityRef TownGlasgow/Town LocalityCentre1/**LocalityCentre Location Translation GridTypeUKOS/GridType Easting258877/Easting Northing668372/Northing Longitude-4.2579340692/**Longitude Latitude55.8877326565/**Latitude /Translation /Location /Place StopClassification StopTypeBCT/StopType OnStreet Bus BusStopTypeMKD/BusStopType TimingStatusOTH/**TimingStatus MarkedPoint Bearing CompassPointNW/**CompassPoint /Bearing /MarkedPoint /Bus /OnStreet /StopClassification StopAreas StopAreaRef CreationDateTime=2012-11-**28T15:27:31 Modification=new Status=active609G04088/**StopAreaRef /StopAreas AdministrativeAreaRef127/**AdministrativeAreaRef PlusbusZones PlusbusZoneRef CreationDateTime=2010-10-**07T14:27:15 ModificationDateTime=2010-10-**07T14:27:15 Modification=new RevisionNumber=0 Status=activeGLGC/**PlusbusZoneRef /PlusbusZones /StopPoint There's some explanation at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/naptan/**schema/2.1/guide/naptan-**070325.dochttp://www.dft.gov.uk/naptan/schema/2.1/guide/naptan-070325.doc -- Barry Cornelius http://www.northeastraces.com/ http://www.thehs2.com/ http://www.rowmaps.com/ http://www.oxonpaths.com/ http://www.barrycornelius.com/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
Just to say that I have added tagging and a relations for both of the main road schemes mentioned specifically in the Autumn Statement. I have also updated a couple of other schemes to use the same tagging as outlined in prefix (status:key = value) method of tagging life-cycle details as outlined on the wiki here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts In all cases I have modelled them in a manner in which software could interpret the tags and create a routable model for the proposed scheme. I would be very happy to get any feedback on the approach, either on this list on or the wiki page. I have tended to use the source tag to hold a URL link to the document I used to establish the route. The two schemes mentioned in the Autumn Statement: A1 (Leeming Bar and Barton) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2620992 A30 Temple to High Carblake http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2621269 Two other schemes: A11 at Thetford http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1503233 SEMMMs in Machester http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2623484http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=2623484 A final observation is that the information for these schemes is sometimes vague, fragmented, non-existent or contradictory. As such I think it may be worth creating wiki-pages on the OSM wiki for some of the larger or more troublesome ones where people can work together to agree what should be in OSM. Indeed, one question for any scheme is if it is certain enough to happy to be in OSM at all. Regards, Peter Miller (PeterIto) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
On 7 December 2012 14:10, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Peter Miller wrote: Just to say that I have added tagging and a relations for both of the main road schemes mentioned specifically in the Autumn Statement. Is there any actual benefit to doing this before construction actually starts? Until that point nothing on the ground has changed - only the degree of smugness on a politician's face. OSM unfortunately has more than it's fair share of I wish there was a cycle route here or I wish there was a bypass there - shouldn't we be more worried about mapping what's here now? For sure, we should be mapping what is on the ground and we are getting on with that very well indeed, however I believe it is also appropriate to add details of schemes that have official backing, have a defined start or end date and are have 'a strong likelihood of being built' (such schemes would also appear on a printed road-atlas). Schemes that are aspirational (Boris Island) or which have no official support or which are still at the 'preferred options' stage or before do not. Thoughts? Regards, Peter Cheers, Andy __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS Locator comparison and Google Streetview
Just to say that I, along with a number of other people, have being doing some OS Locator based updates to OSM over the past few days following the release of the latest OS Locator update. Where OS Locator and OSM disagree I either do a Google search to see if Zoopla or other reputable sources can resolve the discrepancy for me (on the basis that houses particulars are probably going to be right). In some cases I may instead try Google Streetview and check the street sign. If nothing works then I leave it unless there is some other reason to believe OS Locator. Now... As a note of appreciation to Google in situations where I use Google Streetview I then check their mapping to see if they are right or if they are also incorrectly trusting OS Locator. Where Google Maps is wrong as per Google Streetview I then 'report and problem' to Google giving them the correct spelling. I was impressed that my last report, made at 6pm yesterday evening, was responded to at 9am this morning confirming my change. I have checked and it is already fixed on their mapping. Needless to say it was fixed on OSM at 6pm last night! Can I encourage other people to consider doing the same. That way we get better maps for everyone and we provide something back to Google where we use their resources. For the avoidance of doubt, we should only used Google Streetview to check street signs to resolve the occasional queries and some people don't even like that. What OSM contributors must never do is use Google Maps as a primary source (which is called plagiarism)! Regards, Peter Miller (PeterIto) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator comparison and Google Streetview
On 15 November 2012 12:20, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Peter Miller wrote: Just to say that I, along with a number of other people, have being doing some OS Locator based updates to OSM over the past few days following the release of the latest OS Locator update. (leaving aside the Google issue) Can I make one additional request - If you're adding street names based on OS Locator can you make it clear (via a source:name tag) that you've done that? That is extremely useful information as it tells future on-theground mappers which streets haven't been surveyed for POIs and linking footpaths, etc. Definitely. I do try to do that every time. It is however a bit confusing that pressing 'b' in os locator background view with the 'simple' panel displayed in Potlatch appears to achieve nothing (even though it works behind the scene). It is also a bit dangerous that it is easy to change the 'ref' field for a road to 'b' if one pressed return on the name field for a more major road (which works fine for residential roads). It is also odd that pressing return a few times to get away from text boxes on the Potlatch interface for primary and trunk roads seems to freeze at the 'lanes' text field so it is also easy to change the lanes count to 'b'! Finally, it is odd that 'b' doesn't work when more that one road segment is selected in Potlach, We will do a trac ticket or two for Potlatch as appropriate. Peter Cheers, Andy __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed changes
On 27 September 2012 17:42, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.comwrote: As I mentioned earlier on it was speed limits for roundabouts along a dual carriageway that led to me doing a bit of research on UK speed limit legislation. My 'notes' are below http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu/UK_Speed_Limits A roundabout does not meet the given definition of a dual carriageway provided by legislation, and therefore is classified as a single carriageway road. Therefore a NSL roundabout can either be a NSL Restricted road or NSL single carriageway road speed limit. Recently spotted that my satnav already new this. That does make sense. Slip road connected to dual carriageways also does not meet the definition of a dual carriageway. Slip roads on motorways are not covered by NSL legislation. The whole motorway network, which includes the slip roads, is deliberately outside NSL legislation. Motorways are special roads with separate legislation. If the slips roads are part of the Motorway Network then they're special roads covered the Motorway Legislation with a maxspeed for cars of 70 mph. Thanks for the clarification. So what about slip roads on non-motorway dual-carriageways? Are these 70mph or 60mph in your view? Things can be different in Scotland. I concentrated on reading 'English' legislation and case law. Having read legislation and case law I'm happy to argue that British speed limit law is a mess. Once you understand the foibles of the legislation you'll start spotting stretches of road where signs are wrong or missing. The link below shows locations of street lighting around a junction. http://goo.gl/maps/I8uhr (yellow for lighting for main road, and orange for lighting of runabout which is technically a separate section of road.) There are clearly sections of road with 3 more street lamps that mean that unless otherwise signed the stretches of road are 'NSL Restricted' with speed limits for cars of 30mph. Roads leading up to the lighting are NSL single carriageway with speed limits cars of 60 mph. Legislation states there should be signs clearly advising you that NSL Restricted begins or small signs reminding you NSL single lane carries on, but they are missing (I haven't spotted nsl signs while driving or when double checking today using StreetView). Therefore the speed limit defaults to NSL Restricted. Since drivers would expect a sign for a change in speed limit they are unlikely to slow down to the NSL Restricted speed limit. Lack of signs for any other change in speed limit would mean it would be impossible to prosecute, but signs are not needed for NSL Restricted road and there is case law to support this. A problem for drivers, and for people trying to map speed limits. I believe that when one starts finding errors on the ground it is a good indicator that you are getting good at what you are doing! Putting aside my little rant about missing speed limit signs, I think we could do with proper page giving some advice of speed limits if we intend to map them. Or just roll the details into the speed limits or maxspeed articles for now as the same sort of questions are likely to appear in other countries? Thanks, Peter Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed changes
On 20 September 2012 16:59, Gregory Williams greg...@gregorywilliams.me.ukwrote: -Original Message- From: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net] Sent: 20 September 2012 16:27 To: Talk GB Subject: [Talk-GB] maxspeed changes It seems that PeterITO is once again making changes to speed limits, this time changing limits that are tagged maxspeed=national to maxspeed=60 mph. The signs I see ( the round white sign with the black diagonal bar) does not say 60 mph it says national speed limit. Therefore I believe PeterITO is wrong to make the changes. Furthermore, he seems to making them over a wide area which makes it an undiscussed mass edits and should probably be reverted as such. PeterITO, please explain what you are doing. Presumably Peter is also adding source:maxspeed=UK:nsl_single, therefore preserving the fact that the maxspeed data represents the national speed limit at that point, rather than being explicitly signed as 60 mph? Certainly that's how I tag national speed limits on single carriageways here in Kent. Correct. I did however use alternative maxspeed:type at times which also appears in the DB and which I feel is better than source:maxspeed which to my mind should be used for 'source:maxspeed=survey' or 'source:maxspeed=local authority spreadsheet-Dec12' or similar. However... lets leave that discussion to another day but either way not information has been lost by my edits and the data has been made more consistent. Fyi, I changed one instance of 'maxspeed=30 mph;30mph' in Kent to 'maxspeed=30 mph' and left the instance of 'maxspeed=12 mph' alone (even though it does seem a bit unlikely). Re ITO Map, we have recently enabled 'clicks' on many of them. Click on any coloured elements on the speed limit fixup map to see what the tagging currently shows. Many other maps also now support clicks. Finally. Be aware that we are still in the process of updating ITO Map following the license change. If it is not updated tonight it should hopefully do so tomorrow. It should then update daily. As such the speed limit fixup map still shows the state of OSM before I made any changes. Regards, Peter Gregory ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
On 4 July 2012 09:39, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote: However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database? I think highway=no is typically used as a temporary tag to try to stop remote mappers from adding something from a source that is not up to date. In practice they probably sit around in the database in perpetuity, but it still seems quite different to actively map dismantled and abandoned railway lines. highway=no was a dirty hack suggested as a placeholder for a road name that was in OS Locator that related to a road that didn't exist. Rather than manage a separate DB of such features with all the associated complexity someone suggested we pop it in as a non-road. This is currently often essential for people who which to get to 100% on the OSM Analysis stats we run (http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main). As others have mentioned, railway=dismantled seems fine. However, what is the argument for keeping connections between sections of dismantled railway, that have since been split by modern developments? Personally I would love it if we are able to extract a routable rail network from OSM for certain times in the past. I am sure some railway enthusiast groups will love our historic railway mapping which is better if complete. Here is a project I have proposed which is sitting waiting for some love to digitise the world's historic public transport timetables, and in particular some UK historic railway timetables. ( https://openbradshaws.wordpress.com/) As an aside, how would one map a dismantled railway bridge? And, how would one map an intact but disused bridge from which the railway tracks have been removed? My personal preference would be to prefix any tag that is no longer relevant with 'historic:' (rather than the :historic postfix). This would fit with prefixes of proposed: and construction: but this is probably getting to be something that would benefit from being discussed on the tagging list.. For your above example I would like to use: railway=dismantled;bridge=yes (or historic:railway=rail;bridge=yes) If the bridge had been removed I would use: railway=dismantled;historic:bridge=yes (or historic:railway=rail;historic:bridge=yes) If there was a proposed cycle route across a former railway bridge which would have to be rebuilt I would be tempted to use: historic:railway=rail;historic:bridge=yes;proposed:bridge=yes;proposed:highway=cycleway Regards, Peter Craig On 3 July 2012 22:47, Donald Noble drno...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has added a few railway=dismantled ways to the map, I thought I might add in my reasoning. Railways, by their nature, link places and are pretty much continuous. So in areas (like Glasgow) where there are sections of old railway infrastructure visible on the ground I have mapped these as r=disused or r=abandoned depending on whether the tracks are still in-situ. But I find it useful if these can be linked by sections of r=dismantled (or some other tag) that reflects that there was a railway there, even if all traces are now gone, as this can make sense of the remnants that are there. I appreciate there is a line between mapping what is on the ground and creating a database of historic routes, and perhaps dismantled railways crosses that line (if you'll excuse the pun). However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database? Personally, I wouldn't map a long section where there once was a railway but it has now been completely obliterated by this complex housing estate and shopping centre, but I have mapped a place where an abandoned railway was obliterated by a carpark but the remains of it are visible on either side (and on 3ish year old bing imagery). This doesn't really address the OP regarding railway:historic=rail versus railway=dismantled, which I have no real views on, as neither appears on most map renderings. Although I have recently changed a couple of railway=station+disused=yes nodes to railway:historic=station, where there is no visible evidence left on the ground (and so they are no use for navigation), so maybe railway:historic=rail keeps things tidier. regards, Donald -- Donald Noble http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
On 1 July 2012 22:49, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote: Obviously mapping things that aren't there any more is a bigger issue Has there been discussion about this outside talk:railway? If there hasn't I'm a bit annoyed that a niche user group didn't discuss it with the wider world. You're correct it has been discussed before but I thought there was a conclusion - that OSM is not a historic document. It there is physical evidence of something from days gone by then tag it as such but if the landscape has totally obliterated it, leave it be. If Peterito wants to create a 'railways of the past map' he should use OSM as the _current_ background and import old ways from a separate database. One of the problems is where do you stop? I live in a city that's goes back beyond Roman occupation. If OSM were to be totally inclusive complete in a historic sense then my patch would be a right PITA to move around within the editors, let alone amend anything. Apologies about not raising it earlier, but as is the nature of some of these missions sometimes,they start with small tweeks in one's home patch and then sometimes become much bigger. It had been my intention to mention it on this list in due course. By way of background, I have been doing a general GB cleanup on old railways to ensure that they are correctly designated as disused/abandoned/dismantled and that more former railways that are now footpaths/cyclepaths are tagged as such. Here is a map on ITO Map showing how railways have been reused: http://www.itoworld.com/map/26# Regarding the mapping of obliterated railway lines (often tagged as railway=abandoned in the past), it was initially my view that this information should not be in OSM and I spent some time removing it where I found it. There was then a discussion and agreement that railway=dismantled should be used for this purpose (which doesn't render on the standard mapping and therefore doesn't make the map look odd where it crosses a built-up area the way abandoned does). I know that it is not normally the case to map removed features, but the community seemed to have agreed that it should be included. Personally I feel that this is appropriate given the huge legacy of railways for the UK. While doing this I found railway:historic being used somewhere, I believe it was in Cornwall and liked the fact that it retained more information about the type is railway, ie if it had been a mainline railway, a funicular railway or a miniature railway. I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled for cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM messaging that one editor had found it confusing to suddenly have cyclepaths being rendered as railways in Potlatch due the railway=xxx tag (although that is not a good reason to make the change in itself.) As for the best venue to discuss tagging, I signed off the main talk a long time ago as it took far too much time to keep up with. I now use the wiki as my main place for global tagging discussions. You will see that there have been a good number of discussions on talk:railways ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways) over the years including on this topic. I do however agree that since my mapping has been done in the UK that I should also have mentioned it here. Apologies for not doing so. All we need to agree now is how to go forward on this one. Responding to comments below. Use of railway=abandoned for lines across housing estates is definitely wrong. Some suggest railway=dismantled, some remove them. Personally I think we are very close to a routeable historic railway network in advance of the 60th anniversary of the Beeching Cuts which is in March 2013. Regards, Peter Cheers Dave F. __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries and OS OpenData BoundaryLine
On 29 May 2012 16:05, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.comwrote: I think Peter was planning on making the ITO boundaries available as a traceable layer, but haven't heard anything about this recently. You are right. It should be possibly to use ITO Map tiles in Potlatch and JOSM, however there seems to be glitch at present which we will take a look at over the next few days and get back to you on this list. You will probably also be aware that updates for ITO Map have also pretty much failed since the planet dumps disappeared at the start of April with the license change. We had initially understood that planet would be down for about two week and planned to sit it out, however given the protracted nature of the changeover we are now working hard on a fix that can be used with the current files and will get us back to daily updates. Regards, Peter On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: On 29 May 2012 15:44, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: My questions to the community: 1) Would a bulk upload of any or all of this data be interesting? Thanks for raising this, it would be great to get a more complete set of boundaries. In answer to your first question, no, please don't follow a bulk upload approach. I say this for two reasons: 1) Most boundaries follow existing features like roads, rivers, etc. They need to be manually entered as relations sharing nodes with those features. In my experience this is often a nice opportunity to spot other problems with very old features using aerial imagery and GPS tracks, e.g. poor alignment, or complicated junctions that aren't fully modelled for routing. So much better done manually than by dumping a load of new ways into the database. 2) Many boundaries already exist, but are often slightly incorrect, e.g. not sharing nodes with existing features but being a little offset. By doing this manually you can improve these as you go, especially since every boundary shares its properties with one or more other boundaries. The best approach would be to identify which boundaries are missing, put those up in a list and and encourage people to get us to 100%. Perhaps start with counties, then unitaries and districts, then even wards. ITO have a nice map of boundaries that people can use to check up on them, you can see I started to add wards in Southwark: http://www.itoworld.com/map/2 Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Shaun McDonald to join ITO World!
