Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Warin]

On 11-Feb-17 07:42 AM, Brian Prangle wrote:
I've removed the offending tags from areas I know well,having walked 
them off and on for 30 years,i.e Snowdon massif, Glyders and Berwyns. 
I've left the poylgons suitably commented.


Regards

Brian

On 9 February 2017 at 10:10, SK53 > wrote:


Despite the problems of these edits (incorrect tagging, bad
polygons) more than anything they reflect that OSM as a project
lacks good tags for many of these boreo-temperate upland features,
and whilst that is true there will be always be someone abusing
existing tags. I think most mappers remember the initial thrill of
seeing changes come through on the main map style: for some people
it's probably still a primary motivator.

I therefore think Brian's suggestions of working collectively to
map these areas better together with a more in-depth consideration
of the relevant tagging is the way to go: and
landuse=unimproved_grassland at the very least has the advantage
of being correct.



Correct? Possibly in the present conceptual mess of OSM 'landuse' 
(amongst others).
To me, "landuse' should be the human use to which the land is put. And 
'unimproved_grassland' is not a use to me, 'wilderness' might be 
substitute for 'unused' or 'unusable'?


I think that the tag 'landcover' is far better to use for tagging the 
plants that cover the land.




I have compared several location in Wales with my own photographs
and the former CCW Phase 1 Habitat shape file, and acidic or
neutral unimproved grassland is the classification of the majority
of these locations. (I'm not sure of the status of this latter
data: my copy is for private use only, but if it was released as
Open Data it would be very useful. One word of caution the data
was compiled over a long period and in some places will be
out-of-date.)

I'm always reluctant to delete stuff from OSM, unless it can be
replaced by something better. Grassland tagging is a mess in OSM:
let's use this as an opportunity to improve it for OSM in the UK.

One last thing: I'm not very keen on calling people out on a
public mailing list. The nature of OSM is that one knows nothing
of many mappers (Frederik talked about this at SotM-14): there is
always a risk of doing more than hurting their feelings.



In soccer (football to some) the saying is "Play the ball, not the man."



Regards,

Jerry



On 8 February 2017 at 21:46, Brian Prangle > wrote:

I came across glucosamine during the farmyards quarterly
projectwhere she/he'd tagged place=farm to every group of
isolated buildings all over Herefordshire. I think he/she
means well just misinterprets tagging conventions and then
rolls on regardless.

Might we tackle this task under the general heading either of
"landuse fixes" or "uplands" as our next quarterly project?
That gives us some time to discuss approaches, conventions ,
progress tools etc so that we can hit the ground running so to
speak on day 1

Regards

Brian

On 8 February 2017 at 21:35, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:

Marco Boeringa wrote:
> There may be more... All of these "users" are prolific,
leave almost
> no changeset comments, and seem to be editing all day.
It seems
> to me these are editors working professionally for some OSM
> related company.

Thanks for the detective work and for persisting with this.

I think it's very unlikely, however, that these users are
editing OSM for a
company. Probably the majority of edits in the UK are done
by what you might
call "lone mappers". Generally this works well and people
plough their own
furrows successfully, happily modifying their practice if
particular issues
are pointed out to them. But occasionally we have people
who (perhaps
because of limited social skills) find it difficult to
follow established
practice and co-operate with other contributors. There
have been several
examples in the past and I'm sure many regulars here will
be aware of a few
of them.

That's what I think we have here. I have no knowledge as
to whether
Glucosamine, Dyserth and Sam888 are the same person or not
- it wouldn't
surprise me either way. But they/he very much fit the
"uncommunicative lone
mapper" model.

cheers
Richard





--
View this message 

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Brian Prangle]

I've removed the offending tags from areas I know well,having walked them
off and on for 30 years,i.e Snowdon massif, Glyders and Berwyns. I've left
the poylgons suitably commented.

