[Talk-GB] Tagging of historic 'stink pipes'

[Edward Bainton]

Morning all

My local civic society is collecting the location of 'stink pipes',
Victorian sewer ventilation shafts in cast iron. Pics here:
https://twitter.com/TobyWoody/status/1339679166371926017/photo/1

I've suggested they use OpenStreetMap and suggested a node with tag
historic=ventilation_shaft. Does that seem the right tag?

Also do people know a rendering that will highligh all the "historic"
features?

Thanks,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Edward Bainton]

>  I recall some means of tagging a step-over gate on a bridleway
but can't remember or instantly find the tag.

barrier=horse_stile

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 19:48, Chris Hodges  wrote:

> Accessibility tagging for bike routes would be great, and mean a lot of
> work on the ground. Things like gate/bollard widths would be good, and
> some of the stuff to keep motorbikes out - though some at least can be
> tagged; I recall some means of tagging a step-over gate on a bridleway
> but can't remember or instantly find the tag.  Some would be a bit
> subjective (especially where length and width are constrained), but
> something comparably coarse to wheelchair=limited would be a start
>
> Despite riding a normal (except for being huge and laden with
> accessories) bike, and being able to lift it, accessibility of bike
> infrastructure is an area of particular interest for me.  I actually
> went for a child seat instead of a trailer because of the
> restrictiveness of some of the bike paths round here.
>
> "Dismount" seems like by far the best tag if your average commuter
> cyclist or even a skilled roadie couldn't ride it - and some of the
> examples I've seen would put off most hardcore mountain bikers, while
> steps have been OK on my hybrid (each step longer than the bike, drops
> small).
>
>
> On 14/12/2020 17:27, Simon Still wrote:
> > I’d agree with your approach and I’ve raised this before, but haven’t
> > had the time to come back to it.
> >
> > From a routing perspective it would be useful to be able to tag
> > ACCESSIBILITY  - ie sections of route that are unsuitable for some
> > users - not related to the legality but so that disabled cyclists
> > (unable to dismount), those using trailers  or trikes or other
> > non-standard cycles could specify a route that avoided sections where
> > they could not ride.
> >
> > Yes, I think bicycle dismount is correct tagging in this case not
> > because of the legality but because of the steps.  If the bridge was
> > had a ramp, or there was a subway, and it *could* be ridden across
> > (even if there was a cyclist dismount sign) then I think tagging the
> > dismount would be wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 14 Dec 2020, at 17:19, Michael Collinson  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is
> >> made of ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle
> >> routes. My objective is to allow routers to intelligently route for
> >> both sport/club/large group riding and happy meandering or commute:
> >>
> >> bicycle=yes only on very shallow low incline steps where it is is
> >> safe and practical to cycle an ordinary bike - not common but does
> >> happen. Sometimes on shallow slopes a gravelled or informal path to
> >> one side also exists.
> >>
> >> where there is a ramp:
> >> ramp=yes
> >> bicycle=dismount   (here I am tagging on practicality rather than
> >> legalities, Sweden is much more relaxed than UK)
> >> ramp:stroller=yes   where it is a double ramp, (a forgotten transport
> >> demographic)
> >>
> >> on short or low-incline flights of steps where an alternate route
> >> would be much longer:
> >> bicycle=carry (informal/experimental)
> >>
> >> I also strongly encourage step_count=x as that gives a bicycle router
> >> more quantitative input on whether to route or avoid.
> >>
> >> And lastly from unnerving Spanish experience, some sort of hazard
> >> tagging at the top of steps where a formal cycle route plunges down a
> >> steep flight of steps around a corner!
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On 2020-12-14 17:34, Jon Pennycook wrote:
> >>> resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address.
> >>>
> >>> However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as
> >>> hgv=discouraged, not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of
> >>> way for HGVs (sometimes, similar signs are shown for all vehicles,
> >>> eg on fords or ORPAs) - see "discouraged" at
> >>>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions says
> >>> bicycle=dismount should be used for 'signs saying "Cyclists dismount"'.
> >>>
> >>> Any sensible router should know that most bicycles ought to dismount
> >>> for most steps in the same way they might suggest getting off and
> >>> walking on a short footway. Specifying bicycle=yes on steps may
> >>> override the built-in default (I think it does for CycleStreets).
> >>>
> >>> I would suggest not having a bicycle tag at all on steps in
> >>> preference to bicycle=yes on steps. Ramp:bicycle=yes/no is a useful
> >>> tag though.
> >>>
> >>> Jon
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

[Edward Bainton]

With plenty of portages...

Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting that the
"GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked on the map?
(Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was extensive discussion
on alignment not long ago, but too technical for me to follow easily.)

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 18:50, Mark Goodge  wrote:

>
>
> On 14/12/2020 17:49, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > On 14/12/2020 17:27, Edward Bainton wrote:
> >> Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one
> >> that
> >> near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough
> >> (at
> >> Deeping St James)?
> >>
> >
> > Someone took their tracker with them when "Beating the Bounds"?
>
> In a canoe?
>
> 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

[Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

[Edward Bainton]

Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that
near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough (at
Deeping St James)?

See https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.6543/-0.2655=G

It seems unlikey that it really is a GPS trace - or is it?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] map styles on osm.org; other sites (was: Re: driveway-becomes-track)

[Edward Bainton]

I keep hearing snagging issues that *might* be resolved by a more federal
OSM, in the map presentation as well as in the organisational structure.

Is that something that's ever been considered?

