[OSM-talk] Help with reverting a changeset (somebody deleted weeks and weeks of work)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hello everybody!

I hope you're having a good weekend. I'm looking for help with reverting a
changeset
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54488428?way_page=6#map=14/51.5273/-0.1224.
(Kings Cross, London)

The changeset is labeled "Large correction of outdated information", and
while the 'correction' was large, the information wasn't outdated at all.
The editor mistook an extensive set underground paths (labeled correctly
with level, leading to underground railways) for obsolete footpaths and
stripped them all out - removing the entire underground structure. They
hadn't noticed that the same user (me, bjohas) had put them all in only a
year or so earlier (which took me weeks and weeks to do, sigh).

Obviously a few edits have happened since, but the underground footpaths
haven't been restored/re-added. I'd like to 'cautiously' revert/merge those
edits. However, it does involve many many paths, nodes etc etc. While I'm a
fairly experienced mapper / josm user (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bjohas), I feel that I'd best do this
with support from somebody, to make sure that the initial destruction
doesn't lead to more destruction...

Would somebody be willing to look at this and advise?
Björn
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-gb-london] [Tagging] Relations in Transport for London: network and operator

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi all, hi Kieran, hi Richard,

Another question: Looking at the stations,

(1) both "line" and "tube" are in use to designate lines (e.g.
"Piccaddilly;Bakerloo"). Only one of them tends to be filled. I assume this
should all be "line"?

(2) Also, I assume the ";" as a separator is correct?
I.e. Piccaddilly;Bakerloo rather than Piccaddilly,Bakerloo ?

(3) I've also noticed "station=subway" vs. "subway=yes". Any thoughts on
that?

Kieran, thanks for the suggestion. At the moment, brand isn't used on any
station, but it could be added.

See:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator#Owner_or_brand_name_aren.27t_necessarily_the_operator
> You should tag operator=* with the actual operator, which in your case
> would be either London Overground Rail Operations or KeolisAmey
> Docklands Ltd.  This is despite the fact that the franchise may change
> every few years: if and when it does, the values of operator=* should
> be updated.
>

Thanks for that too - at the moment, the correct operator isn't used a
single time. However, "London Overground" is used, and the old DLR operator
"Serco" in a few places. In terms of "duck" tagging (and future proofing),
would it not be better to just stick with shortened names, "London
Overground" and "DLR"?

Richard, that makes sense. Btw. operator=National Rail does not occur, but
operator=Network Rail does, so that side is correct.

Many thanks!
Bjoern
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

[OSM-legal-talk] Using copyrighted data to locate objects in bing (and trace over bing)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Dear all,

Is it permissible to use (copyrighted) maps to discover features on Bing
(and trace those into OSM)?

Suppose I have a list of GPS points of airports (one per airport), derived
from publicly available paper (copyrighted) maps. Suppose there is no issue
with sui generis rights in that list, but that there was no special
permission to create that list (and thus the list is not rights cleared as
such, but only used personally). I would think that:

(1) I am not permitted to transfer that data straight to OSM, because I
would effectively be tracing over those maps, which constitutes
digitisation, and which is very likely not permitted. Do you agree?

(2) However, I am allowed to use that list to systematically find airports
on bing. I.e. use an editor to visit those GPS coordinates, and then see
whether a runway is present in bing. If the runway is there (and not in OSM
already), I then manually trace over bing to add the runway; if nothing is
there, I do nothing.

I assume that (2) does not violate copyright, because I am only using the
copyrighted information to find possible locations in bing, and then trace
over bing. Do you agree?

Two concerns:

(A) While it does not violate copyright, maybe it violate other rights (sui
generis rights associated with the original maps) or other terms of use
(for the original map)?

(B) My second concern is that (1) could be seen as a "limiting" case of
(2): Suppose I don't trace over the runway, but I just enter a POI for
airport. Suppose that often those POIs are close to the GPS point in the
original map? Surely, that is effectively case (1), and would not be
permitted? So (2) hinges on the fact that you see the object on bing, and
then trace over it in bing.

(3) A final consideration: In (2), can I enter other public data into OSM
(such as the name of the airport) that I derived from the map? The name as
such is not copyrighted, but maybe there is a sui generis right in the
collection of the names?

Thanks for any light that you can shed on this! (Or any websites /
documents with further information.)

