Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 Phase 1 Construction NTP
Thanks Andy, this is opportunity for OSM to be *the* best source of HS2 rails data. On Wed, 15 Apr 2020, 17:48 Andy Robinson, wrote: > Government issued Notice to Procced for Phase 1 today, which means the > main contracts construction between London and Birmingham will start > imminently so keep an eye out for major new works in your area soon (though > I expect these will be slow to spot while we are in lockdown!) > > > > Till now all works relating to HS2 have been enabling works or design > related. > > > > Cheers > > 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] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 163, Issue 23
Hi Dave, I have been using this data for several years and it appears to be updated around about weekly. It is probable that the review date refers to the page, not the data that it links to, which is on an entirely different server - The actual CSV is at http://media.nhschoices.nhs.uk/data/foi/Pharmacy.csv . I haven't noticed any corruptions - it could be a code page issue. >Are you sure it's upto date?: > >Page last reviewed: 15 December 2016 >Next review due: 15 December 2019 > >The 'GPs' is corrupted with Chines symbols. Cheers, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
Are you sure it's upto date?: Page last reviewed: 15 December 2016 Next review due: 15 December 2019 The 'GPs' is corrupted with Chines symbols. On 16/04/2020 17:18, Mike Baggaley wrote: The data at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies looks like an out of date copy of the NHS data to me. You can use the data at https://www.nhs.uk/about-us/nhs-website-datasets/ which is regularly updated. It even includes an opening hours file which can be linked to the pharmacies. You will need to use "¬" as the column separator. Instead of double clicking on the csv file, open Excel with an empty spreadsheet and use import file. You can then choose the column separator. If you follow the "About our data downloads" link it tells you how to import the data. I assume the data is combined from various regions which use their own systems, hence the variety of ways of holding the address data. Regards, Mike Yes, the first two links at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies are broken for me as well. For the third link, it looks like they tried to do CSV, but didn't understand how to escape commas within the fields, and so opted to use a different character "¬" instead. If you import this into a spreadsheet, and tell it to use just "¬" as the column separator, I think it works out fine, with all the entries in the right place. (You can certainly do this with LibreOffice; I'm not sure about Excel.) The address lines seem to be used inconsistently, but everything is back aligned when you get to the postcode field. ___ 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] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
The data at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies looks like an out of date copy of the NHS data to me. You can use the data at https://www.nhs.uk/about-us/nhs-website-datasets/ which is regularly updated. It even includes an opening hours file which can be linked to the pharmacies. You will need to use "¬" as the column separator. Instead of double clicking on the csv file, open Excel with an empty spreadsheet and use import file. You can then choose the column separator. If you follow the "About our data downloads" link it tells you how to import the data. I assume the data is combined from various regions which use their own systems, hence the variety of ways of holding the address data. Regards, Mike >Yes, the first two links at >https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies >are broken for me as well. For the third link, it looks like they >tried to do CSV, but didn't understand how to escape commas within the >fields, and so opted to use a different character "¬" instead. If you >import this into a spreadsheet, and tell it to use just "¬" as the >column separator, I think it works out fine, with all the entries in >the right place. (You can certainly do this with LibreOffice; I'm not >sure about Excel.) The address lines seem to be used inconsistently, >but everything is back aligned when you get to the postcode field. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:32, Peter Neale wrote: > > "Anyone?" Huh? (seems to be lacking the back-story!) Apologies; that was meant to be a quote of this email: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-April/024410.html in which I asked: How are we showing pharmacy references like those in: https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/registers/pharmacy/registrationnumber/1124246 https://www.nhs.uk/Services/pharmacies/Overview/DefaultView.aspx?id=9164 Do we have an exemplar for pharmacies (or several, by type: stand-alone shop; in GP practice/ medical centre; in supermarket; in Boots-style shop)? -- 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] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