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 13:40, Nick  wrote:

> Totally agree that openstreetmap.org isn't supposed to be a "general
> public" map destination but without knowing user journeys, I assume that is
> where most people land.
>
> Options could be that openstreetmap.org provide alternative links based
> on locality and/or develop robust (N.B. tiles from opencyclemap.org seems
> to have security issue) local solutions that are found by search engines
> (i.e. good search engine optimisation)
> On 13/12/2020 12:12, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
>
> On 13/12/2020 11:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
>
> Note that someone who wants to show their map style at OSM website can
> be included, though they must sponsor hosting
>
> See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers
>
> As far as I know, the main blocker seems to be
> "Capable of meeting traffic demands. The proposed tile layer server/server
> farm
> must be capable of accepting the traffic volume from the OpenStreetMap
> website."
>
> ÖPNVKarte is map style that joined recently.
>
> Dec 13, 2020, 12:08 by n...@foresters.org:
>
> Seems to me that apart from the tagging, the issue highlighted here is
> with how the general public can easily use OSM? Going to the OSM map, the
> layers on offer are Standard, Cycle Map (which does show the driveway
> connected) etc. but if a user wants a more specific use this is not easy to
> find. To my mind this is where more options from the worldwide map fail to
> deliver and is a bigger issue that can be resolved by understanding the
> 'customer' journey better?
>
> The main blocker for a map that shows public footpaths etc. would actually
> be the "Global scope and coverage" requirement on that page, since public
> footpaths only exist in England and Wales.
>
> It used to be possible to easily replace tiles from one of the map styles
> at osm.org with another one, but since the move to https-only tiles
> that's now much harder to do.  You can replace (say)
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/hot/9/253/166.png with
> https://tile-a.openstreetmap.fr/hot/9/253/166.png at the hosts file
> level, but need to click through a "scary browser warning" every few days.
>
> More generally openstreetmap.org isn't really designed as a "general
> public" map destination, which is fair enough (it can't do everything).
> It's easy to make suggestions like "it should do X as well" - the tricky
> bit is actually doing it and maintaining it.  I'd definitely prefer a
> project landing page that's closer to the German one
> https://openstreetmap.de/ , but I don't have the skills, energy, time or
> enthusiasm to make that happen.  I particularly like the "showroom" there -
> a link to lots of different map styles, separate from the main
> openstreetmap.de map.
>
> Another example that is surely worth mentioning here is
> https://cycle.travel - that's designed for a particular use case.  I
> suspect that most people become aware of OSM by seeing the name at the
> bottom-right of a completely different site that someone sent them to
> because it was useful.  Another indication of this is the number of help
> questions that we see where people are having problems with "the
> openstreetmap app" or "the site gives an error" (and that site clearly
> isn't openstreetmap.org).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] driveway-becomes-track

[Edward Bainton]

Sorry, I joined this thread late and I see the initial query was, How to
ensure tracks don't just pop up nowhere'. So driveway first then track
doesn't solve the problem.

That makes me say track all the way, as someone else has said. The
different surfaces can be caught in the attributes.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 10:08, Edward Bainton  wrote:

> >  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
> >
> > It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
> > I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
> > the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
> > means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.
>
> I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland lights,
> I'd probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly once it passes
> the farm buildings (since I see a driveway as implying car-worthy access to
> a building).
>
> Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?
>
> I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer is
> what we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging it for
> the renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this case, I'd say
> track is a valid choice - I think even for the whole length, if by
> "driveway" we infer something, short, tidy, and suburban.
>
> But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I
> await correction by my olders.
>
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> >Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>> >cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>> >buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:
>>
>>   >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>>
>>
>> Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm)
>> sounded familiar.
>>
>> A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long
>> distance walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary
>> footpaths (planned using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme
>> Valley. It was very nice *but*​ the footpaths were in an appaling state
>> of disrepair, I remember on several occasions that day having to scramble
>> through dense shrub cover and attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I
>> seem to recall Noverton Farm as being the site of some particularly
>> badly-maintained footpaths.
>>
>> As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to
>> illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it,
>> which is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I
>> still haven't illustrated this walk incidentally, but...
>>
>> Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Martin Wynne 
>> *Sent:* 12 December 2020 14:30
>> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
>>
>> On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.
>> > Perhaps that someone is you?
>>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus,
>> Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory space
>> and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, possibly
>> by hosting something from OSM.
>>
>>
>>  >  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the
>>  > standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/
>>  > (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the
>>  > logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as
>>  >
>>
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks. I have been looking at https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ but
>> I have a lot to learn. I can do Windows programming, but on stuff for
>> the web I'm only a dabbler. I looked at Mapnik and saw interfaces only
>> for Python and C. If that had been Pascal, I would have dived in by now.
>>
>> I will have another look and see where I might start. The idea of
>> creating my own map does appeal to me.
>>
>> Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>> cattl

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Edward Bainton]

>  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>
> It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
> I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
> the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
> means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.

I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland lights,
I'd probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly once it passes
the farm buildings (since I see a driveway as implying car-worthy access to
a building).

Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?

I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer is
what we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging it for
the renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this case, I'd say
track is a valid choice - I think even for the whole length, if by
"driveway" we infer something, short, tidy, and suburban.

