Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[jc...@mail.com]

On 30/01/2019 15:08, Gregory Marler wrote:
> In a lot of cases the towns nicely relate to parish wards (admin_level=10).

I understood admin_level=10 was for whole parishes, not parish wards. Surely 
parish wards should be boundary=political just like district and county 
electoral wards/divisions?

I also agree with Colin, admin_centre should only be associated with 
administrative boundaries not political ones.

Jez C

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Will Phillips]

Hi Andrzej,

I feel a bit conflicted here. Having the choice of several tags does 
make things easier when adding complicated addresses, but for less 
experienced mappers it does also help if things are kept simple. For 
example, if better guidance regarding UK address mapping was added to 
the wiki, it would definitely be clearer to recommend one main tag for 
places below city.


I've noticed that iD varies the address fields shown depending on which 
country is being edited. Some countries have a field labelled 'Suburb', 
while for the UK the only level above street is 'City'. It would 
definitely improve things if another field could be added, but it would 
be difficult to argue for adding several fields. Therefore, it would 
probably be better to agree on one main locality tag. Whatever happens 
tags such as addr:suburb and addr:village are already in use and will 
most probably continue to be used.


Cheers,
Will

On 30/01/2019 22:24, Andrzej wrote:
Thank you for the discussion so far. I've been thinking about a 
solution for tagging localities that would work for both mappers who 
want to tag locality types and those who don't. Current proposals 
(addr:town|village and addr:locality|sublocality) are two distinct and 
incompatible tagging schemes so reaching a consensus may be impossible.


How about tagging localities as addr:locality|sublocality _and_ 
addr:locality|sublocality:type=city|town|suburb|village|hamlet|campus, 
so they can be added separately and at different times?


Best regards,
Andrzej

On 28 January 2019 04:40:26 GMT+08:00, Andrzej  
wrote:


Hi,

When working on post codes in East Anglia I realised the current
address tagging scheme is insufficient for even fairly basic
scenarios. I have already discussed the issues with some of the
most experienced mappers and like to bring these issues to your
attention. Robert has summarised his ideas in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping

The bottom line is, I would like to be tag commonly used addresses
without losing information and without resorting to addr:full.

Issues:
1. Post towns (most pressing one because there is a lot of
confusion around it). The UK is fairly unique in that not every
town is a post town. This makes it impossible to tag e.g. Station
Road, Histon, Cambridge CB24 9LF.
Wiki recommends addr:city to be used for tagging post towns
(Cambridge) but then how do we tag Histon?
- Robert recommends sticking to the current meaning of addr:city
and using addr:town and addr:village for town and village names,
which, although not in wiki, are already being used in the UK. I
like this solution because it is very explicit in what each addr:
key means and it doesn't redefine addr:city.
- SK53 prefers using addr:city for everything (towns, even
villages) and either not tagging post towns (they can be seen as a
an internal detail of a closed Royal Mail database) or using a new
tag for it, like addr:post_town. It is a simple solution, results
in Histon being called Histon and not Cambridge (without
introducing new tags for town and village names) and is commonly
used. It is also a bit confusing (what exactly is a city?) and I
think we we should at least support tagging post towns.

Key questions:
a) addr:city for post towns or towns and villages?
b) how to rag remaining information (respectively, towns and
villages or post towns,)

2. Tagging addresses within campuses, business parks etc. There is
addr:place but it is supposed to be used instead of addr:street.
Again, Robert has a fairly decent proposal for that using
addr:place or addr:locality and addr:parentstreet. Please comment.

2a. should buildings in campuses be tagged with
addr:buildingnumber/name or addr:unit? I would prefer
buildingname/number (as they are often subdivided) but these seem
to be associated with addr:street.

