Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 15:20, nathan case  wrote:
> The two main components of the green, a wood and a grass area, are separately 
> mapped as such.
>
> Where would you add the designation tag? To the boundary or to the two main 
> landuse components? Or would you create a relation so that the designation 
> tag and name (etc.) can be shared across the separate land uses?

Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
if there's a single legal "Town Green" entity, then there should be
one OSM element for the Town Green with designation=town_green. (You
can of course have other OSM elements for things within it, like the
separate wood and grass areas.) The "Town Green" object should follow
the legal boundaries of the town green. If it's all in one connected
piece, then you could have a single way following the edge of the
boundary sharing nodes with the edges of the wood and grass areas. (I
think this is what you've done with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/181597678 .) If there are multiple
disconnected pieces (e.g. two patches on either side of a road) then
you could use a multi-polygon relation to have a single object
covering all the areas.

You may also see a mapping style around where people try to avoid ways
sharing nodes, by having lots of line segments without tags, and then
grouping them together with multipolygons. In your example, they would
have three ways -- one for the part of the outer boundary next to the
wood, one for the part of the outer boundary next to the grass, and
one for the wood-grass joining line -- and then three multi-polygons
-- one containing the two outer boundary ways for the "Town Green"
object, one containing the two ways bounding the wood for the "wood"
object, and one containing the two ways bounding the grass for the
"grass" object. While conceptually neat, and not incorrect, I think
this over-complicates things and makes everything a pain to edit. I'd
just stick with three closed ways, sharing nodes round the boundary.

There's also a style in which you'd have one closed way for the wood,
and one for the grass, and then have a multi-polygon containing the
two closed ways. However, the fact that the two outer closed ways
share common line segments, violates the requirements at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon .

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

[nathan case]

Thanks both - as it currently stands the whole town green is outlined by 
"boundary=protected_area & protect_class=21 & protection_title=common" (as 
town_green wasn’t an option, though, I actually added 
protection_title2=town_green). 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area

The two main components of the green, a wood and a grass area, are separately 
mapped as such.

Where would you add the designation tag? To the boundary or to the two main 
landuse components? Or would you create a relation so that the designation tag 
and name (etc.) can be shared across the separate land uses?

Again, I know this is a rendering issue, but the two problems are: the name of 
the town green (which has been added to the boundary) now doesn't show at all 
on the default map and nor does the boundary of the protected area (like one 
might expect considering this is the approach used for, e.g., nature reserves). 
I think this is because protect_class=21 just doesn't get rendered.




-Original Message-
From: Russ Garrett  
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 2:35 PM
To: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
Cc: talk-gb 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:
> What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the 
> physical and usage characteristics. First I would tag the legal 
> status, using the designation=* tag (which was set up for such
> purposes) i.e. designation=town_green. Once that's done you can add 
> whatever other tags you think best describe the actual land and the 
> way it is used. That might be leisure=park, landuse=recreation_ground, 
> or whatever, depending on the nature of the Town Green in question. By 
> using two (or more tags) you can correctly capture the UK legal 
> status, while also ensuring the area renders in an appropriate way 
> based on it's on-the-ground characteristics.

I was just about to suggest this. The legal status should be tagged separately 
from the landuse.

We created designation=common for common land. However it looks like town 
greens and village greens are legally identical under the Commons Act. Maybe 
designation=green might be best, although it looks a little weird.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation=common

--
Russ Garrett
r...@garrett.co.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] Town Greens

[SK53]

In the past the term urban commons was widely used in the ecological
literature for all sorts of (mainly) grassy spaces in towns. If one wanted
a catch-all designation this might be suitable, although I think it would
be perhaps better used to replace the usages of landuse=grass &
leisure=common in urban situations.

Jerry

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:36, Russ Garrett  wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
>  wrote:
> > What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the
> > physical and usage characteristics. First I would tag the legal
> > status, using the designation=* tag (which was set up for such
> > purposes) i.e. designation=town_green. Once that's done you can add
> > whatever other tags you think best describe the actual land and the
> > way it is used. That might be leisure=park, landuse=recreation_ground,
> > or whatever, depending on the nature of the Town Green in question. By
> > using two (or more tags) you can correctly capture the UK legal
> > status, while also ensuring the area renders in an appropriate way
> > based on it's on-the-ground characteristics.
>
> I was just about to suggest this. The legal status should be tagged
> separately from the landuse.
>
> We created designation=common for common land. However it looks like
> town greens and village greens are legally identical under the Commons
> Act. Maybe designation=green might be best, although it looks a little
> weird.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation=common
>
> --
> Russ Garrett
> r...@garrett.co.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] Town Greens