Regards

Brian

On 9 February 2017 at 10:10, SK53  wrote:

> Despite the problems of these edits (incorrect tagging, bad polygons) more
> than anything they reflect that OSM as a project lacks good tags for many
> of these boreo-temperate upland features, and whilst that is true there
> will be always be someone abusing existing tags. I think most mappers
> remember the initial thrill of seeing changes come through on the main map
> style: for some people it's probably still a primary motivator.
>
> I therefore think Brian's suggestions of working collectively to map these
> areas better together with a more in-depth consideration of the relevant
> tagging is the way to go: and landuse=unimproved_grassland at the very
> least has the advantage of being correct. I have compared several location
> in Wales with my own photographs and the former CCW Phase 1 Habitat shape
> file, and acidic or neutral unimproved grassland is the classification of
> the majority of these locations. (I'm not sure of the status of this latter
> data: my copy is for private use only, but if it was released as Open Data
> it would be very useful. One word of caution the data was compiled over a
> long period and in some places will be out-of-date.)
>
> I'm always reluctant to delete stuff from OSM, unless it can be replaced
> by something better. Grassland tagging is a mess in OSM: let's use this as
> an opportunity to improve it for OSM in the UK.
>
> One last thing: I'm not very keen on calling people out on a public
> mailing list. The nature of OSM is that one knows nothing of many mappers
> (Frederik talked about this at SotM-14): there is always a risk of doing
> more than hurting their feelings.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> On 8 February 2017 at 21:46, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>
>> I came across glucosamine during the farmyards quarterly projectwhere
>> she/he'd tagged place=farm to every group of isolated buildings all over
>> Herefordshire. I think he/she means well just misinterprets tagging
>> conventions and then rolls on regardless.
>>
>> Might we tackle this task under the general heading either of "landuse
>> fixes" or "uplands" as our next quarterly project? That gives us some time
>> to discuss approaches, conventions , progress tools etc so that we can hit
>> the ground running so to speak on day 1
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 8 February 2017 at 21:35, Richard Fairhurst 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Marco Boeringa wrote:
>>> > There may be more... All of these "users" are prolific, leave almost
>>> > no changeset comments, and seem to be editing all day. It seems
>>> > to me these are editors working professionally for some OSM
>>> > related company.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the detective work and for persisting with this.
>>>
>>> I think it's very unlikely, however, that these users are editing OSM
>>> for a
>>> company. Probably the majority of edits in the UK are done by what you
>>> might
>>> call "lone mappers". Generally this works well and people plough their
>>> own
>>> furrows successfully, happily modifying their practice if particular
>>> issues
>>> are pointed out to them. But occasionally we have people who (perhaps
>>> because of limited social skills) find it difficult to follow established
>>> practice and co-operate with other contributors. There have been several
>>> examples in the past and I'm sure many regulars here will be aware of a
>>> few
>>> of them.
>>>
>>> That's what I think we have here. I have no knowledge as to whether
>>> Glucosamine, Dyserth and Sam888 are the same person or not - it wouldn't
>>> surprise me either way. But they/he very much fit the "uncommunicative
>>> lone
>>> mapper" model.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com
>>> /Large-swaths-of-heath-in-Wales-tp5890778p5890908.html
>>> Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Colin Smale]

On 2017-02-10 18:42, Richard Mann wrote:

> I'd stick to tags on the relations, and not super relations. Relations are 
> not categories. Relations are for things that are in spatial *relationship* 
> to one another, not just a collection.

In this case there is a relationship. If I am misunderstanding
something, perhaps you could illustrate your point with some examples? 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Richard Mann]

I'd stick to tags on the relations, and not super relations. Relations are
not categories. Relations are for things that are in spatial *relationship*
to one another, not just a collection.

Richard

On 10 Feb 2017 13:37, "SK53"  wrote:

> I'm really not sure that we should be trying to map these at all. If we do
> I think Colin's approach is best: a super-relation of other admin entities.
> Not easy to create in the online editors but easy enough in JOSM.
>
> There is very little on the ground to allow verification, and I suspect
> many will be rather ephemeral entities.
>
> There are numerous other boundaries which might be of more interest, but
> still perhaps not suitable for OSM : school and GP catchment areas; police
> authority areas and community policing areas; NHS commissioning areas; etc,
> etc.
>
> As ever the question is where do we stop. I think a useful questions to
> ask are: "Are these boundaries principally used internally to an
> organisation with little or no use outside it?"; "Do the boundaries impinge
> on people external to the originating organisation such that reference to
> these boundaries is likely to be made regularly?"; "Can people tell you
> where roughly where these boundaries lie?.
>
> I can at a pinch tell you the catchment area of my GP surgery because they
> have a big map on the surgery wall, and once upon a time knowledge of NHS
> DHA boundaries was something I need to know professionally, but for the
> most part I dont know anything about the others.
>
> Jerry
>
> On 10 February 2017 at 12:01, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> On 2017-02-10 12:36, Brian Prangle wrote:
>>
>> H - that's one way I hadn't thought of. I was thinking of just adding
>> a tag to each boundary relation to indicate membership status along the
>> lines of west_midlands_combined_authority= constituent_member or
>> non-constituent_member as appropriate. It should work just as well and
>> won't fry my brain in trying to build a relation of that complexity
>>
>> The relations shouldn't be complex, certainly not brain-fryingly so..
>> Also a single relation for the WMCA would comply with the principle of "one
>> object in real life is one object in OSM" and give a unique starting point
>> for users to find the extent and the membership of the authority. Is
>> "non-constituent membership" limited to LA's in the vicinity of the West
>> Midlands? Anything to stop e.g. Cornwall Council from joining, if they so
>> desired?
>>
>>
>>
>> Counties might not be officially required but trying filling in an online
>> address form and see where it gets you if you omit county!
>>
>> Not really our problem! What county would you enter for Uxbridge?
>> Middlesex? Or Greater London?
>>
>>
>> And what admin status should we give to Local Economic Partnerships?  My
>> inclination is not to bother mapping them as boundaries but to add tags as
>> above along the lines of LEP= name
>>
>>
>> LA's can belong to multiple LEPs so this might get messy. Again I would
>> apply the principle of "one object..." and create a relation for the LEP,
>> and make the LAs members. This allows the LEPs to overlap without any
>> ambiguity and "not a semicolon in sight"...
>>
>> //colin
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] weeklyOSM #342 31/01/2017-06/02/2017

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 342,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/8725/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM?
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[SK53]

I'm really not sure that we should be trying to map these at all. If we do
I think Colin's approach is best: a super-relation of other admin entities.
Not easy to create in the online editors but easy enough in JOSM.

There is very little on the ground to allow verification, and I suspect
many will be rather ephemeral entities.

There are numerous other boundaries which might be of more interest, but
still perhaps not suitable for OSM : school and GP catchment areas; police
authority areas and community policing areas; NHS commissioning areas; etc,
etc.

As ever the question is where do we stop. I think a useful questions to ask
are: "Are these boundaries principally used internally to an organisation
with little or no use outside it?"; "Do the boundaries impinge on people
external to the originating organisation such that reference to these
boundaries is likely to be made regularly?"; "Can people tell you where
roughly where these boundaries lie?.

I can at a pinch tell you the catchment area of my GP surgery because they
have a big map on the surgery wall, and once upon a time knowledge of NHS
DHA boundaries was something I need to know professionally, but for the
most part I dont know anything about the others.

Jerry

On 10 February 2017 at 12:01, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> On 2017-02-10 12:36, Brian Prangle wrote:
>
> H - that's one way I hadn't thought of. I was thinking of just adding
> a tag to each boundary relation to indicate membership status along the
> lines of west_midlands_combined_authority= constituent_member or
> non-constituent_member as appropriate. It should work just as well and
> won't fry my brain in trying to build a relation of that complexity
>
> The relations shouldn't be complex, certainly not brain-fryingly so.. Also
> a single relation for the WMCA would comply with the principle of "one
> object in real life is one object in OSM" and give a unique starting point
> for users to find the extent and the membership of the authority. Is
> "non-constituent membership" limited to LA's in the vicinity of the West
> Midlands? Anything to stop e.g. Cornwall Council from joining, if they so
> desired?
>
>
>
> Counties might not be officially required but trying filling in an online
> address form and see where it gets you if you omit county!
>
> Not really our problem! What county would you enter for Uxbridge?
> Middlesex? Or Greater London?
>
>
> And what admin status should we give to Local Economic Partnerships?  My
> inclination is not to bother mapping them as boundaries but to add tags as
> above along the lines of LEP= name
>
>
> LA's can belong to multiple LEPs so this might get messy. Again I would
> apply the principle of "one object..." and create a relation for the LEP,
> and make the LAs members. This allows the LEPs to overlap without any
> ambiguity and "not a semicolon in sight"...
>
> //colin
>
>
> ___
> 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] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Colin Smale]