3. Similar to (2) but for buildings. Tagging buildings that have
e.g. a single name but multiple house numbers?

Best regards,
ndrw6


___
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] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Andrzej]

Thank you for the discussion so far. I've been thinking about a solution for 
tagging localities that would work for both mappers who want to tag locality 
types and those who don't. Current proposals (addr:town|village and 
addr:locality|sublocality) are two distinct and incompatible tagging schemes so 
reaching a consensus may be impossible. 

How about tagging localities as addr:locality|sublocality _and_ 
addr:locality|sublocality:type=city|town|suburb|village|hamlet|campus, so they 
can be added separately and at different times? 

Best regards,
Andrzej 

On 28 January 2019 04:40:26 GMT+08:00, Andrzej  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>When working on post codes in East Anglia I realised the current
>address tagging scheme is insufficient for even fairly basic scenarios.
>I have already discussed the issues with some of the most experienced
>mappers and like to bring these issues to your attention. Robert has
>summarised his ideas in
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping
>
>The bottom line is, I would like to be tag commonly used addresses
>without losing information and without resorting to addr:full. 
>
>Issues:
>1. Post towns (most pressing one because there is a lot of confusion
>around it). The UK is fairly unique in that not every town is a post
>town. This makes it impossible to tag e.g. Station Road, Histon,
>Cambridge CB24 9LF. 
>Wiki recommends addr:city to be used for tagging post towns (Cambridge)
>but then how do we tag Histon? 
>- Robert recommends sticking to the current meaning of addr:city and
>using addr:town and addr:village for town and village names, which,
>although not in wiki, are already being used in the UK. I like this
>solution because it is very explicit in what each addr: key means and
>it doesn't redefine addr:city. 
>- SK53 prefers using addr:city for everything (towns, even villages)
>and either not tagging post towns (they can be seen as a an internal
>detail of a closed Royal Mail database) or using a new tag for it, like
>addr:post_town. It is a simple solution, results in Histon being called
>Histon and not Cambridge (without introducing new tags for town and
>village names) and is commonly used. It is also a bit confusing (what
>exactly is a city?) and I think we we should at least support tagging
>post towns. 
>
>Key questions:
>a) addr:city for post towns or towns and villages? 
>b) how to rag remaining information (respectively, towns and villages
>or post towns,) 
>
>2. Tagging addresses within campuses, business parks etc. There is
>addr:place but it is supposed to be used instead of addr:street. Again,
>Robert has a fairly decent proposal for that using addr:place or
>addr:locality and addr:parentstreet. Please comment. 
>
>2a. should buildings in campuses be tagged with
>addr:buildingnumber/name or addr:unit? I would prefer
>buildingname/number (as they are often subdivided) but these seem to be
>associated with addr:street. 
>
>3. Similar to (2) but for buildings. Tagging buildings that have e.g. a
>single name but multiple house numbers? 
>
>Best regards, 
>ndrw6
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[Mark Goodge]

On 30/01/2019 16:00, Tom Hughes wrote:


The fundamental problem with this, as Jerry has just said, is that
many towns in the UK have no defined boundary.

Even where there is an administrative entity there is no guarantee
that it's boundary equates to what most people would view as the
boundary of the town - it may under or overstate things.


One useful thing here is the ONS concept of a "Built Up Area". That aims 
to give the normal human name of a defined place - for example, 
Mansfield and Maidenhead are both in the list, and mean what someone 
living there would expect them to mean. And it has subdivisions for 
major settlements - for example, the BUA of Greater London includes 
BUASDs of Bromley and Camden.


Shapefiles are available from the ONS Geography website, and are OGL, so 
they're compatible with OSM.


The downside of ONS BUA data is that it's only updated once per census, 
so the current dataset is now a bit out of date - it doesn't take 
account of new developments on the edge of existing settlements, for 
example. But, as a simple source of names, it's very valuable. And 
alterations to boundaries can be mapped on the ground, provided you've 
got an existing boundary to work with.



Equally there is no clear way of even determining what is, or is
not, a town. Just a variety of rules-of-thumb...