Just a brief note to welcome Shaun McDonald (smsm1) to ITO World and also to Suffolk in a few weeks. He will be helping us develop our OpenStreetMap and Open Data products further and will be staying very engaged with the open data and open source communities more generally. This is part of a wider expansion of ITO's activities. If there are any top notch C++ programmers out there who are looking for a new job and who fancy living in the normally dry county of Suffolk then do please send me your cv. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Recovering NaPTAN bus stops
On 9 April 2012 18:59, Andrew andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Some of the bus stops imported from NaPTAN in the Teddington/Hampton area appear to have been deleted where they duplicated stops entered by a mapper who has not accepted the Contributor Terms. As the stops will disappear from the map completely, is it better to undelete the stops or to survey them fresh? It may be better to start with a more general review / update of NaPTAN bus stop data in OSM. At ITO we are keen to get more comprehensive coverage of NaPTAN codes into OSM which is currently patchy and out-of-date. Personally I would suggest working from imported NaPTAN data first, then check alignment where possible from aerial photography and then do a ground survey where convenient or opportunistically. Comparing attributes in OSM and the current NaPTAN database would be interesting as a starting point. At ITO we are waiting for the new planet files to start appearing when we will kick of a new build of our model and see what ITO Map and OSM Analysis show up. Is there any news on the planet file restart? Fyi, we will be getting weekly updates to NaPTAN data from 1st May or there abouts. Regards, Peter -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] NaPTAN and ODbL
I received an email a few days ago from a contributor asking if the NaPTAN dataset was compatible with ODbL. It is, and it is now available from data.gov.uk using an Open Government License. The wiki page was very out-of-date and I have now updated the wiki. I have seen no evidence or suggestion that any NaPTAN data would be removed from OSM during the switch over. Are we safe on that? Also... for clarification, the OS Locator tiles from ITO say 'ccbysa', however people can read that as 'OGL' or equivalent and I can confirm that it is compatible with ODbL. We originally used ccbysa on the tiles because the service was introduced prior to OGL being finalised and before the OSM switch over to ODbL was very serious. We will update the text at a suitable time. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN and ODbL
On 3 April 2012 10:26, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, re NapTAN the only scenario I can see that might need checking would be a decliner who has merged a NaPTAN node with an existing bus stop for instance and all the data now is on a node to be deleted (or at least part amended) rather than the original NaPTAN node. Thanks Andy. Not fussed by the odd loss. My main concern was that someone somewhere was currently busy removing every bus stop from the UK from OSM because the wiki was out of date! Fyi, we are about to add some new tools to ITO Map to allow people to compare the positions of bus stops in OSM between current NaPTAN data and OSM and also to highlight where stops are missing, duplicated or are missing ATCO codes etc. Regards, Peter ** ** Cheers Andy ** ** *From:* Peter Miller [mailto:peter.mil...@itoworld.com] *Sent:* 03 April 2012 10:20 *To:* Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* [Talk-GB] NaPTAN and ODbL ** ** I received an email a few days ago from a contributor asking if the NaPTAN dataset was compatible with ODbL. It is, and it is now available from data.gov.uk using an Open Government License. The wiki page was very out-of-date and I have now updated the wiki. I have seen no evidence or suggestion that any NaPTAN data would be removed from OSM during the switch over. Are we safe on that? Also... for clarification, the OS Locator tiles from ITO say 'ccbysa', however people can read that as 'OGL' or equivalent and I can confirm that it is compatible with ODbL. We originally used ccbysa on the tiles because the service was introduced prior to OGL being finalised and before the OSM switch over to ODbL was very serious. We will update the text at a suitable time. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Onward Travel Information posters
On 30 March 2012 13:20, Bogus Zaba bog...@bogzab.plus.com wrote: On 29/03/12 14:24, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Just spotted, for the first time, one with correct attribution! Brand new poster at Burton-on-Trent station. Will post a pic when I'm, um, not on the train. :) cheers Richard __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Some of the posters appear on the PlusBus website - I found ones for Bath Spa and Bristol TM and Bristol Parkway. All with OSM attribution. I am please to hear it. As you may know, ITO are involved in the supply chain for these posters. We did promote the use of OSM data and we did emphasis the importance of getting the accreditation right for this release! It is of course great to see OSM being used in more and more places, and in particular being used by the professional sector; I also think it was the right for the OSM community to point out the accreditation error to ATOC last year and then give them time to fix it on this release without blowing it out of all proportion. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd BZ __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New VectorMapDistrict comparison maps on ITO Map
On 15 March 2012 13:10, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, This is very good, thank you - It is a nice easy check to see whether there are areas that need more attention. One thing that I would find useful would be an 'Edit' button that would open the same view in Potlatch2 to help correct little issues easily (like some of those roads with odd kinks in because I had moved a node accidentally etc.). There is an easy link to OSM from a tool at the top right of the map; you can click that and then click edit on the OSM map. Is that what you are looking for or are you wanting a direct link to Potlatch? We do have lots more on the way btw, including clickthroughs for individual features. Peter Graham. On 13 March 2012 20:21, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: I am pleased to be able announce that ITO Map now has a bunch of new map views comparing data in OSM with VectorMapDistrict. There are 7 new maps: two comparing roads in OSM with those in VMD (one highlighting omissions in VMD and the other from OSM), and also maps comparing railways, electricity, water, woodland and building data in the two map bases. The version of VMD we are using is probably not the most recent and we are also aware of some odd times on zoom 8. We will ensure that we using the latest VMD within the next few days and will be taking a look at the problems with zoom 8. In the mean time I hope it is useful. http://www.itoworld.com/map/group/21 These maps use our new ITO Map interface with a place search and sharing options which we rolled out last week. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] VMD - coastline comparison map on ITO Map
I have just added a new coastline VMD comparison map to ITO Map which focuses on high water, low water from VMD, coastline from OSM and also tidal and non-tidal rivers. http://www.itoworld.com/map/189 I have also made some adjustments to the VMD - Water comparison to align the colours and symbols between the maps. This map seems to raise some tagging issues, particularly to distinguish between beaches which are above the high water mark and which are below them. These maps do not yet show areas defined using multi-polygons correctly. Multi-polygons will be supported soon. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] VMD - coastline comparison map on ITO Map
On 17 March 2012 10:22, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote: On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 10:15 +, Peter Miller wrote: I have just added a new coastline VMD comparison map to ITO Map which focuses on high water, low water from VMD, coastline from OSM and also tidal and non-tidal rivers. http://www.itoworld.com/map/189 Are all those red squiggles on the linked to page showing the high water mark actually static enough to map in the detail they have done? I've no idea about coastal features like that. Good question. In some places it is reasonably stable and probably worth mapping, and in others, such as along the Suffolk coast by Felixstowe the shape often changes significantly over only one winter. It will certainly be worth making a quick check along many local coastlines - For example, I have noticed that there is a point along the North Norfolk coast where the OSM coastline abruptly changes from the high tide mark to the low tide mark for no good reason: http://www.itoworld.com/map/189#lat=52.923576503032216lon=1.3321496315532069zoom=16 I also note that the 'beach' tag is only recommended for use out as far as high water (tagged with natural=coastline in OSM), but in places beaches are shown out towards low water. Should we may the surface (sand/mud/swamp/rocks etc) between high and low tide? Possibly we should use natural=beach with 'tidal=yes'? Incidentally, today I noticed that the OS 25K:1 maps show beaches, rocks etc out as far as low water and only show sea beyond that point. Peter Cheers, Henry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!
On 24 January 2012 20:29, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Fixed now (I hope!). Changeset for the HS2 data is No. 10485263 and relation number is 1986960. Neat! Thanks Andy. I am going to run up the line making a few tweeks. In particular: 1) Add 'proposed=rail' along all elements (to complement the rail=proposed tag) 2) Add a 'proposed:maxspeed=225/250/400' etc based on the info in the 'design_line_speed' tag. 3) Merge the ways (and relation) with existing tracks where HS2 is 100% on top of an existing track alignment which it is going to replace. This certainly appears to be what is planned for part of the route out of London - I will check the docn first. Regards, Peter ** ** Cheers Andy ** ** *From:* Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] *Sent:* 24 January 2012 18:21 *To:* 'Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org' *Subject:* RE: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data! ** ** Please note that it looks like I’ve managed to upload the data twice (at least some of it anyway). I’ll revert and sort. ** ** Cheers Andy ** ** *From:* Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] *Sent:* 24 January 2012 17:19 *To:* 'Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org' *Subject:* RE: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data! ** ** Proposed HS2 route has been added to OSM under changesets 10485788 [1] 10486240[2]. I’ve also added all the ways to a relation 1986944 [3] ** ** All data added is separate for any other data in OSM. Ie its not connected to any other existing ways. Note that the data provided by DfT appears to be the centreline for the main runs but at junctions separates out to individual tracks. There is a little overlap in these locations and I have not attempted to join the former with the latter. I’ve also not simplified any ways (additional nodes are only on curves anyway). ** ** Tag mapping should be logical. Where both east and west sides have the same construction form (eg cutting) then I have added the appropriate tag. Where the sides differ I have not but the different side designations have been kept throughout (though tag values have been changed to fit better with our way of tagging things). ** ** For those interested in the process I took the shp file and used ogr2osm to convert it to an osm file with the script referring to a translation file to map the shp file attributes to osm tags. There was some node duplication and other minor unconnected way issues with the data which I cleaned up manually in JOSM before uploading. ** ** Cheers Andy ** ** [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10485788 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10486240 [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1986944 ** ** ** ** *From:* Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] *Sent:* 23 January 2012 22:39 *To:* 'Peter Miller'; 'David Earl' *Cc:* 'Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org' *Subject:* RE: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data! ** ** I’m separating out the various sections (cutting, tunnel etc) to separate shape files and converting to lat/lon. I’ll have a play with it in JOSM once done. I’m splitting with whatever the west side attribute is (the east side may be different where the natural ground slopes etc). ** ** I’ll put all the various files on dev once I’m done. ** ** Cheers Andy ** ** *From:* Peter Miller [mailto:peter.mil...@itoworld.com] *Sent:* 23 January 2012 20:59 *To:* David Earl *Cc:* Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data! ** ** ** ** On 23 January 2012 20:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:** ** On 23/01/2012 20:21, Jason Cunningham wrote: Good to see the data being released, But I don't believe this proposed route should yet be added to OSM. You'll regularly here the phrase map what's on the ground, but we all(?) accept upcoming changes to what's on the ground can be mapped, and these upcoming changes to the land are mapped using the proposed tag (then construction tag). ** ** By that reasoning we wouldn't map boundaries, as these don't appear on the ground, they are entirely abstract concepts. The point here is that this is *helpful geographical information*. If the proposal goes away or changes, remove the data. Let's be pragmatic here.** ** I agree that one should not add every aspirational route, however this is much more than an aspiration and there is considerable support for it from official sources. I believe we should indeed add transport proposals where they have committed funding and official firm support. We should of course tag is as 'proposed'. If the project goes ahead we change it to 'consturction', if it goes cold then we delete it. Fyi, I did just that on the Tintewhistle bypass to the east of Manchester. I added it when it was funded and and in the HA plans and then removed it when
[Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!
We had a discussion recently about getting a usable source of route data for HS2. I am pleased to say that it is on data.gov.uk and is available on an OGL license. http://data.gov.uk/dataset/hs2-gis-route Can we get to use this as a backdrop in Potlatch or JOSM to get the route added? Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!
On 23 January 2012 20:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 23/01/2012 20:21, Jason Cunningham wrote: Good to see the data being released, But I don't believe this proposed route should yet be added to OSM. You'll regularly here the phrase map what's on the ground, but we all(?) accept upcoming changes to what's on the ground can be mapped, and these upcoming changes to the land are mapped using the proposed tag (then construction tag). By that reasoning we wouldn't map boundaries, as these don't appear on the ground, they are entirely abstract concepts. The point here is that this is *helpful geographical information*. If the proposal goes away or changes, remove the data. Let's be pragmatic here. I agree that one should not add every aspirational route, however this is much more than an aspiration and there is considerable support for it from official sources. I believe we should indeed add transport proposals where they have committed funding and official firm support. We should of course tag is as 'proposed'. If the project goes ahead we change it to 'consturction', if it goes cold then we delete it. Fyi, I did just that on the Tintewhistle bypass to the east of Manchester. I added it when it was funded and and in the HA plans and then removed it when the public inquiry collapsed a while later. It is of course up to map rendering script to determine if it is appropriate render 'proposed' transport schemes and this will depend on the use to which it is to be put. Mapquest probably wouldn't show them (because mapquest are primarily providing maps for the traveler. OSM Mapnik will probably show it because it tries to map almost everything. Other mapping outlets can make their own decision. Good news re rendering HS2 for use in Potlatch. One suggestion... I notice that the shape file contains details of cuttings, embankments, bridges (and viaducts) and tunnels. Could you present that using distinct colours or textures or something? It is tagged separately for each side of the route, ie eastside=cutting. Regards, Peter We also seem to mark routes of old railways for which there is no evidence on the ground. (Quite why, I don't know, and this raises the question again of representing any historical data, but that was discussed at length recently). David __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
On 10 January 2012 13:19, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: ** On 10/01/2012 13:43, Peter Miller wrote: On 10 January 2012 12:07, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 10/01/2012 11:44, Peter Miller wrote: Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this features on the basis that we have moved them and edited all the surrounding features? Exactly the question I raised on talk on Monday. I don't think you even need to have moved anything, merely to have checked against a valid source other than the non-accepting contributor (e.g. Bing for location, local knowledge or OSSV etc for names) in order to claim the IPR. I really don't see what mechanically then reproducing what is already there actually adds to the process other than wasted time. Thank you. This is a matter of judgement by the Licensing Working Group and they should come back with a clear view on it. Our formal minuted doctrine, Item 7 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1pPOFHo_o5inG9Ereh3Zn5ItmctZGRFbcmnKwtbyNkdM, is that it is for the community to pass judgement on whether the criteria are acceptable rather than LWG and that criteria are recorded on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F so that it is publicly transparent and in one centralised resource. We monitor and will scream if we think the there is any veering away from good faith and reasonable effort to check either that the IPR of non-continuing mappers has been completely removed or that it has been completely duplicated by continuing mappers. Anything like this also needs to be practical enough for a quantitative rule to be easily coded into visualisation tools and into final rebuild scripts by our technical volunteers. +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean . Your userid is recorded with the tag addition. Thanks Mike. I am glad you support the odbl=clean. I have now added a few to the map in my area, and have also used the 'O' feature to replace some nodes at junctions and the like. Personally I find the 'What is Clean' page a bit too rich on suggestions and not clear enough on conclusions based on a quick look. I want to go through my area of the country and get it up to a standard that will be accepted as efficiently as possible and not have to make any personal judgements about what is ok and not and then find that that conflicts with the view of the tool makers or that of the people who do the final data removal pass. After all, we will need a clear agreement before the switchover about what stays and what goes so lets do that now, not at the end of March! Regards, Peter Note also that some anonymous contributors did actually provide email addresses, got our bulk emailings and have said yes to the new terms. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
On 10 January 2012 13:53, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 10/01/2012 13:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Michael Collinson wrote: +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean Just a tiny little clarification - this isn't something I've dreamed up, it's a real live tag with 9,000 occurrences in the database already, and which is being used by status visualisations such as OSM Inspector. :) Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out, not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the name from itself to itself and actually have changed anything? If odbl=clean is OK for this then that's great, but I am troubled that I may go to a lot of trouble to deal with these and then find they get removed anyway. The lack of clear direction is very frustrating (as is the apparent need to do more work than necessary). It would be so much easier if we knew for sure what the rules actually are. That is pretty much my point also. I will do the necessary work when there is a stable and reasonable description of what that work is and is not and I have confidence that the description is stable. Hearing that there is disagreement on what the (as yet undocumented) odbl=clean tag means and how it should be used doesn't excite me to do the work yet! To help the process along I have created an simple article for odbl=clean here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean Regards, Peter David __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route
On 10 January 2012 18:19, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Just noticed that this response when to Andy alone. Copying to the list. On 10 January 2012 11:14, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Latest HS2 announcement today means that there will be a lot of discussion about the route (generally and specific locations) over the coming years. Currently the new route plans [2] have the usual OS copyright notice. What we need is the bare bones of the proposed infrastructure released under the open government licence. Any ideas or avenues for achieving that? I'm not suggesting we rush to put the proposed route into OSM but it would be nice to be able to do so when the time is ripe. You beat me to it! I was about the do pretty much the same post. Agreed - we should add the route. This map (http://www.umapper.com/maps/view/id/58620/) has been produced by myself and others and is in my view 100% free of OS copyright. I suggest we check it for currency and then get on with it. You will notice that this map is already included in the HS2 article on Wikipedia. Zoom in and there is detail of the station layout etc. Regarding OS copyright, the OS do not claim derived copyright any more for 3rd party content that is displayed on an OS map just so long as they do not present that sort of feature on their mapping. As such any copyright infringement would be with the government, not the OS in my view. I have added the approximate route, based on the umapper resource I mentioned from Euston as far as Amersham and will add more detail this evening. To get it much more accurate we are going to need to get the government to release a KML file or similar for the route or as a mimimum allow us to trace from their route as plotted on the OS mapping. Personally I feel that it is better to have something approximate nothing and it should encourage them to release it if they are holding back. Regards, Peter Regards, Peter Cheers Andy [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16485263 [2] http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)
There are various waterway views available using ITO Map, as well as many others. They all have global coverage and are updated daily (rarely more than 24 delay on getting new data on the map). http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=3 (general water view) http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=24 (navigable waterways view) More general information about ITO Map here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_Map Regards, Peter On 1 January 2012 21:53, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Will, I have put what I had previously back on line at http://www.maps.webhop.net/canals. The data is quite out of date (maybe 10 months) - I realised that I am lacking the 'boat=' tag from my database so can not re-render it tonight - I will re-generate it over the next couple of days. I did not think anyone was using this because there is an alternative at http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=24. This one could be developed into more of a 'user' map rather than a 'mapper' tool though - if you are interested in developing the cartography that would be great - it could do with icons for locks, moorings, water, fuel etc. I will move this to my 'maps3.org.uk' site (which is more responsive) from an end user point of view once I have sorted out the database so I can render the tiles on demand. Regards Graham. On 1 January 2012 17:55, Will Abson will.ab...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Graham, I came across your waterways map a little while ago, and thought it was a great visualisation tool. I'm just now trying to take a fresh look at some of the waterways data for the UK that's held within OSM, but I see that your map is sadly no longer accessible (I get a 404). If you'd be interested in making it available again then I could perhaps provide some assistance as I have a small Linode server that's currently not doing too much, but I would need your help to explain how you put the map together. It would be great to get the waterways map (or something similar) back online again, so please let me know if I can help. Cheers, Will. On 2 February 2011 21:02, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, Thanks to Chris for reminding me, I have updated my canals / waterways map - it should now be up to date as of the early hours of this morning (http://maps.webhop.net/canals). It looks like good progress from the last update - much more like a network now, but there are still some gaps! The things I noticed from my part of the country is that the River Tyne is not rendered - must not have a 'boat=yes' tag - does anyone know how far up the river you can get a boat to add this? Conversely I am not convinced that the river Wear upstream of Durham is navigable - I thought it got pretty shallow at Shincliffe? Also there is the problem of a Weir, so maybe there are only bits of it downstream that are navigable too? This is still running on the computer in my living room so will seem slow because of my internet connection, but I am working on getting minutely updating working on a little virtual server, which will seem better from the outside world - I will be looking for suggestions for other visualisations to include once I have got that working (adding more is very easy once it is working), so please think of anything else you would like to see. Graham. On 19 January 2011 21:28, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you all for your comments. Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just north of Carnforth near Lancaster). I am not sure I have ever seen a 'disused' canal - does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable canal? I have also prevented locks being shown until you zoom in to zoom level 10. Updated version now rendering at http://maps.webhop.net/canals, using the mapnik style http://maps.webhop.net/canals/canal2.xml.. Adding navigable rivers is a good idea, but will take more doing because my database does not include the 'boat=' tag - I will have to re-import the whole uk, which takes a few hours... Are there any other waterway specific tags that should be included? What points of interest should a waterways map highlight - I only have locks at the moment, because I remember these being the interesting part of canal boating, but I can add other things - especially if anyone would like to draw an icon for it - otherwise we will end up with another one of my dodgy drawings! Graham. On 19 January 2011 19:24, Chris Moss mosch...@googlemail.com wrote: Thanks Graham and Malcolm, Certainly I can see for the first time where the gaps are in the waterway coverage and it encourages me to explore mapnik and see how everything works. Chris