All the best,
Bjoern
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using copyrighted data to locate objects in bing (and trace over bing)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Christoph,

Definitely a practical query!

The rights: My interest is wth the IGM maps
http://www.igmi.org/vendite/autorizzazione_riproduzioni.php
Their rights are fairly standard: Reproduction and distribution to the
public is prohibited. However, use is permitted for personal use (e.g.
research). The terms also forbid processing/re-publishing of the data.

The use: I'm interested in locating megalithic structures, but only where
those are visible on Bing. I am not interested in copying anything from the
map to OSM that I cannot see in Bing (as it probably isn't worth visiting
anyway). As described, I would like to merely use the map to locate objects
using a Bing layer in JOSM, and (if they can be identified from space)
enter them into OSM. However, I am interested in doing this for a
systematically in a few areas that I might visit, so it might be 50
objects, rather than one. Perhaps this constitutes "processing" (although
it's not digital processing)? Or maybe it's more of a question as to "when"
it constitutes processing.

I should also say that I am not interested in testing the law (which is
also not in line with trying to keep OSM genuinely open and free of
challenges) - if it looks contentious, then I'll try to obtain (and
document) the relevant permission first.

Any clarification you might be able to offer (or insights from other
countries, such as UK/ordinance survey)  would be appreciated!
Bjoern

On 25 August 2016 at 19:54, Christoph Hormann <chris_horm...@gmx.de> wrote:

> On Thursday 25 August 2016, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
> >
> > Suppose I have a list of GPS points of airports (one per airport),
> > derived from publicly available paper (copyrighted) maps. Suppose
> > there is no issue with sui generis rights in that list, but that
> > there was no special permission to create that list (and thus the
> > list is not rights cleared as such, but only used personally). I
> > would think that: [...]
>
> I am not sure if you are engaging in a theoretical thought exercise or
> if you are trying to solve a practical problem.  In the former case you
> probably will not get much reaction here.
>
> In the latter case you would need to be more specific about what data
> you are considering using, who produced this data and under what terms
> of use it has been made available to you.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using copyrighted data to locate objects in bing (and trace over bing)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Yves,

Depends what you mean by "source". In scenario (2), the copyrighted map
tells me where to look, but I use bing imagery to trace over the object
(say the runway). The copyrighted map is used, but only provides
information in a conceptual sense, but is not a source of (numerical) data:
The OSM data is generated by tracing over bing. So is the use of the
conceptual information from the map permissible or not?

I would think that it's not a copyright issue: what is the work that is
being copied? The lat/lon from POIs in the copyrighted map is not copied.
However, it may be an issue with sui generis or other rights. Perhaps the
issue is with "systematically" (as you suggest?). Clearly systematic
copying of data would be prohibited by sui generis rights. However, I'd
argue that scenario (2) is not copying of data: The data is used for
discovery, but bing imagery provides the data entered into OSM.

Many thanks for the message!
Bjoern

On 25 August 2016 at 19:09, Yves <yve...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In other words, you would systematically use a copyrighted map as a source
> to enter data in OSM?
> Yves
>
> Le 25 août 2016 19:49:05 GMT+02:00, Bjoern Hassler <bjohas...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Is it permissible to use (copyrighted) maps to discover features on Bing
>> (and trace those into OSM)?
>>
>> Suppose I have a list of GPS points of airports (one per airport),
>> derived from publicly available paper (copyrighted) maps. Suppose there is
>> no issue with sui generis rights in that list, but that there was no
>> special permission to create that list (and thus the list is not rights
>> cleared as such, but only used personally). I would think that:
>>
>> (1) I am not permitted to transfer that data straight to OSM, because I
>> would effectively be tracing over those maps, which constitutes
>> digitisation, and which is very likely not permitted. Do you agree?
>>
>> (2) However, I am allowed to use that list to systematically find
>> airports on bing. I.e. use an editor to visit those GPS coordinates, and
>> then see whether a runway is present in bing. If the runway is there (and
>> not in OSM already), I then manually trace over bing to add the runway; if
>> nothing is there, I do nothing.
>>
>> I assume that (2) does not violate copyright, because I am only using the
>> copyrighted information to find possible locations in bing, and then trace
>> over bing. Do you agree?
>>
>> Two concerns:
>>
>> (A) While it does not violate copyright, maybe it violate other rights
>> (sui generis rights associated with the original maps) or other terms of
>> use (for the original map)?
>>
>> (B) My second concern is that (1) could be seen as a "limiting" case of
>> (2): Suppose I don't trace over the runway, but I just enter a POI for
>> airport. Suppose that often those POIs are close to the GPS point in the
>> original map? Surely, that is effectively case (1), and would not be
>> permitted? So (2) hinges on the fact that you see the object on bing, and
>> then trace over it in bing.
>>
>> (3) A final consideration: In (2), can I enter other public data into OSM
>> (such as the name of the airport) that I derived from the map? The name as
>> such is not copyrighted, but maybe there is a sui generis right in the
>> collection of the names?
>>
>> Thanks for any light that you can shed on this! (Or any websites /
>> documents with further information.)
>>
>> All the best,
>> Bjoern
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>>
> --
> Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-gb-london] [Talk-GB] New OSM London Meetup - Invite

