[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #479 2019-00-17-2019-09-23

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 479,
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/12408/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

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] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Warin]

On 30/09/19 00:30, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 29/09/2019 14:30, David Woolley wrote:


I think too much effort goes into these big changes.


The actual change is dead easy in JOSM. It's all this faffing about 
having to discuss it that takes up all the time.


+1
As I said in another thread this increasing reluctance to 
removing/updating data while allowing _anyone_ to add data is 
detrimental to the OSM database. Take the new quarterly project as an 
example - anonymous users are allowed to add notes, but are unable to 
delete.


The real problem with business directory mapping on OSM is that 
people like doing the first time mapping of shops on a high street 
but no one likes maintaining them.


This thread is *specifically* about maintaining.

The number of shops that are wrong because of churn or small 
businesses, or individual closures of chain shops is probably orders 
of magnitude more than the ones that get lots of publicity.


Preventing the mass (hardly "mass" though) edit of Thomas Cook & 
instead relying on individuals to update *will* guarantee more shops 
will be "wrong".


The benefit of a one changeset edit is that it would be extremely easy 
to update if there's an (unlikely) change in the firms fortunes.


The advantage of turning them all to disused: is that they are done.

The disadvantage is that there is no local confirmation. However .. I 
think most will agree that even without a local survey .. the shop is 
closed.


Raising not everything named 'Thomas Cook' is the travel agency is fine, 
once pointed out I would think the editor will take care of that issue.



If some mapper cares to do a survey they might as well do all the 
disused: etc in that locality, not simply the old Thomas Cooks.






I doubt that many people are going to get misled by a Thomas Cook or 
Maplins store that remains mapped, but many may be misled by the loss 
of a specialist store that didn't make the national press.


Unsure what you mean by "misled", but surely if any shop that's 
incorrectly tagged will inconvenience someone if they use OSM to plan 
their visit?


It may not mislead a UK person, it may well mislead a foreign tourist 
who may well be having enough trouble coping with English. The map is 
not really for the local, who knows the area and culture, but the 
visitor finding their way.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way vs. tracks

[Edward Bainton]

This is just fantastic, thank you.

Looking at the definitive map there is a RoW there, but it seems that the
path as shown on OSM  is only
roughly right: it should actually run from the road at an angle of ~240deg
rather than the ~220deg OSM shows, meeting Ermine Street a few tens of
metres further north.

The argis.com map that Peterborough City Council uses

gives it as a FP called "Ailsworth 6" running from 511,025.344 298,855.444
Meters to 510,856.672 298,723.814 Meters

I don't recognise that coordinate system: is it any help for OSM?

Or is there a way to use those coordinates on the ground to follow Martin's
excellent suggestion to retread the path, exactly where there is a right to?

And generally, are we allowed to copy from the definitive map, if we copy
the RoW info only and snap that to OSM data rather than OS underlying data?

Thanks for all points made.

Edward

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 20:41, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 29/09/2019 19:37, Edward Bainton wrote:
>
>
> Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then tag horses &
> foot=designated? That acknowledges the track, but disregards the
> documentation here
> 
> which says "Public bridleways should be tagged: highway
> =bridleway and
> designation 
> =public_bridleway" .
>
> I've edited the relevant wiki page to make it clearer:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales%3A_Public_bridleways
>
> If something is designated as a public bridleway add the
> "designation=public_bridleway" tag.  This is separate to the highway tag -
> that might be highway=bridleway, but as you point out could very easily be
> highway=track or highway=service.  I've also seen examples that on the
> ground really aren't substantial enough to be called highway=bridleway, but
> are legally signed as that.
>
>
> 2.
> What should I do with this footpath
> , which appears on OSM and
> also on the OS map
> 
> as a public footpath.
>
> There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, no
> fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need one at
> the NE end, open country).
>
> Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a right of way?
>
> That's a good question.  Cambridgeshire is listed at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors , so I suspect that the
> data from the council would be licence-appropriate for OSM per
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility .
>
> If there's no physical access through a hedge I'd definitely ensure that
> there isn't a "highway=footway" running through a hedge.
>
> Given the complicated history of the ways involved, it isn't necessarily
> the case that someone "copied from OS"; they may just have seen a public
> footpath sign at one end and tagged the way there, unaware that the
> footpath crossed several roads and went through a hedge.  I've certainly
> done that in the past.  In fact:
>
>
> (For some reason the history shows me as the author of Version #1 of that
> path, but actually it long predated my edits in this area. iirc the
> history, before my edits elsewhere apparently over-wrote it, showed it as
> added several years ago)
>
> It is possible to find out what happened here.  Here's a query for the
> ways in mid-2015:
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHs
>
> and here's one for mid-2016:
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHt
>
> The way that was there before many, many splits is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210211088/history , and the edit that
> joined it to the Peterborough road was
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35688401 back at the end of 2015
> (the changeset comment helpfully says that the GPS trace used was from June
> 2015).  Obviously back then it's quite possible that there was signage and
> no hedge.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Rights of way vs. tracks

[Andy Townsend]

On 29/09/2019 19:37, Edward Bainton wrote:


Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then tag horses 
& foot=designated? That acknowledges the track, but disregards the 
documentation here 
 
which says "Public bridleways should be tagged:highway 
=bridlewayanddesignation 
=public_bridleway" .



I've edited the relevant wiki page to make it clearer:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales%3A_Public_bridleways

If something is designated as a public bridleway add the 
"designation=public_bridleway" tag.  This is separate to the highway tag 
- that might be highway=bridleway, but as you point out could very 
easily be highway=track or highway=service.  I've also seen examples 
that on the ground really aren't substantial enough to be called 
highway=bridleway, but are legally signed as that.




2.
What should I do with this footpath 
, which appears on OSM 
and also on the OS map 
 
as a public footpath.


There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, 
no fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need 
one at the NE end, open country).


Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a right of way?


That's a good question.  Cambridgeshire is listed at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors , so I suspect that the 
data from the council would be licence-appropriate for OSM per 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility .


If there's no physical access through a hedge I'd definitely ensure that 
there isn't a "highway=footway" running through a hedge.


Given the complicated history of the ways involved, it isn't necessarily 
the case that someone "copied from OS"; they may just have seen a public 
footpath sign at one end and tagged the way there, unaware that the 
footpath crossed several roads and went through a hedge.  I've certainly 
done that in the past.  In fact:




(For some reason the history shows me as the author of Version #1 of 
that path, but actually it long predated my edits in this area. iirc 
the history, before my edits elsewhere apparently over-wrote it, 
showed it as added several years ago)


It is possible to find out what happened here.  Here's a query for the 
ways in mid-2015:


https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHs

and here's one for mid-2016:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHt

The way that was there before many, many splits is 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210211088/history , and the edit that 
joined it to the Peterborough road was 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35688401 back at the end of 2015 
(the changeset comment helpfully says that the GPS trace used was from 
June 2015).  Obviously back then it's quite possible that there was 
signage and no hedge.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way vs. tracks

[SK53]

For the bridleway map with highway=track, designation=public_bridleway.
Basic access rights can be inferred from this combination, but explicit
tagging does no harm (although it does make it a little harder to ensure
these are correct if there is a change in status). One of the beauties of
OSM is that we can represent the same PRoW as a driveway, followed by a
track, followed by a footpath or bridleway. The highway=bridleway tag
should be reserved for those public bridleways which do not follow a track,
service road or even an adopted highway. On PRoWs bridleways should have
different types of gates, much higher headroom, and, in some places,
abundant evidence of horses. I have also used highway=bridleway for
permissive access to field headlands, such as those
 in the
Leicestershire village of Horton.

Rights of way which exist but which no traces are evident on the ground can
be mapped in two ways:

   -  Not at all. I took this option in Carmarthenshire
   

   where paths may be signposted but soon disappear into peoples gardens,
   jungles etc. Representing that they exist in any meaningful way for map
   users is just not a reflection of what is on the ground.
   -  Map the line of the PRoW solely with the designation tag. My
   favourite example  is
   between Wellow & Laxton. Bridleway signs exist at both ends of the relevant
   path, but a deep ditch & heavily ploughed fields are a massive disincentive
   to use when there is a perfectly viable alternative along the edge of the
   wood 100 m away. Similarly I've seen a stile embedded deep in a hedge as
   evidence that a right of way exists & that a footpath once existed. Again I
   just used designation as the main tag.

Good places to look at PRoW mapping are the locations where several of us
have met up to map paths (links to Andy Townsends maps, but you can toggle
to the main OSM style):

   -  Hanbury
   
,
   Staffs, see write-up
   

   .
   -  Abbots Bromley
   
,
   Staffs,
   -  Ipstones
   
,
   Staffs
   -  Scalford
   
,
   Leics
   -  Gringley-on-the-Hill
   
,
   Notts
   -  Lees
   
,
   Derbyshire

Several very experienced footpath mappers have participated in these
events, and have worked together to add the detail you see on Andy's map
(pan to the edges & in most cases you'll see the difference) so I think
it's reasonable to describe the results as representing a consensus.
Elsewhere the Peak District in general is very well-mapped for footpaths
and has had many contributors, so offers a bigger set of useful examples:
however this is popular walking country and paths fallen into disrepair
will be rarer.

HTH,

Jerry

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Edward Bainton  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Two rights of way questions for England & Wales:
>
> 1.
> What do we do when a public bridleway passes down an otherwise private
> track, as here ?
>
> Both the track the the right of way are 'on the ground'.
>
> Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then tag horses &
> foot=designated? That acknowledges the track, but disregards the
> documentation here
> 
> which says "Public bridleways should be tagged: highway
> =bridleway and
> designation 
> =public_bridleway" .
>
> Or do I follow the documentation and disregard the visible track?
>
> Same question for public footpaths.
>
> 2.
> What should I do with this footpath
> , which appears on OSM and
> also on the OS map
> 
> as a public footpath.
>
> There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, no
> fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need one at
> the NE end, open country).
>
> Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a right of way?
>
> (For some reason the history shows me as the author of Version #1 of that
> path, but actually it long predated my edits in this area. iirc the
> history, before my edits elsewhere 

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way vs. tracks

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

The documentation is for the general case, where a public bridleway is
physically a bridleway. (There are also private bridleways.) Here you
should tag highway=track horse=designated foot=designated vehicle=private
designation=public_bridleway. You may need to break the track if it
continues with no right of way at some point.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019, 19:38 Edward Bainton,  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Two rights of way questions for England & Wales:
>
> 1.
> What do we do when a public bridleway passes down an otherwise private
> track, as here ?
>
> Both the track the the right of way are 'on the ground'.
>
> Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then tag horses &
> foot=designated? That acknowledges the track, but disregards the
> documentation here
> 
> which says "Public bridleways should be tagged: highway
> =bridleway and
> designation 
> =public_bridleway" .
>
> Or do I follow the documentation and disregard the visible track?
>
> Same question for public footpaths.
>
> 2.
> What should I do with this footpath
> , which appears on OSM and
> also on the OS map
> 
> as a public footpath.
>
> There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, no
> fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need one at
> the NE end, open country).
>
> Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a right of way?
>
> (For some reason the history shows me as the author of Version #1 of that
> path, but actually it long predated my edits in this area. iirc the
> history, before my edits elsewhere apparently over-wrote it, showed it as
> added several years ago)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edward (eteb3)
> ___
> 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] Rights of way vs. tracks

[Martin Wynne]

There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, no
fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need one at
the NE end, open country).

Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a right of way?


First thing to do is check the County Council's definitive map (it 
should be online, with reference numbers) to check that it is still a 
public right-of-way, and hasn't been closed or diverted since the OS map 
was made.


If it is, you walk to and fro along it until there is some evidence on 
the ground, and then you map it as highway=footway with 
designation=public_footpath and foot=designated.


cheers,

Martin.



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

[Talk-GB] Rights of way vs. tracks

[Edward Bainton]

Hi all

Two rights of way questions for England & Wales:

1.
What do we do when a public bridleway passes down an otherwise private
track, as here ?

Both the track the the right of way are 'on the ground'.

Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then tag horses &
foot=designated? That acknowledges the track, but disregards the
documentation here

which says "Public bridleways should be tagged: highway
=bridleway and designation
=public_bridleway" .

Or do I follow the documentation and disregard the visible track?

Same question for public footpaths.

2.
What should I do with this footpath
, which appears on OSM and
also on the OS map

as a public footpath.

There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, no
fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need one at
the NE end, open country).

Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a right of way?

(For some reason the history shows me as the author of Version #1 of that
path, but actually it long predated my edits in this area. iirc the
history, before my edits elsewhere apparently over-wrote it, showed it as
added several years ago)

Thanks,

Edward (eteb3)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[David Woolley]

On 29/09/2019 15:30, Dave F wrote:
Preventing the mass (hardly "mass" though) edit of Thomas Cook & instead 
relying on individuals to update *will* guarantee more shops will be 
"wrong".


It could well actually have the opposite effect by getting people to 
audit lesser known businesses on the same street.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 29/09/2019 14:30, David Woolley wrote:


I think too much effort goes into these big changes.


The actual change is dead easy in JOSM. It's all this faffing about 
having to discuss it that takes up all the time.
As I said in another thread this increasing reluctance to 
removing/updating data while allowing _anyone_ to add data is 
detrimental to the OSM database. Take the new quarterly project as an 
example - anonymous users are allowed to add notes, but are unable to 
delete.


The real problem with business directory mapping on OSM is that people 
like doing the first time mapping of shops on a high street but no one 
likes maintaining them.


This thread is *specifically* about maintaining.

The number of shops that are wrong because of churn or small 
businesses, or individual closures of chain shops is probably orders 
of magnitude more than the ones that get lots of publicity.


Preventing the mass (hardly "mass" though) edit of Thomas Cook & instead 
relying on individuals to update *will* guarantee more shops will be 
"wrong".


The benefit of a one changeset edit is that it would be extremely easy 
to update if there's an (unlikely) change in the firms fortunes.




I doubt that many people are going to get misled by a Thomas Cook or 
Maplins store that remains mapped, but many may be misled by the loss 
of a specialist store that didn't make the national press.


Unsure what you mean by "misled", but surely if any shop that's 
incorrectly tagged will inconvenience someone if they use OSM to plan 
their visit?


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 29/09/2019 14:03, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Re: my comment about shop=vacant. I may have been convinced to use
disused:shop=travel_agent + name=Thomas Cook.


* travel_agency


  Not sure whether a vacant
shop with no ghost signage would still be a shop=vacant or a
disused:shop=yes.
As those two tags have the same meaning, whether there's still a name 
tag make no difference. (Although as I said, I prefer disused:shop).



I'm not keen on bulk automated closing everything called Thomas Cook
because the world is more complicated than it first seems to be. I favour
visual confirmation.


I consider multiple national/regional media reports of liquidation & 
mass redundancy as visual



Is there a case for automated addition of OSM Notes or Fixmes to
stores/locations to ask people to check?

My OP asked people to check. No ones come back.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[David Woolley]

On 29/09/2019 14:03, Jez Nicholson wrote:


I'm not keen on bulk automated closing everything called Thomas Cook 
because the world is more complicated than it first seems to be. I 
favour visual confirmation.




I think too much effort goes into these big changes.  The real problem 
with business directory mapping on OSM is that people like doing the 
first time mapping of shops on a high street but no one likes 
maintaining them. The number of shops that are wrong because of churn or 
small businesses, or individual closures of chain shops is probably 
orders of magnitude more than the ones that get lots of publicity.


I doubt that many people are going to get misled by a Thomas Cook or 
Maplins store that remains mapped, but many may be misled by the loss of 
a specialist store that didn't make the national press.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Jez Nicholson]

Re: my comment about shop=vacant. I may have been convinced to use
disused:shop=travel_agent + name=Thomas Cook. Not sure whether a vacant
shop with no ghost signage would still be a shop=vacant or a
disused:shop=yes.

I'm not keen on bulk automated closing everything called Thomas Cook
because the world is more complicated than it first seems to be. I favour
visual confirmation.

Is there a case for automated addition of OSM Notes or Fixmes to
stores/locations to ask people to check?

- Jez

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 6:54 PM Andrew Hain 
wrote:

> We can check for properties where the brand:wikidata tag was left behind
> by checking the other tags, particularly name= and shop=.
>
> --
> Andrew
> --
> *From:* SK53 
> *Sent:* 28 September 2019 17:32
> *To:* Silent Spike 
> *Cc:* Talk GB 
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops
>
> The specific problem with that suggestion is that you miss lots of Thomas
> Cook shops (particularly old Co-op Travel & Ilkeston Co-op travel): it hits
> about 3 within 15 miles of Nottingham whereas there are nearer 11 (for
> obvious reasons), and one of those is apparently is not
>  now a travel agent.
>
> This latter aspect shows that editors other than iD may not surface
> Wikipedia/wikidata tags & that therefore such data needs to be
> cross-checked, and bulk edits may inadvertently change other things. In
> many ways I prefer that we acquire new local mappers (like OftenResident in
> Alfreton) who notice that an area is out-of-date & set about getting it
> up-to-date, rather than doing a partial update and missing other info (like
> the shop is now a hairdresser). Obviously others think we should keep
> everything as up-to-date as the information we have available. I don't
> think we have ever reached a consensus on this.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 16:41, Silent Spike 
> wrote:
>
> It's unclear to me if there's a consensus on the tagging here. Personally
> I like the `disused:` prefix.
>
> I couldn't see if it was mentioned anywhere, but we can also query for all
> the locations explicitly marked as part of the Thomas Cook brand using the
> `brand:wikidata` tag: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MFP
>
> All of the results here can really be automatically re-tagged as disused
> or vacant since we explicitly know they were locations belonging to Thomas
> Cook (the beauty of wikidata tagging). You might say some may already have
> been sold and re-signed, but that can always be tagged after - we at least
> know for certain that none of them are Thomas Cook travel agency shops
> anymore.
> ___
> 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] TfL cycle data published - schema mapping

[Martin - CycleStreets]

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Martin - CycleStreets wrote:


What are people's thoughts about these suggested new tags?


Thanks so much everyone for all the great comments.

I'll be replying on these as soon as I get a chance later this week and 
merging the changes in, after a busy week following State of the Map.


(Can't believe I didn't spot the "center" spelling and "mandatory" issue 
myself - like the other points these are all definitely changes that should 
be made!)



Martin, **  CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists
Developer, CycleStreets **  https://www.cyclestreets.net/


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