Hi Brian, 

On 2017-02-10 12:36, Brian Prangle wrote:

> H - that's one way I hadn't thought of. I was thinking of just adding a 
> tag to each boundary relation to indicate membership status along the lines 
> of west_midlands_combined_authority= constituent_member or 
> non-constituent_member as appropriate. It should work just as well and won't 
> fry my brain in trying to build a relation of that complexity

The relations shouldn't be complex, certainly not brain-fryingly so..
Also a single relation for the WMCA would comply with the principle of
"one object in real life is one object in OSM" and give a unique
starting point for users to find the extent and the membership of the
authority. Is "non-constituent membership" limited to LA's in the
vicinity of the West Midlands? Anything to stop e.g. Cornwall Council
from joining, if they so desired? 

> Counties might not be officially required but trying filling in an online 
> address form and see where it gets you if you omit county!

Not really our problem! What county would you enter for Uxbridge?
Middlesex? Or Greater London? 

> And what admin status should we give to Local Economic Partnerships?  My 
> inclination is not to bother mapping them as boundaries but to add tags as 
> above along the lines of LEP= name

LA's can belong to multiple LEPs so this might get messy. Again I would
apply the principle of "one object..." and create a relation for the
LEP, and make the LAs members. This allows the LEPs to overlap without
any ambiguity and "not a semicolon in sight"... 

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

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Fwd: Consultation for Open Transport Net (OTN)

[Brian Prangle]

Hi everyone

If you want to particpate in this exercise please reply to Shabana
directly. It arises from the work we've doing with Birmingham City Council
on traffic sensors, so it would be good if more than me participates as it
helps to build the relationship with the City Council

Regards

Brian
-- Forwarded message --
From: Shabana Everton 
Date: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:29 PM
Subject: RE: Consultation for Open Transport Net (OTN)
To: Brian Prangle 


Hello Brian



The link to the android app is:

*https://play.google.com/store/apps/detailsid=eu.opentransportnet.cityreport
*



I have attached the questions that I would like to ask the volunteers.  As
the volunteers are technical people it would be good to see how they feel
the app could be developed. I would also like to get the consultation
completed by the end of February.



I look forward to hearing from you.



Shabana





Shabana Everton LL.B (Hons) PGDip

Senior Transportation Officer – Transportation Programmes

Growth and Transportation (Economy Directorate)

Birmingham City Council

1 Lancaster Circus Queensway, PO Box 14439

Birmingham, B4 7DQ (Sat Nav B4 7DJ)

0121 303 1875

07860906977



Office Days: Tuesday and Wednesday

Work from home: Thursday



shabana.ever...@birmingham.gov.uk

www.birmingham.gov.uk



Birmingham Connected is our vision for the future of transport in
Birmingham, working towards a safer, healthier, greener city with a
reliable integrated transport system which supports our growing population
and economy. To find out more about the vision and get the latest
information on transport projects and works affecting Birmingham please
visit www.birmingham.gov.uk/connected


1.2.17.doc
Description: MS-Word document
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

Re: [Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Brian Prangle]

H - that's one way I hadn't thought of. I was thinking of just adding a
tag to each boundary relation to indicate membership status along the lines
of west_midlands_combined_authority= constituent_member or
non-constituent_member as appropriate. It should work just as well and
won't fry my brain in trying to build a relation of that complexity

Counties might not be officially required but trying filling in an online
address form and see where it gets you if you omit county!