Thanks for pointing out how to import and convert the file. After a bit of trial and error, I discovered how to get Excel to use the "¬" as the delimiter and (as you said), the addresses are quite inconsistent, but the data all lines up again in the Post Code Column. There are some further issues in the ParentName Column, with the County sometimes duplicated there and sometimes there instead of the County Column. Thank you for taking me a step forward in my "How to Use Excel" course! Regards,Peter On Thursday, 16 April 2020, 13:52:06 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 12:27, Peter Neale wrote: > I tried following the link to your proposed new source of “official” data, > but none of the 3 links to the data worked very well for me. > > Link 1: (API format) led to http 404 error. > Link 2 (CSV(TSV) format – led to http 404 error > Link 3 (XSV format) downloaded a file with a “.csv” file extension that > seemed to be tab-separated, rather than comma-separated. I took that into a > text editor and did a global Find and Replace of Tab with Comma. The > resultant .csv file loaded into Excel just fine, but it has over 11,000 lines > and many of them must now have additional commas, because a number of fields > are right-shifted (Post Code in the Latitude Column, Latitude in the > Longitude Column, etc.) Also, over 700 have Blank in the Address1 Field, > with the whole address in Address 2, Address 3, etc. Then quite a few (from > my sample in the first 30) have County values in the ParentName Field. So I > fear that, unless you can do a better conversion than I did (and you almost > certainly could, I know!) you will have a lot of manual cleaning up to do, > before you can use this data. Yes, the first two links at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies are broken for me as well. For the third link, it looks like they tried to do CSV, but didn't understand how to escape commas within the fields, and so opted to use a different character "¬" instead. If you import this into a spreadsheet, and tell it to use just "¬" as the column separator, I think it works out fine, with all the entries in the right place. (You can certainly do this with LibreOffice; I'm not sure about Excel.) The address lines seem to be used inconsistently, but everything is back aligned when you get to the postcode field. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way
>Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22" >style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other >instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite >Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few >mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM >to this thread to get their input too. Hello Robert, I wasn't familiar with the situation in Dorset but MapThePaths uses the 'SE 4/22' scheme (actually it appears as 'SE 4 22') so if people want to use MTP as a source for prow_refs, then that would be the format to use. In terms of how I arrive at the references, I sourced the data from the rowmaps site and applied a script which looked for a particular field (I forget its name) in the rowmaps data. This is done consistently across all counties. I don't really mind too much what people use to be honest, obviously something like 'Studland FP 1' or similar would be more descriptive, but would require an extra step to look up the parish name. Maybe we should develop some sort of (crowd-sourced?) service which looks up parishes based on parish codes to allow easy contribution of descriptive prow_refs? On the other hand some counties do not use parish refs at all in hhe number, though they do mention them in the full ref (e.g. FERNHURST 1254). The Chichester district of West Sussex (not OGL, by the way - unfortunately from my POV as it's an area I'm interested in) appears to use a simple number for all PROW refs, ranging from about 1-3500. This is not consistent in a given parish, e.g. numbers between 1200-1299 appear to be spread between Fernhurst, Lynchmere and Milland parishes. Nick From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) Sent: 16 April 2020 14:18 To: talk-gb Subject: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset. I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different formats for their Right of Way Numbers. We really need to just select one for the county in order to be consistent in OSM. One format has a parish code followed by a slash and then the route number within the parish (e.g. "SE4/22" for path number 22 in Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle parish). The other would be to use the full parish name, right of way type, and number. I asked their Definitive Map officer about this and got the response: "Both systems are used in parallel. For mapping (where the status and parish are obvious) and for internal use, we use the numbering system, but when reporting to Committee members or members of the public who will not be familiar with the numbering system, we name the parish and describe the status. Our sealed statements are listed by named parish, status and route number. Our working statement spreadsheet uses parish number, status and route number." The "SE4/22" style numbers are what are used on Dorset Council's own online map at https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/countryside-coast-parks/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-map-where-to-walk-ride-or-cycle.aspx . Currently in OSM we have about 394km of routes in Dorset using this style in the prow_ref tag, and another 98km using this style with a space instead of the slash. That a total of around 492km based on the parish codes and numbers. Conversely, there's only around 125km of routes in Dorset that have a prow_ref tag that includes a parish name. Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22" style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM to this thread to get their input too. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
