Re: [OSM-talk] Uninstall executables missing

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2023-07-07 at 13:26 +0200, Jan Hoogendoorn wrote:
> Hallo,
> 
> I want to uninstall a few maps, but it turns out that the uninstall 
> executables are missing. Is there a way to fix this? Or, if I can do
> the 
> uninstallation manually, which files and registry keys I have to
> remove?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Jan Hoogendoorn.
> 
Can you explain what you are trying to uninstall?

OpenStreetMap is not something that is installed?

Phil (trigpoint)

> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] bot proposal: shop values cleanup (low use values only, 1 used 250 times, three over 100 times, many used less)

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2023-05-17 at 20:48 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> 
> For start there is a long list of shop values which meaning I do not
> understand
> (for example, from start of list of exactly such values:
> shop=grossery, shop=towing, shop=showroom, shop=salon, shop=garage,
> shop=pond, shop=consignment...)
> 
Maybe here I have the advantage of being a native speaker but these
mostly look fairly intuitive to me. Also looking at the names often
helps.

shop=grossery
First glance it looks like a typo of grocery. 
There is one in the UK which is a small co-op. So that one should be
shop=convenience. I do not know about the usage in Cameroon but asking
local mappers is preferable to simply changing the tag to =yes. They
could well be foodshops/grocers>

shop=towing
First thought is 'depends on the flavour (or flavor) of English.

Usage is mostly in North American and it looks like breakdown, tow your
vehicle. Names tend to confirm this.

shop=showroom
Where stuff is displayed for sale to be installed seems to be the
thing.
A bit like the Gas Showrooms of my childhood. These were places where
gas appliances were displayed, you paid for them and they were then
fitted by their staff.


shop=salon
Salon is a common name used for a hairdressers shop, so most likely a
mistagging of shop=hairdresser or beauty.
The names of places with those tags tends to confirm my suspicions.

shop=garage
Garage has a few car related meanings. A place where you take your car
to be repaired, fill it with fuel or its a building where you keep your
car.

Tags of the places using this suggest a mix of car stuff. Mostly car
repair. For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/153706791 has a
note MOT operator, so car testing/repair
and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/509612586 Chesterfield Concrete
Garages will obviously sell you a concrete pre-fabricated garage to put
in your garden.

shop=pond
This one seems obvious. Immediately thought of a shop selling pond
supplies, pumps, liners, plants, fish for your garden pond.
More commonly tag usage is shop=aquatics.

The main thing if you don't understand a tag 

shop=consignment
The word consignment suggests a courier but appears to be a thing in
the US and Canada. Quite a few, and it seems to be what they describe
themselves as.
I am prepared to accept that this is outside my life experience and if
I need to understand it I will ask the local community or a mapper who
has added them. Actually there a two within a few minutes walk of my
cousins in her local high street, so I could ask her.

But changing these to shop=yes helps nobody. As I mentioned shop=pond
would probably have been my first thought if I wanted a pump and liner
for my garden pond.

Phil (trigpoint)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] bot proposal: shop values cleanup (low use values only, 1 used 250 times, three over 100 times, many used less)

[Philip Barnes]

On 22 April 2023 08:45:51 BST, Mateusz Konieczny via talk 
 wrote:





shop=patisserie


shop=bakery

not shop=pastry ?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dpastry


In English I would translate a French patisserie to a cake shop, although 
patisserie is a crossover word that would be understood by most native English 
speakers.

A pastry shop I would expect to see pies, sausage rolls and pasties, and would 
tend to call that a bakery, certainly the one a few doors away makes those 
along with bread but certainly doesn't make cakes.

Phil (trigpoint)___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed automatic replacements of multiple surface=* and shop=* values (review welcomed!)

[Philip Barnes]

On 26 February 2023 09:09:53 GMT, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> 
>> shop=map -> shop=maps
>> or maybe it would be better to change in opposite direction?
>> it is not too late as it is a rarely used tag
>There are few shops selling maps these days .. unfortunately.
>
Specialist shops selling only maps are rare, although they were never common. 
Maybe one or two in a large city.

Shops selling maps are still common however. They are still sold in bookshops, 
garages and small shops still stock the local Ordinance Survey map as they have 
always done.

Phil (trigpoint)
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 19:16 +0100, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/06/2021 18:32, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:07 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit <
> > > talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > > On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote:
> > > > > On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
> > > > > > What's wrong with consulting a timetable?
> > > > > To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use.
> > > > Then map the stations!
> > > 
> > > So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor
> > > and
> > > Eton Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to
> > > consult
> > > to find out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally
> > > closer to
> > > Paddington as the bird flies.
> > Traveline https://www.traveline.info/
> > 
> > Uses OSM
> 
> Database or just tiles?
> Many things look slightly offset in Traveline.

Database I believe, used to come across their mappers adding to OSM.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:07 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit < 
> talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
> > > > What's wrong with consulting a timetable?
> > > 
> > > To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use.
> > 
> > Then map the stations!
> 
> 
> So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor and
> Eton Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to consult
> to find out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally closer to
> Paddington as the bird flies.

Traveline https://www.traveline.info/

Uses OSM and includes walking and buses, so will calculate the best
station to walk to for the quickest journey. Other options are
available.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 22:18 +0100, Michael Tsang wrote:
> On Monday, 31 May 2021 16:14:47 BST Roger Slevin wrote:
> > and one in which I agree with Tony, Mark and Peter in saying that
> > public
> > transport services and timetables don’t appear to me to have a
> > valid place
> > in OSM
> 
> We have already mapped the complete bus networks in certain cities.
> In OSM 
> terms, a public transport route is defined as "the order where the
> service 
> stops to carry passengers, and the path where it transverse on". It
> does not 
> include the timetable data.
> 
> I have also mapped a lot of bus and train routes in different cities
> as well, 
> and it is very useful for OSM to have bus and train routes. When I
> travel to a 
> new city I use OsmAnd a lot to find which bus I need to take to go to
> a certain 
> direction, and where it will stop.
> 
I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city.

Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In
London tube trains simply stop at every station.

This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations, and what
we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every trains
at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day.


> The problem with GB railways is that each departure serves completely
> different 
> stops, which means, if we strictly follow the "one variant = one
> relation" 
> model as in current PTv2 schema, we have to map each departure as
> distinct 
> relations on the map, because each departure serves different stops,
> which mean 
> they are different variants.
You also have to remember that the timetables and hence services are
seasonal to reflect different passenger demands.

Many of us have thought about train routes but concluded on a country
level they are too complex and require a huge amount of mainatainance.
The timetable changes every 6 months, and as a minimum needs to be
checked.

I started thinking about my local station, to the North trains can go
to Crewe, Chester or Manchester Piccadilly. To the south trains can go
to Shrewsbury, Birmingham International, Cardiff Central, Swansea,
Carmathen, Pembroke Dock, Milford Haven and Fishguard. That is all
before to start considering which of the dozens of stations each
service calls, or may call at if it is a request stop.

As other have said, this is not something that belongs in OSM. 

If you need to work out how to get somewhere then the train companies
apps and websites work very well. If you want to include buses as well
the traveline is excellent.

Phil (trigpoint)




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

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

[Philip Barnes]

We as a UK community, certainly from the countryside mapping point of
view tend to be walkers and cyclists. We see a track, we know its a
track because the tagging language of OSM is after all our native
language.

Take for example 
http://trigpoint.myzen.co.uk/photodump/20201212_150029.jpg

This is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/718122173/history

It was originally mapped as a track, which is correct IMHO, I would not
drive my car with low profile tyres here although I have both ridden my
town and trail bike and walked here.

Mapping as these as tracks has served us as a community well over the
years. We have no use-case for them other than as walkers/cyclists and
our allies, the horse riders.

Recently paid mappers have started changing many of these tracks to
service roads, because the wiki says that tracks are for agricultural
and forestry use and as these tracks lead to farms and other properties
they cannot be tracks

I suspect one of the issues we are seeing goes back to the first
version of the highway=track wiki page which is where the
Agriculture/Forestry restriction appeared, although until these edits
began to appear I had never had cause to read the wiki to find out what
a track is, or to challenge the restrictive definition.

My 10p worth.

Phil (trigpoint)




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Philip Barnes]

Firstly, before worrying about mapping is to report the illegal obsruction,  
i.e. the locked gate to the highway authority so that action can be taken to 
get the problem resolved.

In my experience they like a photo of the problem.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 8 December 2020, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
> been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
> see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
> track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
> just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical
> evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen
> in other cases on OSM.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Lorries can't limbo

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 08:36 +, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
> I am pretty sure that I remember checking bridges in my area some
> time ago, using a tool that someone kindly provided, which flagged up
> all bridges, where the clearance height was not specified in OSM.
> 
> I regret that I cannot now find the link.   
> 

The isssue with a tool which finds roads under bridges with no
maxheight tag is that many are above a legal minimum so have no sign.

Motorway bridges for example.

Maybe we need an unsigned tag so that these can be elimiated?

A hay lorry managed to hit this (unsigned) one a few years ago.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lorries can't limbo

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-11-12 at 23:54 +, Neil Matthews wrote:
> https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-reveals-most-bashed-bridge-in-britain-09-11-2020/
> 
> Saw this and thought it might suit a small virtual project - to 
> check/add bridge heights from mapillary images or similar might be
> useful.
> 
> And maybe network rail have a longer list / more info?
> 
Also I have been thinking of height restrictions on level crossings
where the railway is electrified. 

I believe that the East Coast line has level crossings? 

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Weight restrictions

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 08:32 +, Edward Bainton wrote:
> Hi all
> I've been reading the wiki here on conditional restrictions.
> 
> Should these be along the whole length of the relevant road, or can
> they be on a fragment of way near the restriction sign? 
> 
> Eg, the whole of Stanwick, Northants, is off-limits to 7-tonners.
> Presumably I don't have to tag every street; but maybe the
> access/through routes should be tagged all along their length?
> 
Hi Edward
These restrictions are quite common in Leicestershire and are intended
to prevent lorries using residential areas as a through route.

They are generally 7.5t and only apply to goods vehicles, not buses or
coaches.

They allow access for deliveries, loading.

We usually use hgv=destination.

You do need to tag every road within the boundary, not just the main
roads otherwise you will end up with some very strange routing.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2020-11-10 at 11:31 +, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 10/11/2020 10:55, Jon Pennycook wrote:
> > Returning to this subject, but not necessarily at roundabouts -
> > turn 
> > restrictions are still being added even where they don't exist 
> > (apparently) - e.g. 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93759133 
> >  and 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93750062 
> > 
> 
> I've commented on the first of these with a DWG hat on.
> 
> The contributor here adding turn restrictions that allegedly don't
> exist 
> appears to be from https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/ . They've been
> active 
> across several areas of England; it might be worth locals taking a
> look 
> at some of the others to check that they match on-the-ground reality.
> 
After a quick look at his edits locally he has also been removing ref
tags from roundabouts which seems an odd thing to do.

He has also made this change https://www.osm.org/changeset/90024395

This does not follow the on the ground rule, this section is signed
M42.

Previously discussed and fixed by Andy after a previous sabre mapper
mapper made a similar edit https://www.osm.org/changeset/60806661.

Phil (trigpoint


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 12:10 +0100, Ben Proctor wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who has chipped in on this thread so far.
> 
> I'd like to draw out what I see as the key threads of the discussion
> so far:
> The use of :cy and :en name tags should be encouraged. It allows more
> flexibility in rendering and adds clarity. So far this hasn't been a
> very controversial part of the discussion. 
> 
> I think the wiki could be revised to emphasise this without causing
> too much concern.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't consensus on the use of the name: tag. I think there
> several suggestions have been floated:
> always use the name that is used in Welsh use the name that is used
> by the "local population" (which is what the wiki currently
> suggests)use the Welsh name and English name together separated by a
> hyphen (which is the practice in some other countries)

In Wales this has been done with a slash rather than a hyphen. A hyphen
can appear in the name in both languages, a slash is uniquely a
separator.

The other way the name tag is used in Wales, as is used on many signs
is to exploit the ordering differences of the two languages, i.e.
Ffordd Fabian Way 

> use the name on local signage
> We have had advice that OSM should maintain neutrality. I'm sure
> that is the sensible position to aim for. This tends to point us to
> using the name on local signage or the name used by the "local
> population". 
> 
> From my perspective identifying the name used by the local population
> is likely to be fraught in many cases and so a mapper would probably
> be best advised to refer to local signage.
> 
> Local signage will frequently show the cy: name and the en: name. 
> 
> So I *think* this might be pointing us towards suggesting the name:
> tag should reflect local signage. This would inevitably lead to more
> dual naming in the name: tag.  

Signage is at best at county level and does not reflect the local
language and just picking one local example, Welshpool is signed as Y
Trallwng /  Welshpool. Local usage is certainly Welshpool so it
would not make sense to change the name tag. Both languages are in the
objects which allows maps to be rendered in each language. We should
certainly be sticking to the current wiki.

Also the reallity is that outside of border areas and big cities many
places have one name, it would not make much sense to have
name=Llangollen, name:cy=Llangollen name:en=Llangollen, the name tag
will do.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 14:28 +0100, David Woolley wrote:
> On 16/10/2020 14:08, Gruff Owen wrote:
> > With that in mind, and admittedly polemicising the debate a little.
> > If 
> > we accept the premise that the native language of Wales is Welsh
> > and 
> > that OSM is a community mapping project where we have an
> > opportunity to 
> > respect native communities in a way that past colonial mapmakers
> > didn't. 
> > Could we take this as an opportunity to prioritise authentic Welsh
> > place 
> > names where that's possible? I understand that there will be
> > objections 
> > to this, but I'm not sure we can disregard it completely as an
> > option?
> > 
> 
> My understanding of how it works is that it is up to the local 
> communities to ensure that road signs, etc., in the local area,
> reflect 
> the community preferences, and OSM will reflect whatever the signage 
> says.  
I am Welsh, live in England in a town which shares a border with
Wrexham borough so am a frequent visitor to both North and Mid Wales.