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I am not going to remove any old node in my hometown
On 12 December 2011 13:58, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: After watching the License Change View on OSM Inspector, I have decided not to change any of the few red dots and ways marked in the OSM inspector. Some ways have one old version by an anonymous or undecided author and up to seven versions by me. That's enough to keep them and if you want to delete MY edits even though I have agreed to the CT, you may do that, but remapping them would ignore my editing history. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the moral and legal right to decide what may be kept or not, not the right of a single-node mapper who draw two ways in 2007. There is only one correct location for an intersection and if another maspper has already occupied this location with his node, there is no sensible reason to recreate it on the same location. There is no copyright on single nodes, there is no copyright on moved nodes and there is no copyright on street names that have already passed the comparison with municipal government's street list. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the predominant copyright on this map and not the less-than-1% one-node contributors. I have to agree with the above sentiment. The first 'red' node I have checked in my home town (a road junction http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/9893306/history) was created by an anonymous contributor in Jun 2006 and has subsequently been touched an impressive 82 further times by myself and others who have accepted the terms! Is that not sufficient to consider the old IPR as having been replaced? I suggest that nodes create anonymously and extensively edited by license accepting contributors should be deemed to be 'orange', not red. Regards, Peter Some of the marked edits are mechanical work requiring neither local knowledge nor genius: correcting spelling mistakes (e.g. Grade2grade2), debugging keepright fixmes, deleting created_by, etc. There should be a functionality to mark their nodes and ways as checked, verified and absolutely insignificant concerning copyright. There is absolutely no case in history where a one-node mapper, even an anonymous one-node mapper, was able to claim a copyright based on his less-than-1% contribution. If you want to delete or vandalize the whole map just for pleasing a non-responding anonymous single-node contributor while destroying the work of a 150,000-node contributor, you may do that. I am not going to replace any of the vandalized nodes. As they are often located on important trunk roads, sometimes even on intersections, their removal might prevent efficient routing for many years. Maybe the license change is just a sociological experiment (like the Milgram experiment) to check how stupid people are if they are told to remap existing nodes. Cheers! -- NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] 'Can't load map'
On 29 September 2011 09:03, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 28/09/11 20:36, Peter Miller wrote: A major inconvenience for me recently has been the return of the 'can't load map' error message when using Potlatch 2 which I understand is some sort of time-out between Potlatch and the server. What needs to happen to get this resolved (in Potlatch or in the server as appropriate)? Is that work in progress or is it really difficult to sort out? Can I help in some way? Well mostly I would say that somebody needs to report it. If the developers and admins aren't aware of a problem they are unlikely to be doing anything to resolve it. This problem has popped up from time to time for over 9 months and has been discussed on a number of occasions on the lists so I would be surprised if there wasn't a ticket for it. If one Googles for 'could load map' and 'potlatch' one comes up with a whole long lists of results from December 10, April 11, May 11 and now in September 11. Also -- I notice that it has been dismissed as an 'obsolete bug' on the wiki. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch_2/Archived_obsolete_Bug_list Is that really all it's saying? As I recall I added the necessary server side code some time ago to allow Potlatch to report the actual error that the server encountered. Correct. I think the actual message is 'couldn't load the map'. Sometimes it will load the data eventually if one persists, but generally it is better to give it a rest for a few hours and try later. It only occurs using Potlatch 2 btw, Potlatch 1 still works fine and never fails to get the data in my experience. It might also be relevant to mention that we recently experimented with building our own OSM stack on a very slow computer we were unable to get it to load data at all - we always got the 'could load the map' type error when loading anything but the simplest data into Potlatch 2. At the very least you need to give us some information like a timestamp and/or IP address that would allow us to look at the logs. Will do. Can I provide this to you Tom directly rather than on the list? Regards, Peter Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Highway lanes data for GB
Thanks Thomas. As I have been adding this data to OSM I have realised how useful this data is. I have worked in the transport field for many years now and have never seen a highway 'capacity' map of the sort we are creating with both speed limit and traffic lanes data. I was interested to see how few dual carriageways there are in Norfolk for instance. The data must exist somewhere, but not in a form that people use extensively. Personally I would love to see if we can complete this data layer for England/GB or UK soon. I will continue to chip away at the South East given that that is where some of the worst congestion concerns are. What would be great if others got stuck into working on other parts of the country. For now I have only doing trunk roads and motorways. Thanks for the appreciation of ITO Map. We are working very hard on an new version with lots of new data and features. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd itoworld.com On 29 September 2011 09:13, thomas van der veen th.vanderv...@gmail.comwrote: I have been tagging parts of the M3 and M27 recently, both lanes and maxspeed. The map below really help with this, thanks for that. And I have been mostly doing it from memory so far, but you are right of course, Bing makes it a lot easier. Thomas On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: I have been adding 'lanes' tagging to major roads in the East of England over the past few weeks and have managed to cover quite a large area (from London to Norfolk and from Suffolk to the Midlands). The first of the links below shows the existing lanes data for the East of England. The second shows trunk and motorway roads without lanes tagging in red. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=56lat=52.19203475488304lon=-0.6220712576703982zoom=8 http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=147lat=52.19203475488304lon=-0.6220712576703982zoom=8 Anyone fancy doing other parts of the country? It is easy to do from the comfort of an armchair using Bing aerial for most places. Regards, Peter Miller (PeterIto) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] 'Can't load map'
A major inconvenience for me recently has been the return of the 'can't load map' error message when using Potlatch 2 which I understand is some sort of time-out between Potlatch and the server. What needs to happen to get this resolved (in Potlatch or in the server as appropriate)? Is that work in progress or is it really difficult to sort out? Can I help in some way? Thanks, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-transit] Mapping public transport network in Port au Prince
On 1 September 2011 06:03, Sébastien Pierrel sebastien.pier...@gmail.comwrote: Hello list, I'm getting the local mappers of Haiti to map the taptap routes in Port au Prince. Has anyone already mapped the transit network of a similar country? There's a brief mention of shared taxis in the wikihttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shared_transportbut not very helpful. We're considering to tag relations with the following tags: type=route route=bus bus=share_taxi name=* (example http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1734930) I found 2000+ instances of the key shared_taxi and 250 for share_taxi but I couldn't locate them. What tools would you recommend to extract relations? Eventually, we want to work on this data with qgis/postgis. I have done some work on the sharetaxi article in Wikipedia some time back, but that got massively messed some time back ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_taxi). My understanding is that these services vary from 'fixed route-variable times' through to completely random routes. Another question is if the services stop anywhere on the route or only at fixed points or possibly there are some fixed points and then anywhere on the route in addition. If there are fixed points then these can be added as stops. In the UK we have 'hail-and-ride' which are linear sections of route where the vehicle will stop which are treated like bus stops. We also have share taxi 'demand responsive' services and can defined 'flexible zones' as polygons where the service will pick people up from anywhere within the zone. These can then all treated as being 'bus stops'. It is still hard to describe the services themselves. Fixed routes can be added a bus routes (as in your example). If not then you may be more on your own! Here is a diagram and some modeling details from the UK schema if that helps. http://www.dft.gov.uk/transxchange/schema/2.0/examples/flexible/ I will be very interested to hear how you get on with this one. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd Feedback of all sort is much appreciated. Cheers, /Seb. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-GB] Maxspeed conundrum
I suggest that any 'temporary' speed limit change that will last more than 6 months could reasonably be tagged in maxspeed. Shorter periods should probably use a maxspeed:temporary or some other suitable overriding tag? Fyi, I have used 'proposed:maxspeed' to hold the intended new value where signals are being introduced. 'construction:maxspeed' would I guess be appropriate where work has started. I have also used construction:lanes for sections of the M25 where the number of lanes is changing from 3 to 4. Also construction:oneway=no for a section of the A11 which will become a 2-way road when the A11 dualling is complete. Here are some examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4546874 (proposed:maxspeed) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26295971 (construction:lanes) If we go with the above speed limit tagging then it might be worth updating the ITO speed limit view to show temporary and planned changes to speed limits. Regards, Peter On 29 July 2011 10:27, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote: on the a46 dualling I have been putting the reduced limits in, but here the road is on a new alignment so its for the rest of the life of the road (until is becomes part of ncn route 48 anyway!) . Shame there's no way AFAIK of tagging fixme:2013-05-01=roadworks due to finish, resurvey alignment/maxspeed and then have openstreet bugs ignore until that date (unless you wish to see them)! On 29 Jul 2011 10:13, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: The M1 between junctions 11 and 13 is a standard 70 mph NSL, but until spring 2013 it is a 50mph average speed camera regulated section during upgrade works. After Spring 2013 it will become maxspeed=signals. How to tag it? My preference would be for the 50mph average speed with a note that it ends spring 2013. My guess is that sections rolling from the South will transform from 50 mph to maxspeed=signals, so those of you who travel this section of the M1 should watch out for the big switch on and edit appropriately - it will certainly make life swifter than the current congestion. As a general point do routing and travel planner algorithms make use of these long term construction speed restrictions? Regards Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 3 new vector map district roads views/comparison maps from ITO Map
On 4 July 2011 19:14, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: Has this been disabled/removed? The links bring me to a page that asks me to select a layer, and the layers available don't include the VMD stuff Apologies for not making it clearer. Yes, we had to roll-back the code (and remove these VMD layers) to sort out a gremlin in the code. We expect to be able to re-release these layers (and add some interesting new ones) within the next week. Regards, Peter Miller Cheers, Jason On 28 June 2011 14:11, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Here are three new map views using Vector Map District roads data for ITO Map. 1) 'VMD - roads'. This is a view of vector map district roads colour coded according to its internal classification system. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=136 Colours blue: motorway dark green: A road dark red: Primary Road orange: B road buff: Minor road grey: Local Street thin black: Private Road, Public Access 2. 'VMD roads missing'. Showing the above view with roads obscured that are in OSM highlighting roads that are in VMD but are not in OSM. Note that it does not include non-motorists way such as tracks, footways etc in the white overlay but does include pedestrianised streets. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=134 3. 'VMD roads missing (reverse). Showing OSM roads being obscured by VDM to highlight roads that are in OSM but which are not in VDM. It shows most roads (but not footways, parking aisles etc) in various conventional colours which other non-motorised an minor routes as thin green lines. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=135 I have included district/unitary boundaries from OS boundary line in some of the above layers. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Another heads up - new mapper appears to be deleting stuff in Ashbourne
On 29 June 2011 16:12, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: There was a similar case to this on the Help Centre recently: http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/5839/map-changes-for-personal-use-is-this-right I suggest we need to make it more obvious to first-time users that when they edit the map they are editing the real map that everybody sees, not their own local, private copy of it. Any thoughts on how we could achieve that? Maybe a splash screen on Potlatch when it detects a user starting it who has no edits? Or is this already done (I can't remember to be honest). Is it time to have a 'white list' of trusted editors onto which one gets automatically after making a certain number of edits over at least a certain amount of time unless ones talk page is marked with a dispute in which case one promotion to white list is delayed? Until that time one may be restricted from doing certain things (such as doing major deletes) and tools can highlight 'changes made by new editors that you might want to check' etc. It will also be possible to monitor the minutely feeds to spot potentially damaging edits almost as they occur. This parallels how Wikipedia works. Even without official blessing it would be possible for someone to create and maintain such a list and make it available to tool providers. Regards, Peter -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Another-heads-up-new-mapper-appears-to-be-deleting-stuff-in-Ashbourne-tp6529059p6529348.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK road name coverage now over 80%
On 29 June 2011 17:37, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: I just noticed that todays http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main ITO Analysis Summary shows we are now over 80% for road name completion (i.e. OSM road names compared to the OS Locator data). I think all UK contributors should buy themselves a pint for that. Top effort. Will do that tonight with pleasure! Thanks for pointing this important milestone out to us. Lets in particular recognise the huge amount of work going on in Scotland and Wales. We also now have 115 areas over 95% and 263 over 75% - this can only be a good thing for building confidence in the reliability of the map, particularly amongst users that are using the map data in car sat navs etc. The only black spot is that there are still 23 areas that are less than 50% road name complete, with the worst offender now being Easington with just 37.25% It's be great to get everywhere over 50% as ultimately we'll always be judged by our worst coverage. I have also been very impressed with the initial results from the visual comparison of OSM and OS Vector map district as well. We seem to have an much to help the OS improve their data as the other way round! We also have railway and electricity comparison layers in preparation which will also show OSM in an even better light compared to the OS (the electricity data in VDM is very poor indeed and the railway data isn't that good either - both are much worse than the OS roads data). What I am less happy about is the reliability of ITO's OSM services over the past week. True, we have added lots of stuff to ITO Map but in the process we left OSM Analysis statistics frozen for about week due to a stupid oversight and when we did a major code update to ITO Map yesterday to allow us to show other datasets such as Vector Map District which seems to have destroyed its performance. We will be spending some time on ITO Map this evening and see what we can sort it out and may need to roll the code back one version. If so then we will loose VMD roads layers for a few days. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/UK-road-name-coverage-now-over-80-tp6529750p6529750.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK road name coverage now over 80%
On 29 June 2011 18:02, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 29/06/2011 17:55, Peter Miller wrote: I have also been very impressed with the initial results from the visual comparison of OSM and OS Vector map district as well. We seem to have an much to help the OS improve their data as the other way round! I'd still like to see if the OS show any signs of having taken notice of our not:name data to correct entries in OS Locator. They have definitely received a file of 3,500 not:name entries and there are people within the OS keen to develop relationships with the OSM community and use the data. However... it is a very large and long established organisation which doesn't seem to move that fast! What I do know is that it will be getting harder and harder for them to not engage and that the government is very supportive of what we are doing. Regards, Peter -- Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK road name coverage now over 80%
On 29 June 2011 19:25, Borbus bor...@gmail.com wrote: On 29/06/11 17:37, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote: I think all UK contributors should buy themselves a pint for that. Top effort. Already done, but ok I'll have another! I'd like to make a special mention for North Norfolk which was in the bottom 10 on the ITO table just a few months ago, and is now at 99.51% (and now I think 100% since I've added the names of five service roads in an RAF base). Quite right to. I almost did a post about Norfolk this evening, fantastic recent progress and the thought that it might make a good location for a summer mapping party and as a focus for various sit-at-home mappers as well. We are pleased to have Norfolk CC as a customer for whom we are producing public transport publicity information and I think we could persuade them to use OSM if it was of a consistently high standard across the county. We have been doing some armchair work (or actually office-chair work) in Norfolk ourselves over the past month and I also made a presentation on OSM at a recent ReWireed Norfolk event which was well received. If anyone did fancy organising a mapping party at some suitable location in Norfolk during the summer then ITO would be happy to supply drinks, pizzas etc to keep people's energy levels up! Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd Great job everyone! -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] 3 new vector map district roads views/comparison maps from ITO Map
Here are three new map views using Vector Map District roads data for ITO Map. 1) 'VMD - roads'. This is a view of vector map district roads colour coded according to its internal classification system. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=136 Colours blue: motorway dark green: A road dark red: Primary Road orange: B road buff: Minor road grey: Local Street thin black: Private Road, Public Access 2. 'VMD roads missing'. Showing the above view with roads obscured that are in OSM highlighting roads that are in VMD but are not in OSM. Note that it does not include non-motorists way such as tracks, footways etc in the white overlay but does include pedestrianised streets. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=134 3. 'VMD roads missing (reverse). Showing OSM roads being obscured by VDM to highlight roads that are in OSM but which are not in VDM. It shows most roads (but not footways, parking aisles etc) in various conventional colours which other non-motorised an minor routes as thin green lines. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=135 I have included district/unitary boundaries from OS boundary line in some of the above layers. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 3 new vector map district roads views/comparison maps from ITO Map
On 28 June 2011 14:23, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: I don't want to seem picky, but: Colours dark green: A road dark red: Primary Road could you swap these two over? At least locally the dark red correspond to the ways we have tagged as trunk and the green as primary. It just seems to be a bit opposite at present. Duh, thanks for pointing that one out to me. I will fix it later this evening. Regards, Peter Thanks Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 3 new vector map district roads views/comparison maps from ITO Map
On 28 June 2011 15:34, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: All this from a quick look at my village. We cannot rely on this data without a survey. Near here I zoomed in on the ways that are in VMD and not OSM. We have footways along the seafront where the black lines are (not worked out what type that is in VMD - perhaps I need to look at the VMD layer for a colour code). There is also a black line in the middle of the area which I'm sure isn't a way. We have a footpath following part of it, so perhaps a farm tack. I'll need to resurvey to be sure though. It isn't just the roads layer which is a bit dubious. I was looking at one of the other layers (I forget which now) which marks nodes for points of interest (perhaps churches, schools and leisure centres IIRC). I thought this might be interesting to compare VMD with OSM but picking a few nodes at random in whichever package I opened the VMD layer in (QGIS perhaps) I stumbled across a leisure centre which is in reality a garden centre called Outdoor Leisure. So yes, I'd agree, while the OS data can be useful in seeing what needs surveying, I'd be a bit worried about trusting it without one (though in combination with Bing imagery some of the obvious discrepancies can be ignored), though you do seem to have encountered more issues with it than I have, so perhaps quality varies from area to area. I'll confess when OS Locator first became available I tagged a few road names using that and Streetview but have tried to visit them all since to confirm they are correct. It's a bit like anything tagged source=NPE; I'm still trying to track all those items down and either survey them where they are on publically accessible land or the best I can from Bing if not (one highway=road was a farm track with a gate at the road end I couldn't get past, and only recently did I get around to updating the way from Bing). I think it will be worth looking at the data and the views quite closely over the next couple of days. I have found a few small errors in our interpretation in the past hour. We were missing OS pedestrianised streets for one view. One thing I do find curious is that service roads that are missing on VMD appear on OS Streetview. For example here: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=136lat=51.88970170371981lon=0.932458821175924zoom=16 So again we are finding inconsistencies between different OS datasets (ie OS Streetview/OS Locator and VMD). As with any other data source this one isn't perfect and it should be used alongside our local knowledge and other available sources. Regards, Peter Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] ITO OSM Analysis not updating?