"Anyone?" Huh? (seems to be lacking the back-story!) Regards,Peter On Thursday, 16 April 2020, 15:16:45 BST, Andy Mabbett wrote: Anyone? ___ 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] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way
Hi Rob There is a very similar state in Lancashire, I can imagine the Lancashire officer providing a very similar response to that from Dorset. Dorset are saying that their definitive statement is listed by named parish, status and route number. I believe that as the public definitive reference is named parish, status and route number then that should be what is in OSM, using number references looks to me like an internal workaround for earlier computers and spreadsheets. Using named parish, status and route number also makes it easier to use on maps - eg Andy Townsends https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=13=53.6423=-2.5975 Regards and mapsafe Tony Shield TonyS999 On 16/04/2020 14:18, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset. I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different formats for their Right of Way Numbers. We really need to just select one for the county in order to be consistent in OSM. One format has a parish code followed by a slash and then the route number within the parish (e.g. "SE4/22" for path number 22 in Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle parish). The other would be to use the full parish name, right of way type, and number. I asked their Definitive Map officer about this and got the response: "Both systems are used in parallel. For mapping (where the status and parish are obvious) and for internal use, we use the numbering system, but when reporting to Committee members or members of the public who will not be familiar with the numbering system, we name the parish and describe the status. Our sealed statements are listed by named parish, status and route number. Our working statement spreadsheet uses parish number, status and route number." The "SE4/22" style numbers are what are used on Dorset Council's own online map at https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/countryside-coast-parks/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-map-where-to-walk-ride-or-cycle.aspx . Currently in OSM we have about 394km of routes in Dorset using this style in the prow_ref tag, and another 98km using this style with a space instead of the slash. That a total of around 492km based on the parish codes and numbers. Conversely, there's only around 125km of routes in Dorset that have a prow_ref tag that includes a parish name. Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22" style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM to this thread to get their input too. Best wishes, Robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
Anyone? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way
I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset. I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different formats for their Right of Way Numbers. We really need to just select one for the county in order to be consistent in OSM. One format has a parish code followed by a slash and then the route number within the parish (e.g. "SE4/22" for path number 22 in Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle parish). The other would be to use the full parish name, right of way type, and number. I asked their Definitive Map officer about this and got the response: "Both systems are used in parallel. For mapping (where the status and parish are obvious) and for internal use, we use the numbering system, but when reporting to Committee members or members of the public who will not be familiar with the numbering system, we name the parish and describe the status. Our sealed statements are listed by named parish, status and route number. Our working statement spreadsheet uses parish number, status and route number." The "SE4/22" style numbers are what are used on Dorset Council's own online map at https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/countryside-coast-parks/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-map-where-to-walk-ride-or-cycle.aspx . Currently in OSM we have about 394km of routes in Dorset using this style in the prow_ref tag, and another 98km using this style with a space instead of the slash. That a total of around 492km based on the parish codes and numbers. Conversely, there's only around 125km of routes in Dorset that have a prow_ref tag that includes a parish name. Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22" style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM to this thread to get their input too. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 12:27, Peter Neale wrote: > I tried following the link to your proposed new source of “official” data, > but none of the 3 links to the data worked very well for me. > > Link 1: (API format) led to http 404 error. > Link 2 (CSV(TSV) format – led to http 404 error > Link 3 (XSV format) downloaded a file with a “.csv” file extension that > seemed to be tab-separated, rather than comma-separated. I took that into a > text editor and did a global Find and Replace of Tab with Comma. The > resultant .csv file loaded into Excel just fine, but it has over 11,000 lines > and many of them must now have additional commas, because a number of fields > are right-shifted (Post Code in the Latitude Column, Latitude in the > Longitude Column, etc.) Also, over 700 have Blank in the Address1 Field, > with the whole address in Address 2, Address 3, etc. Then quite a few (from > my sample in the first 30) have County values in the ParentName Field. So I > fear that, unless you can do a better conversion than I did (and you almost > certainly could, I know!) you will have a lot of manual cleaning up to do, > before you can use this data. Yes, the first two links at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies are broken for me as well. For the third link, it looks like they tried to do CSV, but didn't understand how to escape commas within the fields, and so opted to use a different character "¬" instead. If you import this into a spreadsheet, and tell it to use just "¬" as the column separator, I think it works out fine, with all the entries in the right place. (You can certainly do this with LibreOffice; I'm not sure about Excel.) The address lines seem to be used inconsistently, but everything is back aligned when you get to the postcode field. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
Hi Robert, I also don’t want to delete the objects completely; as they do exist, so we should be able to map them. However, I do take your point that a pharmacy which is not open to the public is not an “amenity” in OSM. So my 2 “wholesale” pharmacies do not meet the wiki definition of “amenity=pharmacy: a shop where a pharmacist sells medications” > “A shop is a place selling retail products or services.” I think they may both be better tagged as “office=company” (I know that one of them is also the head office of the company and they both function as offices). I could add a Note explaining why they are not tagged as “amenity-pharmacy”, which might deter other mappers from using this tagging, in response to the flag generated by your excellent tool. I tried following the link to your proposed new source of “official” data, but none of the 3 links to the data worked very well for me. Link 1: (API format) led to http 404 error.Link 2 (CSV(TSV) format – led to http 404 errorLink 3 (XSV format) downloaded a file with a “.csv” file extension that seemed to be tab-separated, rather than comma-separated. I took that into a text editor and did a global Find and Replace of Tab with Comma. The resultant .csv file loaded into Excel just fine, but it has over 11,000 lines and many of them must now have additional commas, because a number of fields are right-shifted (Post Code in the Latitude Column, Latitude in the Longitude Column, etc.) Also, over 700 have Blank in the Address1 Field, with the whole address in Address 2, Address 3, etc. Then quite a few (from my sample in the first 30) have County values in the ParentName Field. So I fear that, unless you can do a better conversion than I did (and you almost certainly could, I know!) you will have a lot of manual cleaning up to do, before you can use this data. The good news is that neither of my “wholesale” pharmacies is in that downloaded file, so, if you were able to use it as a source for your comparison tool, it would no longer flag them as “missing pharmacies”. Good luck and thanks for the excellent tools, which keep me busy, trying to find missing post boxes, pharmacies and the like. Regards,Peter On Wednesday, 15 April 2020, 16:46:43 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 20:40, Peter Neale wrote: > I looked up my 2 "wholesale" pharmacies on the list. Unfortunately, they are > both classed as "community", so will continue to be included in your checking > tool. > > So... ...should we: > a. Continue as we are: Plot them in OSM, tag them as pharmacies, but give > them a name that makes it clear that they are not publicly accessible? > b. Delete them from OSM, so that consumers don't think they are publicly > accessible. (But they do exist and who knows what consumers will really want > to find?) Then we could ask you to manually delete them from the checking > tool (but you probably won't want to keep doing that). > c. Do something else? I certainly wouldn't advocate any inappropriate tagging just to keep my tool happy! So if we don't think they should be amenity=pharmacy, then we shouldn't tag them like that. While they may technically be pharmacies, I would think that amenity=pharmacy is best reserved for places that are amenities for the general public to use, which would rule out option (a). As for (b), I wouldn't necessarily delete the objects completely from OSM: if there's a business presence on the ground, that could still be tagged. The question then is whether it's worth tweaking my tool to remove these false positives. You could just ignore the "missing pharmacy" markers local to you that you know are wrong. As you say, I would have a manually maintained "ignore" list, but that would be more effort for me. What I'd prefer to to is to switch to a better data source for my pharmacy list. There is a list of NHS-contracted pharmacies at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies which I think would closer match what we want for amenity=pharmacy, but unfortunately that list appears to be England only. So I'd need to find corresponding lists for Wales and Scotland. (NI isn't in the data I'm currently using. I've found https://www.psni.org.uk/registration/premises-registration/changes-to-the-premises-register/ but the data is all locked up in PDFs.) Can anyone help out here? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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