My family lost Welsh as a language during the days of the Welsh Not so
totally support the language.

That used to be the case, at least at county level, there was the rule
of thumb Araf on top then Cymraig, Slow on to then English.

That has changed in recent years and in general as signs are changed
then Cymraig is on top. Local knowledge tells me that changing
Welshpool to Y Trallwng is probably not going to make OSM more useful
to our end users which has to be the primary focus of how we map
things. OSM is not a plaything/hobby project. 

Adding name:cy tags should be encouraged, I added quite a lot locally.
For my nearest Welsh Village I found the name Llys Bedydd on the sign
outside the church, its not on any roadsign and I doubt my local
doctors would recognise it even though they do cover Bettisfield.

https://openstreetmap.cymru/ still exists although the project seems to
have died, probably the grant ran out.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-transit] Talk-transit Digest, Vol 104, Issue 1

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-10-15 at 23:56 +0100, Alex Dhawan wrote:
>  
> Would defiantly have to be a ballpark figure for any some of capacity
> metric. Could maybe also do capacity:peak/offpeak or
> capacity:morning/afternoon/evening/night? Yes random changing always
> happens – but there are certainly some which you could easily put in
> a pattern, although I’m not sure how global it is, but its reasonably
> common in the UK for commercial routes to use larger single deakers
> during daytime services, but then the operator switches into the
> evening and smaller operate solo type things are used instead.
>  
Where I used to live (UK), the local buses ran like that with full
size, often double deckers, during the day and mini buses in the
evening.

However they also predicted demand so the last run on a Friday/Saturday
night would be operated by a full size bus. 

Where I live now the local stopping train service (Shrewsbury - Crewe
Shuttle) is usually operated by a single carriage 'dogbox'.

Again when demand is expected to be higher then they run a bigger
train. Times such as extra shoppers before Christmas or Shrewsbury Town
playing a Northern side.

I am not sure what value capacity has to an end user, travel companies
are in the logistics business  and will adjust supply (capacity) to
meet expected demand.
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-10-03 at 18:36 +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2020-10-03 18:16, Tom Hughes via Talk-GB wrote:
> > On 03/10/2020 16:57, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > They are intended to stop this type of routing
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car=52.64994%2C-1.20491%3B52.64983%2C-1.2049
> > > 
> > >  Which is techincally not illegal and in real world usage is not
> > > going to happen.
> > 
> > But unless the start or end point is on the flare why would a
> > router do that over the shorter route on the roundabout... I mean
> > maybe there are a few cases where the flare is shorter somehow?
> >  
> 
> If you take that exit by accident, a fast router may tell you to take
> the sharp turn back to the roundabout. Some flares are longer than
> others, and some routers take longer than others to trigger the "off-
> route" stuff.
>  
> 
But then is it actually illegal?
I am begining to wonder if these are mostly attempts to make QA tool
tight turn warnings go away?
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-10-03 at 16:50 +0100, Tom Hughes via Talk-GB wrote:
> On 03/10/2020 14:05, Brian Prangle wrote:
> 
> > There seems to be a predilection for adding turn restrictions ,
> > either 
> > no right rurns or no U turns at the exit flares of roundabouts to 
> > prevent turning back into the entry flares where there are no
> > explicit 
> > signed restrictions. I suspect this is "rendering for routers". Do 
> > routers actually need this data?  I'm tempted just to delete them
> > all 
> > wherever I meet them, but I suspect there are thousands of them
> > and 
> > there'll be howls of complaint.
> 
> Surely if there is a flare then the entry half of the flare will
> be one-way against anybody turning off which should exclude it from

Tom

They are intended to stop this type of routing
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car=52.64994%2C-1.20491%3B52.64983%2C-1.2049

Which is techincally not illegal and in real world usage is not going
to happen.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-10-03 at 14:05 +0100, Brian Prangle wrote:
> Hi
> 
> There seems to be a predilection for adding turn restrictions ,
> either no right rurns or no U turns at the exit flares of roundabouts
> to prevent turning back into the entry flares where there are no
> explicit signed restrictions. I suspect this is "rendering for
> routers". Do routers actually need this data?  I'm tempted just to
> delete them all wherever I meet them, but I suspect there are
> thousands of them and there'll be howls of complaint. 
> 
They do seem to be unnecessary and are not legal unless signed.

Whilst you may find them playing with routers on a pc, no real world
satnav will ever detect that you have taken a wrong  turning and
reroute within a timeframe that these would ever be an issue.

I would probably remove them after survey and it could be worth
commenting when mapper adds these asking for reasoning. 

The danger of removing them without survey is that we could remove a
rare real restriction. They are unecessary but harmless IMHO.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 10:10 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
> 
> On 28/09/2020 10:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
> > Remember: OSM is not an IT project.
> 
> Indeed not. But this is also a good example of the truism that OSM
> is 
> not a map, it's a database. Having the right data in the database 
> matters. Fixing clear and obvious errors, such as invalid URLs in a 
> "website" tag, seems to me to be a worthwhile project if someone is 
> prepared to put the time and effort into doing it.
> 
Although in my experience the concept of pubs having websites is kind
of dated, typically online communication with customers is via facebook
these days.

Simply fixing invalid urls is not really a solution, the question needs
to be asked is this data still valid and rather than a mechanical fix
these entries need to be visited and checked. Easy at the moment as any
valid site will have recent covid (table service/one way systems and
facemask information).

A simple sanity check of the three examples, and my browser does click
through without an issue.

The first does appear to be valid, although part of a large chain hence
the pub hence has IT support.

The second https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/20940218 leads to an
invalid url so a simple fix would be wrong.

The third https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/21648679 leads to the pub
operating companys site, a url should be for the actual object not the
owning company. 

All of the examples I note are from Cambridge, which is certainly not
typical of the UK in general.

Phil (trigpoint)




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2020-09-27 at 16:28 +0100, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> First of all, I would like to introduce myself on this email list and
> to thank you all for your contributions to OSM. Great work!
> 
> After some time using OSM as a user, I decided to make my first step
> as a contributor, hence this email and the proposal inside.
> 
> Please bear in mind that this is my first attempt to contribute with
> a proposal and, although I have done my best reading the community
> conventions and best practices, I am sure I have made some mistakes
> on the way. Be merciful! :P
> 
> To the point now.
> 
> I am importing a subset of nodes from UK (those tagged with
> amenity:pub) for a pet project.
> 
> When analysing the data I realised that some of these nodes contain a
> website: tag that does not contain an appropriate URL schema
> (http/https).
> 
> Ie: www.mypub.com rather than http://www.mypub.com or 
> https://www.mypub.com
> 
> This goes in contradiction with the Wiki documentation for website.
> 
> I created a proposal for a one-off, scoped, automated edit for these
> nodes to find the appropiate scheme for the existing URL and retag
> the nodes.
> 
> I added the proposal to the Automated edits log. You can read it
> here.
> 
> Just wanted to share the proposal with the UK community, gather your
> feedback, comments and advises on how to proceed from here
> 
One issue I can think of with pubs and websites is that they need
checking to ensure they are still current. 

The defacto method most pubs use to communicate with customers is
facebook.

A more general fix of urls missing http(s)://, why only pubs?.  is
probably a maproulette quest.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Question about London's habit of mapping

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-09-23 at 10:15 +0100, Corentin Furet wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> 
> 
> I am new in London (and in the UK in general) and I started mapping
> around me. I have some questions about local habit of mapping.
> 
Welcome to the UK.

This list is very quiet, your messgaes will be seen by far more UK
mappers on the UK wide talk-gb list.

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

Cheers 
Phil (trigpoint)




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

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Question about London's habit of mapping

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-09-23 at 22:02 +0100, Inan Hira via Talk-gb-london wrote:
> 
> Along with an in person survey, borough websites/maps could be a good
> reference. Also check Royal Mail's postcode finder [3] to see if
> you're
> missing any building numbers or names.
> 
> [3]: https://www.royalmail.com/find-a-postcode
> 
Please don't do that, the Royal Mail postcode checker is copyright and
we do not have permission to use it.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Marton, Shropshire

[Philip Barnes]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.62023=-3.07049#map=18/52.62023/-3.07049

Phil


On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 22:51 +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> I've identified the postcode, SY21 8JY, and found a list of
> properties
> which share it:
> 
>http://www.mycounciltax.org.uk/results?postcode=sy218jy
> 
> It's very close to Welshpool.
> 
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 19:48, Andy Mabbett  > wrote:
> > I'm trying to help a US friend toocate a building called "Bray's
> > Tenement", at Marton and, if possible, get a photo, for Wikipedia.
> > 
> > Information is scant; but it's referred to here:
> > 
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bray
> > 
> > Can anyone help? It doesn't seem like we've mapped it, yet.
> > 
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> 
> 


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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Marton, Shropshire

[Philip Barnes]

Possible at some point, a bridleway passes it.

Phil

On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 22:51 +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> I've identified the postcode, SY21 8JY, and found a list of
> properties
> which share it:
> 
>http://www.mycounciltax.org.uk/results?postcode=sy218jy
> 
> It's very close to Welshpool.
> 
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 19:48, Andy Mabbett  > wrote:
> > I'm trying to help a US friend toocate a building called "Bray's
> > Tenement", at Marton and, if possible, get a photo, for Wikipedia.
> > 
> > Information is scant; but it's referred to here:
> > 
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bray
> > 
> > Can anyone help? It doesn't seem like we've mapped it, yet.
> > 
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> 
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 09:04 -0400, James wrote:
> Not to mention if someone wants to add a name for a new item/object,
> does the user need to create a wikidata item on top of it? Will the
> editor do it automatically? How does it pick the right one? Does it
> offer a list to the user? This is going to make osm a massive turn
> off to new contributors on the steep learning curve(which is already
> pretty high) to contributing to osm.
> This whole idea is really terrible and could just be offered as a
> post-processed data set: wikidata? use that instead of name tag.
> 

This leads me to a fairly fundamental question, what if a mapper does
not want to be associated with wikidata and refuses to sign up?
Phil (trigpoint)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Status of Who Did It?

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 14:57 +0200, Snusmumriken wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I wondering what is the current state of the Who Did It service? I've
> been using this service 
> https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/
>  for some time and it's been quite helpful. But now I only get "No
> input file specified." when I try to get an RSS link.
> 
> 

There was also http://zverik.openstreetmap.ru/whodidit/

It is still there, but haven't used it since firefox decided to stop
supporting rss feeds.

Phil (trigpoint)


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Fingerposts

[Philip Barnes]

I must admit that I have never thought of mapping one, we tend to just
use them to confirm the legal status of a right of way in much the same
as we map speedlimits, not the signs.

Probably map them as man_made:signpost or something similar.

They are a very common everyday object so would not fall into the
tourism category.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Thu, 2020-07-16 at 16:59 +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> I've just come to map a fingerpost, never having had cause to add one
> previously.
> 
> To my surprise there is nothing on the wiki about how to do so, and I
> can find no JSOM preset.
> 
> What do folk suggest?
> 
> I would like to add the inscription, for each of the three fingers,
> with their comaps points, something like:
> 
>inscription:NW=foo
> 
> or, using degrees:
> 
>inscription:315:=foo
> 


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote:
> That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g.
> Scotland 
> and England).

Not just England, Wales too.

Phil (trigpoint)

> 
> A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, 
> farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that
> it 
> is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would
> certainly 
> help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid 
> restrictions.
> 
> Nick
> 
> On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote:
> > Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
> > guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
> > consensus? It would be super helpful
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
> > :
> > > .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used
> > > foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case
> > > in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I
> > > suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly
> > > open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a
> > > permissive path' notice.
> > > 
> > > Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to
> > > forestry operations.
> > > 
> > > Nick
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: Nick Whitelegg 
> > > Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
> > > To: Talk GB 
> > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in
> > > the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas
> > > with public access, which are not rights of way but which
> > > nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or
> > > 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the
> > > landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public
> > > use.
> > > 
> > > I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain
> > > 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It
> > > might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the
> > > moment we don't know'.
> > > 
> > > I tend to use:
> > > designation for rights of way;
> > > foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive
> > > paths;
> > > foot=yes for urban paths;
> > > access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out'
> > > sign.
> > > 
> > > Nick
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: Adam Snape 
> > > Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
> > > To: Talk GB 
> > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
> > > 
> > > It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway,
> > > foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by
> > > default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I
> > > can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there
> > > might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to
> > > an implied value.
> > > 
> > > OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat
> > > for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where
> > > a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is
> > > actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is
> > > clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing
> > > estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and
> > > about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways.
> > > 
> > > Kind regards,
> > > 
> > > Adam
> > > ___
> > > Talk-GB mailing list
> > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2020-07-10 at 11:54 +, Andrew Hain wrote:
> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning
> for highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset
> in Potlatch 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got a changeset comment querying the edit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I note you have removed foot=yes from highway=footway. My
> understanding is that the default for a footway is foot=designated,
> but designated requires an explicit sign. the paths on Wimbledon
> Common do not have an explicit sign, but are legally
>  accessible, hence foot=yes. Perhaps osmose is wrong.Any comments?
> --Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> 
Assuming that you can walk there and from other comments in this thread
you can, then what harm was the tag doing?
QA tools, like compiler warnings, do need to be used with care. 
These are just warnings, not errors, which say you may want check this.
They are not saying this must be fixed.
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] M58 / A49 Link Road Wigan - Open - Needs Mapping

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 18:25 +0100, Tony OSM wrote:
> Reported in Local Newspapers 
> https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/long-awaited-20m-road-linking-18495724
> 
> the road has opened.
> 
> Can anyone point me to a definitive line to allow me to map it, or
> does 
> anyone else want to map it correctly.
> 
> There is a way marked proposed  in OSM  but I don't know enough to 
> confirm that is the correct path.
> 
Hi Tony
Have just checked the latest OS Opendata (April) and it is not there
yet, although the section that has opened is visible on Maxar imagery.