On 21 June 2011 22:02, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 21 June 2011 21:32, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: At the moment I can't get into ITO OSM Analysis at all. If I enter the URL http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main?showMinor=true it is immediately replaced by http://www.itoworld.com/main. I've tried both in Firefox and IE. Something does seem to be wrong. It may be tomorrow morning before we get it fixed now. Sorry about that. Apologies about the continued unreliability of OSM Analysis. We have evidently introduced a problem with a recent code update which we are now trying to resolve. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd Regards, Peter Miller Steve On 21/06/2011 12:31, Shane Reynolds wrote: Hi Graham. Sorry we have had a few problems with our importer over the weekend. However it is now working again and I hope that OSM analysis should have data up to the 19th in a few hours (OSM Mapper and ITO Map have just been updated to the 19th) - things should then also be back to normal from tomorrow (where we usually update sometime early afternoon for data from the previous day) Kind Regards, Shane On 21 June 2011 12:05, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: Hi Peter (et al), Last update of the http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main is currently reporting as 16/06/2011 (today is the 21st) Has it just fallen over, or is there anything that the community can help with to get this valuable tool running again? Cheers, GrahamS ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] speed limits, speed limit enforcement and speed limit fixme mapping
We have created a new speed limit layer which renders both mph and
km/h speed limits on the same map. In addition to showing speed limits
it also shows sections of speed limit enforced using average speed
camera as a black border to the road (using either
enforcement:maxspeed=average). There are only two sections in the UK
so far, one on the A14 near Cambridge and the other on the A77 north
up near Preswick. In time it will also show fixed speed camera
locations but we are waiting for a new big hairy server to arrive
before we can deploy that functionality.
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=124
There is also a new speed limits fixme layer which highlights normal
mph speed limits in light blue, normal km/h speed limits in light
green, limits that are applicable to both places in grey ('signals' is
the only current value there); understood but non numeric values in
orange, 'national' in dark red and other values in bright red.
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=125
In the UK we need to check for green (which are in km/h), red (which
are not recognised as either km/h or mph) and arguably also dark red
and orange.
Regards,
Peter
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] ITO OSM Analysis not updating?
We believe that OSM Analysis is now fixed and up to date. Apologies for the inconvenience and do of course let us know if we are wrong about that! Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd On 22 June 2011 09:35, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 21 June 2011 22:02, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 21 June 2011 21:32, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: At the moment I can't get into ITO OSM Analysis at all. If I enter the URL http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main?showMinor=true it is immediately replaced by http://www.itoworld.com/main. I've tried both in Firefox and IE. Something does seem to be wrong. It may be tomorrow morning before we get it fixed now. Sorry about that. Apologies about the continued unreliability of OSM Analysis. We have evidently introduced a problem with a recent code update which we are now trying to resolve. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd Regards, Peter Miller Steve On 21/06/2011 12:31, Shane Reynolds wrote: Hi Graham. Sorry we have had a few problems with our importer over the weekend. However it is now working again and I hope that OSM analysis should have data up to the 19th in a few hours (OSM Mapper and ITO Map have just been updated to the 19th) - things should then also be back to normal from tomorrow (where we usually update sometime early afternoon for data from the previous day) Kind Regards, Shane On 21 June 2011 12:05, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: Hi Peter (et al), Last update of the http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main is currently reporting as 16/06/2011 (today is the 21st) Has it just fallen over, or is there anything that the community can help with to get this valuable tool running again? Cheers, GrahamS ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 11 June 2011 14:22, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Peter Miller wrote: Fyi we are doing some investigation in ITO into adding OS VectorDistrict 'road missing' data on the OS Locator tiles or possibly onto an alternative map layer. The aim being to make tracing of roads easier [...] At a later stage one might consider extending the bot to also add road geometry but this is significantly more difficult. No need to bother with either. :) The current Potlatch 2 codebase (not deployed yet) can pull vectors directly out of VectorMap District shapefiles. Just load the shapefile in the background, alt-click, and the road comes through. Sounds great. So the only significant job for the bot is to snap road names onto these vectors (together with suitable 'surveyed' tagging). I assume that the person doing this will have to be careful to stitch these new ways into the existing road network correctly? If you wanted to do something helpful towards this, a mirror of the unzipped shapefiles, perhaps with a nice index, would be really useful. ITO are probably not the best people to set up maintain simple mirrors of existing content. Are there not 100 sites where a mirror could be set up and maintained? Why is the OS site not sufficient anyway? Regarding documentation, my contribution is to put a lot of effort into the wiki to improve some of the tag pages in particular to marine/harbours and electricity supply. Hopefully someone will do work on the Potlatch documentation. It's not Potlatch documentation we're lacking, it's OSM documentation for the new user who doesn't even know what Potlatch is. Playing with marine/harbour tag pages, or indeed anything on the wiki, is a bit deckchairs-on-the-Titanic to be honest. Possibly we should ban all marine edits (and indeed any other additions of frivolous content) until we have recruited enough new editors to complete a ground survey of all UK roads and paths ;) Regards, Peter cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 12 June 2011 20:36, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Peter Miller wrote: ITO are probably not the best people to set up maintain simple mirrors of existing content. Are there not 100 sites where a mirror could be set up and maintained? Why is the OS site not sufficient anyway? The OS site a) offers download-only access behind an e-mail confirmation wall b) stores the data as really chuffing great big .zips which would seize up any browser that tried to load them (even if it could unzip them in the first place) c) doesn't have the requisite (six-line) crossdomain.xml file to allow Flash to load from it As ever with OSM, there are indeed 100 sites where such a mirror could be set up and maintained, and it only needs 1 of these 100 to be set up, but somehow getting from the let's all talk about it for weeks stage to the 1 person doing it stage is extraordinarily painful. :( Thanks for the explantion. So.. in an ideal world would you like to be able to select the content required (ie 'woods' or 'roads') and the bounding box and then get the relevant ways back as shape files or some other similar format... A bit like the API for OSM which must pretty much do that. If this is what you want then it clearly isn't a simple FTP mirror and it is something we may be able to provide. Lets bottom out the requirement and we can then respond. Regards, Peter cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Filter to show only certain ways e.g. bridleways?
On 12 June 2011 15:41, Michael Brewer mich...@thebrewerfamily.co.uk wrote: I'd find it really useful to filter what is displayed, to limit e.g. to showing only bridleways. Basically, I'm trying to plot cycleable routes through the countryside, and it would be nice to avoid distracting footpaths that I can't use anyway. So a filter which shows e.g. roads and bridleways would be great. Or a filter which filters out foot-only paths (i.e. footpaths in the UK). Is this what you mean? I think I have interpreted your request appropriately. It displays standard OSM tiles faded slightly and overlaid with bridleways in brown, cycleways in blue and cycle tracks in light blue. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=120 Regards, Peter Thanks, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 11 June 2011 09:09, Bob Kerr openstreetmapcraigmil...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: So the question is, who is going to come forward and write the bot, and who is going to come forward to write documentation. Any takers? Yup! I agree that we are now at a point where we agree that not everyone likes imports but also that not everyone likes bare sections of the map and it does seem like the right moment for those who want to create a bot to get on an do it. Fyi we are doing some investigation in ITO into adding OS VectorDistrict 'road missing' data on the OS Locator tiles or possibly onto an alternative map layer. The aim being to make tracing of roads easier and to highlight those road vectors which we don't have in OSM yet. We also hope to have something to show on the 'reverse OS Locator missing names' analysis and show up all the additional names in OSM over the OS. Re bots, the first 'easy win' would be to create a 'OS name bot' which will match up unnamed roads that have a good bounding-box match with a single OS Locator entry within the area in which the bot has been requested to work. The bot would then make those changes and attribute them to the user who is operation the bot (this is slightly different from XY Bot where the bot 'is' the user). The changeset would then say edits by OS Bot (build xxx) and the user who be the person operating it at the time. The bot should only intervene in situations where there is only one road and only one OS Locator entry with a similar bounding box entry. Other situations will need to be deal with by hand. Needless to say the bot should add a 'surveyed:name=no' to the entry. Also, the bot would go through 'type approval' where we try it on small areas to start with. Users of the bot should be aware of requests for 'OS bot exclusion zone' where contributors have requested that it is not used in patches that they are working on. At a later stage one might consider extending the bot to also add road geometry but this is significantly more difficult. Regarding documentation, my contribution is to put a lot of effort into the wiki to improve some of the tag pages in particular to marine/harbours and electricity supply. Hopefully someone will do work on the Potlatch documentation. Regards, Peter Any takers Cheers Bob From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, 10 June 2011, 20:09 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot Ed Avis wrote: Richard Fairhurst writes: But if we were to put as much effort into marketing OSM and improving our tools as we do into writing and indeed discussing bots, the 40% areas would be fixed. If that were true, then it would be no contest. Given the choice between spending some effort doing an import and the same effort to recruit a huge army of mappers who can cover the whole country, any sane person would go for the mappers. Lemme give you an example. There are some really eloquent people on these lists. Granted, some of them are eloquently arguing nonsense, but nonetheless, some really eloquent people who can explain things lucidly, entertainingly, and convincingly. So why does our documentation suck so hard? Writing good docs is not easy, but given the right people, it is certainly no more difficult than writing a competent bot. Certainly I know which I'd find easier (which makes it a bit ironic that I do programming for OSM rather than writing, but hey). There is approximately one person in the entire world who has made an effort on documentation - stand up and take a bow, Richard Weait - but he can't do it all by himself. And here we are all merrily talking about bots, while every day dozens of people are signing up for OSM, staring at the screen, and thinking um, what the fuck do I do *now*?. So how do we start to convert some of those sign-up-but-never-edit people into real mappers? Get a group together. Have a mailing list (private if needs be) to discuss what you're doing. Find an install of Dokuwiki or Wordpress or whatever turns you on. Write some really good, beginner-friendly docs. Start small: an English-language guide to contributing basic mapping to OSM. (Bells and whistles and internationalisation can come later.) This little step would do a whole lot more for OSM globally than some street names in Dumfries Galloway ever will. And you can start it today. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Analysis-New-Data-and-bot-tp6455312p6463486.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Onward travel posters
Just to say that ITO have been working for some time now with a 3rd party to create such onward travel posters for GB railway stations. We provided them with the option to use either OSM or OS data for each location at their discretion purely on merit. Clearly we are disappointed that the wrong attribution has been applied to the posters, if indeed that is what has happened and will work with our client to get the situation resolved asap. We will provide an update to this list later today. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd On 10 June 2011 11:04, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Richard wrote: It is being followed up with their suppliers, and will be corrected... I can imagine the little M stickers being printed now... Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
On 10 June 2011 11:20, Chris Jones roller...@sucs.org wrote: On 08/06/11 07:58, Peter Miller wrote: Warwickshire is the biggest gainer/looser with 33 new names; over half of the districts have got at least one new road and there are now only 8 places still at 100%. We do  have 51 at over 99% and only 32 at under 50%. There is serious work in Wales, parts of Scotland, the West Midlands and Norfolk at present and in other places as well. Hi I've taken a look at a few towns in mid/south Wales using musical chairs. It seems that many of the listed 'no matches' are because the OS Locator data lists the Welsh Name for the street and when mapped the English name was used in the name tag. Often the welsh name is there too but in the 'name:cy' tag. Would it be possible to include 'name:cy' (and also 'name:gd' for Scotland) in your algorithm? Sorry. I don't understand exactly what you mean. Is this OSM Analysis or 'ITO Map source:name' that you are referring to? If it is OSM Analysis then could you spell out what exactly you want us to be doing that we are not doing? I also realise now that ITO Map source names should probably recognise 'name:cy' and 'name:gd' and also 'source:name:cy' and 'source:name:gd'. Will take a look at that soon. Regards, Peter Thanks! -- Chris Jones, SUCS Admin http://sucs.org ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis: highlighting missing roads over those without a name
On 10 June 2011 11:30, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: I am pretty sure it already does that. See Back Crossflats Place at Yep, so I'd like to see that kind of mismatch (where OS Locator says there is a street called Back Crossflats Place and OSM doesn't have any way of any name at that location) presented in a separate list or perhaps in a different map layer to differentiate it from the ways that are present in OSM but are either unnamed or disagree on the name. That would highlight areas that are badly in need of the most basic road mapping over those that may have a comparatively good street map with all the roads present but are just missing lots of names. We are working on some functionality that would allow us to compare highway vectors in OSM with highway vectors from OS Vector District. I can't give you any estimate of when it will turn up, it might be soon or might not be for a month or more. Sorry I can't be definite but it just depends on when we can a chance to sneek in a few hours work on it. Thanks for the suggestion which certainly will move it up our priority stack. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd End users of the map are much more likely to be put off by missing roads than missing road names. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Onward travel posters
On 10 June 2011 11:31, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Ed Loach wrote: I can imagine the little M stickers being printed now... For those curious as to what these maps look like, here's one I photographed last week: Â Â http://www.systemeD.net/temp/onward_travel_falmouth.jpg (4.6Mb file) There is no doubt now that these are the onward travel posters that we have been working with a 3rd party on. The only question now is how to correct the situation which is something we are currently working with our client to establish. I am sure you are aware of the importance that ITO attach to getting the attribution of OpenStreetMap mapping right and are disappointed that something has gone amiss this time. There is also the question as to how recent the OSM mapping is and whether the bus stops were taken from OSM or direct from NaPTAN. We will give a fuller debrief in due course. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd Compare and contrast with http://osm.org/go/erU5Lvdkm- . cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Onward-travel-posters-tp6461416p6461640.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 9 June 2011 09:33, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: It would be better if ITO put long-roads-without-names in a separate layer, because at the moment they dominate the completeness map. My strategy has been to deal with the long roads first and then go back and deal with the small ones. We are not planning to create a new map layer at present due to other priorities on our time (some of which will be of interest to OSM people!) On the whole I prefer to leave it a bit still. Ideally, everything would be checked by a local, but in reality it won't be. Quite a lot will be filled in by armchair mappers. At least there's a hope that those armchair mappers will have some conscience about what they do (like next year maybe they'll start drawing maps - with Maperitive it's easy - and expose the db to new scrutiny). I don't image that many people are including verified=no manually - it is just too much trouble! Indeed, here is a map showing verified/surveyed+souce:name in dark red, source:name without verified/surveyed in orange and any instances of verified/surveyed without source:name as blue (there aren't any at present!) http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117 You will see that Source:name is more frequently used in some districts such as Suffolk, Nottingham Kent that i others. Instances of source:name do not of course mean that it was from OS Locator or that it was not also surveyed. For that verified/surveyed is needed. The only instances of 'surveyed' or 'verified' + source:name are in Corby as far as I can see which was me testing the bot algorithm manually on a place which was at 23% completeness and which I go to 95% completeness. It took long enough for me to conclude that it was an inefficient way to do it. With the verified tagging in Corby someone can now go and check it if they so wish and ping off the verified=no tags as they do so. As I said, there are no other instances of verified/surveyed. surveyed=2010-10-08 would be neat, saying I checked all of the tagging on that date and made any corrections necessary! As such I think it is clear that without a bot we are indeed not going to be able to tell what has been manually surveyed and what has been grabbed from OS Locator. With a bot we would be able to. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
