Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Warin]

On 4/9/19 9:16 am, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
The Uffington White Horse is tagged as man_made=geoglyph, which seems 
apposite and is documented (if underused).


+1. Not all on hills, small .. or historic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marree_Man



Adding a natural=bare_rock  tag to reflect the exposed bedrock 
underneath (yes, chalk is a rock) would seem acceptable, and would 
have the definite bonus of getting the shape to render.


Otherwise, a hill figure can be variously a tourist attraction, a 
memorial, a monument, an archaeological site - it would depend on the 
specifics of when, by whom and for what purpose it was initially 
constructed.


On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, 23:53 Andy Mabbett, > wrote:


On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:01, Jez Nicholson
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> Not sure that there is proper consensus on how to map
> drawn things, like the Cerne Abbas Giant

I've started a discussion, specifically about hill figures, on the
tagging list:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047860.html

-- 
Andy Mabbett

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

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Warin]

On 4/9/19 7:58 am, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 17:03, Dan S  wrote:

Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :

Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
relation, I would tag it as that.

Done; though "historic" seems inapt.


The "type=*" tag on a relation is usually used to
indicate what sort of relationship is represented, e.g.
type=multipolygon.

Done, but JOSM protested that "the multipolygon is not closed"

Thanks, both - what do others think?



To get around the 'multipolygon is not closed' use the fact that the concrete 
has a width .. looks about 0.5 metres and map the outline area. Yes it is micro 
mapping ... and could be better with a width tag but it will close 
multipolygon. The other relation is a site relation ... not common and may not 
be rendered.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

The Uffington White Horse is tagged as man_made=geoglyph, which seems
apposite and is documented (if underused).

Adding a natural=bare_rock  tag to reflect the exposed bedrock underneath
(yes, chalk is a rock) would seem acceptable, and would have the definite
bonus of getting the shape to render.

Otherwise, a hill figure can be variously a tourist attraction, a memorial,
a monument, an archaeological site - it would depend on the specifics of
when, by whom and for what purpose it was initially constructed.

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, 23:53 Andy Mabbett,  wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:01, Jez Nicholson 
> wrote:
>
> > Not sure that there is proper consensus on how to map
> > drawn things, like the Cerne Abbas Giant
>
> I've started a discussion, specifically about hill figures, on the tagging
> list:
>
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047860.html
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.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] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:01, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> Not sure that there is proper consensus on how to map
> drawn things, like the Cerne Abbas Giant

I've started a discussion, specifically about hill figures, on the tagging list:

  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047860.html

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 17:03, Dan S  wrote:
> Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :

> > Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
> > relation, I would tag it as that.

Done; though "historic" seems inapt.

> The "type=*" tag on a relation is usually used to
> indicate what sort of relationship is represented, e.g.
> type=multipolygon.

Done, but JOSM protested that "the multipolygon is not closed"

Thanks, both - what do others think?

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Dan S]

Ah, good spot. The "type=*" tag on a relation is usually used to
indicate what sort of relationship is represented, e.g.
type=multipolygon. The latter might in fact be a reasonable thing to
do here?

Best
Dan

Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :
>
> Tagging it as type=memorial and memorial=yes doesn't seem very useful to me.
>
> Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
> relation, I would tag it as that. It would be similar to this one nearby
> [1], would still get rendered and be recognised by data consumers. Or
> failing that, just add it as a node.
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7838824
>
> On 03/09/2019 11:40, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > I've just added the RNLI Dunkirk Memorial at Margate to the map:
> >
> >https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9995162
> >
> > but I wasn't sure how to best tag the relation, and the three
> > connected ways that comprise it.
> >
> > It's an area of white-painted conrete, in the shape of an anchor.
> >
> > Any suggestions for improvement?
> >
>
>
> ___
> 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] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Michael Booth]

Tagging it as type=memorial and memorial=yes doesn't seem very useful to me.

Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a 
relation, I would tag it as that. It would be similar to this one nearby 
[1], would still get rendered and be recognised by data consumers. Or 
failing that, just add it as a node.


[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7838824

On 03/09/2019 11:40, Andy Mabbett wrote:

I've just added the RNLI Dunkirk Memorial at Margate to the map:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9995162

but I wasn't sure how to best tag the relation, and the three
connected ways that comprise it.

It's an area of white-painted conrete, in the shape of an anchor.

Any suggestions for improvement?