With the Maxar imagery and if you are local enough to do a survey you
should be able to fit it together and also check if it has taken the
'magical' A49 designation and if so how the former/currently mapped
part is now designated.

We do seem to lack mappers in the North West and it would be good to
get some more coverage there. 

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2020-06-21 at 08:42 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> 
> 
> Jun 21, 2020, 01:21 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net:
> > On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > > You’ll remember that a couple of weeks ago I posted about the
> > > work I’m doing to look at getting the relevant bits of Transport
> > > for London’s openly licensed Cycle Infrastructure Database into
> > > OSM.
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion
> > > 
> > > It takes the TfL CID files, compares them against OSM (by making
> > > queries against a freshly loaded Postgres database), and outputs
> > > a series of files for each datatype, all categorised by the type
> > > of editing that will be required to get them into OSM.
> > 
> > You can now view this converted data as an interactive
> > visualisation at:
> > 
> > https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm/#13.12/51.50426/-0.08725
> > 
> > Use the "Feature type" drop-down to change the type.
> > 
> > This shows the results of Richard's excellent scripting to convert
> > the TfL CID data to OSM tagging. It hopefully demonstrates the
> > correctness of Richard's conversion and the extensiveness of the
> > data. I have also included the two TfL photos of each asset.
> > 
> > NB You can see the original TfL data using the "TfL CID" layer
> > button, and OSM data using "OSM" layer button. These are both in
> > the main list of cycling data layer buttons on the right-hand side.
> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=crossings_junctions/#14.77/51.50656/-0.08864
> is missing bicycle=yes foot=no intentional? See say 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/24923378 (RWG082685)
> that seems impassable for pedestrians
> 
> https://api.cyclestreets.net/v2/infrastructure.image?key=c047ed46f7b50b18=tflcid=RWG082685=1=2=400
> 
Why?

I cannot seen anything prohibiting pedestrians at that point.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] hgv=discouraged

[Philip Barnes]

Hi MateuszYou would need to venture deep into the rural UK to start
finding these signs, they are quite common around here.An example here
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Hys6QlJfrRC9fNHsPzeTTQ
This one is just narrow, with few ad-hoc passing places, places to
squeeze to allow another car to pass but certainly not a hgv. Meet one
and hopefully you are good at reversing.
One thing that was not mentioned on the international list was there is
also Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles.
An example herehttps://www.mapillary.com/map/im/7DD5trbqVEil3AKJCJeJDg
In practical terms the question is what does this mean. Well its not a
good idea for a router to use these roads blindly, so  although this
example  I have driven through it many times. The practical problems
are that it is a narrow single track road, no space to turn and after a
heavy rain it likely to be under deep water which can flood and destroy
the engine of a modern car.Would I drive through there tomorrow, well
yes. I know it has been dry for the last week. 
Another here 
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/y3zTGNAT7MgGtxoaGXPUvQWell its
officially an unclassified road, not a green lane or county road, many
practical roads have this category.
It deteriorates into a very muddy, deeply rutted track. I have walked
it, but no way would I attempt to drive the full length of it. Premises
need to to approched from the right end.

Discouraged does seem to be a reasonable tag, effectivly =destination
but a hgv driver in particular does need to know which end to approch
from.
Phil (trigpoint)


On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 01:31 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> I created
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:hgv%3Ddiscouraged
> based on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access content
> and what I found on internet.
> 
> Triggered by post on an international mailing list by someone who was
> unaware
> that we have a way to tag "Unsuitable for Heavy Goods Vehicles"
> signs.
> 
> I never was in UK, but content at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
> about "discouraged" value seemed to be a good idea.
> 
> Review is welcomed - is it matching reality and how OSM community
> maps such objects?
> 
> This new page should be found by
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=%22Unsuitable+for+Heavy+Goods+Vehicles%22=Special%3ASearch=Go
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=Unsuitable+for+HGV=Special%3ASearch=default=1
> searches
> 
> (and that was primary reason for creating it).
> 
>   
> 
> ___Talk-GB mailing 
> listtalk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 164, Issue 16

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 21:35 +0100, SK53 wrote:
> Its quite possible that this just cannot be done. I believe
> Leicestershire, and consequently Rutland as well, does not use any
> reference to tehe parish in the identifiers used in official
> documents. Instead all paths consist if a letter followed by a
> number. I once tried to extract parishes from this but I dont think
> the identifiers colocate with parish boundaries. Phil Barnes will
> know more.
 The Leicestershire and Rutland uses a Zone letter followed by a
number, there is no connection between path numbers and parish and no
obvious reason for the zone boundaries. I suspect they were just
numbered 1-99 and then moved on the the next zone with numbers 100+
being paths created later. Until 2011 I assumed that was the normal way
of things.
Rutland uses the same system which it inherited from Leicestershire,
Rutland was in Leicestershire zone E hence Rutland paths all have an E
prefix. Paths crossing the border into Leicestershire have the same
number in both counties.
The City of Leicester is unique again, its definitive map arrived in
the 2000s shortly after it became a unitary authority having been
exempted in the original act. Wrongly in my humble opinion, along with
other urban areas. 
Their scheme uses zone numbers which are deliminated by the radial A
roads. I do remember seeing this for the first time as part of
Leicestershire and Rutland Rights of Way Committee and we thought,
different but it does make sense.

> On the whole I also prefer the use of names in identifiers stored on
> OSM. I suspect some of the completely numeric ones represent system
> specific keys.
> 
I suppose I am in a slightly different place to many mappers in that I
am a Ramblers Rights of Way Officer. 
Here in Shropshire we use the more traditional parish scheme. 
I do prefer the parish code, there are 202 parishes and I have not
memorised them all yet but from the first code you can derive the
division (old district) which gets you into the right area and is a big
clue to geography.
There could be a place for both schemes however if OSM is to useful for
communicating with the rights of way department we need to be
consistent with their usage, including the link number. 
The link number changes each time a right of way meets another public
highway or right of way. Government assessments of the state of rights
of way are based on the percentage of usable links, and yes I was
confused when this came up back in Leicestershire, especially as their
scheme ignores such detail.
Phil (trigpoint)


> Jerry
> 
> On Mon, 11 May 2020, 20:48 Mike Baggaley,  wrote:
> > In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message
> > (preferably parish name, type and number) and not confusing
> > potential mappers by having different formats in different
> > counties. We have enough trouble already with path references
> > variously being put in name, ref or local_ref instead of prow_ref,
> > so need a simple unambiguous standard.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by
> > parish name,
> > 
> > >type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record.
> > Parish
> > 
> > >Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s
> > and will
> > 
> > >continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to
> > change
> > 
> > >something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist
> > only in
> > 
> > >an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years
> > down the
> > 
> > >line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM
> > would
> > 
> > >then be meaningless.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > 
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > 
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > 
> 
> ___Talk-GB mailing 
> listtalk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW archive

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 20:50 +0200, BD wrote:
> Hello again,
> 
> I was looking at the discussion about PRoW and how to request the
> information from local council. I wonder if there is a comprehensive
> list/central location where we have stored information regarding
> which council has been approached and what was the answer (if any).
> 
> It would make sense to save time (ours and councils) by not
> duplicating requests for information which might be already released.
> 
Hi Bart

Have a look at https://rowmaps.com

Cheers Phil


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

Re: [Talk-GB] CWGC: worldwide, war graves

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2020-04-26 at 12:44 +0100, Andy Townsend wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> How is it suggested to tag "there are commonwealth war graves here"?
> 
> At least near me, there's usually a fairly large white on green sign 
> near the entrance, so even if it's not something you'd explicitly go
> out 
> to map, it's often something that you'd notice.
> 
I must admit I had not thought of it in terms of the UK, but as you say
there are probably war graves in many cemeteries around the country.

I have visited several on my road trips through Northern France, they
are quite distinctive with very white uniform gravestones in straight
lines and always well maintained. They are quite distinctive on
imagery.

As a quick test I ran an overpass turbo query on amenity=cemetery and
name:en=* on an area of North Eastern France/Belgium and that did
produce some interesting results.

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Tji

The tag cemetery=war_cemetery has some usage.

Visiting them is quite a big thing, one of my Ramblers/CAMRA friends
goes on a coach trip visiting them every year.

Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2312998 leads to 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14750991 but I have not idea how you get
back to a list of cemeteries from that category.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2020-03-20 at 18:11 +0100, Colin Smale wrote:
> If there is anyone who keeps a weather eye on South-West London, in
> particular the Twickenham area, would they like to cast their eye
> over the changesets of a brand-new user "tommyf5"? He has been busy
> today making many changes that I would class as "fiddling" and don't
> look right, but a local eye would be beneficial. Examples are
> demoting St Margarets from suburb to neighbourhood, and renaming ways
> adjacent to a junction as "Whitton Road Intersection".
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Tommyf5
> Thanks!
The mapper does now seem to have moved on to 'inventing' a
neighbourhood in Blaine, Minnesota.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783304688 id="-x-evo-selection-start-marker">

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Suggestion - drink_water:refill

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-03-14 at 19:09 +, Mark Goodge wrote:
> 
> People are beginning to get more used to doing that, though. A lot
> of 
> coffee shop chains offer a discount for people bringing a re-usable
> cup. 
> Waitrose gives customers free coffee if they have a re-usable cup.
> So 
> the principle is taking hold.
> 
I'm probably not in the takeaway coffee demographic, on the rare
occasion when I buy coffee out I would rather sit down and drink it out
of a proper cup :)

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Suggestion - drink_water:refill

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-03-14 at 18:59 +0100, European Water Project wrote:
> Hi Phil,
> I respect your opinion about the fit for the Quarterly Project. I
> don't know enough about the project criteria to have an opinion -
> even if I am passionate on the subject.

I do understand you passion on the subject, although it does seem to me
to be such a tiny problem in terms of plastic waste. 

How often do you take water when you leave home and need to refill it?

I know this is going off-topic but a far bigger problem is the recent
trend for supermarkets to go back to the 70s and sell fruit and
vegetables in plastic packaging again, rather than weigh it at the
checkout. 

This unnecessary food packaging is by far the bulk of the contents of
my recycling box.

> With respect to the locations, there are about 25,000 in the UK and
> Northern Ireland.

I think their lack of transparency is a big problem, licensing as
opendata is one issue however the website doesn't even provide
information in for personal use.

What information they do provide suggests there are none in either
Telford or Shrewsbury, or my small North Shropshire town.

However I have since found stickers at three on cafes in my small town,
there are only five in total, so quite a good uptake.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Suggestion - drink_water:refill

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-03-14 at 12:17 +0100, European Water Project wrote:
> Dear Jez,
> Gus Hoyt who was responsible at Refill UK (before being made
> redundant), for all partnerships was a vocal proponent of
> collaboration and open data.  
> 
> Unfortunately, the Refill board has consistently voted to keep their
> data proprietary to support their revenue model based on paid
> partnerships and margins on Chilly bottles. 
> 
> On one hand, I am very impressed by the achievements Refill UK has
> made and their significant impact in combatting single-use plastic so
> I really hope them success.  On the other hand, I think collaboration
> and open data is a better model for the creation and maintenance of a
> global network of water fountains and commercial establishments where
> anyone can refill their reusable water bottle without creating
> single-use waste. 
> 
> I will send out call notes next week. 
> 
They do seem very secretive about the locations of these outlets, there
appears to be no indication on their website even beyond there may be
one somewhere in this area. 

As it stands it does not appear to be a viable quarterly project. We
have no indication of how common these places are, or their
geographical spread meaning it is not a project all mappers can
participate in.

Also are these bottles just another 'single use' 'bag for life'?  
Like bags for life, their reuse is heavily dependent on them being
remembered next time, and most people forget to take them, or leave
home not realising they will even need them.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Digital environmentalism

[Philip Barnes]

OSM includes walking and cycling infrastructure thus promoting and enabling  
sustainable travel options.