On 9 June 2011 10:41, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes: 1) A list of not:names that orginated from OS Locator but where OS Locator does not currently contain that error. The challenge is that not all not:name entries in OSM will have originated from error in OS Locator; they could contain details of errors from other sources, such as Navteq or TeleAtlas or elsewhere. Uhh... what? Â Is anybody updating the OSM map based on comparison with proprietary maps such as Navteq? Â I thought we didn't do that. I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, but some errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these should not be in also included in not:name. It certainly doesn't break any copyright to do so and provides strong evidence that we are doing proper surveying rather than copying. For example: Navteq (and Bing) incorrectly name the section of Nacton Road in Ipswich from the junction with Felixstowe Road heading east as Clapgate Lane. It isn't. It might be appropriate therefore to add a not:name entry to OSM at that point with a not:name:note saying that Navteq has a wrong. I haven't do so yet but had in mind to do this. Sometimes I find cases where the OSM name was wrong. Â When correcting it I add the old value as an incorrect_name tag. Â I suppose that some people might be using not:name for that purpose. Only if it is other than just an OSM naming error. 2) A list of street names which are in OSM but which are not in OS Locator could be a good publicity tool for OSM and a good new source of errors for elements of a way (for example where a short section of a street associated with a bridge but the other way had a typo in OSM). I guess that needs would ideally have its own rendering layer? Yes, it would be a separate report and layer from the usual comparison. Finally. Might it be useful for us to accommodate have multiple not:name entries associated with a single road? For example where a single street has multiple different duff names from one or more different sources, ie OS Locator and Navteq both have different wrong names. Again could you explain where you're coming from with Navteq, etc? See above explanation. Regards, Peter -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 9 June 2011 10:44, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/06/2011 10:09, Peter Miller wrote: Indeed, here is a map showing verified/surveyed+souce:name in dark red, source:name without verified/surveyed in orange and any instances of verified/surveyed without source:name as blue (there aren't any at present!) http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117 You will see that Source:name is more frequently used in some districts such as Suffolk, Nottingham Kent that i others. Instances of source:name do not of course mean that it was from OS Locator or that it was not also surveyed. For that verified/surveyed is needed. I've been putting source:name=survey, so a lot of my edits are in orange on this map. I don't know whether that's good or bad. Sounds good to me! OK, so I have adjusted the algorithm. The map now shows: blue: for indication of ground survey (either 'local knowledge', 'survey', 'dictaphone' and 'voice') red: indication that the name is from OS streetview or locator (roughly in order of occurrence in East of England): OS Locator, OS_OpenData_Locator, OS OpenData Locator, OS_OpenData_StreetView, OS_opendata_streetview, OS_OpenData_OS_Locator, OS OpenData StreetView, OS_Openstreetview, OS Opendata StreetView, OS Streetview, os locator, OS_OpenData_Streetview, os open data, OS grey: Other value in source:name or other combination green: way tagged with surveyed=no or verified=no Fyi, here is the full list of content in the source:name field for Suffolk and bits of Cambs,Norfolk and Essex (ordered by frequency of occurrence)! All » Tags » Tag = source:name Value Way NodeTotal dictaphone 29400 2940 local knowledge 25940 2594 OS Locator 21480 2148 OS_OpenData_Locator 10050 1005 OS OpenData Locator 444 0 444 OS_OpenData_StreetView 427 0 427 local_knowledge 328 0 328 voice 201 0 201 survey 130 0 130 OS_opendata_streetview 76 0 76 OS_OpenData_OS_Locator 52 0 52 OS OpenData StreetView 37 0 37 photograph 34 0 34 OS_Openstreetview 32 0 32 npe 26 0 26 OS Opendata StreetView 25 0 25 landsat 20 0 20 OS Streetview 19 0 19 80n:dsc06129.mpg16 0 16 os locator 16 0 16 NPE 11 0 11 OS_OpenData_Streetview 10 0 10 publication 7 0 7 os open data7 0 7 signage 6 0 6 The Rushmere Commoners Committee5 0 5 OS_Locator 5 0 5 NAPTAN 5 0 5 npe/landsat 5 0 5 Local knowledge 5 0 5 Local Knowledge 5 0 5 (hospital address) 5 0 5 sign4 0 4 OS_Opendata_Streetview 4 0 4 street sign 4 0 4 OS Open data4 0 4 80n:dsc06133.mpg4 0 4 Survey 4 0 4 signage (October 2010) 4 0 4 memory 3 0 3 80n:dsc06107.mpg3 0 3 signage (Oct 2010) 3 0 3 http://www.creditgate.com/companysearch/credit_QU_9.aspx3 0 3 OS 3 0 3 Rushmere Commoners website 3 0 3 disctaphone 3 0 3 observation 3 0 3 OS Locator + NaPTAN 3 0 3 GPS 3 0 3 http://www.ukhotelnet.com/cambridge/hotels.htm 3 0 3 www.ukpubfinder.com/pub/32185 3 0 3 definitive_statement3 0 3 estate agent web site 3 0 3 OS Locator; GPS trace 2 0 2 Long Wood Path 2 0 2 OS Locator; bing2 0 2 knowledge 2 0 2 OS_Streetview 2 0 2 previous_node 2 0 2 web 2 0 2 Sales Office2 0 2 http://www.claveringonline.org.uk/Clubs%20amp;%20Societies/Bellringers.htm 2 0 2 roadsign2 0 2 communication with Commoners' Committee 1 0 1 Streetsign and OS Locator 1 0 1 Sign at W end of this portion 1 0 1 survey (no apostrophe on sign) 1 0 1 OS Openview Streetview 1 0 1 OS_OpenOS_OpenData_OS_Locator 1 0 1 http://www.cottenhampc.org.uk/pdfs/Cottenham_Moat.pdf 1 0 1 RSPB trail guide1 0 1 dictafone 1 0 1 naptan bus stop 1 0 1 Map displayed along the path1 0 1 os streetview 1 0 1 Streesign 1 0 1 local research 1 0 1 bing1 0 1 OS Opendata S.V.1 0 1 sign (Nov 2010) 1 0 1 newspaper 1 0 1 publications;news;internet 1
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
On 9 June 2011 12:14, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes: I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, Â but some errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these should not be in also included in not:name. It certainly doesn't break any copyright to do so and provides strong evidence that we are doing proper surveying rather than copying. I'm no lawyer so I cannot tell you that what you are doing is infringing copyright. Â But I think it is better to take a strict clean-room approach. You may be disciplined when looking at the Navteq maps side-by-side with OSM; you may know exactly how far you can go in adding information based on them; but I think it would be better to stick to a simple and clear policy of never using other maps unless we know the copyright status is okay. To my mind, adding not:name from Navteq may provide evidence that we are surveying - but it also provides evidence that we are looking at Navteq's maps! Â That makes it harder to argue independent creation if for any reason our map starts to closely resemble Navteq's and they allege copying. I hear your concern. I think we are all slightly paranoid on the subject but that is certainly better than not being paranoid (because you never do know if that are out to get you:) ) You will notice that I hadn't added that information and am not rushing to do us. For example: Navteq (and Bing) incorrectly name the section of Nacton Road in Ipswich from the junction with Felixstowe Road heading east as Clapgate Lane. It isn't. It might be appropriate therefore to add a not:name entry to OSM at that point with a not:name:note saying that Navteq has a wrong. I think I might tag this if I saw widespread usage in web pages or secondary sources using the wrong name. Â But I would prefer not to know which particular proprietary map the error originated from. I think that is a wise approach. I'd suggest we reserve not:name for the OS Locator check, since that's overwhelmingly what it is used for - even if the tag name doesn't make that clear - and if there is a need to tag 'commonly used but wrong name' for a street we use something else like incorrect_name. In the UK that may well be appropriate; elsewhere people may wish to use it in relation to their local agency. Regards, Peter -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 9 June 2011 13:30, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: Fyi, here is the full list of content in the source:name field for Suffolk and bits of Cambs,Norfolk and Essex (ordered by frequency of occurrence)! Well that nicely demonstrates what a complete mess the source tags are! I have updated the highway source map view to also colour code ways with source=[OS streetvew/locator...] in purplel. Any that also have source:name are shown in the previously described colours. I particularly like source:name=Mrs Sylvia Secker :) I thought that was great. Is that not what crowd-sources is all about? If I can put in my 2p-worth: I've done a fair bit of armchair-mapping* (yeah yeah, boo-hiss, I know) Generally I use the OS StreetView or Locator backgrounds in Potlatch to spot missing roads, then I trace the roads from the Bing imagery and name them from the Locator. I attribute it as source=Bing source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator (as recommended at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS and provided by the 'B' shortcut in Potlatch). I've never used a verified/surveyed tag. So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used on a restricted area and sets the appropriate source tags then it would simply be automating something I'm doing already and I'd be delighted to use it. Cheers, Graham http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GrahamS * While it would be nice if every single road was properly surveyed (and I do survey when I can), but I just don't think that is a practical way to make progress with the map. My local areas (Tynedale, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Shields, Alnwick) were all pretty blank and there didn't seem to be a much editing going on at all. So I take a more pragmatic approach of surveying where I can, recording GPS routes when I'm out in the car, but also armchair mapping to fill in big blanks. Judging by Peter's breakdown of source tags I'm not alone. Â Apologies if this goes against the spirit of OSM, but I'd rather get the basic road geometry and names out of the way. All maps have those and they are nothing special. Once they are done with we can concentrate on the finer details that seem to be the real unique strength of OSM. Agreed. Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Sorry to be posting again, however... I think the map view is now getting more useful and more stable. I have reworked the key to allow for more values and to make it more logical and it is now worth another look. Royal blue: source:name=survey or similar Red: source:name= OS or similar Purple: source:name=some other value Light blue: source=survey or similar Orange: source= OS or similar Light purple: source=something other value grey: no source:name or source provided Regards, Peter On 9 June 2011 14:39, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 9 June 2011 13:30, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: Fyi, here is the full list of content in the source:name field for Suffolk and bits of Cambs,Norfolk and Essex (ordered by frequency of occurrence)! Well that nicely demonstrates what a complete mess the source tags are! I have updated the highway source map view to also colour code ways with source=[OS streetvew/locator...] in purplel. Any that also have source:name are shown in the previously described colours. I particularly like source:name=Mrs Sylvia Secker :) I thought that was great. Is that not what crowd-sources is all about? If I can put in my 2p-worth: I've done a fair bit of armchair-mapping* (yeah yeah, boo-hiss, I know) Generally I use the OS StreetView or Locator backgrounds in Potlatch to spot missing roads, then I trace the roads from the Bing imagery and name them from the Locator. I attribute it as source=Bing source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator (as recommended at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS and provided by the 'B' shortcut in Potlatch). I've never used a verified/surveyed tag. So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used on a restricted area and sets the appropriate source tags then it would simply be automating something I'm doing already and I'd be delighted to use it. Cheers, Graham http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GrahamS * While it would be nice if every single road was properly surveyed (and I do survey when I can), but I just don't think that is a practical way to make progress with the map. My local areas (Tynedale, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Shields, Alnwick) were all pretty blank and there didn't seem to be a much editing going on at all. So I take a more pragmatic approach of surveying where I can, recording GPS routes when I'm out in the car, but also armchair mapping to fill in big blanks. Judging by Peter's breakdown of source tags I'm not alone. Â Apologies if this goes against the spirit of OSM, but I'd rather get the basic road geometry and names out of the way. All maps have those and they are nothing special. Once they are done with we can concentrate on the finer details that seem to be the real unique strength of OSM. Agreed. Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
On 9 June 2011 13:31, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes: I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, Â but some errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these should not be in also included in not:name. That makes it harder to argue independent creation if for any reason our map starts to closely resemble Navteq's and they allege copying. I hear your concern. You will notice that I hadn't added that information and am not rushing to do us. OK. Â I may have made the common mistake of confusing the discussion of an action on the mailing list with the performance of that action. Can we agree, then, that it's a bad idea to tag anything in OSM that comes directly from proprietary maps such as Navteq - even if minor things like notes of errors in the other map - and so for any check of OS Locator versus OSM, we don't need to worry about not:name tags that might have been added for Navteq, because there won't be any. Fine by me. Thanks again (to you and your employees) for your work on these comparisons. We are enjoying it loads. When we started supporting OSM there were 3,000 contributors and there are now 100 times that number! Unbelievable. When we started we were worrying about trunk roads and now we are worrying about voltages on power lines and the exact location of shipping buoys. Unbelievable. The real heros are of course the folk out there who are doing the foot work (and indeed the armchair work ;) and who argue out all the tagging standards and do everything else that keep the wheels on this thing. Regards, Peter -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 9 June 2011 17:53, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: If you import data into an area that doesn't already have an active community, the community will spring up more slowly or not at all. But that logic suggests that we should actively *discourage* people from doing any mapping, as an overly complete map discourages community. In reality there is still plenty to do in areas that have achieved 100% road coverage. I strongly doubt that the UK community will disintegrate if we ever get the whole country close to 100% roads. And I don't think that fear should hinder us from trying to get to that point. ..Worcester was growing nicely until the OSSV fairies arrived: there's still a little activity, but the rich map is no longer growing at the rate it was. I took a look out of interest. Worcester is a mass of grey roads: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117lat=52.19568481654745lon=-2.2034480483935286zoom=13 According to OSM Mapper Worcester has been developing nicely over a couple of years. Fyi, the most active mapper is this srbrook. Mapper since: 14 October 2009 at 20:30 (over 1 year ago). Description: I'm Steve and have been mapping in the south Worcester, UK area since October 2009. For more details of what I've been up to see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Srbrook The second most active in Jenuk1985 who joined in 2008 and stopped editing in the area over a year ago but is now busy to the west of B'ham. The third most active mapper who again stopped editing in the area over a year ago is called Richard and seems to be closely involved in Potlatch! Here are the stats for the top 10 contributors in the town: srbrook 15650 1565 Jenuk1985 661 0 661 Richard 397 0 397 iccaldwell 164 0 164 Ted Pottage 151 0 151 LivingWithDragons 58 0 58 Steve Chilton 56 0 56 Higgy 55 0 55 i4one 41 0 41 Phil M 38 0 38 These Don't look like an 'OSSV fairy' to me. Or possibly there something is being kept from us :) Regards, Peter So there doesn't seem much evidence of OSSV fairies there. (Or at least not with proper source tag). But Worcester does seem to have a nice detailed map. Plenty of foot and cycle paths, parks etc most of which won't have come from any OS product. Have the local mappers actually stopped mapping or have they just moved onto nearby areas that are more in need of attention? Ed said: It can help us to boost our map from 'excellent in parts, almost blank in others' to 'usable everywhere, excellent in many places'. Â Then as OSM becomes widely adopted, mapping parties and other contribution become a much easier proposition: rather than 'help out with this geeky new hobby' it becomes 'hey! you can contribute to the map you are already using!'. Complete agree. For every 1000 users getting taken on a 20 mile wild goose chase by their satnav I'd be willing to bet that 999 are left cursing the name of OpenStreetMap and maybe one decides to become a contributor and do something about it. That's not how you win people over! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
Following on swiftly from Musical Chairs OSM Analaysis is now also running with the new OS Locator data. Warwickshire is the biggest gainer/looser with 33 new names; over half of the districts have got at least one new road and there are now only 8 places still at 100%. We do have 51 at over 99% and only 32 at under 50%. There is serious work in Wales, parts of Scotland, the West Midlands and Norfolk at present and in other places as well. Progress is however slowing down. We were at 20K roads per month and are now down to some 11K which is pushing completion back to Autumn 2013. Any more takers for the OS Bot? I still think we are using a lot of expert time to do very mundane work less well than a computer would manage. Anyone who says that bulk imports will damage the community should take a look at the Netherlands where they did a bulk road import some years ago and have a hugely strong community now. For the avoidance of doubt I will not bulldoze this proposal through against the majority wishes, but there are people asking why we are doing all this manually and I think they have a point and don't want the proposal to be forgotten. The bot will still make is clear that a manual survey has not been completed of the area and invite people to take a look. It will free up human effort to do work that can't be done by a computer. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OS_bot Regards, Peter Miller (user:PeterIto) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
On 3 June 2011 11:45, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi all, Some stats on OSM coverage of Kent. I tried to pair the records of KCC OpenKent with the OSM database. Assuming the KCC list is complete (which it is usually, but not entirely), we can estimate OSM's coverage in the area. Schools: 618 of 915 (915 (67.54 %) Pharmacies: 67 of 274 (274 (24.45 %) Doctors: 33 of 286 (286 (11.54 %) Libraries: 70 of 101 (101 (69.31 %) Opticians: 12 of 170 (170 (7.06 %) Hospitals: 24 of 33 (33 (72.73 %) So, OSM is good on some features and poor on others. It seems for profit locations are not so well mapped, compared to public services. My philosophy is that OSM omissions should be regarded as errors. With complete lists of addresses, we can go and find exact positions of these services. I am still unsure if this is compatible with the relicensing. This data is distributed under OGL (and sometimes OS OpenData too). Can LWG attempt to reduce the legal uncertainty of this, by a definitive statement? My experience is that the LWG never makes definitive statements! I suggest that you turn the tables on them and send them an email saying that you will import the OGL-licensed data in xx days unless you get a statement from them in the mean time saying that it would be violating the OSM licensing terms and compromising your status as a contributor. Fyi, I was at a meeting where Francis Maude, the cabinet office minister, spoke about open data recently. He is very keen or this sort of use and is pressing for more data to be released and used. In light of that it would be a brave or foolish council officer who challenged such an import! Regarding data formats. Can I suggest that that we gratefully accept data in whatever format it is provided. We can ask politely for it to be in an better format but please don't complain either about the quality of the data or the suitability of the format which may support councils who will argue that they should delay releasing anything until they have got it right and in the perfect format. The phrase is 'raw data now' (warts and all). On a separate note. Would you be able to do a comparison between place names in NatGaz and in OSM. I think we will be surprised how many places we are still missing from OSM. My guess is that OSM only contains about 65% of the 50K places in that database. Here it is: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/nptg Regards, Peter Regards, TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date