But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I await
correction by my olders.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> >Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
> >cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
> >buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:
>
>   >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>
>
> Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm)
> sounded familiar.
>
> A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long
> distance walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary
> footpaths (planned using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme
> Valley. It was very nice *but*​ the footpaths were in an appaling state
> of disrepair, I remember on several occasions that day having to scramble
> through dense shrub cover and attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I
> seem to recall Noverton Farm as being the site of some particularly
> badly-maintained footpaths.
>
> As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to
> illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it,
> which is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I
> still haven't illustrated this walk incidentally, but...
>
> Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..
>
> Nick
>
>
> --
> *From:* Martin Wynne 
> *Sent:* 12 December 2020 14:30
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
>
> On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> >
> > Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.
> > Perhaps that someone is you?
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus,
> Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory space
> and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, possibly
> by hosting something from OSM.
>
>
>  >  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the
>  > standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/
>  > (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the
>  > logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as
>  >
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475
>
>
>
> Thanks. I have been looking at https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ but
> I have a lot to learn. I can do Windows programming, but on stuff for
> the web I'm only a dabbler. I looked at Mapnik and saw interfaces only
> for Python and C. If that had been Pascal, I would have dived in by now.
>
> I will have another look and see where I might start. The idea of
> creating my own map does appeal to me.
>
> Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
> cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
> buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:
>
>   https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>
> It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
> I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
> the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
> means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.
>
> This is where the farm drive leaves the road - this is definitely more
> than a "track" - note the double gates:
>
>   https://goo.gl/maps/XEs4XKs5UUHNBt8E8
>
> cheers,
>
> 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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] No U-turn on a long stretch of road

[Edward Bainton]

Sorry I should have made clear

Rather than seeking to capture a subjective jmt in the map, I'm trying to
capture "no U-turn" signs that are shopping this long stretch, .

I agree a driver should use their discretion. Equally where it's actually
prohibited do we want to capture that?

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020, 12:57 David Woolley,  wrote:

> On 05/12/2020 12:39, Edward Bainton wrote:
> > Any established tagging system?
> >
> > The turn restriction wiki
> > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction> envisages
> > turn restrictions at junctions only; my case is along the length of a
> > major road (~3km). There's no barrier to prevent it, but presumably
> > routing engines ought to know that route correction after a wrong turn
> > will have to wait until the next roundabout.
> >
>
> That's a subjective judgement, so would be tagging for the renderer.
> The renderer (in this case a router) should be using some sort of
> heuristic like only  permitting U turns on residential or service roads,
> and giving a heavy weighting to the use of formal junctions at the the
> expense of distance travelled.  A real human would consider actual
> traffic levels and sight distances but they would be difficult to
> capture on the map and time and season dependent.
>
> I think No U Turn signs tend only to be used where traffic volumes or
> junction structures, might otherwise suggest U turns were acceptable.
>
> I don't think any driver (or autonomous vehicle) should be making U
> Turns based solely on the instructions of an automated router.
>
> ___
> 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] No U-turn on a long stretch of road

[Edward Bainton]

Any established tagging system?

The turn restriction wiki
 envisages turn
restrictions at junctions only; my case is along the length of a major road
(~3km). There's no barrier to prevent it, but presumably routing engines
ought to know that route correction after a wrong turn will have to wait
until the next roundabout.

Thanks as always.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] River Lugg

[Edward Bainton]

Perhaps, more in hope than expectation, it could be tagged 'under
construction'
:-/

On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 16:46, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> Terrible news from Herefordshire:
>
>
> https://www.ledburyreporter.co.uk/news/18920990.environment-agency-launch-probe-river-lugg-destruction/
>
>
> https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/horror-destruction-nationally-important-uk-river
>
> about illegal reprofiling of a mile-long stretch of the Lugg. But we
> probably still need to map the changes.
>
> Do we have anyone local?
>
> --
> 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] Footways bikes can go on

[Edward Bainton]

Thanks all for these ideas. The path is marked as shared, but only in the
middle of the park

- it's a bit odd. (It's even on a cross-city cycle route.)

It's the actual highway=* tag that I was most puzzled over, but it sounds
like with the access tags this is academic for routing purposes.

In which case it would seem the 'looks like a footway, rides like a
footway' criterion would be best?

Not relevant here, but like Tony I also would love a tag that means
'everyone cycles here, even if it's technically illegal'. I think it was
SK53 who suggested some use 'tolerated', which seems pretty good to me.



On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 16:00, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 21/11/2020 15:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> > there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
> > "permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"
>
> The way seems to be in a park, and, in general, permissive is the
> maximum legal status of any path in a park, unless it is also a
> bridleway or public footpath, in the definitive map.
>
> >
> > In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is
> > problematic
> > for access/parking tagging in OSM.
> >
>
> There is a modal filter near me, on a temporary traffic regulation
> order.  It has been flouted for all the three months that it has
> existed.  However it is clearly signed as emergency vehicles (and
> non-motor vehicles) only.  In that case accepted use shouldn't represent
> how it is mapped.  (It also has enforcement camera signs, and it might
> be interesting to find how many fines they collect if they do install
> the cameras.  I suspect the abuse will stop until they are moved
> elsewhere.)
>
> ___
> 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] Footways bikes can go on

[Edward Bainton]

Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but
designated foot and cycles shared?

Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974

There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it
doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the
best tag nonetheless?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Q4 2020 Quarterly Project: Defibrillators

[Edward Bainton]

> Firstly, I have seen a few buildings that have an AED pictogram sign
outside, suggesting that there is a defibrillator inside.

I know of two defib boxes near me that are in fact empty, despite being lit
and signed. That's quite a high proportion of the tiny number (<10) that
I'm aware of.