Gmaps is primarily a road map.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On Tuesday, 25 February 2020, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> There are many reasons to use OSM over Google Maps but
> "environmentally friendly" seems to not be one of them.
> 
> One may try some very indirect things, like that Google Maps
> is primarily a place to display ads, therefore pushing consumerism,
> therefore environmentally unfriendly but...
> 
> Maybe "OSM data is reusable, Google maps data is proprietary and
> other need to recreate it wasting resources" can be argued to
> be environment-related.
> 
> Maybe "OSM data can be used for various purposes, including
> environment protection" can be argued.
> 
> 
> Feb 25, 2020, 09:28 by ge...@customercarewords.com:
> 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I will be giving a series of talks this year at An Event Apart (> 
> > https://aneventapart.com/> ). The talk title is “World Wide Waste,” and 
> > will examine the impact digital is having on the environment and proposes 
> > ways digital can be more environmentally friendly. I’d like to propose 
> > OpenStreetMap as a more environmentally friendly option than Google Maps. 
> > Can anyone help me with good arguments?
> >
> >
> > Best
> >
> >
> > Gerry
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > ***
> >
> >
> > Gerry McGovern +353 87 238 6136 > ge...@customercarewords.com>   
> > @gerrymcgovern  www.customercarewords.com
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> 
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds

[Philip Barnes]

The West Midlands showgroung is tagged as amenity=showground.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Monday, 24 February 2020, SK53 wrote:
> I asked similar questions about 6 months ago:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-September/023452.html
> ,
> and there are other discussions going back some 10 years:
> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=search_page=5167127=showground=5167127
> 
> Jerry
> 
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 09:58, Mark Goodge  wrote:
> 
> > Morning all,
> >
> > Someone has commented on a change I made to the Three Counties
> > showground last year when I changed the tagging to landuse=grass rather
> > than landuse=commercial. Their suggestion is that it really ought to be
> > landuse=recreation_ground, with a secondary tag of surface=grass.
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74103491#map=16/52.0834/-2.3235
> >
> > I've responded to that comment on the changeset, but I thought it would
> > be worth throwing out here as well.
> >
> > I do think that tagging showgrounds as landuse=commercial is generally
> > incorrect; it doesn't match the description of 'commercial' in the wiki
> > and doesn't reflect the typical uses of showgrounds both when a show is
> > on and when one isn't.
> >
> > The reason I tagged the Three Counties showground as grass is because,
> > most of the year, that's precisely what it is - an open area of
> > grassland. Unless there is an event on (which only happens for a
> > minority of days in a year) it is just an open space.
> >
> > Looking at a few other showgrounds across the country, we don't seem to
> > have any consistency.
> >
> > The East of England Showground is tagged as landuse=recreation_ground:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.5456/-0.3170
> >
> > The Suffolk Showground is tagged as a park:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0330/1.2277
> >
> > So is the Staffordshire County Showgound:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.8255/-2.0643
> >
> > The former Royal Showground at Stoneleigh is tagged as commercial, but
> > in that case that's probably now correct as it's no longer used as a
> > showground and is gradually being redeveloped as a business park:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3435/-1.5220
> >
> > The Great Yorkshire Showground isn't tagged as an area at all, just a
> > network of roads and individual features:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.9830/-1.5065
> >
> > Similarly with the Norfolk Showground
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.6490/1.1793
> >
> > And the Bath and West Showground:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.1552/-2.5265
> >
> > So, what do people think? Personally, I think that showgrounds ought to
> > be tagged as an area, because they do, typically, have clear boundaries
> > and are distinct from their surrounding context. But I'm less sure what
> > the area should be tagged as. I think commercial is usually wrong, for
> > the reasons I've already given, but I can see an argument for either
> > grass, recreation_ground or even park.
> >
> > Thoughts, anyone?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Diversity-talk] [Osmf-talk] First Meeting of Diversity and Inclusion Special Committee

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-02-08 at 16:12 +, Mikel Maron wrote:
> To accommodate time zones, we’ll hold this initial meeting twice, the
> second at 1700 UTC on the same day, Wednesday February 12. I’ve
> blocked out an hour for each, but if you can only attend a portion
> that’s fine too.
Hi Mikel

Would it not be better to hold these meetings on a weekend when more
people are likely to be available?

Whilst Europe is very much awake at these times, 14:00 is also working
time, 17:00 is end of work time, commute time and woking time in North
America.
 
Phil (trigpoint)





___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] First Meeting of Diversity and Inclusion Special Committee

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-02-06 at 21:17 +, Mikel Maron wrote:
> Heather -- I chose a time next week that would be near waking hours
> for maximum number of timezones. We can have more than one initial
> meeting. Want to get this moving. Suggest another time to me and we
> can schedule another.

Would a weekend be a better day? 

Whilst it is waking hours in Europet is also working hours.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Soild fuel

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 13:47 +, SK53 wrote:
> There's one fairly close to me (or at least their sign is still
> there, I've not recently verified that they still exist). We used
> shop=coal (but see below), which is not far off the more generic
> shop=fuel.
> 
> It's over 20 years ago since I bought coal. I ordered it and was
> delivered, perhaps 1 cwt which lasted the winter. I think that's how
> most solid fuel will be sold, so most are not really shops but coal
> merchants yards. I have no idea how these should be tagged, but shop
> is probably not particularly correct. Similar things will be true for
> suppliers of LPG or Oil for heating systems in rural areas. In Spain
> people used to buy butane for cooking (probably still do) largely
> through Butano SA which became a Repsol subsidiary. I ought to know
> how this worked as a relative worked for them, but don't. I suspect
> it's possible to get regular deliveries (just like the old Corona
> vans - fizzy pop I hasten to add).
> 
I did discover that big customers for my local one are heritage
railways, obvious as there are several not far away. Severn Valley and
Llangollen being the big ones.

You can go there and buy domestic coal too, although the days of the
coal man that I remember are long gone.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Soild fuel

[Philip Barnes]

On Sunday, 2 February 2020, Andy Robinson wrote:
> Solid fuel; as in a coal merchants. Yes, still a few of those around,
> probably many of them in some countries. 
> 
> amenity=fuel / fuel=solid perhaps but that will receive a petrol pump on the
> map for your efforts.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7171642306
> 
I suspect most domestic quantities of coal are sold by garages these days, my 
local garage sells it in sealed plastic bags.

There is a big one alongside the Crewe line out of Shrewsbury with hoppers with 
names of different coal types, I have often wondered where the market is these 
days.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Philip Barnes]

In GB halt has been used to indicate request stops. 

That is the how they are described by train staff, as opposed to Principal 
Stations where the train always stops.

You will find lots of halts on the Cambrian, Heart of Wales and three on the 
Shrewsbury Crew Railway.

Typical announcement which is ingrained on my memory is 'This train is for 
Crewe, we will be calling at the following principal stations, Wem, Whitchurch, 
Nantwich and Crewe. Yorton, Prees and Wrenbury are request stops and you must 
notify the conductor if you wish to alight.

The on train displays only list the principal stations.

Certainly request_stop is clearer.

Phil (trigpoint)
 

On Saturday, 1 February 2020, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hi
> Over the past few months I've been sorting & adding detail to the UK's 
> National Rail railway stations so that OSM has the correct amount.
> 
> I'm unsure of the benefits of tagging some of them as 'halts'. I'm 
> proposing they should all be 'station'.
> 
> All 2567 NR Stations with 96 halts in blue: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qik
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dhalt
> Determining based on size, as the wiki suggests, is too subjective IMO.  
> How is 'size' determined? The number of platforms? Tracks? Passenger 
> usage (which fluctuates)? Note, OSM doesn't have an equivalent tag to 
> distinguish really big stations..
> 
> Another factor is if they're request stops. This is a much more 
> appropriate criteria. I've now added them with the more explicit tag 
> 'request_stop=yes'.
> 
> All 137 Request Stops in blue: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qil
> 65 of these are already tagged a stations.
> 
> British Rail remove all references to halts (1974?)
> There are only two which have since been renamed to include halt. It 
> appears to be for purely cosmetic reasons. (The locals probably think 
> it'll increase property values).
> 
> I've contacted Thunderforest and OpenRailMap. Neither make a distinction 
> between halts & stations in their renders.
> Carto label them the same but display halts at a higher zoom level, 
> which personally, I find irritating.
> 
> Opinions/Suggestions?
> 
> Cheers
> DaveF
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Presumed Vandalism

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 29 January 2020, Neil Matthews wrote:
> See edits by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Jackgeo123
> 
Hi Neil
It certainly looks like vandalism and needs to be reverted.

However one issue I did spot was there previously, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1783525689 is unlikely to still be an 
emergency phone. At least the one I saw at Devil's Bridge isn't, they are 
historic these days. But next time I head that way I will take my key just to 
see :)

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-transit] BuzMap - Global Transit Map http://buz-map.com

[Philip Barnes]

You still have Arriva Trains Wales as the train operator for Wales and Borders, 
it has been Transport for Wales for well over a year.

Also not fully understanding the times, are they supposed to the next train?

Phil (trigpoint)

On Sunday, 26 January 2020, Mark Lester via Talk-transit wrote:
> Hello Mappers,I've been building this http://buz-map.com, there's a couple of 
> read me's at the top. There are a stack of issues but this now looks 
> eminently doable.
> My pitch on all this is that people like maps. Give people a map of a 
> transport network and they will follow the wiggly lines. They will notice 
> that an island has a connecting ferry and a bus network (see Estonia). 
> Envisage mountainous and wilderness areas and their transit geography more 
> easily (see Sweden). Be able to scan an entire metropolis network to it's 
> extremities without having to use trial and error (see Paris, Prague, 
> Petersburg, Athens). And generally be intrigued and want to zoom in and 
> discover. I am not having much success evangelizing this view with regard to 
> a global transit map. If I can get this to a production state with all known 
> GTFS, and sex up the high level areas that have no listed transport with a 
> much deeper road network than you normally get at higher tiers, we will at 
> least have the "intrigue me" travel map that I personally want. Obviously I 
> haven't got very far with the front end. In particular it's not interacting 
> very well on mobile, it's lousy in fact. I need help in any way shape or form 
> available but if anyone knows how to get a thin line to interact in Leaflet 
> on mobile, please suggest. I did try to paint a massive invisible one on top 
> but it didn't work and I got nowhere with the debugger, so even help with 
> that would be appreciated. I also want to do funky stuff like flipping the 
> railways or buses to the foreground on touching. In a dense centre of a 
> metropolis, being able to flip the metro or tram network to the top is 
> already an important requirement. The Mapbox stuff does this but I haven't 
> sussed the layers within tiles stuff and how to do it yet.
> I've got a game plan to fix most of the other bugs, especially in the rail 
> routing which is quite screwed right now once you zoom in. I will get the 
> whole of the visible GTFS world on there, so all of USA that's available, and 
> anything else that I can find. It's going to take a few months, probably most 
> of the year including downtime. I say visible GTFS, as oppose to existing. 
> There is an awful lot of bus data that patently exists as it's in booking 
> engines, and in GTFS form if it's on Google, but isn't anywhere easily found.
> What I want to investigate is to use the reduction method I have to draw 
> efficient level 8 to 1 vector tiles of simplified road networks. So you can 
> look at say all of India, US, Canada, China, Russia, Brazil or any area of 
> that size, and get a decent view of the national road infrastructure even if 
> I haven't got any bus data yet. I still will need to do some of the same 
> simple reduction used for doing the detailed lower tier standard rendering of 
> levels 7-16, i.e. filter road classifications down once it becomes an 
> unavoidable mess even with reduction, leaving only motorways for the top two 
> or so tiers. I think we will get a usable, readable and "representative" map 
> of these upper layers, which by default are either road light or completely 
> vacant. The bus network I have in Europe, which is just a tiny subset, is 
> messy at the high level, I will try to refine it, but the trains work, so I 
> am sure motorways will too and we'll tune in the lower road classifications 
> and with appropriate clustering radii as we proceed down the tile tree.
> Any input gratefully received. Apologies for the spam of three lists, please 
> respond directly unless it's something of interest to more than just me. Also 
> I am in contact with OSM folks, I know I am using free tile servers. How we 
> run this as a public self funding service is one of the many things I need 
> help with. It seems an obvious gimme for anyone selling bus tickets but it's 
> not easy to get anyone to pick the phone up. I have resigned myself to having 
> to build a production system in between doing not a lot.
> 
> Mark Lester
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-us] When is your doctor a clinic?

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 00:51 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 1/23/20 22:42, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > There may be a disconnect with what the US (or that spammer)
> > means. 
> > Could I get a clarification on the difference between "doctors" and
> > "clinic" as you understand it? 
> 
> Personally (and in my country - Germany) there's precious little I
> would
> tag as a clinic; in everyday language we use the (german version of)
> the
> word clinic more or less synonymous with "hospital", with the
> possible
> exception that we'd also apply clinic to something that deals
> exclusively with non-illness-related things like e.g. a beauty clinic
> or
> a drug rehab clinic. In my language, a clinic would always be
> something
> where you can (and usually do) have a bed and stay for longer until
> the
> treatment is over. A building with a couple of different medical
> practitioners might be a "Gemeinschaftspraxis" ("shared practice") or
> perhaps an "Ärztehaus" (doctors' house) but not a "Klinik". Then
> again
> these would hardly ever be open 24/7...
> 
> I'm not trying to apply my understanding of medical establishments to
> the US - just asking what the general understanding is on your side
> of
> the pond. Does Jmapb's distinction sound more or less ok for others
> too?
> He wrote:
> 
Even in the UK, where OSM originated, clinics are quite rare.

A clinic is where outpatients go, usually referred by their doctor to
see a specialist. 

The on the ground reality is that most clinics take place within
hospitals. 

Standalone clinics do exist, there is one in my town, but will tend not
to exist in larger towns or cities which have hospitals.

HTH
Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Talk-GB] 2 OSMUK presentations done in the first 2 weeks of 2020

[Philip Barnes]

On Friday, 17 January 2020, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Just FYI, I've started off 2020 with a bang by doing 2 OSMUK presentations
> in the first 2 weeks. Firstly to #geomob in London about the FHRS Project +
> OSMUK progress. Secondly to the Shrewsbury Geospatial Forum as an intro to
> OSM and its relevance to them.
> 
> The next outing is probably Brian Prangle at the Move 2020 Conference in
> London, Feb.
> 
> I'm interested in building resources to help with doing presentations,
> especially the "Intro to OSM". I know that everyone wants to do it their
> own way, so it needs to be flexible. Harry's slides have been useful and
> we've got some more too. The current OSMF
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/01/16/osm-swot-2020-share-your-thoughts/
> could
> be useful as a place to find key points to make.
> 
> I now plan to do some of my day job ;)
>
I attended the Shrewsbury Geospatial Forum and have to say Jez's talk was 
excellent, very well put together.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] WeeklyOSM: Road colouring and local taginfo

[Philip Barnes]

This does remind me of seeing a similar map at SOTM Scotland a few years ago 
showing roads named street which should show mostly urban areas.

Unfortunately there was, and still is an issue with Watling Street, a very 
prolific armchair mapper has added the name to any part of the A5/Watling 
Street which has no other name. I have managed to survey and confirm some 
sections have no on the ground  name and have removed them, but it does need 
more work.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On Sunday, 12 January 2020, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> A couple of things from this weeks WeeklyOSM that piqued my interest:
> 
> First map showing roads coloured by their name (street, lane, avenue, etc)
> for several UK cities:
> https://twitter.com/puntofisso/status/1213135545121099777?s=19
> 
> And second, geofabrik's local instances of TagInfo. The urls follow the
> regions on their download site: http://download.geofabrik.de/
> 
> So for example we can now look at a TagInfo site for Lancashire and another
> for Warwickshire. It might be fun to do some stats on how the varies region
> differ (taginfo has an API for retrieving data) without having to hit the
> Overpass API or have your own copy of the OSM database.
> 
> https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/great-britain/england/lancashire/
> https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/great-britain/england/warwickshire
> 
> Thank you.
> *Rob*
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Map with AI comes to the UK

[Philip Barnes]

Thank you Andy,  have commented, waiting to see if they respond.