On 8 June 2011 14:18, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Steve Doerr doerr.stephen@... writes: I wonder if the good folks at ITO could devise a way to analyse the not:name tags in the database and see whether any of them are now redundant? In other words, are the OS correcting any of the mistakes we appear to have identified? It would be cool to see a comparison the other way round: testing the OS data for accuracy using OSM as a reference. Â In inner London I think there are about 5% of names missing from OS - mostly semi-private drives or estates, but nonetheless signposted and addressable - so I think they would score no higher than 95%. (OS Street View is a bit better, I'd say that only about 2% of roads that exist are missing from it, and the 'false positive rate' of Street View showing a road where nothing is on the ground is almost nil. Â It's not as easy to do automated comparisons however. Â These numbers are totally off the top of my head and apply to London only.) I do agree that it may now be interesting to include two new columns: 1) A list of not:names that orginated from OS Locator but where OS Locator does not currently contain that error. The challenge is that not all not:name entries in OSM will have originated from error in OS Locator; they could contain details of errors from other sources, such as Navteq or TeleAtlas or elsewhere. The practical approach may be to just publish the differences and not worry about the original source but include text from the not:name:note field which can provide any supporting information about where the error came from (such as duff data in TeleAtlas Oct10, or OS Locator June10). 2) A list of street names which are in OSM but which are not in OS Locator could be a good publicity tool for OSM and a good new source of errors for elements of a way (for example where a short section of a street associated with a bridge but the other way had a typo in OSM). I guess that needs would ideally have its own rendering layer? We might start with just a list on district page with no rendering and we come back to rendering at a later point. If others wished to create rendering now then that would be great! Finally. Might it be useful for us to accommodate have multiple not:name entries associated with a single road? For example where a single street has multiple different duff names from one or more different sources, ie OS Locator and Navteq both have different wrong names. Should we accommodate 'not:name_xxx' where xxx can be any text? Regards, Peter -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation
On 8 June 2011 09:39, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 08/06/11 08:15, Peter Miller wrote: My experience is that the LWG never makes definitive statements! I find that annoying sometimes but, if we are to follow to Spinoza's example that we should made a ceaseless effort not to [...] scorn human actions, but to understand them, LWG have to deal with legal advice that is also not definitive. Hopefully they can offer a definitive position on matters such as good mapping practice - like if we should import data of uncertain compatibility. Thank you for reminding me of that very sound advice. I suggest that you turn the tables on them and send them an email saying that you will import the OGL-licensed data in xx days unless you get a statement from them in the mean time saying that it would be violating the OSM licensing terms and compromising your status as a contributor. I have set one or two deadlines on LWG in the past but it doesn't fit with their working pattern. Until now, nothing gets decided, or is put to discussion leading up to a decision, in any forum other than the teleconference. But to their credit, they are quite open and understanding when you do phone in and discuss matters. This is something I want to work on: to have a medium-long term discussion with LWG outside the weekly teleconference. I think the suggestion was met with a mixed response - discussions will continue. In the modern world with email, wikis, face to face, etc, there is more to life than teleconferences! Great. In the end you may need to make a judgement on the import and you may decide to just get on with it! Regarding data formats. Can I suggest that that we gratefully accept data in whatever format it is provided. We can ask politely for it to be in an better format but please don't complain either about the quality of the data or the suitability of the format which may support councils who will argue that they should delay releasing anything until they have got it right and in the perfect format. The phrase is 'raw data now' (warts and all). Agreed. If the data is even slightly usable, someone in the community can convert it. I am currently working on a legally gray dataset (which I am not importing, obviously) which is currently a mixture of closed data and data that a government agency aspires to make open data. They seem to lack the urgency or resources to separate the two, so I am doing it for them (without them asking) and I will ask nicely if they will release my data subset (for which they have the copyright). Sounds like a very good approach. On a separate note. Would you be able to do a comparison between place names in NatGaz and in OSM. I think we will be surprised how many places we are still missing from OSM. My guess is that OSM only contains about 65% of the 50K places in that database. Here it is: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/nptg That is an interesting data set. I might use a different approach because it seems unlikely the original data contains significant errors(?). Currently, I use XAPI to query OSM for objects near to a record in the government database. I am not sure if the admins would appreciate me hammering the XAPI server with 50K requests! or that might be fine... I could use the UK dump, slice it to get place=*, import it into a separate microcosm server on my laptop, and then do XAPI requests to my laptop server. I will have a think. We are working on a capabilty to do programatic extractions of OSM without bothering the main OSM hosting but have no timescale at present. May be sooner or later so probably not worth waiting. Regarding a later comment that NatGaz may also contain errors. That is certainly true and I do not advocate any mindless 'import' of that data for this dataset which contains some old data and may be of a pretty low standard in places. However I know that there are many many places in the UK which are missing from OSM, some quite large. Another source of intelligence would be places in the UK (or indeed elsewhere in the world) which are in Wikipedia and which are not in OSM near the location given in Wikipedia. These are probably already available from FreeBase. Regards, Peter Regards, Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 8 June 2011 21:20, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: The Warwick additions are all  names in  the defunct Stoneleigh Agricultural Show site. Must get over there and do a survey to see what's happening to any redevelopment there - unless anyone else wants to volunteer! I'm firmly of the opinion that this is not work for a bot unless a tag is added such as verified=no so we humans can search for what hasn't been surveyed. In Birmingham and Solihull I've personally surveyed every OS-Locator error  before editing it and we have a pretty impressive list of OS errors (210 not-names from 8966 road names)and they're not all apostrophes either! ( Going out to survey far-flung street name errors also has the added bonus of an incentive to do some other basic surveying and improvement to the map) That's why we're stuck at 99.5% - the ones left are just too far away and scattered to motivate me or the Local Authority hasn't replied to my requests to inspect the definitive record.  A bot will just replicate the OS errors and then we'll never find them! I'm also dubious that a lot of the progress to date has just been armchair stuff and we've just replicated any errors  that the OS might have. I agree entirely, which is why the proposal includes a verified=no field (it used to say 'surveryed=no' but I have just changed it on the wiki given that verified is a more common name). It might be better to clarify further as 'geometry:verified' or 'name:verified'. My concern with the current arm-chair mapping approach is that it may not include this verification tag and source:name. The bot would at least be able to do it right and allow for a subsequent ground survey. That might be OK with most people but I've always seen OSM as proving that by local crowdsourcing, given enough mappers, we can produce more accurate data. Our problem in the UK is we don't have enough people on the ground and there's no consistent planned promotional effort to attract more people or -  even easier just re-attract some of the early pioneers back to active mapping - at least they've shown they're willing and able and some of them would be pretty impressed both with progress and the capability of the tools at our disposal now. How about some analysis of inactive users who have a significant number of edits ( 50?) and doing an email shot? I'm willing to draft a text for discussion There are lots of reasons why we don't have more contributors and how we could get more and lets all aim to build the community. What I disagree with it the theory that OSM in the UK would be damaged as a result of such an import. Netherlands is a good example that this does not happen. For sure there would no longer be any 'dragons' left in the form of blank spots on the map in GB but there is still plenty to do including verification. I do however know that this is an 'over my dead body' issue for some people in the community; my concern is that other voices are being drowned out whenever the subject of imports in general is raised and in particular this import. There are many more levels to OSM. I am enjoying doing speed limit hunting at present when travelling - plenty of blank spots on the map and reminiscent of the days when we had no aerial photography and no OS Open data when tracking down new roads! Why not see what is missing in your area :) http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=5lat=52.310633029288894lon=-0.5165746127230731zoom=8 Regards, Peter Regards Brian On 8 June 2011 07:58, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Following on swiftly from Musical Chairs OSM Analaysis is now also running with the new OS Locator data. Warwickshire is the biggest gainer/looser with 33 new names; over half of the districts have got at least one new road and there are now only 8 places still at 100%. We do  have 51 at over 99% and only 32 at under 50%. There is serious work in Wales, parts of Scotland, the West Midlands and Norfolk at present and in other places as well. Progress is however slowing down. We were at 20K roads per month and are now down to some 11K which is pushing completion back to Autumn 2013. Any more takers for the OS Bot? I still think we are using a lot of expert time to do very mundane work less well than a computer would manage. Anyone who says that bulk imports will damage the community should take a look at the Netherlands where they did a bulk road import some years ago and have a hugely strong community now. For the avoidance of doubt I will not bulldoze this proposal through against the majority wishes, but there are people asking why we are doing all this manually and I think they have a point and don't want the proposal to be forgotten. The bot will still make is clear that a manual survey has not been completed of the area and invite people to take a look. It will free up human effort to do work that can't be done by a computer. http
[Talk-GB] Electricity generator tagging
We have releases a new Electricity generation map using ITO Map which people might like to look at which colour-codes power stations by fuel source (coal/nuclear etc). Take a look here: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=106lat=51.822370189439184lon=0.6237611854769254zoom=9 It currently recognises both 'power_source' and 'generator:source'. Generator:source is a newly adopted tag which makes it possible to tag more sorts of generator plant (such as CHP which generate electricity and hot water). Read about it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/generator_rationalisation Power_source is however still used to a significant degree and is the tagging that Potlatch2 uses. Tom Chance, who did a lot of work on this new tagging schema, has added a trac ticket to Potlatch2 recommending that PotLatch moves to use the new tagging schema for power stations. Can I suggest that we use the new tagging with new power stations going forward and convert power_source to generator:source when we find it. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Electricity generator tagging
On 26 May 2011 12:38, Borbus bor...@gmail.com wrote: On 26/05/11 11:51, Peter Miller wrote: We have releases a new Electricity generation map using ITO Map ... snip That's convenient since I just tagged the gas fired and biomass CHP plants at my university the other day. :) Very good. There does seem to be a lot of interest in electricity mapping at present. What is the best way to tag wind farms? Â Currently one near me has nodes for each turbine with power_source=wind on each one. Â It seems it would be better to have each one as man_made=wind_turbine or something and group them together with a relation, since the estimated energy output of a wind farm is usually stated as a whole rather than per turbine. It certainly makes sense to map each turbine as a node. Without looking at the tagging schema in detail on the wiki it would seem to be appropriate to be able to mark each actual turbine with its maximum rated output and then have some way in the relation to indicate typical and maximum output from the array. If no maximum is given then the down-stream system should assume the maximum is the summation of the maximums of the individuals. Would it be useful to have 'generator:output:electricity:peak' and a 'generator:output:electricity:mean' for the overall windfarm? I have noticed recently that substations can come in various forms which include transmission, distribution and collector. They give the example of a wind farm for the 'collector' substation. Should we used substation= for that information? More details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_substation We will be adding node features to ITO Map in due course btw. Regards, Peter -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Opendata names copied in Harrow
On 18 May 2011 13:01, Andrew andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: An editor has cleared the OSL difference analysis in the London Borough of Harrow (http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/area?name=Harrow ) with the unusually low score of 5 not:names out of 1800. As someone who used to live in the area, I find some of the names that were put onto the map surpising, for instance the road I’ve always known as Paines Lane (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8609572). When I asked the editor concerned where the names had come from I was told that the names had come from OS Opendata and sometimes visits to the streets. Paines Lane may not have been one of the streets the editor visited because it is spelt that way on all of its street signs. When someone added names from OS Locator they should also add a 'source:name' tag as well which can easily be achieved using by pressing 'b' when the OS Locator background is selected. It is unfortunate that Potlatch does not show this on its main tag panel unless one is in advanced mode. For a while I didn't think that B did anything at all. Of course an OS Bot would always include the relevant tagging and also a surveyed=no which would make it easier to go and check everything by hand later if one so wished. After a visit the surveyed tag could be removed and the source:name changed. However... I got such a hostile reception from some quarters last time I mentioned the OS bot that I am certainly not going to risk it again ;) Regards, Peter -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
On 7 May 2011 18:45, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.comwrote: On 5 May 2011 18:01, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Should we add something about permissive and private paths to this view? If we had that then the job to do locally would be to convert all the grey paths and turn them into one of the colours. Currently anything that is permissive will stay grey and the risk will be that other people will come and review the same path time and time again wasting loads of time. On paths/tracks, designation=* is only supposed to be for recording a definite legal status of the route. There's also suggested tagging for *signed* permissive routes, but I don't think we'd want to add anything for private paths (we have access=private, etc for things like that). There will be a lot of customary unsigned paths that are effectively permissive but wouldn't be signed as such (and hence we won't use the designation tag on them), and lots of paths in towns that aren't officially designated as public rights of way, but are nevertheless considered legal to use. In time it may be useful to tag them as customary if there is evidence that they have used without hindrance for a significant time without any indicate to the contrary. For now I am happy to leave them. We haven't even considered the 'access' tag which may also contain relevant information and might be worth using to indicate paths that are private in due course. We have also not looked a 'foot=* and horse=* tagging which I see as being alternative ways of indicating the same thing. It will probably be worth adding those as aliases in due course. Thus I don't think it's ever going to be an aim to get rid of all the grey lines. Though if we can reduce the number of unknown coloured designation values that might be good. The use of customary would reduce uncertainty and resurveying (and also the amount of grey). For now lets leave it. Here are a few suggestions for some additional values that could be given colours, which would probably make the view even more useful: 1/ As well as the various highway=* ways that you're considering, I'd probably also include highway=track, as quite a few countryside routes (especially near me) are tracks rather than paths/footways. Thanks. I have now added it to the map view. 2/ I'd give colours to the the two common permissive versions: permissive_footpath and permissive_bridleway. It would be good if their colours could be related to those for the public versions. Maybe a paler yellow and a paler blue could be used? I have adjusted public_footpath to be slightly orange and re-purposed yellow for permissive_footpath. I have also updated the key. I have added permissive_bridleway as light blue. 3/ I don't know if anyone else has been doing this, but I've been using designation=unclassified_highway for tracks that are officially public highways, but aren't really suitable for regular driving. (Hence it didn't really seem right to use highway=unclassified; but other suggestions for tagging these welcome.) These are typically marked on OS maps as Other Routes with Public Access. You can check their status by asking the local highways authority. Just like a normal road, you can legally drive, ride, or walk on these. They're pretty much like a byway_open_to_all_traffic in that respect, though there will be some subtle legal differences, hence the need for different tagging. Based on the signs that some local authorities use for these, I'd suggest colouring them in black. I have not added this on yet and suggest we leave until there is more of a consensus on the appropriate tagging. I hope those suggestions are useful. Very much so and thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming Regards, Peter Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New British Waterways map; why not use OSM?