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Stuart, hi Derek, hi all,

Sure, a marathon and field mapping would be great. And it can wait until
after the election, for sure!

Regarding NAPTAN, see here http://bjohas.de/wiki/Maps/Kings_Cross/Comparison.
While this is only kings cross, I've found the situation the same
elsewhere. However, maybe the data has improved over the last year? Or
maybe I got something wrong? Could be worth another look, but my experience
was that it's not all that useful, i.e. many stations don't have entrances
in the NAPTAN data at all, and often they are way off. I still have the GPX
I produced a year ago and would be happy to share it of course.

The experience with NAPTAN data partially made me to want to do something
about the station entrances. They are important access features and I don't
know of a good map source for them.

Let me know what you think!
All the best,
Bjoern

On Mon, 8 May 2017 at 23:45, Stuart Reynolds <stu...@travelinesoutheast.org
.uk> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> For reference, virtually all of the entrances are contained within the
> London NaPTAN data (https://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan) which is the data
> that begins with the prefix 4900. The tube entrances all begin 4909ZZLU
> followed by a three letter code for the station plus a digit to distinguish
> between different entrances. For example, 4909ZZLUBNK0 would be an entrance
> to Bank, while 4900ZZLUTWH0 would be Tower Hill.
>
> While these do not give you accessibility information, they are all
> maintained by TfL and should give you accurate positional information.
>
> Regards
> Stuart
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 8 May 2017, at 21:02, Derick Rethans <o...@derickrethans.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think this is a good idea. We have something UK wide, but doing it a
> local way makes a lot of sense (and easier to complete). Happy to do
> this "fix the tube network" thing over a few weekends (After the General
> Election that is).
>
> cheers,
> Derick
>
> On Thu, 4 May 2017, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
> Dear Grant, dear all,
>
>
> thanks for putting on the meeting, and thanks for the sponsored pizza! Good
>
> meeting last night, and god to have met you all.
>
>
> Following up on the "Missing Maps London" idea, I thought we could may do
>
> some "map challenges" that look at specific things that need work. It might
>
> be a nice community building activity, and provide some continuity between
>
> meetings?
>
>
> As an experiment, I've formulated one such challenges here
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London_public_transport_
> tagging_scheme/Map_Challenges
>
> and added images / interactive maps / help for new mappers.
>
>
> See what you think and let me know whether there's interest. Results could
>
> be announced at the next meeting?
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Bjoern
>
>
>
> On 30 April 2017 at 17:30, Grant Slater <openstreet...@firefishy.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
> We trying a new format OpenStreetMap evening meetup in London this
>
> Wednesday 3rd May 2017... We'd love for you to come along:
>
>
> https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Q-A-Meetup/events/239366249/
>
>
> New to OpenStreetMap and want to learn more or need some help getting
>
> started? Already mapping or using OSM and have any Questions or
>
> Challenges or want to see what others are up to? This is the event for
>
> you.
>
>
> We already have 3 great speakers lined up for the evening:
>
>
> * Andy Allan - OpenCycleMap / Thunderforest
>
> * Astrid Thorseth - Missing Maps
>
> * Derick Rethans - London Mapper
>
>
> We have a great venue (bias, I work there), there will be pizza and
>
> soft drinks provided.
>
>
> I'd love to hear any suggestions on how we could improve the event or
>
> what works elsewhere.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Grant
>
>
> ___
>
> Talk-gb-london mailing list
>
> Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
>
>
>
> --
> https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io
> Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: https://xdebug.org/donate.php
> twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Transport for London & OSM - station mapping project

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Theo,

that's really excellent - very happy to hear that!