As far as local government is concerned, there is a defined meaning of a 
town. That is, any settlement which has a town council (eg, Evesham, 
Newmarket). And, for larger settlements, the word "town" is what most 
people would call what is, officially, a non-metropolitan borough (eg, 
Bromsgrove, Ipswich).


More generally, while there's no single definition of a town, it can be 
reasonably assumed to be the default terminology for any built-up area 
unless you know for certain that it isn't a town (eg, because it's a 
city, or it has a parish council, or is too small to have a council at 
all).


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[talk-gb]

Hi,

 

There are some interesting views on this topic.

 

Looking at Roberts ideas in the link at the start of the thread, it’s not 
perfect but makes sense.

 

At the moment we seem to be just putting in the bare minimum as an address, it 
might be enough to get things delivered to somewhere but lacks something.

 

What it lacks is what I would call the second line of the address, the bit that 
describes which High Street it refers too, there are several in some towns e.g. 
Northampton or Milton Keynes.

 

I don’t mind the tag addr:locality it does the job but is a bit bland.

 

Some comments to some addresses I have entered have made it clear that there 
are people who really hate the idea of putting the name of the town that would 
appear in what PAF calls Post Town in the addr:city tag and others who see it 
as part of the address.

 

Looking at the web sites of a few of the town councils around me, some do 
include the post town in their published address and some don’t.

I would rather say the town name that is not the post town goes into addr:town 
because it’s a town in itself.

Although it should be possible to work out that the address is in a small to 
medium town from it’s location, looking for an address in a town using a 
addr:town tag sound logical.

The same with villages and smaller settlements.

 

We might get disagreement where a large town has swallowed up a smaller 
settlement but that should be down to local mappers who understand the history 
of the area.

 

Regards 

 

RAC_UK

 

 

From: Andrzej [mailto:nd...@redhazel.co.uk] 
Sent: 28 January 2019 15:06
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

 

Is it possible to use addr:locality for both towns and villages? That could 
simplify things quite a bit and I have yet to see an address that needs a post 
town and two levels of localities below.

Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town and 
addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address where they 
wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but locality sounds almost 
offensive. 

Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names are written 
before street names, not after them. They're IMO what RM calls "dependent 
thoroughfares". For these I would simply use addr:place, which can already be 
combined with addr:housename and addr:housenumber. Alternatively we could make 
a new tag like addr:campus.

Best regards, 
Andrzej 



On 28 January 2019 20:36:24 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale  
wrote:

Hi Will,

On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:

Hi,

I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For this I have 
usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas and addr:locality 
elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to have just one recommended tag, 
perhaps addr:locality, because having addr:town addr:village and addr:suburb 
seems too complicated. Eventually it would be good if editing software, in 
particular iD, could provide an extra field to enter the locality, and it would 
perhaps be easier for that to happen if there was only one tag. New mappers 
often seem to have difficulty entering addresses to the form that they wish and 
I think the lack of a locality field is part of the reason.


For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using addr:sublocality 
is a possibility, although I wonder whether just sticking with addr:village for 
this less common situation would be easier. It depends a bit on whether this 
tag is only likely to be used for villages and hamlets, or whether it might be 
useful in other cases. For example, sometimes names of industrial estates 
appear in addresses in a similar way to sublocalities.

 

I don't see any advantage in "addr:village" and "addr:suburb" just because they 
sound familiar or are existing tags. What we are discussing here is a 
UK-specific solution. The (Double) Dependent Localities may or may not 
correspond to what people perceive as a "village" or "suburb". In the quoted 
example, "Cambridge Science Park" is IMHO neither.


I only use addr:city for post towns, although I recognise not all mappers agree 
with this, and I appreciate there are arguments both ways. I was thinking about 
this recently when adding addresses in Lees near Derby. The post town is 
Ashbourne, but this seems slightly incongruous because the village is much 
nearer to Derby. I chose not to include addr:city and only used addr:locality 
for the village name.