On 6 May 2011 16:58, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Tom Chance wrote: I completely agree that the tools aren't there yet, but could they not have used OSM for their database? In theory, yes. But there are huge costs to that, too. The effort required to work with the community, and in particular, through the tagging minefield. The extra complexity in some form of integration between Waterscape and OSM, including synchronising the two databases. The licence complications (BW is principally an OS GIS shop, after all) - and BW's lawyers are all tied up right now on the move from quango to charity status. I wouldn't have used OSM to do it when I was at Waterscape, and I know more about using OSM than most people! BW has about three pennies to rub together (admittedly, it would have more if it didn't pay its directors such vast sums). If it can spend two days knocking up something with PHP and MySQL, rather than a fortnight doing an OSM-based project, I can't blame it for doing so. We need to recognise that collaborative+latitude+longitude does not always need to equal OSM. It does however seem disappointing for them to be duplicating some a lot of work. I agree that the OSM data is not perfect however it is good and could be even better very easily. We have an ITO Map view for 'navigable waterways' available showing what is already in the DB and what is missing for boating purposes here: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=24 There is certainly some cleanup work that needs to be done. In particular we need to ensure that: 1) There is always a 'river' or a 'canal' as a linear feature along the length every navigable river, even if there is a riverbank and through lakes etc. There are plenty of examples in the UK where sections of river/canal are missing. 2) That rivers and canals are tagged with boat=yes/no. There are many without this information. 2) That riverbanks are tagged with waterway=riverbank and not with natural=water (which signifies a lake). This view shows natural=water in light blue and ignores riverbank. As a rule convert long thin 'lakes' along rivers into riverbank. 3) Check that reservoirs/marinas/docks/lakes are tagged correctly. Plenty of docks, marinas etc are still tagged as lakes.. Out of curiosity I have just produced a view showing waterways (rivers and canals) and also walking route (path/footway/cycleway/bridleway/track). Paths are in green, navigable rivers in red, navigable canals in orange. un-navigable rivers and streams in light blue and unknown status rivers and canals in grey. Clearly we have a shed-load of data in OSM that is relevant! http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=99 Regards, Peter cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New British Waterways map; why not use OSM?
On 6 May 2011 18:42, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Peter Miller wrote: It does however seem disappointing for them to be duplicating some a lot of work. I agree that the OSM data is not perfect however it is good and could be even better very easily. AIUI they're not duplicating work. This is a towpath condition project, not a map the towpath project. BW already knows where its towpaths are. ;) I'm encouraging them to release under an OSM-compatible licence so that the towpath condition data they collect can be incorporated into OSM. Makes sense. Thanks Richard. Regards, Peter cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-British-Waterways-map-why-not-use-OSM-tp6337909p6338341.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] traditional orchard survey
On 5 May 2011 09:02, TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi all, I thought this UK list of orchards was interesting. It would be nice if they were to release it as open data. Not sure if they traced it from some restricted source though. Just what I was thinking as well. Would someone (TimSC?) like to contact them. Given that it was from aerial survey and given that we have access to Bing aerial then all we need from these people is a geocodet and ideally also a name and their reference code for the orchard. We can create the boundary from that information. A geocode/name/reference is unlikely to contain any restrictive IPR. Regards, Peter http://www.ptes.org/index.php?page=205 http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9474000/9474777.stm I also notice the Kent Heritage Tree Project has launch events: Ashford 14th May (I might attend) Canterbury 14th June Tonbridge 10th July http://www2.btcv.org.uk/display/kent_heritage_tree_project TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
On 5 May 2011 10:45, monxton gm...@jordan-maynard.org wrote: On 04/05/2011 15:57, Peter Miller wrote: Here is a global map view showing highway=footway in blue and highway=path in brown. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=97 There is indeed something like an 80/20 split in the UK with noticeable enthusiasm for 'path' in some parts of the country and a noticable preference for its use in the countryside over the town. In Germany the preference is stronger. This map will remain viewable but will not appear in the pull-down list of standard views so do please bookmark it if you want to come back to it. To me, the most significant thing about that map is that it demonstrates how vast swathes of the UK have almost no footpath data at all. Beware that the map view above is only a comparison between 'footway' and 'path', it does not show anything for bridleway, track, cycleway or unsurfaced. You may wish find the 'surfaces' view more useful for getting a general insight into path density around the UK and elsewhere. This view does in fact mirror the patchy nature of path data in the UK. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=25 Do let me know if you would like us to create any additional views. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
On 5 May 2011 15:49, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.comwrote: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: You may wish find the 'surfaces' view more useful for getting a general insight into path density around the UK and elsewhere. This view does in fact mirror the patchy nature of path data in the UK. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=25 Do let me know if you would like us to create any additional views. I don't know about others, but I'd find a view of designation tags for Public Rights of Way in England and Wales very useful. This would highlight ways with the four designation=* values for the public rights of way listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation (namely: public_footpath, public_bridleway, restricted_byway, and byway_open_to_all_traffic) and give the grey unknown colour to any ways which have a different designation=* value. (It's probably too difficult to work out a set of ways that you would expect to have designation tags -- there are too many paths around that aren't public rights of way.) (If you want the highlight colours to match the usual colours of the signs used for the different rights of way, you'd use yellow for public_footpath, blue for public_bridleway, purple for restricted_byway, and red for byway_open_to_all_traffic.) Thanks for the suggestion. Take a look at this one which I hope does roughly what you have asked for with the exception that I have coloured 'other designations' with a off-yellow (as used for unrecognised values in other map views) and I have added grey for paths with no designation. Grey paths include highway=path, footway, bridleway, cycleway and byway. There is a key this time. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=87 Happy to tweek it when people have taken a look. Regards, Peter Thanks, Robert -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
On 5 May 2011 17:03, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Thanks for the suggestion. Take a look at this one which I hope does roughly what you have asked for with the exception that I have coloured 'other designations' with a off-yellow (as used for unrecognised values in other map views) and I have added grey for paths with no designation. Grey paths include highway=path, footway, bridleway, cycleway and byway. There is a key this time. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=87http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=87 Interesting... seems to show that us Hampshire mappers, along with those in Cheshire, are the most zealous designators. There are certainly some prolific designators in some places! My patch is particularly poor I am sorry to say. Not sure how widespread this is but I tag byways as designation=public_byway. Might be good to show these too. Can do. Is this a separate value/colour or is it an alias for another value? If it is a separate colour then what colour would you suggest? Regards, Peter Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
On 5 May 2011 17:28, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 05/05/2011 16:40, Peter Miller wrote: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=87 First reaction - thank you - that will be _extremely_ useful. Second reaction - have I really forgotton to add footpath and bridleway designations from quite so many footpaths locally? Oh dear - more work to do :-) I am glad you like it! Should we add something about permissive and private paths to this view? If we had that then the job to do locally would be to convert all the grey paths and turn them into one of the colours. Currently anything that is permissive will stay grey and the risk will be that other people will come and review the same path time and time again wasting loads of time. My other thought was that we could have a 'legal walking' overlay which would colour routes according to their legal walking status (private, permissive, right of way for walkers) and then similar ones for cycles, horses and the rest? Each view would not care about the other modes, so the walkers view would not distinguish between a footpath and a bridleway but the horse view would. Those views could then easily use the global tagging recommendations of horse=permissive/yes etc. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Rewired state: Norfolk - this Saturday in Norwich
Anyone else fancy signing up to this event which takes place this Saturday in Norwich? I will be highlighting all the lovely data in OSM and will be doing some more local mapping during the day of historic buildings or whatever. http://rewiredstatenorfolk.neontribe.co.uk/developers.html Regards, Peter Miller ITO World (user:Peterito) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
On 4 May 2011 15:39, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes: The general practice in this country is to use footway for paved paths in cities and path for muddier countryside ones (or, perhaps, through city parks). Um, no it isn't. There is absolutely no consensus for using =path in the countryside rather than =footway. I strongly suspect that if you analysed the data in the UK countryside, you would find 80% footway, 20% path. Ah, sorry for making such a rash generalization. What I should have said is that to the extent path is used instead of footway, it has a sense of being an unsurfaced path. Footway is used too even in the countryside. Here is a global map view showing highway=footway in blue and highway=path in brown. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=97 There is indeed something like an 80/20 split in the UK with noticeable enthusiasm for 'path' in some parts of the country and a noticable preference for its use in the countryside over the town. In Germany the preference is stronger. This map will remain viewable but will not appear in the pull-down list of standard views so do please bookmark it if you want to come back to it. Regards, Peter Miller -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-transit] New administrator and comments/questions on the new public transport schema
On 2 May 2011 05:44, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote: Hi Peter On 05/01/2011 10:49 AM, Peter Miller wrote: Just to say that I have just set Stefan Bethke up as an admin. There are now two administrators, myself and Stefan which is much better. I would like to also say how impressed I am with the new public transport schema which is proving to be very useful for modeling the main railway stations in London. I have also been working on the OSM wiki over the past week providing more detail about this schema on more pages. Here are a few pages that I have pretty much finished. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstop_position http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstop_area http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstation Thanks for your work on the wiki! No problem. I plan to keep going a while on the above. One question I do have is about how to tag the boundary of a station. For some purposes it seems to be important to have a node representing the station, and a node is also useful because it can be positioned over the main concourse or at any other appropriate location as opposed to being in the centre of the boundary which is often in the tracks/platform area. This begs the question about how to tag the area of the station. On normal maps a stop_area should not be drawn. So there is another possibility to draw the boundary (if alreay supported by renderers): public_transport=station area=yes If you have a building this should be tagged with: public_transport=station building=yes Thanks, but that doesn't answer how one avoids getting two station names rendered, one from the node positioned at exactly where one wants it and which can be used in route relations and another from the centre of the area? Take Paddington Station in London as an example. Here is the overarching stop_area for all the elements of public transport associated in some way with Paddington Station (this including the mainline station, two underground stations and a bunch of bus stops). http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/204439 Here is the stop area for Paddington mainline station itself (note that there is a node with role 'station' and the outline of the station with the role 'building'). Incidentally I am also starting to add footways within the station to the relation with the role 'access'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1562706 Here is the station node. Note the 'note' that reads DO NOT delete as route relations cannot have the building (area) as a 'stop'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/558489676 And here is the boundary of the station from which I removed the 'railway=station' tag and added a note that reads please do not add a railway=station tag - there is already a node performing this function. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8877521/history I am not 100% comfortable with this approach because without a 'railway=station' tag the area is rendered as any other building rather than as a station. However.. if one adds the 'railway=station' tag to the building outline then one gets another instance of railway station rendered on the map. I know that we shouldn't tag to suit the renderer - this is more a question about how we want to tag things unambiguously and what we want the map to look like and therefore what we want the rendered to do! What I would recommend in your examples: Add type=public_transport public_transport=stop_area to all the relations. I agree with you. Some of those stop areas are older and are not tagged correctly and I missed the type=public_transport off the new ones. In earlier days during the RFC of the proposal there was a public_transport=stop_area_group what exactly fitted your needs for your http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/204439 During the discussion we removed this from the proposal and we saied one should leave away such a relation as a whole. I personally still add such relations and do not remove them. Have a look at the following example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1279034 This is the stop_area_group relation containing ONLY other stop_areas. One for railway and the other for the bus. The relations for the railway also includes parkride and the stations building (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/82160292) The other realation for the bus stations contains a station tagged with area=yes to show the outline of the bus station ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/83334745). A railway=station is not used anymore and has been replaced by public_transport=station. Actually it does not get rendered completely, but I think this is only a question of time until the renderers are updated. Thanks for the above. The professional European transport model (transmodel) allows
[Talk-transit] New administrator and comments/questions on the new public transport schema
Just to say that I have just set Stefan Bethke up as an admin. There are now two administrators, myself and Stefan which is much better. I would like to also say how impressed I am with the new public transport schema which is proving to be very useful for modeling the main railway stations in London. I have also been working on the OSM wiki over the past week providing more detail about this schema on more pages. Here are a few pages that I have pretty much finished. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstop_position http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstop_area http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstation One question I do have is about how to tag the boundary of a station. For some purposes it seems to be important to have a node representing the station, and a node is also useful because it can be positioned over the main concourse or at any other appropriate location as opposed to being in the centre of the boundary which is often in the tracks/platform area. This begs the question about how to tag the area of the station. Take Paddington Station in London as an example. Here is the overarching stop_area for all the elements of public transport associated in some way with Paddington Station (this including the mainline station, two underground stations and a bunch of bus stops). http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/204439 Here is the stop area for Paddington mainline station itself (note that there is a node with role 'station' and the outline of the station with the role 'building'). Incidentally I am also starting to add footways within the station to the relation with the role 'access'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1562706 Here is the station node. Note the 'note' that reads DO NOT delete as route relations cannot have the building (area) as a 'stop'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/558489676 And here is the boundary of the station from which I removed the 'railway=station' tag and added a note that reads please do not add a railway=station tag - there is already a node performing this function. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8877521/history I am not 100% comfortable with this approach because without a 'railway=station' tag the area is rendered as any other building rather than as a station. However.. if one adds the 'railway=station' tag to the building outline then one gets another instance of railway station rendered on the map. I know that we shouldn't tag to suit the renderer - this is more a question about how we want to tag things unambiguously and what we want the map to look like and therefore what we want the rendered to do! Regards, Peter Miller ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-GB] 'couldn't load map' in Potlatch2
When using Potlatch 2 I sometimes get the error message 'couldn't load map'. There are two solutions, one being to switch to Potlatch 1 and the other it is come back later. There are periods of time when the error is very persistent and then a week or two can go by without any occurrences. Right now it is impossible to edit in PL2. I have googled the phrase and it is clear that other people do get it from time to time but some people are putting it down to finger trouble of being zoomed out too far. It doesn't appear to be either of those. My guess is that Potlatch2 is fussier about the response time from the server than Potlatch 1. Whatever the cause, it must be very off-putting for an newbie trying to edit for the first time. Anyone else getting this and have any other information or work-rounds? Regards, Peter Miller (user: PeterIto) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 'couldn't load map' in Potlatch2
On 1 May 2011 11:57, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Peter Miller wrote: Anyone else getting this and have any other information or work-rounds? It's actually an API issue rather than a P2 issue. P2 is simply saying either the API refused to send any data or I couldn't get any response from the API. Tom has recently committed a change that will echo the API's error message to the screen when this happens; if you get such an (extended) message, do report it. P1 works differently because it uses a separate part of the API. This seems to suffer less from random outages, but is slower in general because it uses Rails rather than Matt's aw3s0m3 cgimap power. Thanks for the clarification. Let me take this opportunity to thank you for what must have been a huge amount of work by yourself and others getting P2 up and running and congratulations on it 'graduating' to become the default editor. I find it a pleasure to use and I am still finding more tricks and short-cuts. Regards, Peter cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/couldn-t-load-map-in-Potlatch2-tp6321024p6321169.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] railway stations (again)
Andy Allan made a post recently about former railway stations being tagged as railway=station and the problems that it causes. I have been reviewing railways in London and have come across various other instances of multiple station and various other problems with stations when one starts getting into higher levels of detail. For example: Baker Street. There are three separate nodes tagged 'railway=station,name=Baker Street' (one for each line served). In reality there five separate lines each of which may have 2 platforms (unless any of them share platforms) together with 4 entrances but only one 'station'. Embankment. There is a single 'railway-station' node on one of the lines that stop at Embankment. In reality there are four lines each of which may have 2 platforms (except for those that share lines) and two entrances. Westminster. There is a single 'railway=station' node at a crossing of the two lines. In reality the lines probably cross each other on different layers and each probably have two platforms. There are a total of 5 entrances according the NaPTAN. And then there are the mainline stations which in general are more complex. Here are as sample: Kings Cross/St Pancras. There is one 'Kings Cross St Pancras', two off 'St Pancras' and two off 'Kings Cross'. There are areas tagged 'railway=station' for both Kings Cross and Paddington. Do we need a hierarchy of stations, of so what would be appropriate? London Waterloo. There is a single station marked 'London Waterloo'. However.. the Northern Line was dragged well off its correct alignment to pass through this node. I have now corrected the alignment but the line is now not explicitly associated with the station. Should the underground station be considered as part of the mainline station or not? Marylebone has three 'stations'. Probably two or one would be better. Paddington. There are two stations marked as 'Paddington' and one marked 'London Paddington'. The first two are tube stations, the last is the main line. Should there only be two? Regarding railway stations as areas. I have found that it is often unhelpful to tag complex station using an area (railway=station;area=yes) because the extent of the station often doesn't conform in area to the neat building outline on the surface - take Liverpool St station as an example where the extent underground is much further than the visible surface presence. There is also a recently proposal to clean-up public transport tagging which received a lot of support (83 approvals against 6 oppositions). We might be able to use this as guidance for a tagging review in London: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport Anyone fancy working on a solution that works when stations are modeled down to the platform level and which avoids having multiple instances of a single stations while retaining the correct alignment for the tracks? Incidentally, we have a view for railway stations on ITO Map here. If shows railway lines, platforms and connecting passages/stairs/escalators. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=79 Regards, Peter Miller (PeterIto) ITO World ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway stations (again)