And what admin status should we give to Local Economic Partnerships?  My
inclination is not to bother mapping them as boundaries but to add tags as
above along the lines of LEP= name

On 10 February 2017 at 09:45, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Brian, isn't the geographical jurisdiction of the WMCA just the sum of the
> areas of the (non-) constituent members? How about using a relation
> containing the member authorities, with different roles to indicate
> constituent and non-constituent status? This model will allow for
> non-consituent members to be in multiple Combined Authorities.
>
> Counties are never required in postal addresses these days - and where
> they were used, Royal Mail had its own idea of "counties"...
>
> //colin
>
>
>
> On 2017-02-10 10:23, Brian Prangle wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> I've just added a relation for the boundary of the new West Midlands
> Cominbined Authority 
> (which is the same as the old ceremonial West Midlands County, which I've
> left intact as it's still used I believe where postal addresses still
> insist on a county and I can't think that the postal address for one minute
> is going to change to West Midlands Combined Authority). My question is how
> do I cope with non-constituent authorties?
>
> Non-constituent members can sign up to more than one combined authority
> and have less voting rights than constituent members. The non-constituent
> authorities for the West Midlands Combined Authority are:
>
>- Cannock Chase District Council 
>- Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council
>
>- Redditch Borough Council 
>- Tamworth Borough Council
>
> 
>- Telford and Wrekin Council
>
> 
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> On 10 February 2017 at 08:33, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> The trouble with the UK is that places don't have clear boundaries...
>>
>> 1) on the administrative side there are Civil Parishes, but large parts
>> of the country are "unparished" and some parishes contain multiple
>> "settlements"
>>
>> 2) Royal Mail have completely different ideas, which are for their own
>> convenience and frequently conflict with the admin boundaries
>>
>> 3) (my suspicion) people identify with their location using other
>> criteria - spontaneous answers to "what place do you live in" will show a
>> great variation "around the edges" of a place
>>
>> Not sure if the National Gazetteer (which focuses on addresses) tries to
>> define boundaries to named places...
>>
>>
>> All in all, if we have boundaries for places, they are going to have to
>> allow for fuzzy edges and overlaps.
>>
>> I suppose it all starts with "what do you mean by place"?
>>
>> //colin
>>
>> On 2017-02-10 00:48, Adam Snape wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Phil,
>>
>> Our local place mapping must be quite primitive, because few place
>> boundaries are mapped. Do you mean that both the boundary and node should
>> carry the place=tag? Where there isn't a clear boundary to the place,
>> should the mapper estimate it? Glad to hear I've been putting the nodes in
>> the right place anyway :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> 
>>
>> Normally places are mapped with both a boundary and node.
>>
>> A node is certainly needed for navigation and should be somewhere
>> sensible, normally the centre is where someone who puts the placename into
>> a satnav would expect to end up, rather than a housing estate in the
>> geographical centre.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>> ___
>> 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] Church Towers and Steeples

[Stuart Reynolds]

I didn’t like the “man-made” part of the tower tag, TBH, nor what I took to be 
the implication that it was a stand-alone element, which it generally isn’t.

The tower tag on its own does have a number of useful attributes, though, which 
could be extended.

So if we ignore the man-made tag, we could have

church:tower= yes | no
church:steeple= yes | no (which could assume the steeple on top of the tower, 
if both present)

followed by the tower:tag=value sets as appropriate.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 10 Feb 2017, at 10:53, Dan S 
> wrote:

Hi Stuart,

Ah, the Ordance Survey view of the world: you're either a tower or a steeple ;)

Towers and steeples are just one of many building parts, which can be
mapped the same way as other 3D aspects of buildings:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
Heights are readily added using the generic height tags that are used
for so many things.

But then also, this page tells me that "tower:type=bell_tower" is
"Widely used for steeples and bell towers":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dtower
Flagpole is easy
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dflagpole
The only thing I don't have a ready answer for is "number of steps",
and "bells" as distinct from their enclosures.

So I'm left suspecting that maybe you're aware of these things but
there's an itch they don't scratch...?

Best
Dan


2017-02-10 10:27 GMT+00:00 Stuart Reynolds 
>:
Hi All,

On OS maps there is a distinction between churches with towers, churches
with steeples, and “other” places of worship. These are all readily
surveyable (so that we are not taking data from OS). But as far as I can
determine, there is no tagging scheme that would allow towers or steeples to
be added, nor to have (for example) the height of tower, numbers of steps,
flagpoles, bells, etc added (which could be useful).