Phil (trigpoint) 

 

On Sunday, 5 January 2020, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 05/01/2020 21:33, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > I have just come across an armchair edit using Facebook AI data.
> >
> > They do seem to have failed to check that detections are accurate, or 
> > lack experience to identify common Midlands farmland features. They 
> > have mapped several hedges as tracks.
> >
> >
> The usual suggestions apply, I think - politely explain via a changeset 
> discussion comment what the problems are (e.g. that there are false 
> positives and false negatives, and issues with offsets).  If that 
> resolves things, great - if not raise it with the DWG.
> 
> I'm not convinced that false positives per se are a problem provided 
> that iD guides them through the process of agreeing that "yes, that 
> really does look like a sensible feature based on the context".  If that 
> isn't happening (and that's certainly a problem to some extent elsewhere 
> in iD with "automatic brand tagging", and with some Maproulette tasks 
> that appear to be just "community-washing" mechanical edits) then again, 
> raise it with the DWG.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Map with AI comes to the UK

[Philip Barnes]

I have just come across an armchair edit using Facebook AI data. 
They do seem to have failed to check that detections are accurate, or
lack experience to identify common Midlands farmland features. They
have mapped several hedges as tracks.
Something I think we need to watch out for, this tech is not ready for
real use.
Phil (trigpoint)

On Sun, 2020-01-05 at 15:25 +, SK53 wrote:
> I was wondering if it was worth creating a wiki page to provide more
> of these examples. Clearly the value of the data and types of false
> positives vary across the country.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 15:12, Russ Garrett  wrote:
> > Given the obvious flaws in the data, I'm actually quite surprised
> > how
> > 
> > good it is at spotting unmapped service roads in London - including
> > 
> > those which pass beneath buildings. Most of them probably deserve a
> > 
> > survey though.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Russ
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 15:04, Rob Nickerson <
> > rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Thanks Jerry.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > I'd also subsequently discovered the data dump but had not yet
> > got around to looking at it. What are you using here to view and
> > work with the data? Is QGIS and 6GB RAM sufficient?
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > I would be interested in Warwickshire if you can extract that.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > And yes, we probably are not expecting much for the UK given how
> > well we already have most roads mapped. It's a shame it only shows
> > missing roads as I suspect it has better geometry of some rural
> > roads in poorly mapped areas than us - I still find jagged roads
> > with source=npe.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Nevertheless, the AI stuff is an interesting one to keep an eye
> > on. If improvements can be made and additional datasets
> > incorporated, it could become a significant aid in the future. For
> > example I wonder if it could be good at building detections when
> > combined with other data such as LiDAR height data. There is also
> > the prospect of using AI to help find solar panels.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Best regards,
> > 
> > > Rob
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 14:07, SK53  wrote:
> > 
> > >>
> > 
> > >> Perhaps more useful is that one can download the UK data as a
> > geopackage from 
> > https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries
> > . It's 147Mb zipped in a tar which unpacked is around 400Mb.
> > 
> > >>
> > 
> > >> I've had a very quick look and notice quite a few concentrations
> > of features which are obviously tractor lines in farmland. See this
> > area around Colston Bassett 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Colston_basset_fb_rapid.png
> > .  Apparently such false positives can be marked as such in the
> > editor which ought to improve detections next time round. My
> > suspicion is that things which are actually roads are mainly
> > driveways to outlying houses & farms or farm tracks. Using OS
> > OpenRoads is more likely to help find significant missing adopted
> > roads.
> > 
> > >>
> > 
> > >> Jerry
> > 
> > >>
> > 
> > >> I can potentially provide extracts for individual LAs if people
> > want them, send me an email. I personally found it easier to look
> > at the data as a whole rather than scanning around in the editor.
> > 
> > >>
> > 
> > >>
> > 
> > >> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 22:09, Rob Nickerson <
> > rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>> Hi all,
> > 
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>> I just spotted that Facebook have pushed an update to their map
> > with AI project:
> > 
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>> "For our final release of 2019, we have released 84 new
> > countries for our AI road data with new coverage in the remainder
> > of Europe, Asia, and Oceania! AI roads are now available nearly
> > globally."
> > 
> > >>> Source: 
> > https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/blob/master/WHATSNEW.md
> > 
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>> For those who don't know what MapWithAI is check out 
> > https://mapwith.ai
> > 
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>> And to try it out in their RapID version of the iD editor: 
> > https://mapwith.ai/rapid#background=Bing_features=boundaries=18.60/53.40625/-2.13801
> > 
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>> Just roads at the moment and not that easy to find a suggestion
> > that is worth adding (at least near me where roads are well mapped)
> > but this does demonstrate what is possible. Let us know if you have
> > a good or bad experience with this.
> > 
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>> Would be great to see this extended to buildings but we may
> > have to wait for Microsoft for that.
> > 
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>> P.S. A happy new year to all!
> > 
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>> Thank you,
> > 
> > >>> Rob
> > 
> > >>> ___
> > 
> > >>> Talk-GB mailing list
> > 
> > >>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > 
> > >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > 

Re: [Talk-GB] Map with AI comes to the UK

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2020-01-05 at 15:02 +, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Thanks Jerry.
> 
> I'd also subsequently discovered the data dump but had not yet got
> around to looking at it. What are you using here to view and work
> with the data? Is QGIS and 6GB RAM sufficient? 
> 
> I would be interested in Warwickshire if you can extract that.
> 
> And yes, we probably are not expecting much for the UK given how well
> we already have most roads mapped. It's a shame it only shows missing
> roads as I suspect it has better geometry of some rural roads in
> poorly mapped areas than us - I still find jagged roads with
> source=npe.
> 
> Nevertheless, the AI stuff is an interesting one to keep an eye on.
> If improvements can be made and additional datasets incorporated, it
> could become a significant aid in the future. For example I wonder if
> it could be good at building detections when combined with other data
> such as LiDAR height data. There is also the prospect of using AI to
> help find solar panels.
> 
As Jerry says there is a lot of detection of tramlines in arable fields
but I am also seeing detection of already mapped features such as
runways and railways which I would expect to be filtered out.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?

[Philip Barnes]

I had mapped, but forgotten to add the operator to the Inpost locker at
Morrisions. The only thing I have ever collected from Inpost are my two
interrail passes for SOTM Milan and SOTM Heidelberg.

Maybe a Morrions without such lockers mapped is a survey opportunity?

Phil (trigpoint)



On Wed, 2020-01-01 at 12:51 +, Tony OSM wrote:
> Hi
> 
> My local Morrisons supermarket has 2 sets, I have tagged
> 
> amenity=vending_machine
> 
> operator=InPost (2nd one has Amazon)
> 
> vending=parcel_pickup;parcel_mail_in  (these machines often receive 
> parcels as well as deliver them)
> 
> location=indoor|outdoor could useful - i've just added this while
> writing
> 
> They don't render on the 'standard' map, but the data is there if
> anyone 
> wants to render
> 
> Happy Mapping New Year
> 
> TonyS999
> 
> On 01/01/2020 12:18, Dan Glover wrote:
> > Please forgive me if this is has been debated previously - I'm new 
> > here and having trouble finding a searchable archive for this list.
> > 
> > A local mapper has added an Amazon "Hub Locker", tagged as 
> > amenity=post_box.  This causes it to flag as an anomaly when
> > comparing 
> > against Royal Mail data.  My view is this is not a "post box" since
> > it 
> > forms part of delivery rather than collection arrangements.
> > 
> > However I can see there may be some benefit in mapping such 
> > facilities, albeit anyone wanting to use it will need to make
> > advance 
> > arrangements with Amazon and chose from a list of locations.  This
> > is 
> > a different situation to Royal Mail where there is no official
> > "post 
> > box finder" and one is at liberty to use any convenient box at any 
> > time.  Searching the OSM Wiki doesn't seem to provide any specific 
> > guidance but hints that Amazon might be persuaded to contribute
> > the 
> > locations directly, since they are apparently both consumers and 
> > contributors to OSM.
> > 
> > Arguably parcel drop-off points for Hermes and so forth might be 
> > suitable for inclusion, though they're not a stand-alone feature
> > but 
> > part of facilities at a premises and again require advance action
> > by 
> > the user to select .
> > 
> > Is there existing policy/guidance/consensus and if not, what is
> > the 
> > best way to proceed?
> > 
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?

[Philip Barnes]

They are certainly not post boxes, I have used amenity=vending_machine,
vending=parcel_pickup which is a combination that probably came from
asking on #osm.


For example my local one https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5978482863

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Pna indicates the taging has a fair amount
of useage.

HTH 
Phil (trigpoint)



On Wed, 2020-01-01 at 12:18 +, Dan Glover wrote:
> Please forgive me if this is has been debated previously - I'm new
> here 
> and having trouble finding a searchable archive for this list.
> 
> A local mapper has added an Amazon "Hub Locker", tagged as 
> amenity=post_box.  This causes it to flag as an anomaly when
> comparing 
> against Royal Mail data.  My view is this is not a "post box" since
> it 
> forms part of delivery rather than collection arrangements.
> 
> However I can see there may be some benefit in mapping such
> facilities, 
> albeit anyone wanting to use it will need to make advance
> arrangements 
> with Amazon and chose from a list of locations.  This is a different 
> situation to Royal Mail where there is no official "post box finder"
> and 
> one is at liberty to use any convenient box at any time.  Searching
> the 
> OSM Wiki doesn't seem to provide any specific guidance but hints
> that 
> Amazon might be persuaded to contribute the locations directly,
> since 
> they are apparently both consumers and contributors to OSM.
> 
> Arguably parcel drop-off points for Hermes and so forth might be 
> suitable for inclusion, though they're not a stand-alone feature but 
> part of facilities at a premises and again require advance action by
> the 
> user to select .
> 
> Is there existing policy/guidance/consensus and if not, what is the
> best 
> way to proceed?
> 
> 
> Dan
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tapi Carpets

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 12:50 +, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 12:44, Andy Mabbett  > wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 11:59, Philip Barnes 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > I am hoping to add Tapi Carpets to the name suggestion index,
> > > however it doesn't have a wikidata tag. Searches lead to Allied
> > > Carpets.
> > > 
> > > Is anyone able to create a wikidata tag, or fix the issue?
> > 
> > Doing.
> 
> Done:
> 
>https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q79223951
> 
> Happy to walk you through the process sometime; but feel free to call
> on me again if something similar is needed.
> 

Thank you Andy.

Cheers 
Phil (trigpoint)


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

[Talk-GB] Tapi Carpets

[Philip Barnes]

I am hoping to add Tapi Carpets to the name suggestion index, however it 
doesn't have a wikidata tag. Searches lead to Allied Carpets. 

Is anyone able to create a wikidata tag, or fix the issue?

Thanks
Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] What is a Department Store

[Philip Barnes]

Thank you guys.

Thinking about it, at that time when all that was entered into the till
was the price separate tills would have made accounting for each
department easier.

Now with barcodes it is a simple piece of software.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Laura Ashley - looking for tagging consensus

[Philip Barnes]

As Stuart said, last time I went in one it was interior decoration and didn't 
sell clothes so probably one which needs a survey for each individual shop.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Friday, 20 December 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> You could generalise if the majority of stores fit the standard category,
> as individual shops can still be 'interior_decoration' if that is all that
> they do. A difficulty could be that editing apps suggest that it is
> 'incorrect' and needs updating. Some chains make it easier by having a
> sub-brand like "Laura Ashley Home", but clearly some do not.
> 
> I curse the real world for refusing to fit itself into our categorisation
> scheme! :D
> 
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 8:53 AM Stuart Reynolds <
> stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I may be wrong, but I believe that there were some home (furniture) shops
> > that didn’t sell clothing, and some years ago my family would reliably buy
> > wallpaper from Laura Ashley which had the traditional Laura Ashley design
> > on it. So that would seem to back up the “interior_decoration” tag. So I
> > don’t know that you can necessarily generalise without a survey of each
> > store - although I agree that clothing is probably the most likely for most
> > cases these days. Not that I’ve been in one for quite some time!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Stuart
> >
> > On 20 Dec 2019, at 07:25, Jez Nicholson  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for consulting. Even if you don't get a huge response (like with
> > The Range) it is good to get wider opinion. With The Range I simply didn't
> > know so had no response.
> >
> > A short poll in my household (myself + my wife) concluded: "Laura Ashley
> > is a clothing store that happens to also sell furniture"
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 00:52 Silent Spike,  wrote:
> >
> >> I'm a UK based maintainer of the name suggestion index
> >>  and would
> >> like to get this brand added. Unfortunately it's not so obvious how it
> >> should be tagged and I'm not comfortable making a tagging judgement call
> >> alone without consulting the UK community.
> >>
> >> My last thread of this nature for The Range didn't attract many
> >> responses, but some input is always better than none and it allowed me to
> >> get that brand into the index knowing that if consensus changes then the
> >> tagging can easily be updated in OSM.
> >>
> >> Here's the Laura Ashley website and Wikipedia page for those unaware of
> >> this chain:
> >> https://www.lauraashley.com/en-gb
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ashley_plc
> >>
> >> It looks like currently there are:
> >>
> >>- 44 shop=clothes
> >>- 20 shop=furniture
> >>- 15 shop=interior_decoration
> >>- 4 shop=houseware
> >>- 1 shop=home_furnishing
> >>- 1 shop=fabric
> >>- 1 shop=fashion
> >>
> >> This makes sense as it seems that furniture and clothing are the main
> >> items sold. The tagging alone seems to suggest `shop=clothing` is favoured
> >> more - does this seem reasonable or do you think another tagging is more
> >> suitable?
> >> ___
> >> Talk-GB mailing list
> >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >>
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
> >
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] What is a Department Store

[Philip Barnes]

A simple question, but probably a complex answer.