On 26 April 2011 14:37, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.ukwrote: On 26/04/2011 12:38, Thomas Wood wrote: On 04/26/11 12:04, Peter Miller wrote: Baker Street. There are three separate nodes tagged 'railway=station,name=Baker Street' (one for each line served). In reality there five separate lines each of which may have 2 platforms (unless any of them share platforms) together with 4 entrances but only one 'station'. Embankment. There is a single 'railway-station' node on one of the lines that stop at Embankment. In reality there are four lines each of which may have 2 platforms (except for those that share lines) and two entrances. Westminster. There is a single 'railway=station' node at a crossing of the two lines. In reality the lines probably cross each other on different layers and each probably have two platforms. There are a total of 5 entrances according the NaPTAN. etc... These issues have been bugging me for a while - for instance, on the sections of District/Picc through Hammersmith, you get the rediculous situation of the lines forming something similar to =X= such that each is connected to the single station node. Unfortunately, as is always the case, time is my limiting factor (hopefully some will appear freed over my summer!) Thomas ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Well spotted, we definitely ought to work for something more coherent. As for Paddington I would keep the two tube stations separate from the mainline station. The fact that there are two stations called Paddington is invariably confuses people who might expect that this is a practical exchange point. In fact the old Metropolitan Hammersmith Line station is not really a decent exchange point except for some local mainline services: it's also a nightmare with a decent sized bag. St Pancras is effectively several stations under one roof: the Eurostar, Midland Mainline and the Thameslink services are pretty much independent. Working out a way to represent these individual components, the relationship with the underground, location of services (ticket offices etc) and suitable pedestrian routing through these stations would not only help for other complex transport exchanges, but offer real value for users of OSM. The walk to/from platforms 12/13/14 of Paddington to the Bakerloo District/Circle line platforms is a not inconsiderable part of a cross-London transfer. On the other hand, something like the tagging of Zurich Hbf is probably too complicated for an average contributor to want to contemplate: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1532513. Thanks for the feedback and reassurance that this is worth attempting. I agree with all of the above, indeed the ability to do better routing through complex interchanges is one of my motivations for doing this work. Another is just that it is the next level of detail we need to burrow into now that we have most of the streets mapped! The discussions about when a station is one station and when it is two stations will certainly be worth teasing out on a case by case basis. At some distant zoom level (14?) Paddington should probably be one node (it is current 3). By zoom level 17 it should probably be three as you say (it is currently 4). Similarly with KingsCross/St Pancras and Heathrow Airport. My plan of attack will be to do some simpler tube stations and railway stations, then Liverpool St Station and then Kings Cross/St Pancras. I do agree that the proposed public transport schema is pretty complex and I am still trying to get my head around it. I will try it out on my 'home' stations of Ipswich and Liverpool St and see how it works whilst also using the current tagging system. It may be that we can shake something simpler out of it or possibly the we will need tools with more support in due course. Regards, Peter Jerry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
On 20 April 2011 10:46, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Andy Allan wrote: Ooh, a golden opportunity to point out (to Richard of all people :-) ) that the key / value pairs are just arbitrary UTF8 strings and can mean whatever we want them to mean. So the letters n-e-t-w-o-r-k could mean importance classification and n-c-n could mean cycling route of national importance and we can all go home happy. So now I can point out to you that arbitrary importance scales are generally considered harmful in OSM and we can have that argument too. It just gets better. ;) Your map, your call. Personally I'd be very saddened to see the National Byway rendered in the same way as the National Cycle Network as I think it'd (a) look shit (b) not be helpful to users. But it's not my map. What tagging would you expect us to use within OSM to identify something as being part of this network? Fyi, I notice that highway=byway is depreciated by the wiki and that designation=restricted_byway is proposed in its place. There is a scattering of both tags in the current OSM DB, but nothing that creates a coherent network. I am also not convinced that either of these are the right tag for this purpose. When we agree what the tags should be used then ITO can host an overlay map showing the view and maintain it going forward using ITO Map. We might even be able to get the National Byways website to include a slippy map on their website based on it. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
On 20 April 2011 12:11, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Peter Miller wrote: What tagging would you expect us to use within OSM to identify something as being part of this network? Just route=bicycle, name=National Byway should be enough IMO. I wouldn't really call the National Byway a network - it's a circular route with the odd spur - but I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. I can't see any obvious instances of this tagging in the database at present. Can you give me some example ways? Regards, Peter (Bear in mind that, though I wouldn't go so far as to call the NB vapourware, its ambition has thus far exceeded its reach. It's a lovely project but I think the completion date has slipped by about 10 years so far. It's a bit like standing at a station when the departure board always says it'll be here 3 minutes from now... and does so for an hour. We should be fairly careful to tag what the NB is, not what it wants to be. Even the 'National Map' on the NB website overstates its existence: there is no signage in Gloucestershire, and only intermittent signage in Oxfordshire where it coincides with the NCN, even though it claims both were completed in 2009.) Fyi, I notice that highway=byway is depreciated by the wiki and that designation=restricted_byway is proposed in its place. There is a scattering of both tags in the current OSM DB, but nothing that creates a coherent network. I am also not convinced that either of these are the right tag for this purpose. Oh, absolutely. The National Byway is not made up of byways - in fact, it's expressly meant to be more an on-road network than (say) the NCN, which is why touring cyclists like it. Thanks for the clarification. Regards, Peter cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
I have created a new ITO Map overlay showing highway=byway in red and designation=restricted_byway in blue. It would also show ways with route=bicycle and name=National Byway as a thick green line, however there aren't any that I can see as yet. You can try it here: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=90 Note: this overlay map does not appear in the ITO Map layer selection list so as to avoid confusing users in other parts of the world - you will need to bookmark this URL if you want to return to it. t also doesn't have a key as yet as it is likely to evolve to meet some need or other or it may get canned in the near future if we don't need it any more! Regards, Peter On 20 April 2011 12:23, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 20 April 2011 12:11, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Peter Miller wrote: What tagging would you expect us to use within OSM to identify something as being part of this network? Just route=bicycle, name=National Byway should be enough IMO. I wouldn't really call the National Byway a network - it's a circular route with the odd spur - but I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. I can't see any obvious instances of this tagging in the database at present. Can you give me some example ways? Regards, Peter (Bear in mind that, though I wouldn't go so far as to call the NB vapourware, its ambition has thus far exceeded its reach. It's a lovely project but I think the completion date has slipped by about 10 years so far. It's a bit like standing at a station when the departure board always says it'll be here 3 minutes from now... and does so for an hour. We should be fairly careful to tag what the NB is, not what it wants to be. Even the 'National Map' on the NB website overstates its existence: there is no signage in Gloucestershire, and only intermittent signage in Oxfordshire where it coincides with the NCN, even though it claims both were completed in 2009.) Fyi, I notice that highway=byway is depreciated by the wiki and that designation=restricted_byway is proposed in its place. There is a scattering of both tags in the current OSM DB, but nothing that creates a coherent network. I am also not convinced that either of these are the right tag for this purpose. Oh, absolutely. The National Byway is not made up of byways - in fact, it's expressly meant to be more an on-road network than (say) the NCN, which is why touring cyclists like it. Thanks for the clarification. Regards, Peter cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
On 19 April 2011 10:30, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Lennard wrote: Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine. (railway=abandoned_station would also be possible) This variant has the added benefit that it would make it into most current rendering databases for free. Data users that do want to show this, don't have to do anything special to their import stages. Using a key suffix (railway:disused=*) would mean extra work. Additionally it does allow for the growing number of lines and stations that are being re-opened ;) Broadway near me is currently abandoned but IS being restored as part of the Gloucestershire railway and the track is slowly working it's way up the old abandoned line ... But a part that may be useful in the UK is cleaner identification of preserved over main line railway stations? I have been using the prefix 'construction:' and 'proposed:' on tags to indicate that something is in the process of changing and there may also be a role for 'former:'. For example tags on part of the M25 which is being widened: lanes=3 construction:lanes=4 And on the A11 where one carriageway is being demoted to a minor two-way road: highway=trunk; oneway=yes; proposed:highway=unclassified proposed:oneway=no It would seem logical to include the status of 'former' elements in the same way. So a former station would be tagged using as follows: former:railway=station The lifecycle of a feature would then be. proposed:railway=station construction:railway=station railway=station former:railway=station Regards, Peter -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
Andy Allan just asked me a question privately about changes I have made to layers in Wandsworth which has prompted me to do a post here saying what I have been up in order to rationalise use of the layers in East Anglia, London and now Kent. The ITO Map 'Layers' view highlighted a huge amount of weird layer tags in the area. London seemed to be particularly bad. There were parks at layer-5 and lakes at layer 1; railways at layer=1 or -1 even though they were on the ground. I have been my way south and west from Norfolk though Suffolk and Essex and now London and Kent sorting issues out as I find them. In the process I have added probably 100 bridges in order to gets rivers and railways to work properly. You can see the current view here: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=22bbox=-45397.555877915,6692718.780745626,35709.774820957,6725408.451752373layers=base_style=clear_map_history=true There is still plenty wrong as far as I am concerned, but it is getting there. There are two underground lines which cross at the same level to the south of Regents Park and also at Bond Street Tube. The Railway engineering layer shows up a bunch of additional issues. Railways crossing at the same layer without a bridge close to Crofton Park and again just North of New Cross. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=55bbox=-6970.6313936487495,6706135.318464111,-1901.42322496925,6708178.42290209layers=base_style=clear_map_history=true I have also done an edit pass on the 'key:layer' wiki page in order to make the rules clearer without changing the rules. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer The only extra rule I introduced was that power lines were assumed to float about everything else and didn't need layers unless they crossed each other, in which case one can choose appropriate layers for those sections of line. This seemed to make more sense that guessing at a level which is what people have been doing from time to time. Setting all power lines to 'layer=5' is abritrary and will cause difficulties if it crosses above another line. As such the approach seemed to be more suitable. Here is the current layer wiki page which is written very much as a set of rules for someone wanting to understand how to use them. Here is the old version of the key:layer wiki page that I started with. It has the same message as the current page (I hope), but it is much harder to follow. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:layeroldid=590097 Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 19 April 2011 14:14, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence On 19/04/11 11:45, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote: I still think that the CTs ask for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that have accepted the CTs, along with their user IDs: Does the explicit naming of these people actually contribute anything to solving the problem? Determining the scope of the problem is perhaps the first step to solving it. And we might want to find out why these users felt the need In defence of those users, I suspect they did not feel the need to (possibly) violate OS OpenData's license, i.e I suspect they did not make a conscious decision to possibly violate the licence; I suspect that either: (a) they were unaware there might be a problem, because when you are asked to agree to sign the CT's there really is no warning to those who have not followed the licensing debate that some existing sources of data may not be compatible with the CT's ; or (b) they have been persuaded by those on this (and the legal list) who have argued that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's . Ultimately, however, those users motives are not the most relevant issue. What is more relevant are the as yet unanswered questions: (i) is OS OpenData compatible with the CT's; and (ii) what will happen to the contributions of users who have breached the CT's David to (possibly) violate OS Opendata's license. User education might be something we can work on? However, does your question go towards solving the problem? Ad hominem tu quoque! This is a good question, and a perenial one and not really one that we can resolve as we are not lawyers and are not on the license working group. Some readers may remember that I asked the same question some time back. In the end I got reassurance from the board that it was OK and I signed up. The License team are well aware of the issue and I hope they will ensure that there is not a problem. Personally, I am not going to let it worry me. I expect them to do their job and ensure that it works and I will get on with mapping. Regards, Peter Miller (user:PeterIto) TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On 19 April 2011 14:49, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 19/04/2011 14:31, Peter Miller wrote: ... railways at layer=1 or -1 Well, that might be correct if they're at layer -1 or +1 relative to a feature that hasn't been mapped yet. A conversation with the original mappers (or a visit) should be able to resolve that easily. There number of errors in a key that no one really understood two years back and which only has subtle effects on rendering means that it is not really practical to find the original mapper. Particularly if the tagging is clearly wrong. In the process I have added probably 100 bridges in order to gets rivers and railways to work properly. Please tell me that you've actually visited these places to check that there is actually a bridge there (and not something best described as a tunnel), and note where the start and end of bridge actually are. If I railway crosses a river and there's nothing indicating how it's a very useful indication that something's mapped incorrectly and needs checking. Faking the data so that it doesn't look wrong actually removes very useful information from the map. Bing aerial is a very useful resource and allows many issues to be resolved very fast. Bridges and tunnels can be clearly seen in most situations. The random streets at level=1 for miles after they have crossed a bridge connecting to side streets without layer tags is also very clearly a mistake. Rivers at layer=-1 for miles so as to avoid needing to add bridges. Regards, Peter Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On 19 April 2011 14:50, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Andy Allan just asked me a question privately about changes I have made to layers in Wandsworth which has prompted me to do a post here saying what I have been up in order to rationalise use of the layers in East Anglia, London and now Kent. The ITO Map 'Layers' view highlighted a huge amount of weird layer tags in the area. London seemed to be particularly bad. There were parks at layer-5 and lakes at layer 1; railways at layer=1 or -1 even though they were on the ground. So my concern was that data is being removed for no particularly good reason. For example, at http://osm.org/go/euum@dsaa-- the two central carriageways were tagged layer=-1 to show they are below the nearby sliproads, but Peter has removed these layer tags. I'm assuming his map layers view has some logic that layers tags only apply to ways that cross but I don't believe that to be true. He's also removed the layer tags from stretches of the railway, for example at To my mind the lower road is at 'modified ground level' which is layer=0 which is optional. It it is in a cutting the the 'cutting' tag would be appropriate. because the layer tag saying nothing about relative height to a parallel way, only about the z ordering at crossing points. Consider the path that the top and bottom of the Grand Canyon both of which are at 'ground level'. http://osm.org/go/euunor2Ku-- which again, those of us who know that area know the railway is on a different layer to the surrounding roads. While there is an argument in both cases that there could be additional methods of tagging the situation (such as adding embankment or cutting tags) I still don't see that removing the layer tags is doing anything other than removing the correct information that was there previously. Since the railway crosses the Old York Road then I believe that there should indeed be a bridge (with a layer tag). Adding a layer tag for the full section of track and not having a bridge is not the right answer. If the whole section of railway is up on a concrete platform then it may be more appropriate to use a viaduct for the whole section but that does not seem to be the case from Bing. If it is raised up on a bank then an embankment may be appropriate. However... the layer tag is not the right tag to use and doesn't give any of that information. On balance I think bridge is right for the section over the road. I failed to add that bridge section - sorry about missing that one. Make that 101 bridges! It may well be good to add an embankment tag to the section between the bridges. Regards, Peter Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On 19 April 2011 15:20, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: On 19 April 2011 15:50, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming his map layers view has some logic that layers tags only apply to ways that cross but I don't believe that to be true. Actually, that's exactly how I understood the layer tag to be used. It is simply there to disambiguate cases where there would otherwise be z-fighting. But my point is that ways don't need to actually cross, they can just be pretty close together (e.g. parallel), for the layer tags to be useful and required. That is not what the wiki says (and said before my edits). Before my edits it said: The layer Key can be used to mark if a way/node/area is above or under another one. This tag should only be used for height differences that are real, like bridges over a street or tunnels under another object When tagging things, try to avoid the layer tag most of the time. Especially do not use it in these circumstances: * Do not tag areas like landuse, natural etc. with a layer * Do not tag waterways like rivers, streams etc. with a layer just because you have a bridge running above them and do not want the bridge to be layer=1 Remember: The layer tag has no meaning for absolute heights. The bridge within a perfectly flat street should be layer=1 even if the stream is as far below it as the Grand Canyon. The track on top of Mount Everest would be layer=0 even though it is 8848 meters above sealevel. In other words, the ground level, as would be shown on a topographic map, is always layer=0. if two roads intersect in mid-air, they must both have the same layer to display properly. This means that it may be necessary to break one of them at a nearby point. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:layeroldid=590097 In general I have be interpreting those rules across the area I mentioned. Regards, Peter Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
