Re: [Talk-GB] Cycling, the law and traffic signs
On 16 May 2012, at 01:05, Jason Cunningham wrote: 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. I find the cycle only sign is used in cases where there is also a separate pavement, thus the pedestrians can use that. They can in some cases be used where there is no pavement and it's not recommended for pedestrians to go that route. If cyclists are allowed and pedestrians are prohibited then a separate no pedestrians sign will be used. Shaun ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
IMO it's better to add something clear than to shoehorn something into a generic tag. Especially if you end up with compound values. OK so they could be parsed, but it's just making work (both processing and maintaining). Better to have something unambiguous like national_rail=yes and london_underground=yes. On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:35 AM, AJ Ashton aj.ash...@gmail.com wrote: 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Cycling, the law and traffic signs
I doubt there are any instances in the UK where there's a TRO supporting a No Pedestrians sign on a cycle track (welcome to be proved wrong!). The possibility exists in the legislation, but you'd have to explicitly sign it (the white-bike-on-blue-circle does not of itself exclude pedestrians in the UK). The confusion arises because the european standard is that that sign really does exclude pedestrians (and is very commonly used in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria...), but well, we do things differently. Richard On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote: On 16 May 2012, at 01:05, Jason Cunningham wrote: 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. I find the cycle only sign is used in cases where there is also a separate pavement, thus the pedestrians can use that. They can in some cases be used where there is no pavement and it's not recommended for pedestrians to go that route. If cyclists are allowed and pedestrians are prohibited then a separate no pedestrians sign will be used. Shaun ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
AJ Ashton wrote: 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. Absolutely. It does look really good. :) 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. Sadly anything to do with our godforsaken privatised railway system is always more complicated than it needs to be! For me I think the most problematic aspect is that there are actually several things that could be called networks, particularly in urban areas which have PTEs (Passenger Transport Executives) or similar. For example, there's Network West Midlands around Birmingham, Metro in West/South Yorkshire, Merseytravel/Merseyrail in Liverpool, and so on. (London has its own peculiarities.) So you end up with network=National Rail;Metro which is nasty, and breaks most toolchains which don't understand multiple values for one key. It may lend itself to an ncn/rcn/lcn or nwn/rwn/lwn solution, or Richard M's idea of using a distinct tag, or tagging station operators (e.g. operator=First Great Western) and rendering based on a set of those. I'm tempted to suggest a generic tag for any country's national railway system (mainline=yes|no or somesuch), and then you could render based on this tag and the UK polygon. Or indeed we could just go with network=National Rail as a good enough solution. I'd be interested to hear what others think. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-railway-station-changes-tp5708989p5709044.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] Cycling, the law and traffic signs
On 16 May 2012 01:05, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: 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. Interesting stuff. So from my research this morning, sign 955 (cycle only) is used in two scenarios - on-carriageway, for things like false one-way streets, and on off-carriageway routes. The text of the guidance is: CYCLE TRACKS AND ROUTES SHARED WITH PEDESTRIANS 17.32 An off-road cycle track is indicated by the sign to diagram 955, which means that the route is for cycles only and all other vehicular traffic is prohibited. As the route is not intended for pedestrians, there should be a convenient footway or footpath nearby. The sign should be provided at the start of the cycle track and where the track crosses roads used by other traffic. The signs may also be used as repeaters along the route. [...] 17.33 Where a footway (forming part of a road) or footpath (e.g. through a park) has been converted to a route shared by pedestrians and cyclists, signs to either diagram 956 or 957 are used. These prohibit the use of the route by any other vehicles. The sign to diagram 956 indicates an unsegregated route. It should be located where the shared route begins and must be used as a repeater, at regular intervals (direction 11), to remind both pedestrians and cyclists that pedal cycles can be legally ridden on the footway or footpath. [...] So while it's correct that 955 doesn't prohibit pedestrians, there's still a clear difference in intent between 955 and 956 (unsegregated shared ped/cycle). How do we capture the difference? After all, from a pedestrian's point of view, you'll be a bit miffed if OpenStreetMap treats 955 and 956 as identical and you keep getting routed down paths not intended for pedestrians. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] routing on the road network
Hi This is a general question about the current state of the maps. When we use our commercial road networks (OS Mastermap Navteq) for road routing we tend to assume that the roads have been analysed for connectivity, that there are no one-way streets leading to dead ends, that you can't turn left off a flyover onto the road underneath and so forth). we also assume that there is only one link connecting two points if there is only one physical road link, and that all intersections are proper intersections. We have written tools to address check these issues in the past (and clearly not all map makers have always addressed them internally). How suitable is OSM GB for routing, right now, with this level of detail? Do corresponding network analysis tools exist? I did try about 3 months ago to follow details for building a routable network using pgrouting and one of the programs in the chain seemed to do thousands of fixups to the data. If we did such an analysis (which would be quite a big investment) and came to the conclusion there were 10s of thousands of errors - which seems to be entirely possible - would there be any appetite in the community for fixing them? Certainly such an endeavour would be way beyond our budget. Tim -- Tim Pigden Optrak Distribution Software Limited +44 (0)1992 517100 http://www.linkedin.com/in/timpigden http://optrak.com Optrak Distribution Software Ltd is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Company Registration No. 2327613 Registered Offices: Orland House, Mead Lane, Hertford, SG13 7AT England This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Optrak Distribution Software Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] routing on the road network
Hi Tim, I expect that you would find a good appetitie to fix any problems if we can see that this will be highly valued (i.e. used in a great tool), and the bug reports are simple to understand. I'll leave comments about the quality to others, suffice to say that in the Midlands the roads and junctions are mapped well, however turn restrictions are the missing component. Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] routing on the road network
Hi, On 05/16/2012 11:56 AM, Tim Pigden wrote: that there are no one-way streets leading to dead ends, This is not common in OSM but I am not aware of anyone doing a network analysis that would fix such a problem. that you can't turn left off a flyover onto the road underneath In OSM, turning is only possible at nodes, not where two roads happen do cross. Some editors and existing QA tools will whine when you have a non-noded intersection between two roads and neither of them is marked a bridge or tunnel. we also assume that there is only one link connecting two points if there is only one physical road link, Opinions as to what makes up a physical road link may differ, especially when pavements or cycle lanes are concerned. In some countries, people map pavements and cycle lanes as separate geometries (eg http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=64.138954lon=-21.922888zoom=18layers=M). and that all intersections are proper intersections. In the GIS world, a proper intersection is often one that is not traversed by any geometry, i.e. you will have roads beginning/ending there but not going through it. In OSM this is different; having a way traverse an intersection is normal and not considered an error. How suitable is OSM GB for routing, right now, with this level of detail? Do corresponding network analysis tools exist? Tools exist but not in one central location. Some potential problems are caught by editors. Then there's OSM Inspector (tools.geofabrik.de/osmi) which has the Skobbler-sponsored routing layer that finds un-connected roads; keepright.at has something similar and also checks for suspect things like service roads branching off of motorways. Powerful project-osrm.org routing engine has the potential to be used as an analysis tool but doesn't produce any automated reports. The restriction analyzer at http://osm.virtuelle-loipe.de/restrictions/ specializes in debugging turn restrictions, and I'm sure there will be more tools I haven't mentioned! I did try about 3 months ago to follow details for building a routable network using pgrouting and one of the programs in the chain seemed to do thousands of fixups to the data. Most likely the program broke up the roads into segments starting/ending at intersections, something that might be a required preprocessing step but nobody would suggest doing that in OSM. OSM is pretty suitable for routing in my opinion. If we did such an analysis (which would be quite a big investment) and came to the conclusion there were 10s of thousands of errors - which seems to be entirely possible - would there be any appetite in the community for fixing them? Certainly such an endeavour would be way beyond our budget. Appetite, yes, but you can also easily chase people away if your system detects too many things where people don't think it's a bug at all, so some tuning might be necessary. One of the weaknesses of most of the existing systems (with the exception of checks in the editor) is that once you fixed the bug, it might take hours or even days for the bug to be properly closed. A system that allows users to hit some kind of re-check this, I've just fixed it button would surely create more enthusiasm for cleaning up your area than most of what we currently have. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Or indeed we could just go with network=National Rail as a good enough solution. My issue with National Rail was that, to me, (as I explained to the Peruvian chap who's edited Mansfield Woodhouse station): National Rail means these people: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ , also http://www.atoc.org/ It's just an industry association of the various Train Operating Companies. They don't own, operate or have any direct involvement with the British rail _network_. The only place I've heard national rail* used is in London to refer to non-underground stations (and even there, you still here British Rail station). Everyone else says Railway. I don't think that network=network_rail works either, as there will inevitably by issues in London where NR works on infrastructure for TfL Overground services. So network=railway for me, since that's probably the best description of what it actually is. Cheers, Andy * in lower case, where national simply means non-underground, and is a description rather than a name. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] routing on the road network
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 13:42 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Appetite, yes, but you can also easily chase people away if your system detects too many things where people don't think it's a bug at all, so some tuning might be necessary. One of the weaknesses of most of the existing systems (with the exception of checks in the editor) is that once you fixed the bug, it might take hours or even days for the bug to be properly closed. A system that allows users to hit some kind of re-check this, I've just fixed it button would surely create more enthusiasm for cleaning up your area than most of what we currently have. +1 I do go through the mapdust bugs reported by scrobbler users, many are routing errors. One of the big problems is that I can see my map changes almost immediatly but have to wait days before the routers start to use the changes and I can test my changes and hence close the bug. Phil ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
AJ Ashton wrote: .. and apparently we messed up. ... AJ @ MapBox Sorry, but who's we here? Is it a bunch of people at some other mailing list/forum, or who work for Mapbox, or something else? Last night I spotted changes from someone (I think*) from Peru, and (I think) from the US - were these co-ordinated, did (a) just follow (b) blindly**, or what? For the avoidance of doubt, I'm sure that everyone's trying to do the right thing here. Just a question of what and how. Cheers, Andy * now that everyone now uses gmail addresses it's difficult to tell which side of the planet anyone's on. ** I've seen naptan-coded bus stops in Germany ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way - Image vote
On 12/05/12 13:02, Philip Barnes wrote: They do vary between highway authorities, but well worth getting some photos of samples. The one thing waymarks have in common, and I can only claim knowledge of England and Wales here is that a public footpath has yellow arrows, public bridleways have blue arrows and the hardest to find of all are red arrows, used on B.O.T.A.Ts. Not a waymarker, but the signposts are fairly rare too; Public Byway or just Byway is the normal wording: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:UK_Public_Byway_signpost.jpg http://osm.org/go/eutqlptvf--?m and I don't think we could expect the waymarkers to say any more. Predictably enough, the thin little road the one above points at is blocked off at one end for larger vehicles: https://imgur.com/Tx9hI To complicate matters further, that's a No Motor Vehicles sign under the graffiti which presumably reflects a TRO filed somewhere in the bowels of the local town hall. It's only applicable to the plugged end. A sign on the far end warns of there being no sane turning places. So it's not open to all traffic at all, and the sign doesn't call it open to all traffic, but it should be tagged designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic anyway :D -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
National Rail is what ATOC came up with to describe things that are represented by the double-arrow symbol, and which would formerly have been referred to as British Rail or informally as the rail network. (The staff refer to it as the railway, but that's another subject) National Rail isn't a great name, but it's the correct one. The symbol is owned by ATOC. On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: Or indeed we could just go with network=National Rail as a good enough solution. My issue with National Rail was that, to me, (as I explained to the Peruvian chap who's edited Mansfield Woodhouse station): National Rail means these people: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ , also http://www.atoc.org/ It's just an industry association of the various Train Operating Companies. They don't own, operate or have any direct involvement with the British rail _network_. The only place I've heard national rail* used is in London to refer to non-underground stations (and even there, you still here British Rail station). Everyone else says Railway. I don't think that network=network_rail works either, as there will inevitably by issues in London where NR works on infrastructure for TfL Overground services. So network=railway for me, since that's probably the best description of what it actually is. Cheers, Andy * in lower case, where national simply means non-underground, and is a description rather than a name. __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way - Image vote
Andrew Chadwick wrote: Not a waymarker, but the signposts are fairly rare too; Public Byway or just Byway is the normal wording FWIW Derbyshire seem to have started (within the last 3 months or so) using Byway Open to All Traffic in full on signs. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] routing on the road network
As noted there are some tools available to help find potential errors that effect routing. Have a look on the QA page [1], specifically at keepright, OSM Inspector and MapDust. As for editing OSM and proposing new tags, OpenStreetMap works a bit like wikipedia - we have a very flat structure and work together as a community to tackle issues such as whether new tags are needed or not. Discussions can get a little bit lengthy, but I believe we end up with a better solution in the end. Regards, Rob [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_Assurance On , Tim Pigden tim.pig...@optrak.com wrote: Error reporting would definitely be a challenge.Are there existing facilities to add suspect type tags to enable OSM itself to be the primary reporting medium? I haven't looked into the details of editing OSM data but adding new tags seems to require a collective decision. (BTW don't get too excited anyone, this is definitely a long-term project). Tim On 16 May 2012 11:41, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Tim, I expect that you would find a good appetitie to fix any problems if we can see that this will be highly valued (ie used in a great tool), and the bug reports are simple to understand. I'll leave comments about the quality to others, suffice to say that in the Midlands the roads and junctions are mapped well, however turn restrictions are the missing component. Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tim Pigden Optrak Distribution Software Limited +44 (0)1992 517100 http://www.linkedin.com/in/timpigden http://optrak.com Optrak Distribution Software Ltd is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Company Registration No. 2327613 Registered Offices: Orland House, Mead Lane, Hertford, SG13 7AT England This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Optrak Distribution Software Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
On 16/05/12 04:35, AJ Ashton wrote: 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. I think talking to local mappers before making remote changes over a whole country is not just a good idea, but should be mandatory and failure to do so should routinely be met with a revert. I accept that your motives were good. The railways in the UK are a mix of nationalised and private companies who operate train services on tracks they don't own, using stations they might operate or might not, who sometimes get represented publicly by a company who doesn't run trains, operate stations or own any track. Some bigger stations are operated by the national track operator but most are operated by train operators, even though other train operators will often share the station too. In some cites there are added complications of underground, light rail and trams. In addition there are privately owned and run heritage lines, some of which provide local commuter services as well as tourist services. You could use the well-established operator tag to help to distinguish the stations. It would take research to find them all and there will be a longish list to wade through for rendering. Maybe some UK mappers could help you with their local stations. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] routing on the road network
On 16 May 2012 12:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 05/16/2012 11:56 AM, Tim Pigden wrote: that there are no one-way streets leading to dead ends, This is not common in OSM but I am not aware of anyone doing a network analysis that would fix such a problem. Keepright has this check - dead-ended one-ways Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] routing on the road network
I don't think the email below made it to the list: On , Tim Pigden tim.pig...@optrak.com wrote: Error reporting would definitely be a challenge.Are there existing facilities to add suspect type tags to enable OSM itself to be the primary reporting medium? I haven't looked into the details of editing OSM data but adding new tags seems to require a collective decision. Please don't add bug reports to the OSM database itself, whether through suspect tags or similar. I expect anything like that would lead to getting blocked pretty quickly! There's a variety of existing bug reporting / QA toolchains - Keepright, OSB, Mapdust - for everything from auto-generated calculations to end-user reports. It's best to pick one of them, and add your additional insights to that. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes
Thanks for the explanations of the complicated 'network' situation. Richard Fairhurst wrote: It may lend itself to an ncn/rcn/lcn or nwn/rwn/lwn solution, ... I'm tempted to suggest a generic tag for any country's national railway system (mainline=yes|no or somesuch), and then you could render based on this tag and the UK polygon. ... Either of these seem like good generic approaches. I'm sure there are numerous complications and caveats to discuss, but a relatively simple, global system is likely to have advantages for many applications of the data. ... or tagging station operators (e.g. operator=First Great Western) and rendering based on a set of those. Based on everyone's comments I'm leaning toward this as an alternative approach to start with. It sounds like data/tags are less ambiguous and already well-used (though not without oddities to be careful of). On the icon rendering side it's slightly more complicated, but totally manageable within our current rendering setup. The token-replacement feature for image paths in in Mapnik 2 is really fantastic. SomeoneElse wrote: Sorry, but who's we here? ... We is MapBox, or at least the few MapBox employees who made these edits. We're primarily based in the US, but also have some folks in South America and Europe. -- AJ Ashton ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Cycle lanes and Cycle Tracks - how to map
Hi All, I would like to improve the guidance given on the UK Tagging Guidelines page in regards to how to map cycle paths. As a non-cyclist I would like some advise. So far my research has found: 1. Definitions: * Cycle Lane - lane marked out by painted lines _within_ the carriageway. May be mandatory or advisory. * Cycle Track - a route other than within a carriageway - eg on a footway (legal term for pavement, rather than OSM highway=footway) adjacent to a carriageway, adjacent to the carriageway but separate from the footway (pavement), or on a route completely separate from a highway (eg a path through a park). 2. OSM tags: In OSM we have highway=cycleway and we can also add cycleway=lane / cycleway=track / etc to any ways marked as highway=*. 3. Mapping practices: Clearly a cycle lane should be tagged by adding cycleway=lane to the way represented by highway=*. Furthermore any cycle tracks that are on a route completely separate from a highway can be tagged as highway=cycleway (or highway=path, but lets shelve the Classic vs Alternative discussion for the moment). This leaves cycle tracks that run alongside a highway but are not within the carriageway. How should they be tagged? Options are: i) As a separate highway=cycleway (or path) with links back to the neighbouring roads whenever there is a 'connection' (eg a dropped kerb). ii) Using cycleway=track on the highway=*. iii) Both. Advantages of (i) over (ii): * When the cycle track is not within the carriageway you essentially have to decide whether to use it or not. Unlike lanes on a road you cannot simply switch back and forth easily due to kerbs. * Can better represent the route of the cycle track (eg navigating over side roads). * Will render easily without having to add complex rules to your rendering system. * Perhaps easier to explain to a newcomer. * Harder to be accidentally extended further than the cycle track actually goes. Advantages of (ii) over (i): * We do not tend to map individual pavements so why do it when there is a cycle track on them * May appear less 'cluttered' * Less work as there is no need to draw a separate way. * Fewer ways and connecting nodes may make it easier to maintain and less prone to damage. * Easier for routing software (for option i some rules will need to be added to tell the routing engine to prefer cycle tracks over adjacent roads / a bicycle access tag would have to be added to the road to deter use). So, over to you - thoughts? Statistics about current use in the UK? Cheers, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Byways (Was: Rights of way - Image vote)
I'm pretty happy to add that any way signposted as either a Byway Public Byway or Byway Open to All Traffic should be tagged as designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic as long as it also has a red arrow. Unlike footpaths there is little chance of a landowner putting up a sign for a byway unless it is a public right of way. There can also be no confusion caused by long distance routes (as with footpaths). Cheers, Rob On 12/05/12 13:02, Philip Barnes wrote: * They do vary between highway authorities, but well worth getting some** photos of samples. The one thing waymarks have in common, and I can only** claim knowledge of England and Wales here is that a public footpath has** yellow arrows, public bridleways have blue arrows and the hardest to** find of all are red arrows, used on B.O.T.A.Ts.* Not a waymarker, but the signposts are fairly rare too; Public Byway or just Byway is the normal wording: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:UK_Public_Byway_signpost.jpg http://osm.org/go/eutqlptvf--?m and I don't think we could expect the waymarkers to say any more. Predictably enough, the thin little road the one above points at is blocked off at one end for larger vehicles: https://imgur.com/Tx9hI To complicate matters further, that's a No Motor Vehicles sign under the graffiti which presumably reflects a TRO filed somewhere in the bowels of the local town hall. It's only applicable to the plugged end. A sign on the far end warns of there being no sane turning places. So it's not open to all traffic at all, and the sign doesn't call it open to all traffic, but it should be tagged designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic anyway :D -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Cycling, the law and traffic signs
I think the confusion here relates to a failure to differentiate criminal law - in this case failing to comply with a traffic sign - and civil law - trespass - in this case not being within the class(es) of users permitted on a particular section of highway. It's not a criminal offence to cycle on a footpath (as opposed to a footway along the side of a road) but there can still be a bicycle=no tag. Similarly with a cycle (only) track there could be a foot=no even if someone walking there would not be committing a crime as they could still be technically trespassing, which might be relevant if there was a collision between them and someone cycling. Off the top of my head the no pedestrian sign is simply signifying another restriction (such as the prohibiting being a pedestrian on a motorway unless walking from a broken down vehicle) since there's no equivalent provision to section 36 of the Road Traffic Act requiring compliance with traffic signs for anyone other than those driving or propelling a vehicle. Ralph winmail.dat___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle lanes and Cycle Tracks - how to map
On 16/05/12 16:55, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to improve the guidance given on the UK Tagging Guidelines page in regards to how to map cycle paths. As a non-cyclist I would like some advise. So far my research has found: 1. Definitions: * Cycle Lane - lane marked out by painted lines _within_ the carriageway. May be mandatory or advisory. * Cycle Track - a route other than within a carriageway - e.g. on a footway (legal term for pavement, rather than OSM highway=footway) adjacent to a carriageway, adjacent to the carriageway but separate from the footway (pavement), or on a route completely separate from a highway (e.g. a path through a park). Looks like a good start. Cycle Track is also the legal term. Would designation coding be appropriate, assuming designation_codes are derivable from official sources? On pavements, there's a distinction cyclists and sign-makers make between segregated (from pedestrians, paint or low kerb divider) and shared-use (shared with pedestrians, no dividers). Any more? 2. OSM tags: In OSM we have highway=cycleway and we can also add cycleway=lane / cycleway=track / etc to any ways marked as highway=*. There's a wealth of discussion out there regarding how to tag side-specific lanes or tracks. Are cycleway:left=* and cycleway:right=* winning out? 3. Mapping practices: Clearly a cycle lane should be tagged by adding cycleway=lane to the way represented by highway=*. Furthermore any cycle tracks that are on a route completely separate from a highway can be tagged as highway=cycleway (or highway=path, but lets shelve the Classic vs Alternative discussion for the moment). This leaves cycle tracks that run alongside a highway but are not within the carriageway. How should they be tagged? Options are: i) As a separate highway=cycleway (or path) with links back to the neighbouring roads whenever there is a 'connection' (e.g. a dropped kerb). ii) Using cycleway=track on the highway=*. iii) Both. Personally, I'd say either (i) or (ii); both are valid, provide lots of rendering options, and should route correctly provided both systems link up. (i) is most appropriate in places with good aerial imagery, and solves the side-of-road issue neatly. Also it should be done in areas where https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dcrossing are being attempted, just for continuity. (ii) is a decent enough approach even in micromapped areas as a first stab at getting a track onto the map, particularly if you do the :left or :right thing. However (iii) seems like mapping the same thing twice, which is generally a bad idea: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Byways (Was: Rights of way - Image vote)
You sometimes get a simple direction sign at a road junction saying Byway. It just means it doesn't go anywhere very much, but otherwise it's a normal unclassified (non-urban) road. Richard On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.comwrote: I'm pretty happy to add that any way signposted as either a Byway Public Byway or Byway Open to All Traffic should be tagged as designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic as long as it also has a red arrow. Unlike footpaths there is little chance of a landowner putting up a sign for a byway unless it is a public right of way. There can also be no confusion caused by long distance routes (as with footpaths). Cheers, Rob On 12/05/12 13:02, Philip Barnes wrote: * They do vary between highway authorities, but well worth getting some** photos of samples. The one thing waymarks have in common, and I can only** claim knowledge of England and Wales here is that a public footpath has** yellow arrows, public bridleways have blue arrows and the hardest to** find of all are red arrows, used on B.O.T.A.Ts.* Not a waymarker, but the signposts are fairly rare too; Public Byway or just Byway is the normal wording: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:UK_Public_Byway_signpost.jpg http://osm.org/go/eutqlptvf--?m and I don't think we could expect the waymarkers to say any more. Predictably enough, the thin little road the one above points at is blocked off at one end for larger vehicles: https://imgur.com/Tx9hI To complicate matters further, that's a No Motor Vehicles sign under the graffiti which presumably reflects a TRO filed somewhere in the bowels of the local town hall. It's only applicable to the plugged end. A sign on the far end warns of there being no sane turning places. So it's not open to all traffic at all, and the sign doesn't call it open to all traffic, but it should be tagged designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic anyway :D -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle lanes and Cycle Tracks - how to map
On 16/05/12 17:55, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
3. Mapping practices:
Clearly a cycle lane should be tagged by adding cycleway=lane to the
way represented by highway=*. Furthermore any cycle tracks that are on
a route completely separate from a highway can be tagged as
highway=cycleway (or highway=path, but lets shelve the Classic vs
Alternative discussion for the moment).
This leaves cycle tracks that run alongside a highway but are not
within the carriageway. How should they be tagged? Options are:
i) As a separate highway=cycleway (or path) with links back to the
neighbouring roads whenever there is a 'connection' (e.g. a dropped kerb).
ii) Using cycleway=track on the highway=*.
iii) Both.
Personally, I'd say either (i) or (ii); both are valid, provide lots of
rendering options, and should route correctly provided both systems link
up. (i) is most appropriate in places with good aerial imagery, and
solves the side-of-road issue neatly. Also it should be done in areas where
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dcrossing
are being attempted, just for continuity. (ii) is a decent enough
approach even in micromapped areas as a first stab at getting a track
onto the map, particularly if you do the :left or :right thing.
As a cyclist with a Garman linking the cycle{way/path}s to the
neighboring roads is essential. I had to spend some time a while back
linking type cycleways to the roads around my town where they crossed
roads in order to get the routing to work on my Garman.
Steve
--
Steve Dobbo Dobson
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle lanes and Cycle Tracks - how to map
Gosh, you are a glutton for punishment. cycleway=track is used extensively in some countries highway=cycleway is use extensively in some countries cycleway=track was only rendered on OCM relatively recently cycleway:left|right=track|lane isn't rendered on OCM the Danes had a big argument about which to use and settled on cycleway=track, despite it not being rendered on OCM cycleway=track gives you more control over the rendering highway=cycleway is easier to route, though unpacking cycleway=track isn't difficult sub-tagging of cycleways is difficult (eg their membership of a route relation) if you use cycleway=track In essence it comes down to the problem that recombining two parallel ways in order to render them neatly is next-to-impossible. Whereas putting the tags on a single way loses some micro-geography. I'd go for cycleway=track, but I'm not prepared to go round deleting highway=cycleway, and thus having lots of stuff disappear in OCM. So until OCM can render cycleway:left|right properly, we're probably stuck with both. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle lanes and Cycle Tracks - how to map
Haha, I only mean well :-) The issue came about from trying to improve the guidance provided on the UK tagging guidelines. Currently I have copied over the guidance that already existed (to the consultation page), however this was very limited and has already had cries that foot=no is not correct. Now I can easily improve this section to draw a distinction about cycleway=lane when the cycle path is _within_ the carriageway (with some images). However there are 2 methods for cycle tracks alongside a road but not within the carriageway. Question to talk-gb is do we in the UK have a preference? If not then we need to discuss this on the wiki page and stress that just map it regardless of non-consensus. Note: One thought on left / right is that mappers have to realise that a road has a direction (as it is drawn as an arrow). From my conversations with new mappers this (and the similar Forward/Backward) is not understood as we tend to think in terms of northbound / southbound / east / west. Cheers, Rob ps For transparency I am currently thinking that the highway=* cycleway=track combination is a good start but we should be aiming to map the cycle track as separate from the highway using a highway=cycleway (or path) way. On , Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Gosh, you are a glutton for punishment. cycleway=track is used extensively in some countries highway=cycleway is use extensively in some countries cycleway=track was only rendered on OCM relatively recently cycleway:left|right=track|lane isn't rendered on OCM the Danes had a big argument about which to use and settled on cycleway=track, despite it not being rendered on OCM cycleway=track gives you more control over the rendering highway=cycleway is easier to route, though unpacking cycleway=track isn't difficult sub-tagging of cycleways is difficult (eg their membership of a route relation) if you use cycleway=track In essence it comes down to the problem that recombining two parallel ways in order to render them neatly is next-to-impossible. Whereas putting the tags on a single way loses some micro-geography. I'd go for cycleway=track, but I'm not prepared to go round deleting highway=cycleway, and thus having lots of stuff disappear in OCM. So until OCM can render cycleway:left|right properly, we're probably stuck with both. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