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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Mark Goodge]

On 03/09/2019 09:54, Colin Smale wrote:

For HGVs there is another issue in play. Specialised devices using 
specialised maps are required, to give routing appropriate to the 
vehicle, its mass, length, height, width etc. These devices can be a lot 
more expensive, and harder to find, than consumer devices which are only 
suitable for cars, motorcycles, cycles etc. If a truck driver is 
allowing himself to be directed by Google Maps on his phone for example, 
it will end in tears...


One of the big problems we have is truck drivers using car sat-navs, 
because they're cheaper. Or using older, cheaper truck sat-navs that 
haven't been updated for a while. A lot of older sat-navs, for example, 
will still direct trucks over the closed level crossing here:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.39148/0.26737

Mark



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2 Sep 2019, 14:42 by robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:

> Any mappers with a few minutes to spare might like to have a look at
> their local area, and see if there are any shop=yes objects they could
> re-tag with a more specific value. Some resources to help:
>
> * Overpass Turbo query to find shop=yes objects:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/M0w (Pan/zoom to the area of interest, then
> click on run. Try a smaller area if the query times out.)
>
For the overpass query I recommend rather http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/M1A 
 that 
is not complaining about "amenity=fuel shop=yes" (though it is still better to 
map 
shop as a separate object rather than as a property).

It should be also findable by running JOSM validator and it is one of issues 
reported by
Osmose - see
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=9=54.738=-1.868==1%2C2%2C3==
 


As usual, in case of bogus validator complaints for valid data - report it to 
authors of a validator.
Osmose devs are good and JOSM devs are magnificent at handling them.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2 Sep 2019, 15:30 by stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk:

> I have found, variously (aside from those without a shop tag at all) 
> “houseware”, “household”, “doityourself”, “department_store”.
>
> I would suggest that “houseware” or “household” (is this a recognised tag?) 
> comes closest, or maybe even (from the Wiki - I haven’t found live examples 
> yet) “variety_store"
>  
>
> But how to tell! There isn’t a standardised approach, by any stretch of the 
> imagination.
>
>
In case of multiple well fitting values any of them is better than shop=yes.

For example, something on border of shop=convenience and shop=supermarket
would be well tagged by both shop=convenience and shop=supermarket.

In the worst case mappers will keep changing the tag from time to time.

It is certainly better than unspecific shop=yes.

(not sure whatever values listed in this specific case are well fitting or not)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Jez Nicholson]

Seems reasonable. Not sure that there is proper consensus on how to map
drawn things, like the Cerne Abbas Giant
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9425037

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:43 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> I've just added the RNLI Dunkirk Memorial at Margate to the map:
>
>   https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9995162
>
> but I wasn't sure how to best tag the relation, and the three
> connected ways that comprise it.
>
> It's an area of white-painted conrete, in the shape of an anchor.
>
> Any suggestions for improvement?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.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] Copyright in OS-derived maps

[David Woolley]

On 03/09/2019 12:31, Edward Bainton wrote:
I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes 
of countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use, 
showing the extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes 
with flags indicating Crown copyright thus:


/Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. ©Crown 
copyright and database rights 2010. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey 
licence number 6035/


This sounds like a Land Registry or Planning map.  They are probably 
breaching the licence by even showing it to outsiders.  The red line 
will have been traced relative to OS features.


I would say definitely off limits, as this is the sort of map from which 
OS is now funded.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Jez Nicholson]

Thanks Silent Spike. Keep up the good work.

Of course, the very process of people tagging a shop type with the value
that they think is correct, unprompted by the NSI, is/was the process of
gaining consensus. I fear slightly that in our desire to use the 'right'
value we lose that inputNot that i'm seeing loads of contentious values
coming through from the NSI. I might just be being academic about it.
That's why i'm keen that people add to the UK wiki page with shopfront
photos and details, and question it on Talk-GB so that any additions to the
NSI are well-informed.