Growing up a department store was divided up into a series of
departments, each operated almost as separate shops with their own
staff, own till and you paid for what you bought before you moved on to
the next department.

The obvious example is Harrods, but Grace Brothers (1) was a familiar
example, along with Rackhams, Debenhams.

The key feature in my mind is that each department is that you paid in
each shop, you couldn't buy a pair of shoes and pay for them in the
record department. The big thing that kept me out of such places was
the perfume department which always seemed to be just inside the main
door to overpower and drive me back out.

In OSM we are using department store to describe most commonly for
example M & S. Whilst it does have departments, you take things to a
single till. Food is still sort of separate, but as far as I am aware
you can pay for your socks along with your groceries.

ASDA Home may fit this, but again you pay at a single till area.

Was taken to TK Maxx today, had never been in before and had always
assumed it was a clothes shop and had mapped it as such. It sells much
more than clothes, actually felt like BHS used to. But again you take
things to a single till. On checking, iD suggests Department Store.

What do others think?

Am I stuck in the 70s?

Phil (trigpoint)





1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTCUuTGNEnI May not be familiar to
all as it doesn't get the repeats that other series of the era do
(Dad's Army, On The Buses)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Philip Barnes]

Thank you Edward
Found one in Leicester, maproulette seagull adds barrier=kerb to 
crossing=toucan / kerb=lowered.

Will fix.

Cheers 
Phil (trigpoint)

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, Edward Catmur wrote:
> Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing
> nodes in your area, which may be disrupting routing, the Overpass query
> is node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"] :
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/P5Y
> 
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:20 PM Edward Catmur 
> wrote:
> 
> > Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem
> > is. It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the
> > presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb
> > should *not* be used.
> >
> > Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki:
> >
> >  If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to
> >> add the kerb=* tag to the highway
> >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=crossing
> >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing> node, which
> >> sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right
> >> if the kerbs differ.
> >
> >
> > but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing
> > node!
> >
> > I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake.
> > Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of
> > highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
> >> > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> >> > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied
> >> sports
> >> > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at
> >> low
> >> > > speed.
> >> >
> >> > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and
> >> the
> >> > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As
> >> > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.
> >>
> >> Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly
> >> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles  over lowered kerbs
> >> to access private property.
> >>
> >> Phil (trigpoint)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  ___
> >> > Talk-GB mailing list
> >> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my Sailfish device
> >> ___
> >> Talk-GB mailing list
> >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >>
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
> On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied sports 
> > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at low 
> > speed.
> 
> Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and the 
> resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As 
> such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.

Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly 
acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles  over lowered kerbs to 
access private property. 

Phil (trigpoint)



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

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 16 December 2019, Gareth L wrote:
> I’m all for using a polygon per field, but am unsure what to do at the 
> boundaries. Do I make 2 field polygons meet? Or leave a gap as there’s a 
> track/hedge/fence/small coppice/ ditch/drain ? I’m probably not going to be 
> able to map the boundary particularly accurately in a first pass, so would 
> rather omit than put in inaccurate barriers 
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
I map fields so that the join, the draw the barrier along the boundaries.

I did have a play with how farmland could look using SomeoneElses style.

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/8437076/70870550-98f07780-1f8c-11ea-8be2-121003d9f3a0.png

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Strava heatmaps - permission reconfirmed

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2019-11-21 at 19:51 +, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> If struggling with setting up the Stava layer, or annoyed with
> cookies, then may I suggest the following page:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Strava#JOSM.2C_ID:_.D0.9C.D0.B5.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B4_.D1.82.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B7.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.BE_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.BA.D1.81.D0.B8.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F_.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.B9.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B2
> 
> 
Thank you Rob, that works.

One pitfall to watch out for is that google translate adds some
erroneous spaces.

Thanks
Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Strava heatmaps - permission reconfirmed

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2019-11-20 at 12:16 +, Michael Booth wrote:
> Just tried it and it works for me. The
>   cookies have an expiry date of +7 days so I think you need to
>   change the policy and signature in the url regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Log in to Strava, in Chrome go to
> chrome://settings/cookies/detail?site=strava.com,
>   then click on the CloudFront-Key-Pair-Id 
>   cookie and copy the "Content" value. Paste it into the
>   Key-Pair-Id value below and do the same for signature and
> policy.
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tms[3,15]:
> https://heatmap-external-{switch:a,b,c}.strava.com/tiles-auth/both/bluered/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png?Key-Pair-Id=== >
> 
> 
The word cloudfront does not appear in the cookies that I see.
I see_dc_gtm_UA-nnn-
nn_fbp_ga_gid_strava4_sessionajs_anonymous_idajs_group_idajs_user_idsp
Phil (trigpoint)
> On 19/11/2019 19:55, Philip Barnes
>   wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >   
> >   On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 17:28 +, Michael Booth wrote:
> >   
> > > Only problem is that Strava's iD
> > >   fork includes the low-res heatmap tiles, plus I don't
> > > think
> > >   the Slide tool works anymore and it's a really old
> > > version of
> > >   iD.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The high-res heatmap tiles can be
> > >   used in JOSM however, by creating a Strava account and
> > >   following the guide at: 
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strava#High-res_Global_Heatmap_in_JOSM
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > 
> >   Has anyone been able to get this to work recently.
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   I have retrieved the cookie information, using both firefox
> > and chrome, but the fields do not match those in the
> > instructions.
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > 
> >   CloudFront-Key-Pair-Id
> >   CloudFront-Policy
> >   CloudFront-Signature
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   Phil (trigpoint)
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   ___Talk-GB
> > mailing listtalk...@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> ___Talk-GB mailing 
> listtalk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Strava heatmaps - permission reconfirmed

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 17:28 +, Michael Booth wrote:
> Only problem is that Strava's iD fork
>   includes the low-res heatmap tiles, plus I don't think the
> Slide
>   tool works anymore and it's a really old version of iD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The high-res heatmap tiles can be used
>   in JOSM however, by creating a Strava account and following the
>   guide at: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strava#High-res_Global_Heatmap_in_JOSM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Has anyone been able to get this to work recently.

I have retrieved the cookie information, using both firefox and chrome,
but the fields do not match those in the instructions.

CloudFront-Key-Pair-IdCloudFront-PolicyCloudFront-Signature

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

Re: [Talk-GB] The Range - looking for tagging consensus

[Philip Barnes]

On Tuesday, 19 November 2019, Silent Spike wrote:
> So I think what I'll do for now is go ahead and add this under
> `shop=houseware` since both replies here are in favour of that. If in
> future consensus changes (and adding this into the index is likely to bring
> any disagreement that hasn't been raised here to the surface) then tagging
> can always be updated at the locations confirmed to be this brand (using
> `brand:wikidata`).
>
I think it fits shop=variery, much like Wilco, far better.

They sell far more than houseware, pet food, gardening supplies, camping gear, 
art supplies to name just a few items.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Import of UK SSSI data

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2019-11-16 at 16:32 +, Henry Bush wrote:
> Hmmm, I see. I'll dig further into the licensing side of things
> before I go any further.
> Thanks for the pointers!

Also, once copyright issues are overcome, you will need to ensure that
any import merges data sensibly with existing objects.
A quick look at the data, and most of the local ones are in OSM
although a few I had not realised were SSIs and the boundaries mapped
are what is verifiable on the ground.
Also care needs to be taken with cross border SSIs, mapping the English
part as a separate object would not make sense, nobody thinks in those
terms and signage/leaflets consider it as a single entity.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/52.9215/-2.7651 
id="-x-evo-selection-start-marker">
Phil (trigpoint)



> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, 16:28 Chris Hill,  wrote:
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > I think there may be a problem here. The web page describing
> > the
> >   data says "© Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance
> > Survey
> >   data". Many public bodies suffer from the viral OS copyright
> >   problem, where the data is based on OS mapping data and OS
> > have
> >   claimed copyright over the geodata element of such data in
> > the
> >   past.
> > You need to be sure this is not the case before you use any of
> >   these datasets in OSM.
> > -- cheersChris Hill (chillly)
> > 
> > On 16/11/2019 15:30, Henry Bush wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >   
> > >   Sorry, yes, the source of the data is the Natural
> > > England API: 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80_0/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The data is freely usable, so there shouldn't be any
> > >   licensing issues.
> > >   
> > >   
> > > 
> > >   
> > > On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 15:24,
> > >   Philip Barnes  wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > What
> > > >   is the source of the data you are planning to import?
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > 
> > > >   Remember wikipedia is not a useable source under OSM
> > > > licensing
> > > >   terms.
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > 
> > > >   Phil (trigpoint)
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > 
> > > >   On Sat, 2019-11-16 at 15:12 +, Henry Bush wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >   > Hello all,
> > > > 
> > > >   > 
> > > > 
> > > >   > (I've sent this to both the talk-gb and imports
> > > > mailing
> > > >   lists)
> > > > 
> > > >   > 
> > > > 
> > > >   > This is just a heads-up: I'm thinking about
> > > > importing the
> > > >   data about
> > > > 
> > > >   > UK SSSI areas into openstreetmap. 
> > > > 
> > > >   > 
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest
> > > > 
> > > >   > 
> > > > 
> > > >   > I've had a quick look at a few, and none of them
> > > > seemed
> > > >   to be marked
> > > > 
> > > >   > on the map. If I go ahead with the import, I'd do a
> > > > much
> > > >   more
> > > > 
> > > >   > thorough investigation first. This mail is simply a
> > > >   prompt for
> > > > 
> > > >   > discussion as to whether people think it's a good
> > > > idea.
> > > > 
> > > >   > 
> > > > 
> > > >   > At the moment I'm still in the research phase. I've
> > > >   started
> > > > 
> > > >   > collecting related links on a wiki page:
> > > > 
> > > >   > 
> > > > 
> > > >   >   
> > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Spookypeanut/SSSIBot
> > > > 
> > > >   > 
> > > > 
> > > >   > NB: this page is really just bookmarks for me at
> > > > this
> > > >   stage. If I go
> > > > 
> > > >   > ahead I'll make a proper, more informative page.
> > > > 
> > > >   > 
> > > > 
> > > >   > Cheers,
> > > > 
> > > >   > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > ___
> > 
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > 
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > 
> 
> ___Talk-GB mailing 
> listtalk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Import of UK SSSI data

[Philip Barnes]

What is the source of the data you are planning to import?

Remember wikipedia is not a useable source under OSM licensing terms.

Phil (trigpoint)


On Sat, 2019-11-16 at 15:12 +, Henry Bush wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> (I've sent this to both the talk-gb and imports mailing lists)
> 
> This is just a heads-up: I'm thinking about importing the data about
> UK SSSI areas into openstreetmap. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest
> 
> I've had a quick look at a few, and none of them seemed to be marked
> on the map. If I go ahead with the import, I'd do a much more
> thorough investigation first. This mail is simply a prompt for
> discussion as to whether people think it's a good idea.
> 
> At the moment I'm still in the research phase. I've started
> collecting related links on a wiki page:
> 
>   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Spookypeanut/SSSIBot
> 
> NB: this page is really just bookmarks for me at this stage. If I go
> ahead I'll make a proper, more informative page.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Henry
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Poly Tunnels vs Greenhouses

[Philip Barnes]

No problem with boats and greenhouses that don't move. 

But these are probably seasonal and certainly shouldn't be mapped from aerial 
imagery alone as they may have long gone. They certainly need a recent survey.

It reminds me of the time an armchair mapper carefully traced a Maize Maze that 
had existed for a short time in a field near me a couple of years earlier. 

Phil (trigpoint)

On Friday, 8 November 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> We have over 1800 building=tent and over 14 000 building=houseboat.
> 
> I feel comfortable with tagging them as building=greenhouse.
> 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/building#values
> 
> disclaimer: not from UK, but have plenty of objects matching this description
> 
> 8 Nov 2019, 20:18 by bpran...@gmail.com:
> 
> > Hi Everyone
> >
> > Large areas of farmland are being covered with poly tunnels which are 
> > readily apparent from aerial imagery which are sometimes tagged as 
> > building=greenhouse. I've always hesitated from tagging them at all as they 
> > are not to me really buildings: they are more temporarily constructed,  
> > using cheap materials akin to a transparent tent or marquee and certainly 
> > without permanent foundations.
> > They could certainly be tagged as man_made= ( but what? ). No great 
> > preferences here from me but it would be good to have a UK tagging guideline
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Brian
> >
> 
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Name Suggestion Index

[Philip Barnes]

My local Hotel Chocolate is also a cafe.
 