Am I right, or have I missed something? If right, do we need to agree a
tagging scheme that would allow us to enter that info?

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




___
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] Church architecture tagging

[Andy Robinson]

" Ah, the Ordance Survey view of the world: you're either a tower or a steeple 
;)"

Many have both!

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Dan S [mailto:danstowell+...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 10 February 2017 10:54
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Church architecture tagging

Hi Stuart,

Ah, the Ordance Survey view of the world: you're either a tower or a steeple ;)

Towers and steeples are just one of many building parts, which can be mapped 
the same way as other 3D aspects of buildings:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
Heights are readily added using the generic height tags that are used for so 
many things.

But then also, this page tells me that "tower:type=bell_tower" is "Widely used 
for steeples and bell towers":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dtower
Flagpole is easy
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dflagpole
The only thing I don't have a ready answer for is "number of steps", and 
"bells" as distinct from their enclosures.

So I'm left suspecting that maybe you're aware of these things but there's an 
itch they don't scratch...?

Best
Dan


2017-02-10 10:27 GMT+00:00 Stuart Reynolds :
> Hi All,
>
> On OS maps there is a distinction between churches with towers, 
> churches with steeples, and “other” places of worship. These are all 
> readily surveyable (so that we are not taking data from OS). But as 
> far as I can determine, there is no tagging scheme that would allow 
> towers or steeples to be added, nor to have (for example) the height 
> of tower, numbers of steps, flagpoles, bells, etc added (which could be 
> useful).
>
> Am I right, or have I missed something? If right, do we need to agree 
> a tagging scheme that would allow us to enter that info?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Regards,
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Church architecture tagging

[Dan S]

Hi Stuart,

Ah, the Ordance Survey view of the world: you're either a tower or a steeple ;)

Towers and steeples are just one of many building parts, which can be
mapped the same way as other 3D aspects of buildings:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
Heights are readily added using the generic height tags that are used
for so many things.

But then also, this page tells me that "tower:type=bell_tower" is
"Widely used for steeples and bell towers":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dtower
Flagpole is easy
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dflagpole
The only thing I don't have a ready answer for is "number of steps",
and "bells" as distinct from their enclosures.

So I'm left suspecting that maybe you're aware of these things but
there's an itch they don't scratch...?

Best
Dan


2017-02-10 10:27 GMT+00:00 Stuart Reynolds :
> Hi All,
>
> On OS maps there is a distinction between churches with towers, churches
> with steeples, and “other” places of worship. These are all readily
> surveyable (so that we are not taking data from OS). But as far as I can
> determine, there is no tagging scheme that would allow towers or steeples to
> be added, nor to have (for example) the height of tower, numbers of steps,
> flagpoles, bells, etc added (which could be useful).
>
> Am I right, or have I missed something? If right, do we need to agree a
> tagging scheme that would allow us to enter that info?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Regards,
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Church architecture tagging

[SK53]

All I can say that this has been on my cartographic wish list for ages, but
I have no specific ideas of how to do it. The simplest would be something
like church:tower=yes etc.

Churches are also good candidates for simple 3D buildings.

Lastly tagging architectural styles on churches would be nice: romanesque,
decorated, perpendicular, modern(e), arts & crafts, gothic revival etc.

Jerry

On 10 February 2017 at 10:27, Stuart Reynolds <
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> On OS maps there is a distinction between churches with towers, churches
> with steeples, and “other” places of worship. These are all readily
> surveyable (so that we are not taking data from OS). But as far as I can
> determine, there is no tagging scheme that would allow towers or steeples
> to be added, nor to have (for example) the height of tower, numbers of
> steps, flagpoles, bells, etc added (which could be useful).
>
> Am I right, or have I missed something? If right, do we need to agree a
> tagging scheme that would allow us to enter that info?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Regards,
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Church architecture tagging

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

On OS maps there is a distinction between churches with towers, churches with 
steeples, and “other” places of worship. These are all readily surveyable (so 
that we are not taking data from OS). But as far as I can determine, there is 
no tagging scheme that would allow towers or steeples to be added, nor to have 
(for example) the height of tower, numbers of steps, flagpoles, bells, etc 
added (which could be useful).