[Russ Garrett]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:
> What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the
> physical and usage characteristics. First I would tag the legal
> status, using the designation=* tag (which was set up for such
> purposes) i.e. designation=town_green. Once that's done you can add
> whatever other tags you think best describe the actual land and the
> way it is used. That might be leisure=park, landuse=recreation_ground,
> or whatever, depending on the nature of the Town Green in question. By
> using two (or more tags) you can correctly capture the UK legal
> status, while also ensuring the area renders in an appropriate way
> based on it's on-the-ground characteristics.

I was just about to suggest this. The legal status should be tagged
separately from the landuse.

We created designation=common for common land. However it looks like
town greens and village greens are legally identical under the Commons
Act. Maybe designation=green might be best, although it looks a little
weird.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation=common

-- 
Russ Garrett
r...@garrett.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 11:49, nathan case  wrote:
> I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a 
> “Town Green”.
>
> Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329

What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the
physical and usage characteristics. First I would tag the legal
status, using the designation=* tag (which was set up for such
purposes) i.e. designation=town_green. Once that's done you can add
whatever other tags you think best describe the actual land and the
way it is used. That might be leisure=park, landuse=recreation_ground,
or whatever, depending on the nature of the Town Green in question. By
using two (or more tags) you can correctly capture the UK legal
status, while also ensuring the area renders in an appropriate way
based on it's on-the-ground characteristics.

Hope that helps,

Robert.

> For those that are unfamiliar with a Town Green – it is, legally, the same as 
> a village green. It is a legally protected area of land that is for the 
> enjoyment of the public (Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration Act 
> 1965).

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

[Chris Fleming]

I've spotted some edits using this, such as:

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=82807938=true

After a ropey start, in general I've been quite impressed by Amazon's
edits, but this one looks quite ropey, the service road drawn in is very
ropey and it looks like you've missed the connection back to the main road
(shown in OS Openview), in addition I don't think that
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785788619 loops back on itself, or at
least I wouldn't draw that conclusion from imagery?

Cheers
Chris

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 10:02, Guthula, Jothirnadh via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi UK OSM community,
>
>
>
> As you might already know, Facebook released its AI-based detections
> publicly on 08/09/2019 (
> https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries).
> With a team of mappers @Amazon we are planning to improve missing roads in
> UK using Facebook detections as a source. Please let us know if you have
> any ongoing projects using this data source. While adding missing roads, we
> will be adding all the associated access tags as per available on-ground
> resources. Our team will edit roads manually using a normal iD editor and
> satellite imageries available with FB detections as a background source and
> will not use RapidID editor or JOSM. Also changeset comments will be
> addressed by our team on top priority.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jothirnadh
>
>
> ___
> 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] Town Greens

[nathan case]

> But village greens and public open green spaces are normally managed, or at 
> least mown, by the local authority. They are not left in a wild or natural 
> state.

Indeed, that’s why this is not a traditional village green - otherwise  I would 
have used that tag ;-).

This is an area of mixed land cover (wood and open field). It is not managed 
(or even owned) by the local authority and is in a semi-wild state. However, 
what has changed is its legal status. It is now legally a town green and so the 
public has a right to use this land for recreational purposes without 
hinderance from the land owner. 

It seemed like this was something I should update and record in OSM. 
Unfortunately it's now no longer rendering.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Wynne  
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 1:53 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

On 03/04/2020 13:40, nathan case wrote:
> I ruled it out because, from the same wiki:
> 
> "This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and 
> "parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and 
> natural state should not get this tag, instead, use another tag like 
> boundary=national_park"
>

But village greens and public open green spaces are normally managed, or at 
least mown, by the local authority. They are not left in a wild or natural 
state.

Martin.

___
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] Town Greens

[Martin Wynne]

On 03/04/2020 13:40, nathan case wrote:

I ruled it out because, from the same wiki:

"This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and "parks 
not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and natural state should not get this 
tag, instead, use another tag like boundary=national_park"



But village greens and public open green spaces are normally managed, or 
at least mown, by the local authority. They are not left in a wild or 
natural state.


Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

[nathan case]

I ruled it out because, from the same wiki:

"This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and 
"parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and 
natural state should not get this tag, instead, use another tag like 
boundary=national_park"

Thanks.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Wynne  
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 12:31 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

What is wrong with Park?

 From the wiki: "A park is an area of open space for recreational use, usually 
designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes. Parks 
are usually urban"

Martin.

___
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] Town Greens

[nathan case]

Thanks, I’d ruled out village green because of the Wiki description: “a 
distinctive area of grassy public land in a village centre”. This is not that. 
In fact using that tag in that way is listed under “incorrect use”.

But maybe the legal status overrules the Wiki description!

From: Colin Smale 
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 12:03 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens


Considering that it is legally and functionally the same as a Village Green, I 
would say use the same tag i.e. landuse=village_green. It may be *called* a 
town green because it belongs to a settlement that is a town (who decides that 
is a whole other discussion) and/or has a Town Council (which is, again, 
legally and functionally the same as a Parish Council with the addition of a 
Town Mayor).

Village greens, town greens, designated commons etc all suffer from the same 
problem in OSM: they have a certain legal status, but both the landuse to which 
they are actually put, and the landcover (grass etc), vary. So actually 
landuse=village_green is a misclassification in the taxonomy because it is not 
(always or by definition) "the use to which the land is put".




On 2020-04-03 12:48, nathan case wrote:
Hi all,

I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a “Town 
Green”.

Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329
News: 
https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-eight-year-battle-1357617

For those that are unfamiliar with a Town Green – it is, legally, the same as a 
village green. It is a legally protected area of land that is for the enjoyment 
of the public (Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration Act 1965).

But I ran into some problems mapping it.

The “village green” landuse tag doesn’t seem appropriate (as it doesn’t fit the 
characterises described) – despite being legally the same.
Park and/or recreation landuse tags don’t seem appropriate either – it isn’t 
either of those, despite the leisure connotations the land holds.
Nature reserve didn’t seem appropriate as, although the land is now protected, 
it isn’t formally a reserve.

So I’ve opted for the boundary=protected_area schema. From the protect_class 
options, 21 seemed like the most relevant: “Community life: religious, sacred 
areas, associative locations, recreation”.

Unfortunately, this now means the land (specifically its boundary and name) is 
not being rendered. Of course I know not to tag for the renderer but I wanted 
to check the validity of my approach.

Is there an agreed upon approach for town greens in the UK? Is there anything I 
could do, within the correct schema, to show this important local area on the 
default map?

Cheers!




___
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] Town Greens

[Martin Wynne]

What is wrong with Park?

From the wiki: "A park is an area of open space for recreational use, 
usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and 
bushes. Parks are usually urban"


Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

[Colin Smale]

Considering that it is legally and functionally the same as a Village
Green, I would say use the same tag i.e. landuse=village_green. It may
be *called* a town green because it belongs to a settlement that is a
town (who decides that is a whole other discussion) and/or has a Town
Council (which is, again, legally and functionally the same as a Parish
Council with the addition of a Town Mayor). 

Village greens, town greens, designated commons etc all suffer from the
same problem in OSM: they have a certain legal status, but both the
landuse to which they are actually put, and the landcover (grass etc),
vary. So actually landuse=village_green is a misclassification in the
taxonomy because it is not (always or by definition) "the use to which
the land is put".

On 2020-04-03 12:48, nathan case wrote:

> Hi all, 
> 
> I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a 
> "Town Green". 
> 
> Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329 [1] 
> 
> News: 
> https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-eight-year-battle-1357617
>  [2] 
> 
> For those that are unfamiliar with a Town Green - it is, legally, the same as 
> a village green. It is a legally protected area of land that is for the 
> enjoyment of the public (Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration Act 
> 1965). 
> 
> But I ran into some problems mapping it. 
> 
> The "village green" landuse tag doesn't seem appropriate (as it doesn't fit 
> the characterises described) - despite being legally the same. 
> 
> Park and/or recreation landuse tags don't seem appropriate either - it isn't 
> either of those, despite the leisure connotations the land holds. 
> 
> Nature reserve didn't seem appropriate as, although the land is now 
> protected, it isn't formally a reserve. 
> 
> So I've opted for the boundary=protected_area schema. From the protect_class 
> options, 21 seemed like the most relevant: "Community life: religious, sacred 
> areas, associative locations, recreation". 
> 
> Unfortunately, this now means the land (specifically its boundary and name) 
> is not being rendered. Of course I know not to tag for the renderer but I 
> wanted to check the validity of my approach. 
> 
> Is there an agreed upon approach for town greens in the UK? Is there anything 
> I could do, within the correct schema, to show this important local area on 
> the default map? 
> 
> Cheers! 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 

Links:
--
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329
[2]
https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-eight-year-battle-1357617___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Town Greens

[nathan case]

Hi all,

I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a "Town 
Green".

Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329
News: 
https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-eight-year-battle-1357617

For those that are unfamiliar with a Town Green - it is, legally, the same as a 
village green. It is a legally protected area of land that is for the enjoyment 
of the public (Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration Act 1965).

But I ran into some problems mapping it.

The "village green" landuse tag doesn't seem appropriate (as it doesn't fit the 
characterises described) - despite being legally the same.
Park and/or recreation landuse tags don't seem appropriate either - it isn't 
either of those, despite the leisure connotations the land holds.
Nature reserve didn't seem appropriate as, although the land is now protected, 
it isn't formally a reserve.

So I've opted for the boundary=protected_area schema. From the protect_class 
options, 21 seemed like the most relevant: "Community life: religious, sacred 
areas, associative locations, recreation".

Unfortunately, this now means the land (specifically its boundary and name) is 
not being rendered. Of course I know not to tag for the renderer but I wanted 
to check the validity of my approach.

Is there an agreed upon approach for town greens in the UK? Is there anything I 
could do, within the correct schema, to show this important local area on the 
default map?

Cheers!



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

So, will I have to quote a 20-digit alpha-numeric code, if I want to order 
something from Amazon? ..or get my grandchildren to send me a birthday card?
(I do not know what these UPRN's look like, but I bet they are not as easy to 
remember as "Rose Cottage, 3 Church Lane, XX3 4ZZ") 
We have to think about human readability and memorability, versus machine 
computability and we need to be careful not to make the humans do all the work, 
just to make it easier for the machines.  Making me use a PostCode is already 
making me do some of the work, but at least they are only 6 or 7 characters. 
Regards,Peter

On Friday, 3 April 2020, 09:59:27 BST, Mark Goodge  
wrote:  
 
 

On 03/04/2020 09:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

> There will presumably be a drive in government circles to store
> addresses as UPRN's, and then fetch the associated location and
> address data from AddressBase. Assuming Rob's interpretation is
> correct (I think it probably is) then this could be bad new for
> sources of addresses and postcodes for OSM. While we'll be more easily
> able to geo-locate objects from their URPN's, the actual addresses in
> any datasets will become more likely to be contaminated by OS's IP
> rights in AddressBase.

In the long run, I suspect this could actually spell the end for postal 
addresses (as distinct from geographic addresses). If every property has 
a published, unique number, analogous to a telephone number, then all 
that's necessary for, say, Amazon to deliver a package to me is for them 
to know the UPRN of my house. Their routing software will then do all 
the heavy lifting of plotting how to get the package from their depot to 
my door.

Mark

___
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] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Mark Goodge]

On 03/04/2020 09:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:


There will presumably be a drive in government circles to store
addresses as UPRN's, and then fetch the associated location and
address data from AddressBase. Assuming Rob's interpretation is
correct (I think it probably is) then this could be bad new for
sources of addresses and postcodes for OSM. While we'll be more easily
able to geo-locate objects from their URPN's, the actual addresses in
any datasets will become more likely to be contaminated by OS's IP
rights in AddressBase.


In the long run, I suspect this could actually spell the end for postal 
addresses (as distinct from geographic addresses). If every property has 
a published, unique number, analogous to a telephone number, then all 
that's necessary for, say, Amazon to deliver a package to me is for them 
to know the UPRN of my house. Their routing software will then do all 
the heavy lifting of plotting how to get the package from their depot to 
my door.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 22:19, RobJN  wrote:
> It's all a bit unclear but from what I've read it sounds like there will be
> a release of the UPRN / UPSN identifiers and their associated geometries
> ("coordinates" in some text). I see no reference to address data being part
> of the release.

There will presumably be a drive in government circles to store
addresses as UPRN's, and then fetch the associated location and
address data from AddressBase. Assuming Rob's interpretation is
correct (I think it probably is) then this could be bad new for
sources of addresses and postcodes for OSM. While we'll be more easily
able to geo-locate objects from their URPN's, the actual addresses in
any datasets will become more likely to be contaminated by OS's IP
rights in AddressBase.

So this news could be a bit of a double-edged sword I think. e.g. if
the FHRS data switched to using UPRNs and AddressBase-derived
addresses, we would lose the ability to make use of addresses and
postcodes from the FHRS data, but then we'd have accurate locations we
could rely on to directly add establishments to the map from their
FHRS entry.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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