Re: [Talk-GB] UK chapter

[Brian Prangle]

Same details as before for tonight's concall: 0800 2290900 code 33224

On 28 April 2016 at 18:11, SK53  wrote:

> I presume it is the same as previous conference calls. See older mails on
> this list.
>
> Jerry
>
> On 28 April 2016 at 17:16, Dennis Bauszus  wrote:
>
>> Have the number and password for the conference call this evening already
>> been passed out?
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] UK chapter

[Gregory]

The details I have (from previous calls) is...

phone: 0800 229 0900
password: 332249

I started a document for collaborative/live minuting, here:
https://hackpad.com/2016-04-28-OSM-UK-Meeting-1G7GMcJ26O7
My WiFi connection hass been a bit funny lately, so hoping I stay able to
take minutes.

Gregory.

On 28 April 2016 at 18:11, SK53  wrote:

> I presume it is the same as previous conference calls. See older mails on
> this list.
>
> Jerry
>
> On 28 April 2016 at 17:16, Dennis Bauszus  wrote:
>
>> Have the number and password for the conference call this evening already
>> been passed out?
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK chapter

[Dennis Bauszus]

Have the number and password for the conference call this evening 
already been passed out?


Dennis


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Defibrillator Mapping

[Gregory]

Is healthcare going to be our Q2 project?
It would be good to get a co-ordination list on a wiki page somewhere.

I've made a request to the North East Ambulance Service. However they're
aware not everyone informs them, so I'll probably contact some other
organisations I know.
They've previously responded to a request about Sunderland.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_access_defibrillators_5#incoming-536749

Gregory.

On 23 April 2016 at 12:37, Dave F  wrote:

> Announced yesterday: Tesco is set to introduce defibrillators in over 900
> of its largest stores
>
> http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=17=1350
>
> Dave F.
>
>
> On 22/04/2016 14:43, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>
>> It was suggested that trying to increase our mapping of public
>> Defibrillators would be a good think. After a bit of digging, it seems
>> that Ambulance Services typically maintain a list of locations, with a
>> view to informing people about them if a 999 call comes in nearby
>> where one might be useful.
>>
>> The different services seem to take quite different views on these
>> lists. My local service (East of England) actively publicise their
>> list (
>> http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/Get-involved/Community-Public-Access-Defibrillators.htm
>> )
>> on the grounds that raising awareness of the locations will make it
>> more likely that someone will know about and find a defibrillator in
>> an emergency. Other services have refused FOI requests on the (IMO
>> spurious) grounds that publicising the list will make thefts /
>> vandalism more likely, and out of date information may lead to people
>> wasting time in an emergency.
>>
>> Anyway, I've taken the East of England list from
>> http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/Get%20involved/CPADs/CPAD%20List.pdf , and
>> done a comparison with the OSM data. A rough and ready tool can be
>> found at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/defib/progress/ for any other
>> locals who want to use it. We've got a small number of locations they
>> haven't, and some of their postcodes may not be quite right. But there
>> are a lot on their list that aren't mapped yet!
>>
>> Regarding tagging, it seems that a lot of the cabinets have a
>> reference number on the outside, so I'd suggest recording that in the
>> ref=* tag. Also, I think a description of the location would be useful
>> (e.g. "Outside wall of McDonalds, facing Store 21") to help people
>> find the defibrillator when they need it. I've been putting something
>> like that in a location=* key.
>>
>> In terms of getting more data, I've put in FOI requests to the East
>> and West Midlands Ambulance Services for starters, so we'll see what
>> line they take...
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>



-- 
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Leicester Haymarket new road layout

[Philip Barnes]

I can pm a local mapper who is normally pretty responsive. 

I rarely get into the city centre these days.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Thu Apr 28 09:51:27 2016 GMT+0100, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Are there any East Midlands mappers in the Leicester area who could update 
> the road & buildings in the vicinity of the new Haymarket Bus Station?
> 
> Google appears to show the new layout 
> (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6383422,-1.1307455,319m/data=!3m1!1e3) and 
> certainly has the building work ongoing on the satellite view, but OSM still 
> shows the old layout 
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10021976#map=18/52.63828/-1.13063).
> 
> If not, then I have asked contacts for maps/layout diagrams to do an armchair 
> job, but would obviously be better with a ground survey.
> 
> Many thanks
> Regards,
> Stuart
> 
> 
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

[Talk-GB] Leicester Haymarket new road layout

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

Are there any East Midlands mappers in the Leicester area who could update the 
road & buildings in the vicinity of the new Haymarket Bus Station?