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 12:40 PM Silent Spike 
wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:21 PM Jez Nicholson 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't know (yet) how iD generates its list of shop types. This may be
>> hard-coded and/or pre-generated from the NSI.
>>
>
> I can shed some light on this. The "type" field (drop down list) on the
> generic "shop" preset is generated from taginfo. However, there are also
> specific shop presets (e.g. "Hardware Store") which are manually added in
> iD's data files. Then even more specifically there are the brand specific
> presets which are generated from the name suggestion index.
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:31 PM Stuart Reynolds <
> stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> And this is the problem. One of the shop=yes entries in Southend on sea
>> is The Range. I wasn’t sure how to tag it (I was using iD for speed, and
>> it’s list of defined shop tags is fairly minimal) so I tried an overpass
>> query on Name=The Range.
>>
>> I have found, variously (aside from those without a shop tag at all)
>> “houseware”, “household”, “doityourself”, “department_store”.
>>
>
> This is a common issue I run into when adding UK brands to the name
> suggestion index, but it also highlights the power of having a
> `brand:wikidata` tag. If all locations are identified by brand, then in
> future if there is a tagging development or consensus change for that
> brand, all of the locations can be easily converted because they're
> explicitly marked. Along those lines, if there is ever discussion which
> establishes some UK brand tagging consensus on the mailing list here I will
> more than likely see it and adopt it into the index.
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:43 PM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Any mappers with a few minutes to spare might like to have a look at
>> their local area, and see if there are any shop=yes objects they could
>> re-tag with a more specific value. Some resources to help:
>
>
> Perhaps a https://maproulette.org challenge would be a good way to track
> the progress of this?
> ___
> 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] Copyright in OS-derived maps

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 12:34, Edward Bainton  wrote:
> I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes of 
> countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use, showing the 
> extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes with flags 
> indicating Crown copyright
[snip]
> The bit I'm interested in is a red line picking out the boundary of the 
> charity's territory - I asked if I could put these into OSM. That line was 
> presumably drawn by the charity, albeit over an OS base. (Tho I suppose just 
> possibly OS drew the red line under commission, and then I think the default 
> is that they have the copyright.)
>
> Where do I go with the legal side of things? Is this a complete dead end as 
> the wiki on copyright suggests? Or, if further enquiries reveal that the red 
> line is of the charity's own production, can the charity grant me (OSM) a 
> licence to reproduce the red line (and only the red line) on OSM?

If the line has been drawn on the OS basemap by reference to features
on the base map, then OS regards the line as "Derived Data" and claims
IP rights in it. (The alternative would be if the line was
independently surveyed (e.g. from a GPS trace), and then just layed on
top of the OS map. In which case OS wouldn't claim any rights in the
line itself.) See
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/public-sector/guidance/derived-data.html

There is a mechanism for OS licensees to release derived data under
the Open Government Licence. But reading
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/public-sector/licensing-using-os-data.html
it's not clear to me if this only applies to Public Sector Bodies that
are part of the Public Sector Mapping Agreement (PSMA). If the charity
isn't a PSMA member, I think they would have to contact OS to find out
what is allowed. A slight complicating factor if we were to be able to
use the line in OSM is that we'd have to remove the OS base map from
it before using it.

Assuming you have a friendly contact at the charity and the region
isn't too large/complicated, a more pragmatic approach might be to see
if someone there has enough personal knowledge of the area they cover,
*without* needing to refer to the OS-derived map, to be able to draw
the boundary on an OSM base map for you. You could then use that map
in OSM with just their permission.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker
https://osm.mathmos.net/

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Silent Spike]

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:21 PM Jez Nicholson 
wrote:

> I don't know (yet) how iD generates its list of shop types. This may be
> hard-coded and/or pre-generated from the NSI.
>

I can shed some light on this. The "type" field (drop down list) on the
generic "shop" preset is generated from taginfo. However, there are also
specific shop presets (e.g. "Hardware Store") which are manually added in
iD's data files. Then even more specifically there are the brand specific
presets which are generated from the name suggestion index.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:31 PM Stuart Reynolds <
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

> And this is the problem. One of the shop=yes entries in Southend on sea is
> The Range. I wasn’t sure how to tag it (I was using iD for speed, and it’s
> list of defined shop tags is fairly minimal) so I tried an overpass query
> on Name=The Range.
>
> I have found, variously (aside from those without a shop tag at all)
> “houseware”, “household”, “doityourself”, “department_store”.
>

This is a common issue I run into when adding UK brands to the name
suggestion index, but it also highlights the power of having a
`brand:wikidata` tag. If all locations are identified by brand, then in
future if there is a tagging development or consensus change for that
brand, all of the locations can be easily converted because they're
explicitly marked. Along those lines, if there is ever discussion which
establishes some UK brand tagging consensus on the mailing list here I will
more than likely see it and adopt it into the index.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:43 PM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Any mappers with a few minutes to spare might like to have a look at
> their local area, and see if there are any shop=yes objects they could
> re-tag with a more specific value. Some resources to help:


Perhaps a https://maproulette.org challenge would be a good way to track
the progress of this?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps

[Edward Bainton]

Hi all

I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes of
countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use, showing the
extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes with flags
indicating Crown copyright thus:

*Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. ©Crown
copyright and database rights 2010. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey
licence number 6035*

The bit I'm interested in is a red line picking out the boundary of the
charity's territory - I asked if I could put these into OSM. That line was
presumably drawn by the charity, albeit over an OS base. (Tho I suppose
just possibly OS drew the red line under commission, and then I think the
default is that they have the copyright.)

Where do I go with the legal side of things? Is this a complete dead end as
the wiki on copyright suggests? Or, if further enquiries reveal that the
red line is of the charity's own production, can the charity grant me (OSM)
a licence to reproduce the red line (and only the red line) on OSM?

I'm sure these things have been well rehearsed somewhere before, but wiki
on copyright and OS doesn't say where - pointers welcome.

Thanks as ever for any help

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

[Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Andy Mabbett]

I've just added the RNLI Dunkirk Memorial at Margate to the map:

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9995162

but I wasn't sure how to best tag the relation, and the three
connected ways that comprise it.

It's an area of white-painted conrete, in the shape of an anchor.

Any suggestions for improvement?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-09-02 16:40, Mark Goodge wrote:

> One of the issues with relying on sat-nav is that the device data often isn't 
> updated very often. Unless the government can impose some kind of legally 
> binding SLA on the device manufacturers to ensure that all data updates are 
> performed within a specified period of time, then you can't rely on people 
> having current information. If a road is closed, then people need to know 
> it's closed from the moment it's closed - waiting for their navigation 
> software to update isn't good enough!

For HGVs there is another issue in play. Specialised devices using
specialised maps are required, to give routing appropriate to the
vehicle, its mass, length, height, width etc. These devices can be a lot
more expensive, and harder to find, than consumer devices which are only
suitable for cars, motorcycles, cycles etc. If a truck driver is
allowing himself to be directed by Google Maps on his phone for example,
it will end in tears... 

Now, if THIS device sends a truck along an unsuitable road, there is a
real problem to be fixed: 
https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/sat-nav/truck-sat-nav/___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Jez Nicholson]

Community input to the plan is important. Any points you would like to
discuss can be added to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, 07:02 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 3/9/19 8:22 am, David Woolley wrote:
> > On 02/09/2019 23:13, Warin wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3/9/19 2:53 am, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> >>> On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
>  This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at
>  least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it
>  distracts drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide
>  the information instead.
> >>>
> >>> What evidence have you of this "trend"?
> >>
> >>
> >> I too, would like to hear of evidence of this 'trend'.
> >>
> >
> > Google "reducing sign clutter" for the general principle.  Use of sat
> > nav as an alternative I might have heard on the radio, or in a local
> > paper.  However
> > <
> https://www.driverknowledgetests.com/resources/what-is-signage-clutter-and-how-do-we-reduce-it/>
>
> > is the only reference I can find to that, online, in a quick search. \
>
>
> That is a personal opinion...
>
> v.s. government link to a 3.1Mb pdf below..
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reducing-sign-clutter
>
> >
> > I think, in practice, it why local councils often don't bother to fix
> > AWOL and broken street name signs, even when told about them.
> >
> None of these are for the total removal of signs .. but for the removal
> of unnecessary signs.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Warin]

On 3/9/19 8:22 am, David Woolley wrote:

On 02/09/2019 23:13, Warin wrote:


On 3/9/19 2:53 am, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at 
least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it 
distracts drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide 
the information instead.


What evidence have you of this "trend"?



I too, would like to hear of evidence of this 'trend'.



Google "reducing sign clutter" for the general principle.  Use of sat 
nav as an alternative I might have heard on the radio, or in a local 
paper.  However 
 
is the only reference I can find to that, online, in a quick search. \



That is a personal opinion...

v.s. government link to a 3.1Mb pdf below..

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reducing-sign-clutter



I think, in practice, it why local councils often don't bother to fix 
AWOL and broken street name signs, even when told about them.


None of these are for the total removal of signs .. but for the removal 
of unnecessary signs.




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