I have a few suggestions:

(1) In your edits (Weltstaat, Working for Mentz), the platforms are being
(re)named like this:
(e.g.) "Westbound to Tottenham Court Road"

However, I've named a lot of platforms like this (corresponding
example) "Holborn
- Central Line - Westbound - Platform 1", whcih is what's written on the
platform signage. Is there a reason to use this naming?

Basically, for the user, having a correspondence between the signage and
map is desirable, and I do think this is important in terms of searching
for items (and makes it more usable for visually impaired users): E.g. a
search for Holborn needs to give the users the entrances and platforms to a
station (so that they can go from the entrance to the platform), see here
http://bjohas.de/wiki/Maps/Transport_for_London/tags (and so a similar
naming scheme should be used).

Also, on a personal note, I've named a number of platforms in that way (see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/232224387/history in the above case) and
it's a shame that this information is changed in favour of a less
informative (and IMHO less usable) name. :)

(2) Are you going to add step-free accessibility to each entrance tag? It
would be amazing if you did. As a user, it's helpful to know that a station
is accessible step-free, but it's even better to know to which entrance
this applies. For some large stations, the step-free entrance may be a way
away from other (non-step-free) entrances. (For some stats, see
http://bjohas.de/wiki/Maps/Transport_for_London/Map_Challenge_1_-_underground_entrances
.)

(3) As a general request, probably beyond scope: At the moment the tube
lines themselves are mapped, but often don't follow the tagging guidelines
(e.g. for relations), and cannot be used for routing (
http://bjohas.de/wiki/Maps/Transport_for_London). I would love for somebody
to fix this. I've done some of it myself, but it's long-winded. Maybe TfL
could encourage us to get together for a mapathon, to celebrate the station
maps, and then we fix the network too. That would mean you could actually
route from street-level at one station, through to street level at another,
would would be great.

Let me know what you think!
Bjoern


On 13 March 2018 at 09:45, Chapple Theo  wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> Further to my earlier message, I’m pleased to inform you that TfL’s
> supplier, Mentz, has added the data to OSM to map the first batch of TfL
> stations:
>
> -  North Greenwich
>
> -  Aldgate East
>
> -  Tottenham Court Road
>
> -  Canning Town
>
> -  Elephant and Castle
>
> -  Canada Water
>
> -  Farringdon
>
> -  Holborn
>
> -  Belsize Park
>
> -  Bank
>
> -  Arsenal
>
> -  Notting Hill Gate
>
> -   Euston Square
>
> -   Great Portland Street
>
> -   Hammersmith
>
> We will be adding more stations over the coming days. Please do let us
> know if you have any comments on questions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Theo
>
>
>
> *Theo Chapple* | Digital Partnerships Manager | Digital | *Technology &
> Data*
>
>
>
> *Transport for London* | Floor 2 G, 14 Pier Walk,  North Greenwich,
> London SE10 0ES | Tel: *020 7027 2983* | Internal: *82983* | Mobile:
> *07789653898* | E-mail: theochap...@tfl.gov.uk | Web: www.tfl.gov.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> ***
>
> The contents of this e-mail and any attached files are confidential. If
> you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately at
> postmas...@tfl.gov.uk and remove it from your system. If received in
> error, please do not use, disseminate, forward, print or copy this email or
> its content. Transport for London excludes any warranty and any liability
> as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any
> attached files.
>
>
>
> Transport for London is a statutory corporation whose principal office is
> at 55 Broadway, London, SW1H 0DB. Further information about Transport for
> London’s subsidiary companies can be found on the following link:
> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/
>
>
>
> Although TfL have scanned this email (including attachments) for viruses,
> recipients are advised to carry out their own virus check before opening
> any attachments, as TfL accepts no liability for any loss, or damage which
> may be caused by viruses.
>
> 
> ***
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-london mailing list
> Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
>
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Tube exits

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Rob,

thanks!

