Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone near Bury?
Check the map first? Reading the descriptions, I think it could be this bridge (although the last edit was December 2010, money has been available for the bridge since 2007). http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.60095lon=-2.30171zoom=15layers=C Mapping in the area could be a lot better, so I assume we don't have any largely active/recent contributors there. On 13 May 2012 12:22, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Here's a new viaduct that needs mapping! http://www.bury.gov.uk/index.**aspx?articleid=7579http://www.bury.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=7579 http://www.sustrans.org.uk/**what-we-do/connect2/schemes/** north-west/bury-the-woolford-**gaphttp://www.sustrans.org.uk/what-we-do/connect2/schemes/north-west/bury-the-woolford-gap cheers Richard __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Wiki pages
Hi All, Thanks for the feedback regarding the UK wiki pages. Below is a summary of updates to the OSM wiki so far: A. United Kingdom wiki page: Designed as a central hub to efforts in the UK. I have added links to the main groups that meet up on a regular schedule. Please let me know if you run a group that is not currently listed. B. Tagging Guidelines: Lots of good feedback regarding the UK tagging guidelines. A couple of comments mentioned that the page is long and complicated. Several mappers have suggested complete removal of the Classic vs Alternative information as this is confusing to newcomers. However the wiki cleanup guidelines suggest that the wiki should be a place to discuss tagging proposals and as there is no consensus (as seen on this mailing list), I will not be removing either tagging style. Further suggestions were around the Public Rights of Way. Rob (cotswolds) pointed out that the page read like a footpath should be tagged as either a right of way or (if this is not the case) a permissive way. It was also suggested that we encourage mappers to only start adding the legal access information when they are confident (i.e. beginners stick to mapping out the way, and more advanced users can add the extra details). Combine this with the fact that the legal system is complex and devolved accross UK countries (thanks Andrew Chadwick), it appears to me that the best choice is to split of the Rights of Way back into its own wiki page. I have implemented this idea at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions C. UK access provisions With all the details about rights of way on a separate page I have been able to implement the following suggested changes: * More sample images (thanks for voting on some of these) * The introduction of the suspected:designation tag (thanks Nick). Obviously we aim to keep the number of these down by researching the paths actual status with the local council. Please add a notes tag if using these. * Links to ITO map and the Designation tagging warnings report - Thanks Robert Mathmos. NEXT STEPS: Me: I will move back to the Tagging Guidelines as I need to remove the PRoW details from here and link to the new page. Details from Talk pages will also be moved. This will then allow me to continue to implement improvements to the guidelines (such as cycleway info). I will alos look into Traffic Regulation Orders and whether these need adding to the RoW page. All: Please take a look at the changes and let me know if you have any feedback (its always much appreciated). Cheers, Rob p.s. I had many suggestions so please forgive me if I forgot to credit yours here. :) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
Hi Adam, Adding designation=public_footpath would be worthwhile (as long as the paths are signposted as such), however as noted with the Classic vs Alternative debate there is no need to change highway=footway. Regards, Rob p.s. Check out my previous email about the wiki pages and let me know if you have any feedback. My dilemma is that essentially all of my walking routes so far are highway=footpath / highway=bridleway with very little designation= (because I haven't done much mapping since I saw designation= being discussed), so changing to a combination of path/track/service designation would be quite a chunk of work. I'm up for doing it, if that's a good thing to do. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
SomeoneElse on IRC noticed a big heap of debatable bulk changes to station nodes in the UK, seemingly made by people outside the UK and using Wikipedia as a source. I've reverted these (well, actually, at the time of writing the revert is running!). If the users would like to discuss the changes here first, then maybe we can arrive at some agreement. I'm not sure whether they're reading this so will write to them via the OSM messaging system too. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
I wrote: SomeoneElse on IRC noticed a big heap of debatable bulk changes to station nodes in the UK Someone else (not SomeoneElse... hell this is confusing) has pointed me, off-list, to this: http://mapbox.com/blog/improved-british-rail-icons/ which obviously looks cool. I guess this is probably the source of the bulk edits. Without wanting to copy out the Mechanical Edits Policy word-for-word, I'd strongly reiterate the need (and, besides that, desirability) of consultation before making big changes like this. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. Most importantly, local insight gives better answers - that is, after all, the USP of OSM. The RoW tagging thread running at the moment on talk-gb is an excellent example of how it should work: something that might seem simple from afar actually turns out to be a bit more nuanced, but by giving careful consideration to the nuances, we're making what is hands-down the best map of the world. I hope we can have a similarly useful conversation about the stations too. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-railway-station-changes-tp5708989p5708995.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