 

I feel the main argument in favour of using post towns for addr:city is that it 
helps to keep the data consistent because what to use often becomes confusing 
otherwise. To use the example of Lees I mentioned above, it would be easy to 
end up with a situation where addr:city contained perhaps four values if the 
data was entered by different people without any guide as to what to use (the 
most likely possibilities being Lees, 

Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[Colin Smale]

I also have a couple of observations about these changes. 

1) Sometimes an admin_centre is being added to a boundary=political
(e.g. parliamentary constituencies, electoral wards). I am not sure this
is appropriate. 

2) There are multiple definitions of "town", and I don't know which
definition Gregory is using here for place=town. A parish council can
simply call itself a town council if it so resolves. This is independent
of other definitions of "town" based on population, market charter,
letters patent etc. 

3) Unparished areas are recorded and numbered in the governments GSS
coding system (codes start with E43). Maybe we should follow their level
of (dis)aggregation w.r.t. multiple contiguous parishes? Do they
possibly qualify as statistical areas?

Colin 

On 2019-01-30 18:01, Will Phillips wrote:

> I've already raised concerns I have in a changeset comment about these edits 
> adding admin_level=10 administrative boundary relations for voids between 
> civil parishes. They are tagged with designation=non-civil_parish. This has 
> been discussed on this list previously. My main objection is that these areas 
> aren't really administrative entities at all. Gregory correctly points out 
> they are sometimes used for statistical purposes, but I don't think that 
> justifies tagging them as administrative.
> 
> Another concern is that these admin_level=10 voids often include several 
> former civil parishes, so they cover a wider area than the name given to them 
> suggests. An example is Beeston: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9246079
> This new relation covers five former civil parishes (Attenborough, Beeston, 
> Bramcote, Chilwell and Toton) and so includes a wider area than what is 
> usually considered to be Beeston. If Beeston is mapped as an area I think it 
> would be better to use something closer to the area of the former civil 
> parish.
> 
> Gregory has already agreed to think about alternative tagging for this, but I 
> thought it was worth raising here, in case other people have any thoughts.
> 
> Cheers,
> Will
> 
> ___
> 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] Checking UK Towns

[Will Phillips]

I've already raised concerns I have in a changeset comment about these 
edits adding admin_level=10 administrative boundary relations for voids 
between civil parishes. They are tagged with 
designation=non-civil_parish. This has been discussed on this list 
previously. My main objection is that these areas aren't really 
administrative entities at all. Gregory correctly points out they are 
sometimes used for statistical purposes, but I don't think that 
justifies tagging them as administrative.


Another concern is that these admin_level=10 voids often include several 
former civil parishes, so they cover a wider area than the name given to 
them suggests. An example is Beeston: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9246079
This new relation covers five former civil parishes (Attenborough, 
Beeston, Bramcote, Chilwell and Toton) and so includes a wider area than 
what is usually considered to be Beeston. If Beeston is mapped as an 
area I think it would be better to use something closer to the area of 
the former civil parish.


Gregory has already agreed to think about alternative tagging for this, 
but I thought it was worth raising here, in case other people have any 
thoughts.


Cheers,
Will

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[Tom Hughes]

On 30/01/2019 15:08, Gregory Marler wrote:

A small amount of my time has been funded by Open Cage Data to check 
towns in the UK. Ideally it should be possible to get a town as both a 
node and a relation.


The fundamental problem with this, as Jerry has just said, is that
many towns in the UK have no defined boundary.

Even where there is an administrative entity there is no guarantee
that it's boundary equates to what most people would view as the
boundary of the town - it may under or overstate things.

Equally there is no clear way of even determining what is, or is
not, a town. Just a variety of rules-of-thumb...