Google appears to show the new layout 
(https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6383422,-1.1307455,319m/data=!3m1!1e3) and 
certainly has the building work ongoing on the satellite view, but OSM still 
shows the old layout 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10021976#map=18/52.63828/-1.13063).

If not, then I have asked contacts for maps/layout diagrams to do an armchair 
job, but would obviously be better with a ground survey.

Many thanks
Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query help - roads within a ward

[Tom Chance]

Hi Neil,

Thanks, I didn't realise there was such a delay on areas.

Tom

web: http://tomchance.org
twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP

On 28 April 2016 at 08:33, Neil Pilgrim 
wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> My guess would be that since this wad was added very recently, then the
> corresponding 'area', which is updated less frequently (only within
> overpass) does not generate results for you. You can see this if you
> comment out certain parts of your last query:
> - the line showing the relation (A) works fine
> - the line generating points around the edges of the relation (A) works
> fine
> - the line generating points within the area (a) derived from the relation
> (A) shows no difference, ie. it doesn't work!
>
> Perhaps keeping trying, or just try waiting a day or so and try again :)
>
> --
> Neil
>
>
> On 28 April 2016 at 08:08, Tom Chance  wrote:
>
>> Okay, another one with a problem.
>>
>> Using the exact same query for this ward relation:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6173643
>>
>> Returns an empty dataset:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fWi
>>
>> If I run the equivalent query suggesting by Neil, it downloads some of
>> ways that are near to the boundary, but not all, and not the ways within
>> the boundary:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fWj
>>
>> Any suggestions gratefully received!
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> web: http://tomchance.org
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
>> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP
>>
>> On 25 April 2016 at 16:45, Tom Chance  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Neil,
>>>
>>> I think I'll just have to go with that solution and then delete the ways
>>> I don't want.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> web: http://tomchance.org
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
>>> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP
>>>
>>> On 23 April 2016 at 16:42, Neil Pilgrim 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I've had a play with this since I've been working with overpass turbo a
 bit recently; the best I've come up with so far is something like this:
   http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fPR (wy over-commented ;))
 As you'll see, this does include these roads, but does also include
 roads leaving the area.
 If you un-comment the relation, then that shows the boundary too, which
 I found useful for debugging.
 This may be able to be simplified/optimised, but I've gone with what
 works, and I switched to using a timeout/json as I'm used to that :)
 If the ways missing were part of the relation then I think
 way(r.A)[highway][name] should select them too, but that's not how the
 relation is composed.

 Hope that gives some other ideas, if nothing else :)

 --
 Neil


 On 23 April 2016 at 14:20, Tom Chance  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It has been a very long time since I last posted here!
>
> I'm trying to use the Overpass API to extract all the roads within the
> bounds of a relation, in this case a local government ward. Can anyone 
> spot
> the problem in the data?
>
> Here's the example I'm working with:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fPI
>
> The problem is that some roads aren't being downloaded with the query.
>
> If you follow that link and run the query, you'll see that the top
> section of Belvedere Road, and all of Landsdowne Place, are excluded. 
> There
> are a few others like this on the edges of the area.
>
> I thought it might be because the way used by the boundary relation
> runs down the same nodes as those roads. But just at the top of those
> roads, the A-Road Church Road is downloaded despite being represented in
> the data in the same way.
>
> I tried putting a 'kink' in the boundary way down at the other end of
> Landsdowne Place where it meets Fox Hill so it 'encompasses' a node, but
> that didn't help.
>
> I hope this all makes sense, and maybe somebody can help?
>
> Tom
>
> web: http://tomchance.org
> twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP
>
> ___
> 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] Overpass query help - roads within a ward

[Neil Pilgrim]

Hi Tom,

My guess would be that since this wad was added very recently, then the
corresponding 'area', which is updated less frequently (only within
overpass) does not generate results for you. You can see this if you
comment out certain parts of your last query:
- the line showing the relation (A) works fine
- the line generating points around the edges of the relation (A) works fine
- the line generating points within the area (a) derived from the relation
(A) shows no difference, ie. it doesn't work!

Perhaps keeping trying, or just try waiting a day or so and try again :)

--
Neil


On 28 April 2016 at 08:08, Tom Chance  wrote:

> Okay, another one with a problem.
>
> Using the exact same query for this ward relation:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6173643
>
> Returns an empty dataset:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fWi
>
> If I run the equivalent query suggesting by Neil, it downloads some of
> ways that are near to the boundary, but not all, and not the ways within
> the boundary:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fWj
>
> Any suggestions gratefully received!
>
> Tom
>
> web: http://tomchance.org
> twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP
>
> On 25 April 2016 at 16:45, Tom Chance  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Neil,
>>
>> I think I'll just have to go with that solution and then delete the ways
>> I don't want.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> web: http://tomchance.org
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
>> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP
>>
>> On 23 April 2016 at 16:42, Neil Pilgrim 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've had a play with this since I've been working with overpass turbo a
>>> bit recently; the best I've come up with so far is something like this:
>>>   http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fPR (wy over-commented ;))
>>> As you'll see, this does include these roads, but does also include
>>> roads leaving the area.
>>> If you un-comment the relation, then that shows the boundary too, which
>>> I found useful for debugging.
>>> This may be able to be simplified/optimised, but I've gone with what
>>> works, and I switched to using a timeout/json as I'm used to that :)
>>> If the ways missing were part of the relation then I think
>>> way(r.A)[highway][name] should select them too, but that's not how the
>>> relation is composed.
>>>
>>> Hope that gives some other ideas, if nothing else :)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23 April 2016 at 14:20, Tom Chance  wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 It has been a very long time since I last posted here!

 I'm trying to use the Overpass API to extract all the roads within the
 bounds of a relation, in this case a local government ward. Can anyone spot
 the problem in the data?

 Here's the example I'm working with:
 http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fPI

 The problem is that some roads aren't being downloaded with the query.

 If you follow that link and run the query, you'll see that the top
 section of Belvedere Road, and all of Landsdowne Place, are excluded. There
 are a few others like this on the edges of the area.

 I thought it might be because the way used by the boundary relation
 runs down the same nodes as those roads. But just at the top of those
 roads, the A-Road Church Road is downloaded despite being represented in
 the data in the same way.

 I tried putting a 'kink' in the boundary way down at the other end of
 Landsdowne Place where it meets Fox Hill so it 'encompasses' a node, but
 that didn't help.

 I hope this all makes sense, and maybe somebody can help?

 Tom

 web: http://tomchance.org
 twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
 facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP

 ___
 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] Crediting OSM (was Birdtrack using OSM maps)

[Dan S]

The Sacred Heart is a good example - using openlayers, set up so that
the "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors" is clearly visible. Seems to me
you're doing it right -

Dan


2016-04-27 19:44 GMT+01:00 Colin Spiller :
> Interesting wiki entry. Very technical - at least for me. I have several
> webpages with OSM maps inserted via iframe. For example
> http://www.ourladyandstjoseph.org.uk/SacredHeart.htm When I followed the
> link on the wiki to the example , I just got "page not found". Can anyone
> show me a good example please?
>
> Thanks
> Colin
>
>
>
> On 25/04/16 22:16, ael wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 08:39:31PM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>>
>>> I noticed recently that it was using OpenStreetMap data; at my
>>> instigation, it now also prominently credits OSM.
>>
>>
>> I noticed that my local library was using OSM but with no accreditation.
>>
>> When I looked (as I recall, on the wiki) for a link to send them, I had
>> to dig deep and just found this:
>>
>> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/48/can-i-use-these-maps-on-my-website
>>
>> I seem to remember that the request to credit OSM used to be prominent,
>> but that no longer seems to be the case, so I could understand how it
>> might be overlooked.
>>
>> I sent an polite email on 24th Feb asking them to add the credit, but have
>> had no reply.
>>
>> So perhaps the request for credit needs to be more prominent?
>>
>> Meanwhile, perhaps others might also complain? The offending site is
>> https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/witney-library
>> As you can see there, their email address is
>> witney.libr...@oxfordshire.gov.uk .
>>
>> ael
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> --
> Colin Spiller
> co...@thespillers.org.uk
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Overpass query help - roads within a ward

[Tom Chance]

Okay, another one with a problem.

Using the exact same query for this ward relation:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6173643

Returns an empty dataset:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fWi

If I run the equivalent query suggesting by Neil, it downloads some of ways
that are near to the boundary, but not all, and not the ways within the
boundary:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fWj

Any suggestions gratefully received!

Tom

web: http://tomchance.org
twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP

On 25 April 2016 at 16:45, Tom Chance  wrote:

> Thanks Neil,
>
> I think I'll just have to go with that solution and then delete the ways I
> don't want.
>
> Tom
>
> web: http://tomchance.org
> twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP
>
> On 23 April 2016 at 16:42, Neil Pilgrim 
> wrote:
>
>> I've had a play with this since I've been working with overpass turbo a
>> bit recently; the best I've come up with so far is something like this:
>>   http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fPR (wy over-commented ;))
>> As you'll see, this does include these roads, but does also include roads
>> leaving the area.
>> If you un-comment the relation, then that shows the boundary too, which I
>> found useful for debugging.
>> This may be able to be simplified/optimised, but I've gone with what
>> works, and I switched to using a timeout/json as I'm used to that :)
>> If the ways missing were part of the relation then I think
>> way(r.A)[highway][name] should select them too, but that's not how the
>> relation is composed.
>>
>> Hope that gives some other ideas, if nothing else :)
>>
>> --
>> Neil
>>
>>
>> On 23 April 2016 at 14:20, Tom Chance  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> It has been a very long time since I last posted here!
>>>
>>> I'm trying to use the Overpass API to extract all the roads within the
>>> bounds of a relation, in this case a local government ward. Can anyone spot
>>> the problem in the data?
>>>
>>> Here's the example I'm working with:
>>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fPI
>>>
>>> The problem is that some roads aren't being downloaded with the query.
>>>
>>> If you follow that link and run the query, you'll see that the top
>>> section of Belvedere Road, and all of Landsdowne Place, are excluded. There
>>> are a few others like this on the edges of the area.
>>>
>>> I thought it might be because the way used by the boundary relation runs
>>> down the same nodes as those roads. But just at the top of those roads, the
>>> A-Road Church Road is downloaded despite being represented in the data in
>>> the same way.
>>>
>>> I tried putting a 'kink' in the boundary way down at the other end of
>>> Landsdowne Place where it meets Fox Hill so it 'encompasses' a node, but
>>> that didn't help.
>>>
>>> I hope this all makes sense, and maybe somebody can help?
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> web: http://tomchance.org
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
>>> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] UK chapter

[Brian Prangle]

Before we started on this there was a survey which 100 people replied to,
with a majority indicating they were in favour of  a local chapter, which
does indicate some need.

I do go out mapping regularly too and improve the quality/quantity of the
data - as do most of the people currently working to create a local
chapter. It's not an either/or binary choice - it is possible to do both.
As I said if you don't agree then just ignore us and carry on mapping

Regards

brian

On 27 April 2016 at 23:23, Dave F  wrote:

> On 27/04/2016 16:11, Brian Prangle wrote:
>
>> Dave I couldn't agree more, but for a formal organisation then I'm afraid
>> the bureaucratic activities are a necessary evil. I'm sure all of those
>> engaged in this process are like me and would rather be out mapping.
>>
>
> Then why don't you? From the previous threads I've read it appears it's
> being established because it can rather than any actual need.
>
> And there'll always be mappers who don't want to join any formal
>> organisation, just map. Those of you like this can safey ignore us.
>> Hopefully you'll still benefit from the organisation's activities prmoting
>> OSM in the UK
>>
>
> And likewise you'll be able to benefit from the mappers who will improve
> the quality of the database, which, I /really/ believe needs to be
> iterated, is the *core* purpose of OSM.
>
> I have a inkling I will be repeating that in future posts as I feel some
> are loosing sight of what OSM is about.
>
>
> Dave F.
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> 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