On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 at 15:40, Cj Malone <
me-osm-talk...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk> wrote:

>
> > Firstly, I have seen a few buildings that have an AED pictogram sign
> > outside, suggesting that there is a defibrillator inside. Is this
> > considered sufficient 'on the ground' evidence to add to the map.
> > These are often locations that are noted up on the Survey Me! tool,
> > but not always.
>
> I would argue so, we add phone numbers to hotels from outside signs.
>
> There is a question of if private defibs should be added to OSM, and
> again I would argue for there addition. We aren't using these defibs
> for routing in emergencies. We have no access liability with Ambulance
> Services. These are added to OSM for education purposes, so that local
> people can be better informed about there situation and so people can
> process the data to workout areas that are under served, improve
> coverage and save lives.
>
> > Secondly, I notice that Rob's otherwise excellent Survey Me! tool
> > occasionally incorrectly matches a point quite far away, and so flags
> > up a missing defibrillator, even though it is correctly mapped in the
> > location expected by the tool. Is there an easy way to resolve these,
> > or is this just too complex a problem?
>
> I don't think Rob has manual matching on his defib site, but I may be
> wrong.
>
> The underlying issue is the quality of the source data, they don't
> typically have coordinates, just a postcode so the location isn't that
> accurate. They also don't have refs so we can't match defibs.
>
> Hopefully there will eventually be a central list of defibs that OSM
> can work with and improve, BHF has hopes of doing this but it seems to
> be a bit stagnant. I also hope this will be released Open Data, OSMUK
> would be happy to help with that.
>
> > Either way, it just highlights another reason why this too cannot be
> used to add data to OSM.
>
> The copyright situation is the external reason, it'll put OSMF in a bad
> position. Copying this data is just as bad as using Google Maps as a
> source.
>
> > However, next time I am passing by the station, I think there is one
> > missing that I can add. This might fix this incorrect matching…
>
> I have noticed that the more defibs in OSM, the better the matching
> gets. But that's not always the case.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Weight restrictions

[Edward Bainton]

 hmm thank you

This is probably one more occasion where I should graduate to JOSM rather
than sticking with iD - just guessing a bulk edit of all roads in a given
area would be possible?

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020, 09:05 Philip Barnes,  wrote:

> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 08:32 +0000, Edward Bainton wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I've been reading the wiki here
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions> on
> conditional restrictions.
>
> Should these be along the whole length of the relevant road, or can they
> be on a fragment of way near the restriction sign?
>
> Eg, the whole of Stanwick
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.3322=-0.5635#map=15/52.3322/-0.5635>,
> Northants, is off-limits to 7-tonners. Presumably I don't have to tag every
> street; but maybe the access/through routes should be tagged all along
> their length?
>
> Hi Edward
> These restrictions are quite common in Leicestershire and are intended to
> prevent lorries using residential areas as a through route.
>
> They are generally 7.5t and only apply to goods vehicles, not buses or
> coaches.
>
> They allow access for deliveries, loading.
>
> We usually use hgv=destination.
>
> You do need to tag every road within the boundary, not just the main roads
> otherwise you will end up with some very strange routing.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> ___
> 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] Weight restrictions

[Edward Bainton]

Hi all

I've been reading the wiki here
 on
conditional restrictions.

Should these be along the whole length of the relevant road, or can they be
on a fragment of way near the restriction sign?

Eg, the whole of Stanwick
,
Northants, is off-limits to 7-tonners. Presumably I don't have to tag every
street; but maybe the access/through routes should be tagged all along
their length?

Thanks,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

[Edward Bainton]

I was going to suggest a cy-preferring tileserver, too. Possibly something
the Welsh govt would be willing to fund? Could it even be hosted at
cy.openstreetmap.org?

As a practical question, how does the on-the-ground criterion work in Welsh
cases where street signs are bilingual? I ask out of interest only: I'm not
local to Wales or nearby.

E.g., a quick image search shows some signs reading "Welcome to Wrexham /
Croeso i Wrecsam", and some with the languages the other way round.


On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, 14:31 David Woolley, 
wrote:

> On 16/10/2020 14:08, Gruff Owen wrote:
> > With that in mind, and admittedly polemicising the debate a little. If
> > we accept the premise that the native language of Wales is Welsh and
> > that OSM is a community mapping project where we have an opportunity to
> > respect native communities in a way that past colonial mapmakers didn't.
> > Could we take this as an opportunity to prioritise authentic Welsh place
> > names where that's possible? I understand that there will be objections
> > to this, but I'm not sure we can disregard it completely as an option?
> >
>
> My understanding of how it works is that it is up to the local
> communities to ensure that road signs, etc., in the local area, reflect
> the community preferences, and OSM will reflect whatever the signage
> says.  This is even more important in areas where people are shelling
> each other over such issues.  Using what is on the ground is the only
> way that OSM can avoid taking sides.
>
> There is nothing to stop a Welsh language supporter running a map tile
> server that uses name:cy, in preference to name, where it exists.
>
> ___
> 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] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Edward Bainton]

I regularly get QA messages about this when I use the "ImproveOSM" in iD -
just about every roundabout near me has at least one.

I've been marking them as false positives as to my mind it's obvious that
you wouldn't U-turn there (but equally, it would be legal to do so).

But the points about machine routing make me think maybe I shouldn't be
closing these off? Any thoughts?

Eg, at node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26187838

Missing Turn Restriction
Description
0 of 326 recorded trips (travelling west) make a turn from Bretton
Gate to Bretton
Gate at this node. There may be a missing "no_right_turn" restriction.