I appreciate that the tagging scheme excludes 'Exit 1', and suggests to not
include the station. I've extracted exits via overpass and most exits don't
follow the scheme. :) Most exits are simply the station name, and/or have
the exit number written into the name. Some have what it says on the sign
("Exit 1. ..."), and a few do follow the scheme and just have what's on the
sign minus the "Exit 1".

While I appreciate the nature of OSM relations that give more info, ... and
am aware that we're not tagging for the renderer but Organic Maps (and
Maps.Me) renders the station name, and I can search for "Bank Exit 1" and
find it (because that's in the name). I can search for Argyll Street, and
will find "Exit 8" (but cannot see which station it is.) In principle, that
seems very usable for people who would need to rely on using certain exits
(e.g., for access).

So... I do appreciate the scheme and that the scheme hasn't been changed in
a while... but, given the observations above: *Do you/others think there's
scope for bringing the labeling scheme in line with what apps can find
while at the same time bringing the osm name in line with signage?*

I appreciate the view that it's the fault of the app not rendering
adequately - but tagging is far from perfect, e.g. 'ref' is a bit random -
so why would apps go out of their way to use imperfect tagging? Quite
possibly apps are just doing to use free text searches. I'd be quite happy
to put some time into regularising the exit names. However, I'd want the
end result to work reasonably well in apps, so it's actually of practical
use to somebody. At the same time, I could also do this outside OSM, i.e.,
make a set of bookmarks for OrganiseMaps that people can overlay. However,
it would be nicer to store the data in OSM, so others can find it. *What do
you think?*

I realise that it doesn't help much that the four entrances which are
> members of that relation were incorrectly tagged 5 years ago with
> name="Aldgate East" (understandable) and ref=* values of A,B,C and F
> (which seem very odd).


I can maybe offer some observations/heuristics here. I don't know what the
'ref' values are, but the values for 'ref' are labels that can be found on
the axiometric projections, see
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/3d-maps-of-every-underground-station-ab-14630/.
They are also referenced in some of the open data TfL makes available,
e.g., in the unique exit id.

(1) An agency did some mapping about 4-5 years ago on behalf of TfL.
https://mentz.net/ E.g.,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/475381373/history, #9. I raised some
issues with the tagging at the time, but it wasn't really possible to get
hold of the people doing the mapping. The ref=A,B,C were introduced at the
time.

(2) As far as I can see, those labels are purely of internal use for TfL
(if of any use at all). I agree that they could be replaced... but see (1).
So maybe there needs to be a different tag that can hold the ref=A,B,C and
ref can then be used for the entrance number. (TfL does have the unique ids
for station exits, which can be looked up in their open data on the basis
of the ref=A,B,C. They could be added and make the ref=A,B,C redundant.)

Maybe it's all a bit too random too fix, but I'd be happy to put some
energy into fixing this on OSM, because I have experienced accurate exit
information being useful (and I value open data). But, at the same time, it
could be done outside OSM as well. Opinions welcome.

This is clearly useless for routing, but luckily
> for me CityMapper gets its station information from somewhere else.
>

I had a look at CityMapper, but I couldn't see station exits used.

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

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Tube exits

[Bjoern Hassler]

Yes - agreed. But at the moment, this would lead to useless information
being displayed, because OSM contributers haven't followed the rules
either. There isn't a strong incentive for app developers to adopt it it
just leads to garbage being displayed.

How do we get OSM contributers themselves to follow the scheme? Once we
have good data we can then work with app developers to follow the scheme.

Bjoern


On Sat, 8 Apr 2023, 10:04 David Davis,  wrote:

> Re those misbehaving map renderers -
> Probably worth contacting them and pointing out that they're not following
> the tagging scheme set out on OSM wiki. They're probably then raise bugs
> and correct it in due course.
>
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023, 00:41 Bjoern Hassler,  wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> thanks!
>>
>> I appreciate that the tagging scheme excludes 'Exit 1', and suggests to
>> not include the station. I've extracted exits via overpass and most exits
>> don't follow the scheme. :) Most exits are simply the station name, and/or
>> have the exit number written into the name. Some have what it says on the
>> sign ("Exit 1. ..."), and a few do follow the scheme and just have what's
>> on the sign minus the "Exit 1".
>>
>> While I appreciate the nature of OSM relations that give more info, ...
>> and am aware that we're not tagging for the renderer but Organic Maps
>> (and Maps.Me) renders the station name, and I can search for "Bank Exit 1"
>> and find it (because that's in the name). I can search for Argyll Street,
>> and will find "Exit 8" (but cannot see which station it is.) In principle,
>> that seems very usable for people who would need to rely on using certain
>> exits (e.g., for access).
>>
>> So... I do appreciate the scheme and that the scheme hasn't been changed
>> in a while... but, given the observations above: *Do you/others think
>> there's scope for bringing the labeling scheme in line with what apps can
>> find while at the same time bringing the osm name in line with signage?*
>>
>> I appreciate the view that it's the fault of the app not rendering
>> adequately - but tagging is far from perfect, e.g. 'ref' is a bit random -
>> so why would apps go out of their way to use imperfect tagging? Quite
>> possibly apps are just doing to use free text searches. I'd be quite happy
>> to put some time into regularising the exit names. However, I'd want the
>> end result to work reasonably well in apps, so it's actually of practical
>> use to somebody. At the same time, I could also do this outside OSM, i.e.,
>> make a set of bookmarks for OrganiseMaps that people can overlay. However,
>> it would be nicer to store the data in OSM, so others can find it. *What
>> do you think?*
>>
>> I realise that it doesn't help much that the four entrances which are
>>> members of that relation were incorrectly tagged 5 years ago with
>>> name="Aldgate East" (understandable) and ref=* values of A,B,C and F
>>> (which seem very odd).
>>
>>
>> I can maybe offer some observations/heuristics here. I don't know what
>> the 'ref' values are, but the values for 'ref' are labels that can be found
>> on the axiometric projections, see
>> https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/3d-maps-of-every-underground-station-ab-14630/.
>> They are also referenced in some of the open data TfL makes available,
>> e.g., in the unique exit id.
>>
>> (1) An agency did some mapping about 4-5 years ago on behalf of TfL.
>> https://mentz.net/ E.g.,
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/475381373/history, #9. I raised some
>> issues with the tagging at the time, but it wasn't really possible to get
>> hold of the people doing the mapping. The ref=A,B,C were introduced at the
>> time.
>>
>> (2) As far as I can see, those labels are purely of internal use for TfL
>> (if of any use at all). I agree that they could be replaced... but see (1).
>> So maybe there needs to be a different tag that can hold the ref=A,B,C and
>> ref can then be used for the entrance number. (TfL does have the unique ids
>> for station exits, which can be looked up in their open data on the basis
>> of the ref=A,B,C. They could be added and make the ref=A,B,C redundant.)
>>
>> Maybe it's all a bit too random too fix, but I'd be happy to put some
>> energy into fixing this on OSM, because I have experienced accurate exit
>> information being useful (and I value open data). But, at the same time, it
>> could be done outside OSM as well. Opinions welcome.
>>
>> This is clearly useless for routing, but luckily
>>> for me CityMapper gets its station information from somewhere else.
>>>
>>
>> I had a look at CityMapper, but I couldn't see station exits used.
>>
>> Björn
>> ___
>> Talk-gb-london mailing list
>> Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>>
>
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

[Talk-gb-london] Tube exits

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hello everyone and happy long weekend!

I'd like to launch a campaign to collect accurate London tube exit
information and how to get there from the platform. The exits are typically
already in OSM, but often they are only labelled partially.
I do think that features (such as exits and platforms) should be labelled
by what is visible on the platform. Sure, station codes can be included as
well, but for the user, at least some of the label has to correspond to
what they see at that location.

Could we get broad agreement on how to label tube exits and (ideally) what
should be included in the description?

For example, this node:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5109686507. It
was previously called Algate East, which is correct, but not specific. I've
labelled this now as "Aldgate East, Exit 1". However, at the station, the
exit is actually labelled  "Exit 1. High Street (south side), Leman Street,
Conference forum." I do think that including the station name is good for
searching, and I do not think it will confuse users.

*Proposal. *London tube exits should be labeled by station name plus the
actual exit label (where available), i.e., exit name on OSM would be:
"Aldgate East, Exit 1. High Street (south side), Leman Street, Conference
forum."

This label would work for people travelling from the platform to the exits
(as they'll see the sign). Because the sign includes landmarks, this lable
would also make sense for people entering the station.

How do people feel about this proposal? Would this be acceptable? Any views?

Many thanks!
Björn
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london