Am I right, or have I missed something? If right, do we need to agree a tagging 
scheme that would allow us to enter that info?

Many thanks

Regards,
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] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Colin Smale]

Brian, isn't the geographical jurisdiction of the WMCA just the sum of
the areas of the (non-) constituent members? How about using a relation
containing the member authorities, with different roles to indicate
constituent and non-constituent status? This model will allow for
non-consituent members to be in multiple Combined Authorities. 

Counties are never required in postal addresses these days - and where
they were used, Royal Mail had its own idea of "counties"... 

//colin

On 2017-02-10 10:23, Brian Prangle wrote:

> Hi everyone
> 
> I've just added a relation for the boundary of the new West Midlands 
> Cominbined Authority [1] (which is the same as the old ceremonial West 
> Midlands County, which I've left intact as it's still used I believe where 
> postal addresses still insist on a county and I can't think that the postal 
> address for one minute is going to change to West Midlands Combined 
> Authority). My question is how do I cope with non-constituent authorties? 
> Non-constituent members can sign up to more than one combined authority and 
> have less voting rights than constituent members. The non-constituent 
> authorities for the West Midlands Combined Authority are: 
> 
> * Cannock Chase District Council [2]
> * Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council [3]
> * Redditch Borough Council [4]
> * Tamworth Borough Council [5]
> * Telford and Wrekin Council [6]
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Brian 
> 
> On 10 February 2017 at 08:33, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> Hi Adam, 
> 
> The trouble with the UK is that places don't have clear boundaries... 
> 
> 1) on the administrative side there are Civil Parishes, but large parts of 
> the country are "unparished" and some parishes contain multiple "settlements" 
> 
> 2) Royal Mail have completely different ideas, which are for their own 
> convenience and frequently conflict with the admin boundaries 
> 
> 3) (my suspicion) people identify with their location using other criteria - 
> spontaneous answers to "what place do you live in" will show a great 
> variation "around the edges" of a place 
> 
> Not sure if the National Gazetteer (which focuses on addresses) tries to 
> define boundaries to named places...
> 
> All in all, if we have boundaries for places, they are going to have to allow 
> for fuzzy edges and overlaps. 
> 
> I suppose it all starts with "what do you mean by place"? 
> 
> //colin
> 
> On 2017-02-10 00:48, Adam Snape wrote: 
> 
> Thanks Phil, 
> 
> Our local place mapping must be quite primitive, because few place boundaries 
> are mapped. Do you mean that both the boundary and node should carry the 
> place=tag? Where there isn't a clear boundary to the place, should the mapper 
> estimate it? Glad to hear I've been putting the nodes in the right place 
> anyway :) 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Adam 
> 
>  
> 
> Normally places are mapped with both a boundary and node.
> 
> A node is certainly needed for navigation and should be somewhere sensible, 
> normally the centre is where someone who puts the placename into a satnav 
> would expect to end up, rather than a housing estate in the geographical 
> centre.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint) 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [7] 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [7]
 

Links:
--
[1] https://westmidlandscombinedauthority.org.uk/
[2] https://www.cannockchasedc.gov.uk/
[3] https://www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/
[4] http://www.redditchbc.gov.uk/
[5]
http://www.tamworth.gov.uk/tamworth-join-planned-west-midlands-combined-authority
[6]
http://www.telford.gov.uk/news/article/3085/councils_decision_on_west_midlands_combined_authority
[7] 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] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Brian Prangle]

Hi everyone

I've just added a relation for the boundary of the new West Midlands
Cominbined Authority  (which
is the same as the old ceremonial West Midlands County, which I've left
intact as it's still used I believe where postal addresses still insist on
a county and I can't think that the postal address for one minute is going
to change to West Midlands Combined Authority). My question is how do I
cope with non-constituent authorties?