On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 at 20:01, James Derrick  wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for answering my original router logic question! :-)
>
>
> On 03/10/2020 17:52, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> > I've just tested in JOSM. It flagged no such validation warning.
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3403352
>
> Interesting - you're right, I couldn't easily reproduce the 'Sharp
> Angle' validation warning in the latest JOSM either.
>
> After hunting out the code, the warning currently isn't triggered unless
> the segment leading to a <45deg angle is <10m:
>
> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/src/org/openstreetmap/josm/data/validation/tests/SharpAngles.java
>
> Looking at a couple of local roundabouts via imagery, a flare this short
> verges on a single node highway=mini_roundabout, unless lots of extra
> nodes have been added to the flare to give a curved approach.
>
> After over a dozen years of using JOSM, it still surprises me with extra
> features.
>
> Happy Mapping,
>
>
> James
> --
> James Derrick
>  li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England
>  I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me...
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick
>
>
> ___
> 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] Listed status / scheduled monument

[Edward Bainton]

Hi all

I'd like to map St Leonard's Priory, Stamford, Lincs:
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1007690

This is a 'scheduled monument'.

   1. The wiki is a bit inconsistent on *how to tag* this.
  1. Key:listed_status
  
  suggests I should tag it .
  2. The table at Key:HE_ref
   would suggest that
  may not be the right tag, as  is only given for listed
  buildings - a different legal category.
  3. I've found plenty of the former in the map, so I'm assuming that's
  correct and the table at HE_ref needs amplifying

  2. I've also got a puzzle about *how to give the ref. number*.
  1. Key:listed_status
   invites
  me to use .
  2. Key:heritage
   invites me
  to use 

  I've tried using overpass-turbo to get relative frequencies of those
  two tags. I get the following (for most but not all of England, so ymmv:
  north of ~Barnard Castle not in my bounding box, but that wasn't a
  political decision...).

  I can't interpret it fully, but it looks like ref:he may be worth
  deleting from the wiki as obsolete?

  *HE_ref=**
  Loaded – nodes: 46397, ways: 5541, relations: 124
  Displayed – pois: 591, lines: 634, polygons: 4770

  *ref:he=**
  Loaded – nodes: 2274, ways: 176, relations: 1
  Displayed – pois: 31, lines: 10, polygons: 166

Thanks for any help.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Edward Bainton]

Are there grounds to appeal that decision?

I don't know for sure, but I would have thought the point of FOI is to make
info generally accessible.

If payment allows you to do nothing useful with the data because it's
wrapped in restrictive licence conditions (which I'm sure it would be),
then it's not "accessible" in the relevant sense.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020, 11:29 Nick,  wrote:

> The update on the FOIA request
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr
> is worth a read!! Makes you wonder at the value of releasing open data that
> has limited value to the public?
> On 01/08/2020 20:24, Nick wrote:
>
> As a follow up, Robert Whittaker also submitted an FOI asking for "... a
> list of all UPRNs that are classified as 'historic', and a separate list of
> all those classified as a 'parent' ". the logicto me was that this
> would help users of Open Data to then filter these out. The response that
> this was "exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA" - if you
> are interested follow the link to
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr
>
> I was also interested regarding the details of the batch allocation to
> each custodian. So apart from the commercial value, this is unlikely to be
> published as apparently this might be misleading due to the randomness of
> the data and likely to be out of date quickly.
>
> So much for the potential for collaboration with the various authorities.
> On 06/07/2020 15:10, Nick wrote:
>
> Hi Jez
>
> To clarify, what I did was to find a 'suspicious' UPRN (two pins on one
> building with different address details). I then looked up the address on
> an online system (e.g. OneScotlandGazetteer or the local authority online
> Planning system) to check the details (UPRN and address). That allowed me
> to have details, which in this instance I then checked property sites (e.g.
> ESPC) to verify the 'likely' error.
>
> If you want more details of the example, let me know and I can put a bit
> more detail together.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nick
> On 06/07/2020 12:34, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> Sorry, i mean 'findmyaddress'.
>
> Also, from this Twitter thread
> https://twitter.com/jnicho02/status/1279821108783579139?s=20 I note that
> some streets have a UPRN. Existing services filter them out.
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:29 Jez Nicholson,  wrote:
>
>> Do you mean that you looked up the UPRN on findmystreet and it's
>> supposedly in a different location to the latlon in the file?
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:26 Nick,  wrote:
>>
>>> So I have just started with my crude system and already found one UPRN
>>> that looks as if it is in the wrong location (wrong postcode 6BT > 6ST ~
>>> and wrong county). If I am correct, then this demonstrates the value of
>>> opening up data to more 'eyes'. Not sure how we could collate all lists
>>> of anomalies to demonstrate this to government.
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2020 12:09, Nick wrote:
>>> > I went for the crude approach as my computer is not that powerful, so
>>> > I split the CSV into chunks and imported batches into QGIS with
>>> > county/postcode boundaries as my interest is trying to understand how
>>> > the UPRNs have been batched. Not elegant but means that I now can
>>> > focus on our area and identify those UPRNs that are most useful to me
>>> > for plotting missing rural properties. I can then write a script to
>>> > only give me those UPRNs of interest. As I say, crude but useful to me
>>> > as I can now start to match addresses to UPRN when I add properties.
>>> >
>>> > On 05/07/2020 20:56, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>>> >> On 05.07.2020 18:45, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>>> >>> On 05.07.2020 17:51, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>>  Naive question - can that be added as a layer in JOSM? If so, how?
>>> >>> I'll have to check whether I can manage that anyway with the new
>>> server
>>> >>> now. Will come back to this.
>>> >> Meh. 3 hours in, every possible lead I had didn't bring me closer to
>>> >> setting up the UPRN data in the same way.
>>> >>
>>> >> Having 6 GiB of GeoPackage or 2 GiB of MySQL data doesn't make working
>>> >> with the data any easier.
>>> >>
>>> >> I will look out for help from the GeoServer people during the week,
>>> >> watch this space :)
>>> >>
>>> >> K
>>> >>
>>> >> ___
>>> >> 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
>>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> 

[Talk-gb-midanglia] Hello from Peterborough

[Edward Bainton]

Just introducing myself as a Peterborough mapper: I'm eteb3 on the map and
Eteb3 on the wiki.