This has all been discussed a number of times before ;-)

If you want a challenge look at my local area - it's unparished
so the smallest administrative unit is the district council:

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2677978

Looking at the builtup area on the right hand side along the Lea
Valley how many places are there, what are their boundaries, and
what type is each of them ;-)

Hilariously in doing that I've just noticed a town (well that's
what wikipedia says it is anyway) that is completely missing
from OpenStreetMap... Waltham Cross should be somewhere below
Cheshunt and west of Waltham Abbey.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[SK53]

A few points:

* I believe you should complete the relevant

organised edit page on the wiki.
* I think any use of admin_level=11 or indeed any use of admin_level at all
for un-parished areas needed to be discussed up front. Places like
Mansfield, Maidenhead etc  simply do not exist as administrative entities.
To represent them as such is erroneous.
* In the case of the two Ashfields and Mablethorpe/Sutton-on-the-Sea there
is a single unparished area so how can someone verify the boundary?
* Saxilby ought to be a village
* Sutton-on-the-Sea probably ought to be a village; not sure about
Mablethorpe.
* Banstead as a town is rather marginal. Unlike Epsom and Ewell which were
towns before London grew, Banstead is more a London exurb. I'd guess
village or suburb may be just as appropriate.
* I'd have anticipated Dorking's W boundary to be pretty much follow the
line of the former Urban District which wiggles about more than the one you
mapped.
* I don't think place=town should be duplicated on the node and the
relation, one or the other (it makes for awkward processing for what should
be very simple queries: how many towns in East Anglia?). I do realise that
associating a town with a boundary is the objective, but I believe there
should be a way which doesn't break "one feature one element".

Regards,

Jerry

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 15:09, Gregory Marler  wrote:

> You might spot my recent map edits with a changeset such as...
> "*Checking data and relations for towns in Lincolnshire. This changeset
> forms part of paid work to improve OpenStreetMap data. #UKTownCheck
> #OrganisedEditing*"
>
> A small amount of my time has been funded by Open Cage Data to check towns
> in the UK. Ideally it should be possible to get a town as both a node and a
> relation.
> I've been going through a list of towns where this isn't the case. I've
> been doing a single county per changeset to avoid it being a mess to follow.
>
>
> In a lot of cases the towns nicely relate to parish wards
> (admin_level=10). Sometimes I just need to add the town node as an
> admin_centre member of the relation. Other times the "outer" parts of the
> relation are not in order.
> In some cases, the town has a distinct area but not a simple parish ward
> (the previous parish might have ceased to be). I have created some
> relations with boundary=place, place=town, admin_level=11.
> I've even found some town nodes that are complete tagging for the
> renderer. They should have been something like place=suburb.
>
>
> So far it's been very insightful to do this for several areas around the
> UK. I don't think I'll manage the whole country within the funded time. I
> intended to properly report on what i've done and what I've found.
>
> Gregory.
>
>
> --
> Gregory Marler
> ___
> 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] Checking UK Towns

[Gregory Marler]

You might spot my recent map edits with a changeset such as...
"*Checking data and relations for towns in Lincolnshire. This changeset
forms part of paid work to improve OpenStreetMap data. #UKTownCheck
#OrganisedEditing*"

A small amount of my time has been funded by Open Cage Data to check towns
in the UK. Ideally it should be possible to get a town as both a node and a
relation.
I've been going through a list of towns where this isn't the case. I've
been doing a single county per changeset to avoid it being a mess to follow.


In a lot of cases the towns nicely relate to parish wards (admin_level=10).
Sometimes I just need to add the town node as an admin_centre member of the
relation. Other times the "outer" parts of the relation are not in order.
In some cases, the town has a distinct area but not a simple parish ward
(the previous parish might have ceased to be). I have created some
relations with boundary=place, place=town, admin_level=11.
I've even found some town nodes that are complete tagging for the renderer.
They should have been something like place=suburb.


So far it's been very insightful to do this for several areas around the
UK. I don't think I'll manage the whole country within the funded time. I
intended to properly report on what i've done and what I've found.

Gregory.


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