Phil (trigpoint)
 
> On Wednesday, 6 November 2019, Paul Berry wrote:
> > Continuing with the Hotel Chocolat example, it could well be the case that
> > most are tagged with shop=confectionery because that was the nearest-fit
> > tag that was suggested when each was initially mapped. If the more precise
> > tag of shop=chocolate is now available we should make adjustments so that
> > iD suggests this as an "upgrade" the next time someone is making an edit in
> > or around one of them. Some of their shops offer a cafe/restaurant service
> > as well, which should be suggested as a second tier of tags.
> > 
> > Yours chocolatey,
> > *Paul*
> > 
> > On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 10:14, Jez Nicholson  wrote:
> > 
> > > AFAIK 'The Range' has not got an entry. You can enter it in the Tag Text
> > > field with/without 'gb' in the Country Code on https://nsi.guide
> > >
> > > To me, the big question is: how do we adequately consult the community so
> > > that we feel that the GB entries are appropriate?
> > >
> > > Depending on github/dev abilities individuals can either create their own
> > > fork/pull request. We also have an OSMUK fork that group work could be 
> > > done
> > > on. Or evidence could be added to
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom 
> > > and
> > > Talk-GB can be consulted...a number of things are possible. But 
> > > ultimately,
> > > I would like "the community" to feel that the changes are ours.
> > >
> > > There are a number of minor decisions involved, e.g. is Hotel Chocolat
> > > a shop=confectionery or the newer shop=chocolate. Overpass Turbo says 50
> > > the former, 13 the latter. Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom
> > > says shop=confectionery so that is what the NSI says.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:38 PM Gareth L  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Curious as to what is selected for branches of The Range. That was
> > >> recently highlighted as being tricky to categorise.
> > >>
> > >> Gareth
> > >>
> > >> > On 6 Nov 2019, at 07:51, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
> > >> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 08:24, Jez Nicholson 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> I was wondering how iD (and Vespucci) decides what to offer as brands
> > >> when I create a new feature, or when it suggests something like "Ibis 
> > >> looks
> > >> like a brand with incomplete tags". The answer is the
> > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name_Suggestion_Index (NSI) ...now
> > >> detailed on a wiki page that I created.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The NSI is a github repository, so updates and editions can be
> > >> suggested. This can be done via your own fork or on the OSMUK fork. I'm 
> > >> not
> > >> sure what will work best for us yet.
> > >> >
> > >> > I stumbled across the NSI myself a couple of months ago, while looking
> > >> > to add brand tags to shops in my local area though iD. I've been
> > >> > collecting a list of missing UK brands (or at least ones that iD
> > >> > didn't suggest) and also some potential errors (e.g. where it's
> > >> > assumed all shops of a certain brand have a specific shop tag, when in
> > >> > reality there can be some variation in the types of outlets). What I
> > >> > haven't looked into yet is the mechanics of how to suggest
> > >> > adding/correcting entries and what other info is needed for each one.
> > >> > (Submitting github issues and pull requests for each individual brand
> > >> > seems like a lot of effort on the face of it -- but maybe that's what
> > >> > you need to do.)
> > >> >
> > >> > In case anyone is interested in adding these, or providing details of
> > >> > how to do it, here's the list of missing brands that I've collected so
> > >> > far (some may have been added since I started collecting):
> > >> >
> > >> >  Animal (Clothes)
> > >> >  Barnado's (charity)
> > >> >  Bill's (retaurant)
> > >> >  Bon Marché (clothes)
> > >> >  Byron (restaurant/burgers)
> > >> >  Café Rouge (restaurant)
> > >> >  Card Factory (cards)
> > >> >  Fred Olsen Travel (travel_agent)
> > >> >  Hughes (electrical goods)
> > >> >  Johnsons (dry_cleaning)
> > >> >  Jones the Bootmaker (shoes)
> > >> >  Mr. Shoes (shoes)
> > >> >  Muffin Break (Cafe)
> > >> >  Scrivens (optician)
> > >> >  Timpson (key-cutting / shoe_repair)
> > >> >  The Perfume Shop (perfumery)
> > >> >  Topman / Topshop (clothes)
> > >> >  TUI (travel_agency)
> > >> >  William H Brown (estate_agent)
> > >> >  YMCA (charity shop)
> > >> >  Yours (clothes)
> > >> >
> > >> > And here are the one I think there are problems with:
> > >> >
> > >> >  Greggs (allow amenity=cafe or shop=bakery or both)
> > >> >  Clintons (should recognise shop=cards as well as shop=gift when
> > >> > suggesting 'upgrades' in iD)
> > >> >
> > >> > Best wishes,
> > >> >
> > >> > Robert.
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Robert Whittaker
> > >> >
> > >> > ___
> > >> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > 

Re: [Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project

[Philip Barnes]

See 
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/dont-lose-your-way-2026.aspx

https://www.oss.org.uk/what-do-we-fight-for/footpaths-rights-of-way/the-deregulation-act/

Historically we have been able to claim lost rights of way by providing user 
evidence and have them added to the definitive map. 

However after 2026 we loose that ancient right and time is running out fast.

Phil (trigpoint)





On Tuesday, 1 October 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 30 Sep 2019, 19:25 by nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk:
> 
> > A quick reminder - we have until 2026 to record historical rights of way 
> > which have fallen out of use in recent times
> >
> Question from an uninformed foreigner - 
> why specifically 2026

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 30 September 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in OSMcan
> anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'?

Was thinking about squared buildings whilst in my local high street a while 
back.

There wasn't one in sight.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Next quarters project will be fixmes and notes

[Philip Barnes]

OSMand also shows them.

Phil  (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 24 September 2019, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 24/09/2019 13:24, Michael Booth wrote:
> > Fixmes can only be viewed in iD or with a QA tool, while notes can be 
> > viewed on osm.org and StreetComplete which is useful for actually 
> > going out and surveying them.
> 
> If you're a Garmin user you can use 
> https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/Notes01 from the command line to get a 
> list of fixmes in a certain area.  I'm sure there are other options as well.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Philip Barnes]

I am inclined to go with disused:shop to indicate it is no longer a  travel 
agent, but leave the name as it is likely to remain a landmark for sometime.

Our local Toys'R'Us has only recently lost its branding.

Also being careful not to remove his statue from outside Leicester railway  
station, or any other objects named after Leicester's famous son. 

Phil (trigpoint)


On Tuesday, 24 September 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 24.09.19 16:42, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Something has happened. The company went into liquidation (not
> > administration under which, I believe, they could still operate) & the
> > shops have closed.
> 
> If you walk past your local shop and they are closed, by all means
> delete them or replace with "disused:shop" or "shop=vacant" if you want.
> (Though, if my local chippie had just closed yesterday and there was a
> rumour of someone else taking over the business next week I might be
> tempted to tolerate the incorrectness for a little while.)
> 
> Just don't take the lawnmower over the database and assume that
> everything that is called Thomas Cook is now closed without even looking ;)
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] sending location from a smart phone.

[Philip Barnes]

In GB we have OS grid references which can get to 1m accuracy.

These are widely used and understood, particularly by those of us who go 
out on the moors.


Phil (trigpoint)



On 18/08/2019 02:22, John Whelan wrote:
Apparently some Fire brigades ask people who are lost on moors etc to 
download What3words then tell them their location.


Isn't there a simpler way?  Perhaps to get a text message sent with 
the long and lat?


ref
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-49319760


Thanks John


--
Sent from Postbox 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Oklahoma getting first mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

Not available in my region.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 19/08/2019 14:57, Paul Johnson wrote:
Just saw this in my newsfeeds this morning, looks like the number of 
mini-roundabouts in Oklahoma is about to tick from 0 to 1.


https://www.newson6.com/story/40932988/walkability-project-starts-in-okmulgee


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

Re: [OSM-talk] `computer_vision_assisted=yes` changeset tag?

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, marc marc wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>  > “This edit was assisted by computer vision”
>  > is useful metadata, no?
> 
> I use a lot of such datas (traffic sign from mapillary via osmose)
> I review it (viewing the picture myself) before any change to avoid some 
> false positive and to improve localisation.
> who 'll made what if I add computer_vision_assisted changeset tag ?
> for stat ? why not.
> but in this case, it may also be needed to add humain_reviewed,
> humain_improved, integration_tools and so...
> 
> currently I put source=mapillary source:date
> I see a lot of mappers unable to fill a source tag,
> for ex because a major editor doesn't promote enought a changeset
> source tag. it would probably be best to start by having at least
> the source tag everywhere before pushing for more secondary tags
> 
I agree, mapillary can detect all sorts of temporary signs such as speed limits 
through roadworks meaning they will always require a human with local knowledge 
to review.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] postcode mapping (was Re: Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only))

[Philip Barnes]

Not displaying a house number is particularly prevalent with 'end of 
cul-de-sac' man where this makes working out where odd and even meet.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 30 July 2019, David Woolley wrote:
> On 30/07/2019 14:19, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > Is it typical for post codes to be posted like housenumbers? Either on 
> > buildings or postboxes?
> 
> Postcodes almost never.  The only time you would normally find them is 
> where the building is a company's registered office.
> 
> Housenumbers seem to be only on (gut feeling) about 30% of houses these 
> days, and maybe 5% of commercial premises.  (When they are on houses, 
> they are typically unreadable after dark.  Almost no-one has front gates 
> any longer, which might have carried them in the past.)
> 
> What appears on street signs and post boxes is the outbound postcode (up 
> to the end of the first number).
> 
> Businesses are required to provide an address for service in 
> advertising, including web sites.  This may well be their accountant's. 
> Electronically, they need to provide a geographic address, but, on 
> paper, I think a PO Box number is acceptable.  Non-compliance is 
> endemic, e.g. businesses only contactable over mobile phone numbers.
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] postcode mapping (was Re: Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only))

[Philip Barnes]

We can use fhrs to obtain postcodes for businesses which sell food and drink, 
and these can be extended to other premises. 

Residential areas are rather more difficult.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On Tuesday, 30 July 2019, Andrzej wrote:
> Only postbox reference numbers, which are somewhat related to local postcodes 
> (share the first few characters). It may still be useful to add such quest to 
> StreetComplete.
> 
> Retail businesses and amenities tend to advertise their full addresses, 
> including a postcode but there is no rule to that.
> 
> Best regards, 
> ndrw6 
> 
> 
> On 30 July 2019 15:19:46 CEST, Mateusz Konieczny  
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >30 Jul 2019, 11:56 by nd...@redhazel.co.uk:
> >
> >> 10M addresses that have yet to be surveyed.
> >>
> >Is it typical for post codes to be posted like housenumbers? Either on
> >buildings or postboxes?
> >
> >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_postcodes
> > is not
> >clear,
> >http://www.livingwithdragons.com/2009/06/my-postbox-obsession
> > suggest
> >that it may be true.
> >
> >I am asking as it may be a suitable quest for StreetComplete.
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 07:06 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Tom Hughes wrote:
> > That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare
> > exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary 
> > and trunk to the official status of the road.
> 
> It's slightly more nuanced than that - we have always mapped
> secondary,
> primary and trunk to the _observable_ official status of the road.
> 
> Where a road isn't signposted with that status, we don't have a
> strong
> precedent. There is at least one such road which has been
> highway=tertiary
> since 2009. It is not signposted as the A*** on the ground - indeed,
> traffic
> for the A*** is expressly signed another way - but legally it is the
> A***.
> And no I'm not going to say where it is or some Sabristo[1] will come
> along
> and "fix" it.
> 
> Philip's example is the same: I know the road he's talking about and
> it
> isn't signposted as the A, it's signposted only for the little
> suburb
> along it. There is a very definite decision there on the part of the
> highways authority to not treat it as an A road.
> 
> I don't have a simple answer, but I am tempted by the logic that
> where the
> highways authority has clearly made a decision not to signpost a road
> as (in
> OSM terms) secondary, primary or trunk, we should follow suit and tag
> something like highway=tertiary, designation=primary, ref=A***.
> 
Thank you for your comments Richard.

Using a designation tag in these cases would make a lot of sense. 

We should certainly not be undermining hard pressed local authorities
who are doing their best to improve the quality of life of their
residents.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 16:43 +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 19/07/2019 16:04, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > As the sabristi have already discovered this one, and the OSM edits
> > appear linked to Sabre Wiki edits, I will identify it.
> > 
> > In this case I am concentrating on A5191 (Coleham Head, Belle Vue
> > Road,
> > Hereford Road)
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.70122/-2.74811
> > 
> > Not a primary on the ground as can be seen on mapillary.
> 
> https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=A5191
> As some say, sabre is not an official source but it does use OSM as
> it's 
> mapping tool!
> 
> Essentially this seems like the opposite of my own problem. Around
> here 
> the A46 moved over closer to Evesham, and the old road became the
> B4632. 
> Traffic is then pushed towards the A46 and what can be a 10 mile+
> detour 
> over the other more direct routes linked with the B4632 and even the 
> secondary B4632 is 'avoided' by the routers! In your case the
> preferred 
> route would seem to be the A49 and rather than downgrading the old
> route 
> to a B road it's been left with an A designation? Bottom line is if
> the 
> A5191 is used on traffic reports it should be identified. That it is
> not 
> now a 'preferred route' is a problem, which in practice was screwed
> up 
> by giving it the A5191 designation in the first place, and tagging
> it 
> 'tertiary' IS breaking the rule don't tag for the router :( In the 
> absence of something to override the 'primary' rule set then we are
> a 
> bit stuck, but that should be something additional to what is the 
> documented designation. That the road classifications provide a
> crude 
> rule set for routing has always been a problem but in the case of
> the 
> A5191 what is the speed limit? I think I would expect 30MPH if it is 
> essentially 'residential' which should push routing to faster 
> alternatives, but we are now seeing 20MPH zones even on primary roads
> to 
> calm traffic and provide direct rules for routing?
> 
Looking through the history this road has been mapped as tertiary since
2008, several local mappers have touched it but until one remote
mapper, nobody had considered it to be primary.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 15:06 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 19/07/2019 14:17, David Woolley wrote:
> > On 19/07/2019 13:37, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > > > I would say the logical consequence of that argument is that no
> > > > road 
> > > > should be mapped as tertiary, as, unless taken from OS, it is
> > > > a 
> > > > subjective judgement and can't be consistently verified.
> > > 
> > > That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare
> > > exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary and
> > > trunk to the official status of the road.
> > 
> > You seem to be rejecting the original proposal.  I was analysing
> > the 
> > case where the original proposal is accepted, and therefore the
> > official 
> > status must be ignored if it is not signposted.
> 
> Well I'm not entirely sure what the true status is since the road
> hasn't been identified and OS OpenData seems to be being used as
> the source of truth which wouldn't be my first choice.
> 
> Philip seemed to be saying that this was genuinely a white
> signed A road (or at least that OpenData says it is) and hence
> that it is a primary although he apparently prefers it to be
> tertiary.
> 
> You then followed up by saying that the logical consequence
> of it being a primary (which I was assuming was correct) was
> that nothing was tertiary, which didn't seem  to make much
> sense to me
> 
> Perhaps if the road was identified it would be a more productive
> discussion...
> 
As the sabristi have already discovered this one, and the OSM edits
appear linked to Sabre Wiki edits, I will identify it.