I've been in Pbo around 5 years, and I map in fits and starts. I still
consider myself a novice on anything moderately complicated (like
bus routes, for example).

My interests locally are cycle infrastructure and routes, religious
buildings, and mapping for canoeists.

My main question at the moment is about the fate of the NCN locally
following Sustrans' decision to declassify much of it - when I've learned
how to search the archives, I'll see what's been said; and if nothing,
please take this as a request for info!

Look forward to meeting people, here, on the map or in person.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

[Edward Bainton]

Sorry to come late to this party.

It would also be useful to indicate morgues & their capacity, if people
have access to that information.

Eg, most mosques have one.

Schedule 28 Coronavirus Act gives powers to local authorities to demand
this information. Would be good if it were there in half-decent form on OSM
before needed.

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 17:27, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 22:55, Gareth L  wrote:
>
> > The UK quarterly project for Q2 2020 has been selected as GP
> > Surgeries and health sites.
>
> Good to know; thank you.
>
> Do we have, or plan, any social media promotion of this activity? I'd
> be happy to amplify it, and my contacts at Wikimedia UK will do so,
> too.
>
> --
> 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] Elections Online website - candidate for OSM?

[Edward Bainton]

I'll gladly help with the incorporation and structuring the finance. No
good at hardware or software though, and not sure what a sysadmin does...

So I take your point! I guess I wasn't really saying "someone should" but
"in principle could someone?"

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 17:09, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> Edward Bainton wrote:
> > Is there any reason why OSM can't set up a user co-op (for instance)
> > that would offer a paid tileserver service?
>
> It's an idea that's been thrown around now and then. In OSM, of course,
> "why
> can't OSM..." is usually best rephrased as "hey, let's...". First person
> plural. Thanks for volunteering! :)
>
> (Alternatively, if you want someone else to do it for you, then you can
> consider voting for OSMF board candidates who are likely to pursue this. I
> would really caution against this, though, because OSM infrastructure is
> currently run by volunteers and partly served by donated hardware; turning
> that into an, at least partially, paid-for service would probably
> necessitate rethinking the sysadmin and hardware situation from the ground
> up.)
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html
>
> ___
> 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] Elections Online website - candidate for OSM?

[Edward Bainton]

I sense this is a good idea someone is sure to have had before and nixed -
or else it's not a good idea at all.

Is there any reason why OSM can't set up a user co-op (for instance) that
would offer a paid tileserver service?

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 15:58, Mark Goodge  wrote:

>
>
> On 03/12/2019 15:48, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > The reason they're getting that error is almost certainly that they
> > aren't paying and they're either not passing an API key at all or
> > they're passing one that is for a different site.
> >
> > Most likely the site was developed before API keys were required
> > and has never been updated, but if they add a key they will almost
> > certainly exceed the free allowance and have to pay which is likely
> > why they haven't done so.
>
> They are passing an API key. But it doesn't seem to have billing enabled
> on it. Hence it won't be allowed to generate billable API calls.
>
> 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] Elections Online website - candidate for OSM?

[Edward Bainton]

Interesting. Do they pay Google for the map and tileserver use (even if
they don't realise that's what they're paying for)?

Or rather, since they've clearly not updated whatever agreement they had
with Google for a while, *if* the map were functioning would that mean they
were paying Google?

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:46, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 03/12/2019 09:47, Edward Bainton wrote:
> >
> > General Elections Online
> > <
> https://electionresults.parliament.uk/#Cities%20of%20London%20and%20Westminster>
>  (hosted
>
> > at parliament.uk <http://parliament.uk>) have got a failed page where
> > the Google map is overlaid with "Development purposes only".
> >
> > I was planning to suggest they use OSM instead.
> >
>
> The advantage to them of using Google is that Google provides the tile
> servers.  OSM tile servers aren't funded to support a mass market use
> like this, so the organisation will have to install and run their own
> tile servers.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Elections Online website - candidate for OSM?

[Edward Bainton]

Hi all

General Elections Online

(hosted
at parliament.uk) have got a failed page where the Google map is overlaid
with "Development purposes only".

I was planning to suggest they use OSM instead.

Can anyone point me to the precise technical detail their webmaster will
need? Is it the wiki page, Deploying your own Slippy Map
?

Thanks,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

[Edward Bainton]

Thanks both

@Andy - you're right it certainly doesn't!
As the hospital access road (running ENE-WSW) is merely wide with islands
rather than formally a dual carriageway, should it be shown as two ways
like that?

@Dave F   When you say roundabouts need
splitting, will they still get interpreted as roundabouts by routers, ie,
inferring the direction without a oneway tag, or do I tag the roundabout
segments as one-way in a circle? (or something else!)

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 00:54, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:

>
>
> http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=2580522=true&_noCache=on
>
> Click on 'Analysis on map'
>
> All bits with a marker need looking at, plus roundabouts require splitting
> as the bus doesn't go all the way around.
>
> This one looks like a right mess given the loop with the bus stop is one
> way.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=19/52.58839/-0.21216
>
> DaveF
>
> On 05/11/2019 22:51, Edward Bainton wrote:
>
> What do I do about a fixme on a relation?
>
> A bus route near me says fixme=check relation plus members - appears 
> brokenhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=14/52.5823/-0.2418=N
>
> Presumably 'broken' means the route has gaps in it?
>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 21:18, Rob Nickerson  
> 
> wrote:
>
>
> So far I have looked at two regions in the UK for fixmes: Warwickshire and
> the North West.
>
> In Warwickshire it can be difficult to resolve the fixmes as most (but not
> all) require a lot of work. I found a completely different story in the
> North West. I found a good number of fixmes there which had already been
> resolved and therefore all I had to do was remove the redundant fixme=*
> tag. I also found a lot of fixme tags that could be resolved just by using
> the latest aerial imagery and/or GPS traces. Once again it has been a
> reminder of the differences between places within a few hours of each other.
>
> As for adding new fixme tags, I personally haven't needed to do this yet.
> I am curious as to where "peak fixme" lies. If we had 10% more contributors
> would we end up with 10% more fixme tags or do you eventually get to a a
> point where you turn the corner and start ticking off all these quality
> assurance issues?
>
> P.S. The number of Notes is on the up again as well. There are a lot of
> good descriptions in the Notes that can be used to update the map. Check
> them out athttp://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20Kingdom
>
> Best regards,
> *Rob*
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

[Edward Bainton]

What do I do about a fixme on a relation?

A bus route near me says fixme=check relation plus members - appears broken
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=14/52.5823/-0.2418=N

Presumably 'broken' means the route has gaps in it?

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 21:18, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:

> So far I have looked at two regions in the UK for fixmes: Warwickshire and
> the North West.
>
> In Warwickshire it can be difficult to resolve the fixmes as most (but not
> all) require a lot of work. I found a completely different story in the
> North West. I found a good number of fixmes there which had already been
> resolved and therefore all I had to do was remove the redundant fixme=*
> tag. I also found a lot of fixme tags that could be resolved just by using
> the latest aerial imagery and/or GPS traces. Once again it has been a
> reminder of the differences between places within a few hours of each other.
>
> As for adding new fixme tags, I personally haven't needed to do this yet.
> I am curious as to where "peak fixme" lies. If we had 10% more contributors
> would we end up with 10% more fixme tags or do you eventually get to a a
> point where you turn the corner and start ticking off all these quality
> assurance issues?
>
> P.S. The number of Notes is on the up again as well. There are a lot of
> good descriptions in the Notes that can be used to update the map. Check
> them out at
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20Kingdom
>
> Best regards,
> *Rob*
> ___
> 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] Sustrans & OSM

[Edward Bainton]

> as I understand it Sustrans near Derby changed their mapping to match
what was in OSM

So that is now in their GIS and so on OS and so OS needs to acknowledge OSM
at osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn?

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 18:29, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 04/11/2019 18:19, Edward Bainton wrote:
>
> (much snippage)
>
> Sustrans appear to have moved the NCN routes off their own site altogether
> (perhaps not news to you), and link directly to
> osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn. The behaviour is pretty horrible - eg,
> can't cope with more than one NCN/LCN route on a given stretch of road,
> which the OpenCycleMap layer does very nicely. OTOH there's a link to a
> route description and to buy the Sustrans paper map. I've no experience of
> these.
>
> Just to throw in a local anecdote as an aside, as I understand it Sustrans
> near Derby changed their mapping to match what was in OSM because (a) what
> we had was a better representation of the signage on the ground and (b) it
> was a better route for cyclists!
>
> 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] Sustrans & OSM

[Edward Bainton]

Hi Dave F

>From my own hour-long chat with a local volunteer manager I inferred two
reasons for steering clear of OSM:
- Unreliable, as you inferred.
- Exposes Sustrans to risk. I wonder if that may be their response to
anything they don't closely control.

I asked whether there was an agreement with OS and was told they have an
agreement to have the NCN listed as a layer on OS mapping (see here
<https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn>).
"If you want to use their more detailed mapping you pay a subscription but
the NCN is mapped just the same."

Who knows if this is a financial agreement, and if so in which direction
the money flows. I'll keep plugging away at that one. (By the by, this may
possibly be connected with Sustrans' recent move to ArcGiS?)

Sustrans appear to have moved the NCN routes off their own site altogether
(perhaps not news to you), and link directly to
osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn. The behaviour is pretty horrible - eg,
can't cope with more than one NCN/LCN route on a given stretch of road,
which the OpenCycleMap layer does very nicely. OTOH there's a link to a
route description and to buy the Sustrans paper map. I've no experience of
these.

I'm sure I'll revert to this topic soon enough. Meanwhile any further
comments gladly received.

Edward

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 12:06, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> (Could you please ensure replies are sent to the forum. Thanks)
>
> Roughly upto around 3-4 years ago, which is why I'm uncertain if a
> sponsorship arrangement is in place.
>
> DaveF
>
> On 10/10/2019 07:41, Edward Bainton wrote:
> > Thanks for that.
> >
> > I will ask re any formal sponsorship etc
> >
> > May I ask how long ago it is that you were in discussion with them?
> > On 10 Oct 2019 00:26, "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I've had the occasional limited discussions on social media. Arguments
> >> against using OSM fall into
> >>
> >> 1. Claim of no cost to use OS data as it's via local authority
> licensing.
> >> Unsure if it's all LAs
> >> 2. They "wanted to use mapping that had 100% reliable data for the users
> >> benefit."
> >> 3. Mild resentment at being informed they may not be using the best
> >> solution.
> >>
> >> Can you check if they have a sponsorship agreement with OS?
> >>
> >> DaveF
> >>
> >> On 09/10/2019 17:31, Edward Bainton wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> I'm meeting the local Sustrans office next week as they've asked me to
> >> compile a 'map' of the NCN mileposts in my area (I think they really
> mean
> >> an inventory with locator maps).
> >>
> >> Obviously I'll be using OSM, and trying to get them to see the benefits
> of
> >> doing the same. OSM seems to be largely unknown in the local office.
> >>
> >> 1. Does anyone know *any history of engaging with Sustrans*, to inform
> my
> >> lobbying?
> >> There's mention on the wiki<
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network#Tagging_information>
> <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network#Tagging_information
> >
> >> of
> >> them making milepost locations available for mapping - but that's a long
> >> time ago now.
> >>
> >> 2. Here's a sample page<
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/c3d686qnu77t0mz/Millennium%20milepost%20Compilation.doc.pdf?dl=0>
> <
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/c3d686qnu77t0mz/Millennium%20milepost%20Compilation.doc.pdf?dl=0
> >
> >> of what they sent me as a precedent.
> >> *Any suggestions for how to leverage OSM's capabilities to improve it?*
> >> I ask as a non-techie. My own thoughts: put it online & wikify; 'live'
> >> locator maps updating as OSM changes; filterable by NCN route.
> >>
> >> Thanks as ever
> >>
> >> Edward / eteb3
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://
> 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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Parish Councils needs