On 15/05/2012 20:16, Richard Fairhurst wrote: SomeoneElse on IRC noticed a big heap of debatable bulk changes to station nodes in the UK, seemingly made by people outside the UK and using Wikipedia as a source. I've reverted these (well, actually, at the time of writing the revert is running!). If the users would like to discuss the changes here first, then maybe we can arrive at some agreement. I'm not sure whether they're reading this so will write to them via the OSM messaging system too. I notice that some of these bulk edits tagged all of the stations on the Glasgow Subway as disused=yes. Which is clearly incorrect, the stations are definitely still open and in use. Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Cycling, the law and traffic signs
Hi, On the UK tagging guidelines consultation page [1] both Andrew C and Richard M pointed out that the blue sign with a bicycle on it [2] does _not_ imply foot=no. As I had copied this tag over from the original guidelines page I would like to seek advice before removing the foot=no component. The highway code section on 'signs giving orders' [3] clearly states that this sign means route to be used by pedal cycles only. Furthermore, a quick google reveals the following advise: A Cycle Track ... means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1972) with or without a right of way on foot [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980]. The words in brackets were inserted by section 1 of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984. Cycle tracks may be created through conversion of a footway or footpath or newly constructed. -- Source: Bikehub [4] Note the wording a right of way on pedal cycles (...) with or without a right of way on foot. As I am not a regular cyclist I must admit that I don't pay much attention to these signs. So my question is do Local Authorities use the cycle and foot signs (segregated or otherwise) and reserve the cycle sign for cases where traffic regulation prevents foot access (in which case foot=no would be correct), or is use mixed? Cheers, Rob [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines_Consultation [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_955.svg [3] http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/travelandtransport/highwaycode/signsandmarkings/index.htm [4] http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Cycling, the law and traffic signs
On 15 May 2012 23:32, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: As I am not a regular cyclist I must admit that I don't pay much attention to these signs. So my question is do Local Authorities use the cycle and foot signs (segregated or otherwise) and reserve the cycle sign for cases where traffic regulation prevents foot access (in which case foot=no would be correct), or is use mixed? Cheers, Rob Unless it's been recently changed. the Cycle Only sign could never prohibit 'pedestrian access' because use of the sign is defined by the Department for Transports Traffic Signs Manual (chapter 3) [1]. The DFT guidance confirms the signs can be used for routes where cycles can travel and all other vehicular traffic is prohibited. Therefore this sign must not be used to prohibit pedestrian access. The Manual also points out usefulness of a convenient footway or footpath to lure pedestrians away from this intended 'cycle only' way. Jason [1] http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/traffic-signs-manual/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
Hi Richard everyone, This started off simply as an effort to improve our display London Underground stations using existing OSM data, but was scope-creeped into much more and apparently we messed up. We've found that the lack of familiar London Underground and National Rail icons is a particularly strong sticking point with people who would otherwise happily switch to OSM, which is partly why we chose to focus on it. The tagging for stations is not so consistent, and my blog post goes into details about how we attempt to account for this as much as possible at the import rendering stages. However certain inconsistencies seemed simple enough to just fix in OSM. We saw network=National Rail tags already in use at various stations and didn't think continuing to use them would be an issue. The imports/mechanical edits policies didn't come to my mind because we started with just a handful of edits. Even though this obviously ended up turning into many more, I thought that things were being done quite manually and carefully. There were no scripts or bots used, but the error the Craig points out looks like the result of a very bulk and incorrect copy/paste (or something) so clearly there were problems here. ... something that might seem simple from afar actually turns out to be a bit more nuanced, but by giving careful consideration to the nuances, we're making what is hands-down the best map of the world. I hope we can have a similarly useful conversation about the stations too. I guess our excitement to make awesome maps tripped us up here. Richard pointed out specifically that 'the network=National Rail tag is of debatable value and relevance'. I'm curious about the details of why. We just went with what seemed to be an established tagging system (but I guess is actually not). I am interested to hear tagging ideas that would be both correct and useful for rendering a map with appropriate icon styles. AJ @ MapBox ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