In this case I am concentrating on A5191 (Coleham Head, Belle Vue Road,
Hereford Road) https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.70122/-2.74811

Not a primary on the ground as can be seen on mapillary.

As Richard says this is legally a primary route, but the Highway
Authority have chosen not to promote it as a primary route, it is
signed at both ends as Belle Vue. 

The Meole Brace end sign is 
http://trigpoint.myzen.co.uk/photodump/HerefordRoadSign.png

The signed primary route is via Hazledine Way, Pritchard Way and Old
Potts Way.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

[Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth

[Philip Barnes]

I have always held the view that the great strength of OSM is boots on
the ground and mapping what we see is always better than other sources.

I currently have a dispute with a remote mapper who is upgrading
tertiary roads to primary. 

In the case of one I see a quiet tertiary road, with no signs
indicating other than the local area it serves. It is narrow, has
narrow pavements and has lots of parked cars.

There is slightly longer bypass route, which was until this change
routing on the bypass roads. Now OSM is routing through a residential
area.

I cannot dispute this is legally a primary, OS Opendata shows it.

I can certainly change the ref to unsigned:ref and ensure any weight
restrictions are mapped but is the view of others? 

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] add notes to personal profile

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 17:40 +0200, Martin Trautmann wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I recently uploaded some notes from osmand+ to openstreetmap, but did
> not see them first.
> 
> I now learned how to activate the notes layer both for openstreetmap
> and
> its editor.
> 
> But I would prefer that notes would be added to my personal profile
> in
> order to find and edit them.
> 
> Is there any chance to connect the notes database with the user's
> profile?
> 
Notes that you create, either through osm.org or OSMand can be found on
your profile under My Notes.

HTH Phil (trigpoint)


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Trig Point references

[Philip Barnes]

--- Original message ---
> On Friday, 12 July 2019, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> > On 12/07/2019 21:19, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > > Hi Brian
> > > Each pillar has a plate with an OS reassigned reference, which is easily  
> > > on the ground verifiable. I believe that we should be using that rather 
> > > than those randomly assigned by a 3rd party site of unknown origin.
> > 
> > Hmm... Good job no one did 'randomly assigned' on PROWs 
> > 
> PROW references are assigned by the local highway authority, not randomly 
> assigned.
> 
> Trig points have an easily verifiable reference assigned by OS at the time of 
> construction, it makes sense to use that.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Sailfish devic

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Trig Point references

[Philip Barnes]

On Friday, 12 July 2019, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Friday, 12 July 2019, Brian Prangle wrote:
> > I've noticed that some trigpoints are tagged with  a reference prefixed
> > TPUK. This is a reference to the numbers assigned by the website
> > http://trigpointing.uk/ which has the following text as a footer: "The
> > TrigpointingUK database is owned and maintained by Ian Harris (Teasel)"
> > That doesn't sound very open to me - does anyone know what permission we
> > have to use this data? The OSM wiki says we *can* use it but who has the
> > text of  the explicit permission (or licence) and shouldn't we have  a
> > system of being able to reference(hyperlink) permissions such as these from
> > the wiki (just to be safe)?
> > 
> > Apologies if there is a talk-gb thread buried in the archives relating to
> > this
> > 
> Hi Brian
> Each pillar has a plate with an OS reassigned reference, which is easily  on 
> the ground verifiable. I believe that we should be using that rather than 
> those randomly assigned by a 3rd party site of unknown origin. 
> 
> For example Titterstone Clee is 2943, which I can't remember if I added it.
>
That should have said OS assigned.
 
Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Trig Point references

[Philip Barnes]

On Friday, 12 July 2019, Brian Prangle wrote:
> I've noticed that some trigpoints are tagged with  a reference prefixed
> TPUK. This is a reference to the numbers assigned by the website
> http://trigpointing.uk/ which has the following text as a footer: "The
> TrigpointingUK database is owned and maintained by Ian Harris (Teasel)"
> That doesn't sound very open to me - does anyone know what permission we
> have to use this data? The OSM wiki says we *can* use it but who has the
> text of  the explicit permission (or licence) and shouldn't we have  a
> system of being able to reference(hyperlink) permissions such as these from
> the wiki (just to be safe)?
> 
> Apologies if there is a talk-gb thread buried in the archives relating to
> this
> 
Hi Brian
Each pillar has a plate with an OS reassigned reference, which is easily  on 
the ground verifiable. I believe that we should be using that rather than those 
randomly assigned by a 3rd party site of unknown origin. 

For example Titterstone Clee is 2943, which I can't remember if I added it.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Shops replaced with those tagged in Google maps?

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 17:29 +0100, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hi
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69064630#map=16/51.3132/-0.3029
> 
> A user has removed what looks like valid data including shops &
> replaced 
> with those listed in Google Maps
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3167258,-0.304743,149m/data=!3m1!1e3
> 
> Anyone local to Epsom that can take a look & confirm?
> 
> A few of his other changesets (railway) might required a second look
> as 
> well.
> 
Also a few dodgy edits around Dundee, an apron at the airport turning
into a terminal building and a lifeboat station is now tagged as a
ferry terminal.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Philip Barnes]

On Thursday, 4 July 2019, Snusmumriken wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > I strongly disagree with this idea,
> > and multiple times changed such splits
> > back to one way.
> 
> I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground truth
> information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in the
> database.
>
It is only vandalism if you loose information, if you are improving the mapping 
by changing such misleading information to correctly mapped turn lanes then it 
is improving the map.

Phil (trigpoint)



 
> > 
> > 
> > Jul 4, 2019, 11:49 AM by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
> > > On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via
> > > talk
> > > wrote:
> > > > I've always had the impression we should not create separate
> > > > traffic
> > > > lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier
> > > > (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between
> > > > said
> > > > flows."
> > > 
> > > A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a
> > > perfectly fine reason to have a separate way.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Newish user causing damage-...

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2019-06-23 at 16:50 +0100, Andy Townsend wrote:
>   https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2922
> 
> (apologies for terseness - sending from pub beer garden)

Thank you Andy.
I have reverted this, I had already reverted their previous changes.
Must admit I thought they had given up.
Phil ( trigpoint )


>  
>   
>   
>  
>  
> From: colin.sm...@xs4all.nl
> Sent: 23 June 2019 16:21
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-GB] Newish user causing damage-... 
>  
> User JS0102 has 17 changesets to their name, and many of them have
> critical comments against them. The earlier 16 changesets were
> reverted, but this afternoon it was the turn of Gloucestershire to
> get cleaned out, and half the River Wye has been turned into a
> culvert.
> Can someone block this user until they understand what they are
> doing?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JS0102
> Thanks.
> 
> ___Talk-GB mailing 
> listtalk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Swift Payzones .

[Philip Barnes]

There was a discussion on this subject a while back on the tagging list.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Thursday, 20 June 2019, Brian Prangle wrote:
> Hi Andy
> 
> All the original swift collectors were mapped in collaboration  with TfWM.
> They're tagged as per this example
> 
> amenity=vending_machine
> category=Interchange
> name=The Pavillions
> operator=TfWM
> payment=no
> postal_code=B4 7SE
> public_transport_ticket=Swift Card
> source=TfWM;survey
> top_up=yes
> vending=public_transport_tickets
> 
> TfWM have shown no interest in maintaining this data in OpenStreetMap
> despite repeated prompts from me,so as they've rolled out they haven't been
> added.
> 
> Payzones - nothing done so far. Good luck with this - don't know how you'd
> tag this - perhaps you'll just have to invent something- perhaps the
> talk-transit mailing list might help
> 
> Regards
> 
> Brian
> 
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 17:09, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
> 
> > In our collaboration with Centro/ TfWM, have we mapped any of the
> > "Swift Payzones" (in shops; and kiosks in bus stations) and on-street
> > "Swift Collectors"? [1]
> >
> > Neither of the two closest to my home seem to be mapped, and I'm
> > looking for a model of best practice - though if we could get TfWM to
> > add and maintain them, so much the better.
> >
> >
> > [1] See: https://www.networkwesmidlands.com/swift/topping-up/
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> > Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

Re: [Talk-GB] max_age=toddler? | Re: Playground age limits

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 16:49 +0100, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > What about `max_age=toddler`? (i.e. the oldest you can be is "a 
> > toddler"), likewise `min_age=young_child` for the "older" one? (Is
> > that 
> > the best term?) Yes it's not a numeric age, but it's better than
> > nothing?
> 
> Thanks Rory.
> 
> I wondered about that. If a tag expects a numeric value, is it ok to 
> enter text?
> 
> Or should I invent a new tag, such as maybe age_range=toddler?
> 
> Is "toddler" too UK-specific? Does everyone understand it to mean
> the 
> same thing? Is "infant" younger or older than "toddler"?
> 
> For the older children, I wondered about "school-age", although of 
> course there are also infant schools for toddlers.
> 
The playgrounds around here have a specific age on the signs, can't
remember off the top of my head what it is, but it is a lot older than
toddlers. If it stops raining I will go and have a look at the local
one. It will be something between 8 and 12.

The other area has no age limits and it would be wrong for us to assume
one, each child is different and they will work out for themselves (or
with parental guidance) when they are ready. There will certainly be a
huge crossover.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road/Rail Bridge near Preston Park

[Philip Barnes]

On Tuesday, 4 June 2019, Tony Shield wrote:
> Hi
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.83309/-0.14321
> 
> shows New England Road and Old Shoreham Road  Brighton.
> 
> The standard OSM render shows 12 rail lines bridged over the roads, 
> could be read as there being 12 bridges.
> 
> Looking at aerials in JOSM looks like those 12 rail lines cross over 
> using one bridge or perhaps even the road in a tunnel.
> 
> Mapillary detail not available, so in Google Street View there appears 
> to be 3 bridges, an arched bridge at the east end with a light gap 
> between it and the next bridge. This 2nd bridge is joined to the 3rd 
> bridge with no light gap, the west most of the three bridges has support 
> pillars, the central bridge doesn't.
> 
> Mapping this I think should be done as three bridges/areas using 
> man_made=bridge with the railway as layer 1. But what are the other 
> features to identify the arched and the bridge with support columns.
> 
> Thoughts on these railway bridges which are very common?
> 
I have mapped an example just on the north side of Shrewsbury Station.


Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Playground age limits

[Philip Barnes]

On Tuesday, 4 June 2019, Martin Wynne wrote:
> On 04/06/2019 15:31, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > I would map them as separate playgrounds, map the fence and gate then add 
> > age tags as appropriate to that area.
> > 
> > My towns main  rec has such a distinction, outside the fenced children's  
> > area anyone can use the equipment.
> 
> Hi Phil,
> 
> That's what I've done, but how do I add age tags if there are no signs?
> 
> I don't feel qualified to guess suitable ages in years. And max or min 
> suggests actual restrictions apply.
> 
> But it would surely be helpful to map users to know the type of play 
> equipment available? I'm tempted to try max_age=yes, min_age=no for the 
> fenced area, and min_age=yes for the remainder.
> 
> The main reason for the fence would seem to be the several NO DOGS 
> signs, which I have tagged.
> 
The local fenced ones do have a maximum age on the sign. Can't remember what 
that is but I would only use it if there is a number. The unfenced area has no 
sign so I would not add a minimum age.

Mapping individual equipment is a possibility, whilst as a 58 year old I am 
unlikely to use the swings but I do use the exercise equipment and climbing 
wall.

Phil (trigpoint(

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Playground age limits

[Philip Barnes]

I would map them as separate playgrounds, map the fence and gate then add age 
tags as appropriate to that area.

My towns main  rec has such a distinction, outside the fenced children's  area 
anyone can use the equipment.  

Phil (trigpoint) 

On Tuesday, 4 June 2019, Martin Wynne wrote:
> In the local park there are two areas of play equipment for children.
> 
> One is fenced off and clearly intended for infants/toddlers accompanied 
> by parents.
> 
> Next to it there is a larger unfenced area containing play equipment for 
> unsupervised older children, large climbing structures, zip wires, etc.
> 
> leisure=playground allows min_age and max_age in years, but in this case 
> there are no signs giving specific age restrictions.
> 
> How best to map the distinction between the two areas?
> 
> Martin.
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

[Philip Barnes]

On Tuesday, 4 June 2019, Tony Shield wrote:
> 
> Parkrun as a relation - why not, its similar to a country walk and we 
> notate those. Would want to add parkrun description to UK wiki as to the 
> meanings in the relationship.
> 
We only map walking, or cycling, routes which are verifiable on the ground.

These should only be mapped if there are permanent markers.

I am always  on the lookout for waymarks and I certainly haven't spotted any 
around The Quarry in Shrewsbury, where apparently one happens every Saturday.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 20:00 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Di., 28. Mai 2019 um 19:56 Uhr schrieb Dave F via talk <
> talk@openstreetmap.org>:
> > I notice these changesets were completed in 30/60 seconds
> > respectively.
> > 
> > I don't use iD. How is this possible? Does it have a JOSM like mass
> > edit 
> > 
> > ability?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >I don't see asking users to split the changesets as a solution
> > to 
> > 
> > what is the clear problem of mass adding/amending tags to 
> > 
> > unknown/undocumented ones.
> 
> 
> 
> indeed, I see no way to judge whether the iD suggestion to change
> objects from crossing=zebra to crossing=marked makes sense, because
> there is no documentation of crossing=marked. Going by the words,
> probably any zebra crossing can be seen as a marked crossing so it
> may not be introducing errors, just reducing specificity/detail.
> 
Just had a play with iD in my local High Street. 

First edit was a minor one to tidy up a spurious line, iD made no
attempt to change any other objects.

Second edit was to add a tactile paving tag to one of the zebra
crossings, it warned me that a marked crossing has outdated tags and
wanted to loose valuable information. which I declined but it is easy
to see how an inexperienced mapper could be coerced into making such a
change.

As you say marked is undocumented, and zebra is documented.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk