[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Jan social - Birmingham
Hi All, Happy new year! Just a quick reminder that it is the monthly meetup tomorrow (Thursday): The *next social* of the Midlands OSM User Group will be on *Thursday, 3rd January, 2013, 8pm to 10pm-ish*. - *Venue*: The Bull, Price Street, Birminghamhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lon=-1.895265lat=52.48647zoom=16mlon=-1.895265mlat=52.48647 See you all there :-) Rob ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Jan social - Birmingham
see you there rob :p 2013/1/2 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com Hi All, Happy new year! Just a quick reminder that it is the monthly meetup tomorrow (Thursday): The *next social* of the Midlands OSM User Group will be on *Thursday, 3rd January, 2013, 8pm to 10pm-ish*. - *Venue*: The Bull, Price Street, Birminghamhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lon=-1.895265lat=52.48647zoom=16mlon=-1.895265mlat=52.48647 See you all there :-) Rob ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands -- *Florian Lainez* http://twitter.com/overflorian http://www.nouslesgeeks.fr ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Jan social - Birmingham
See you all there - I'll bring along a printed copy of the SOTM 2013 bid so we can finalise it Regards Brian On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.comwrote: Hi All, Happy new year! Just a quick reminder that it is the monthly meetup tomorrow (Thursday): The *next social* of the Midlands OSM User Group will be on *Thursday, 3rd January, 2013, 8pm to 10pm-ish*. - *Venue*: The Bull, Price Street, Birminghamhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lon=-1.895265lat=52.48647zoom=16mlon=-1.895265mlat=52.48647 See you all there :-) Rob ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have been the better option. Do you remember what figures were you looking at? The taginfo data I'm looking at today at http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=prow_ref is dated as 2013-01-02 00:58 UTC and shows 670 uses of prow_ref, versus only 361 of prow:ref. Have things changed that much in a couple of days? Robert. PS: I've just converted a number of ref=* to prow_ref=* on Rights of Way that I originally tagged with ref=*. But these changes were only made today and so are not included in the above taginfo numbers. (I figured that even if prow_ref isn't going to be the final name for the key, this change will make is simpler to change to the final value at a later date.) -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
-Original Message- From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) [mailto:robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 January 2013 11:23 To: talk-gb Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref= On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have been the better option. Do you remember what figures were you looking at? The taginfo data I'm looking at today at http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=prow_ref is dated as 2013-01-02 00:58 UTC and shows 670 uses of prow_ref, versus only 361 of prow:ref. Have things changed that much in a couple of days? Sorry that's probably mainly down to me, but I never got round to emailing this list. After reading the email the other day pointing out that prow_ref is more in keeping with things like old_ref and int_ref and that prow:ref implied a prow namespace I was inclined to agree. As somebody that's put in quite a few prow:ref tags I went and changed them to prow_ref, but got interrupted before I could send a quick email to the list. Gregory ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Steve, Putting another perspective on this, one of my other hobbies is Scouting, where I try to teach young people about maps navigation. In this country there is a tendency to assume that any navigation must involve OS maps, I try to widen their knowledge get them to question the accuracy of anything they are using for navigation. I've put in quite a few boundaries barriers, to OSM, and I produce paper maps for my Scouts to navigate by, before I introduce them to compasses, GPS's anything else that aids navigation. As a mapper, I do find that it is getting more more difficult to alter or add to data because we've added so much detail. I would like someone (sorry, don't have any skills in the software department) to produce something that aids in editing densely compacted data - certainly I've made my share of mistakes in the past then spent twice as long trying to correct them. I don't know about anyone else, but every so often I need a break from walking residential streets collating address details, and a walk in the countryside works for me. Regards Nick (Tallguy) On 02/01/13 15:50, Steven Horner wrote: I guess it depends on your uses for OSM, I come from a walking backgroundwith GIS use in my day job, I have completed Mountain Leader Training and I am interested in the possibilities of replacing Explorer maps (one day) with OSM. For this to happen boundaries would be useful although not essential and their would be lot of other hurdles like Grids but that's a different topic. I set this discussion away and expected different view points for and against. My take on all this is if you are happy to go out and map them, then do so. If someone else isn't interested in doing that then that's no problem and if a user doesn't want that information shown on map it could be removed from their rendering in the same way I wish it was available at lower zoom levels. OSM is different things to different people and that is part of the beauty of it, in my mind the more detail the better the ability to view it our own ways is available although I wish their was a way to turn some things on and off more easily from Openstreetmap.org without rendering my own version. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 31/12/2012 21:17, Steven Horner wrote: Personally I would love to see fields (landuse) and the walls/fences that make this up marked on OSM ... I'm afraid I'm going to be a bit of a party pooper. Whilst having all the boundary data in OSM would be nice, I'd hardly call it essential. I do a lot of rural walking always record map any barriers that are relevant to the path I'm on, but, personally, I consider mapping all hedges etc. a waste of time. Why bother if no one is ever going to use that information by walking there? I consider farmland as the base layer therefore rarely map it as fields. Cheers Dave F. -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner ___ 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] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Personally, it is good to see others adding field boundaries. I thought it might be useful to describe my current practice with regard to mapping field boundaries. In making the following comments, I would say that I am interested in landscape maintenance and presevation and not just navigation. We have had to fight several planning applications in our valley and have won theses based on the quality of the landscape. Having good maps of this is important. OSM could be useful tool in this context. I started mapping field boundaries as a Newbie (I'm not sure when you stop being one) about 10 months back. At the time I made some enquires on the Newbie mailing list about how to handle field boundaries and roads. From this I concluded that you shouldn't join field boundaries to roads. I also started mapping the field boundaries along roads. The suggestion seemed to be that this should be done for completeness. Drawing field boundaries along roads is diffcult to do neatly and looks messy at high OSM zoom. However when you scale back, the road rendering masks this. It is probably worth going to more trouble where main roads are concerned and their line is unlikely to be adjusted. In JOSM you can create a parallel way from the road which can help. I don't join field boundaries to rivers. This is a bit problematic as where I live rivers can have quite dense tree coverage and are part of the landscape character. I have yet to decide how this should be mapped. The same issue relates to the railway embankments which have trees lining them although there is fencing. Hepful suggestions would be welcome! When it comes to dry stone walls that have collapsed in places and been patched up with fencing, old gate or anything else the land owner has to hand I just mark the whole boundary as a dry stone wall. I live in hope they will be reparied! If there are clear, sizeable, lengths where the stones have been removed. i.e. there is no chance it will ever be repaired I would try and mark out the fence but it would only be an estimate. Perhaps rather more contraversaly if the wall has collapsed in its total length, and a wire fence has been put up but all the stones remain in place I still am inclined to mark it as a wall. I am thinking more in the context of the field boundary. i.e. If the stones weren't there the fence probably wouldn't be. If the wall is heavily overgrown and looking like a hedge I would still tag it as a wall. When it comes to hedges that have been patched up with small sections of fencing or have a fence parallel to them as they are no longer stock proof I would again just mark this as a complete hedge. Hedges that have not been cut for the last 10 years+ (we have a road locally where one side is cut every year and is about 2 meters hight and the other side must be more than 10 meters) I still tag as hedges. Again, if there were obvious and large sections of just fence or stone wall come to that I would tag these but they would only be an estimate. If the hedge has become a line of trees (i.e. no longer used as a stock boundary) then I use natural=tree_row. It seems the most suitable tag available but doesn't render on the OSM map. Where paths pass through gaps in boundaries I tend (if the gap is small) to map this as a complete boundary with an entrance node where the path passes through the boundary. I do tag the source as survey;bing if I have seen it or just bing if it from the imagery only. If I have walked along it or have waymarked the end I would probably add gps. If your using JOSM it is well worth hacking your own preset to do the above. You can also add a source drop down list to make adding this easy to do. When it comes to drawing the ways that make up a field I'm afraid I am not consistant in how I do this. i.e. I don't draw each side of a field as a seperate way and the ways may make up more than one field. This I'm sure isn't compatable with tagging individual field landuse at a later date. Sorry. I would add on this subject that there is an area where someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to map out all the individual fields as seperate fields with a landuse=field tag. I don't currrently know how to tag these with a boundary tag as it would seem I would end up with a wall on top of a wall for each field if I just added barrier=wall to each area. Any suggestions on how to do this would be appreciated. Apologies for going on a bit but I though the above comments might be helpful. Regards Dudley ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