Non-constituent members can sign up to more than one combined authority and
have less voting rights than constituent members. The non-constituent
authorities for the West Midlands Combined Authority are:

   - Cannock Chase District Council 
   - Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council
   
   - Redditch Borough Council 
   - Tamworth Borough Council
   

   - Telford and Wrekin Council
   


Regards

Brian

On 10 February 2017 at 08:33, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> The trouble with the UK is that places don't have clear boundaries...
>
> 1) on the administrative side there are Civil Parishes, but large parts of
> the country are "unparished" and some parishes contain multiple
> "settlements"
>
> 2) Royal Mail have completely different ideas, which are for their own
> convenience and frequently conflict with the admin boundaries
>
> 3) (my suspicion) people identify with their location using other criteria
> - spontaneous answers to "what place do you live in" will show a great
> variation "around the edges" of a place
>
> Not sure if the National Gazetteer (which focuses on addresses) tries to
> define boundaries to named places...
>
>
> All in all, if we have boundaries for places, they are going to have to
> allow for fuzzy edges and overlaps.
>
> I suppose it all starts with "what do you mean by place"?
>
> //colin
>
> On 2017-02-10 00:48, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Thanks Phil,
>
> Our local place mapping must be quite primitive, because few place
> boundaries are mapped. Do you mean that both the boundary and node should
> carry the place=tag? Where there isn't a clear boundary to the place,
> should the mapper estimate it? Glad to hear I've been putting the nodes in
> the right place anyway :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
> 
>
> Normally places are mapped with both a boundary and node.
>
> A node is certainly needed for navigation and should be somewhere
> sensible, normally the centre is where someone who puts the placename into
> a satnav would expect to end up, rather than a housing estate in the
> geographical centre.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> ___
> 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] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Adam Snape]

Thanks Phil and Colin,

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense and confirms that I don't need to
change my current place mapping.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Colin Smale]

Hi Adam, 

The trouble with the UK is that places don't have clear boundaries... 

1) on the administrative side there are Civil Parishes, but large parts
of the country are "unparished" and some parishes contain multiple
"settlements" 

2) Royal Mail have completely different ideas, which are for their own
convenience and frequently conflict with the admin boundaries 

3) (my suspicion) people identify with their location using other
criteria - spontaneous answers to "what place do you live in" will show
a great variation "around the edges" of a place 

Not sure if the National Gazetteer (which focuses on addresses) tries to
define boundaries to named places...

All in all, if we have boundaries for places, they are going to have to
allow for fuzzy edges and overlaps. 

I suppose it all starts with "what do you mean by place"? 

//colin 

On 2017-02-10 00:48, Adam Snape wrote:

> Thanks Phil, 
> 
> Our local place mapping must be quite primitive, because few place boundaries 
> are mapped. Do you mean that both the boundary and node should carry the 
> place=tag? Where there isn't a clear boundary to the place, should the mapper 
> estimate it? Glad to hear I've been putting the nodes in the right place 
> anyway :) 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Adam 
> 
>  
> 
> Normally places are mapped with both a boundary and node.
> 
> A node is certainly needed for navigation and should be somewhere sensible, 
> normally the centre is where someone who puts the placename into a satnav 
> would expect to end up, rather than a housing estate in the geographical 
> centre.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint) 
> ___
> 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] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Philip Barnes]

Hi Adam
The place is put on the node.

Normally only admim boundaries are mapped in OSM. Suburbs, localties etc do not 
tend to have defined boundaries so are generally only mapped as nodes.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Thu Feb 9 23:48:30 2017 GMT, Adam Snape wrote:
> Thanks Phil,
> 
> Our local place mapping must be quite primitive, because few place
> boundaries are mapped. Do you mean that both the boundary and node should
> carry the place=tag? Where there isn't a clear boundary to the place,
> should the mapper estimate it? Glad to hear I've been putting the nodes in
> the right place anyway :)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> Normally places are mapped with both a boundary and node.
> 
> A node is certainly needed for navigation and should be somewhere sensible,
> normally the centre is where someone who puts the placename into a satnav
> would expect to end up, rather than a housing estate in the geographical
> centre.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
>

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