[Edward Bainton]

(copying the list in again)

Thank you. My understanding is that this parish council has had *all*
street assets devolved to it: see here
<https://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/documents/s135418/Service%20Devolution%20and%20Asset%20Transfer%20Cabinet%20Report.pdf>
.

The answer to *length* is yes, Overpass can do that
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#Geometry_Related_Operators>
- so roads are sorted.

*area* may be too complex though?
There is an "operator"  geom()  which might do it? (These words are all new
to me... the wiki doesn't say what it does.)

If Overpass can't do area of grass directly, could an approximation be made
using the lengths of the ways bounding grassed areas, whatever their 2D
extent, by assuming some kind of bell-curve of maximal/minimal
area-for-length ratio?

This may be getting OT for this list: my reason for bringing it to GB is
that this query is from someone working closely with parish councils, who's
trying to get them to use OSM as their GSI - so hoping others have good
ideas about how to invest them.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 12:34, Philip Barnes  wrote:

>
> On Friday, 25 October 2019, Edward Bainton wrote:
> > A follow-up to my earlier, narrower query (subject line now changed)
> >
> > Can Overpass measure the length of roads?
> >
> > Eg, if a parish council wants to know how many miles of roads it has to
> > sweep. (Assume filtering by road type is possible to exclude driveways,
> > etc; assume all roads their responsibility.)
> >
> > What about area of grass to cut? (add together all parks, football
> pitches,
> > etc - assume tagged *operator=Footon Parish Council*).
> >
> I think the key you would need is certainly the opator tag although I am
> no expert at this level of complexity.
>
> One area of operator responsibility that does interest me is the operator
> of street lighting.
>
> Some streets in my town are lit by the county council, others are lit by
> the town council. Whilst I have seen the data, it is not in a usable source.
>
> I could guess based on where the lights go out at midnight, but there are
> areas such as the town centre where they remain on for safety reasons
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Parish Councils needs

[Edward Bainton]

A follow-up to my earlier, narrower query (subject line now changed)

Can Overpass measure the length of roads?

Eg, if a parish council wants to know how many miles of roads it has to
sweep. (Assume filtering by road type is possible to exclude driveways,
etc; assume all roads their responsibility.)

What about area of grass to cut? (add together all parks, football pitches,
etc - assume tagged *operator=Footon Parish Council*).

Thanks as ever,

Edward eteb3

-- Forwarded message -
From: Dave F via Talk-GB 
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 17:17
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Reference numbers for UK admin areas?
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 


Try this:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Nor

area(3601608485); // Sutton
//node[amenity=grit_bin]
nwr[building](area);
out meta center;

As you want a specific area, the way I do it is to get the relation
boundary's id (from the link you gave in the forum)   & add it to
36 (which is the start of the databases numbering for relations
so they don't overlap with ways & nodes).

DaveF

On 23/10/2019 16:32, Edward Bainton wrote:
> This is Sutton the parish within the City of Peterborough unitary
authority
> (there is another in Beds and another in Norfolk).
>
> OP here: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67698
>
> The challenge was to get Overpass to return grit bins in *this *Sutton,
and
> not in all places called Sutton.
>
> The context (not in OP) was a query from someone who works with parish
> councils asking whether OSM is a feasible GIS for their asset management -
> because (1) parish councils are third parties to the Public Sector Mapping
> Agreement and (2) they have just had a lot of  assets (or should that be
> liabilities?) devolved to them from higher tiers of government.
>
> Edward
>
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 16:25, Dave F via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Which Sutton?
>>
>> Could you post the OP?
>>
>> DaveF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23/10/2019 15:49, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>> On the forum marczoutendijk gave me an Overpass query to find grit-bins
in
>> Sutton.
>>
>> He added an admin-level to distinguish the parish of Sutton from the
London
>> borough.
>>
>> The only issue is, there are at least three Suttons at admin_level=10 (as
>> it happens, not far from each other).
>>
>> They have ref numbers thus: ref:gss=E04001120 (for example)
>>
>> Does anyone know what these are? There is a webpage in the wiki here,
but I
>> can't make sense of it.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2647
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Edward
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://
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
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Reference numbers for UK admin areas?

[Edward Bainton]

Super, thanks for all replies.

I'll post another question soon with the full scope of this contact's
queries: at this stage just kicking the tyres on it, but it seems Overpass
will do just about whatever you want it to, if you ask nicely.

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 17:17, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> Try this:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Nor
>
> area(3601608485); // Sutton
> //node[amenity=grit_bin]
> nwr[building](area);
> out meta center;
>
> As you want a specific area, the way I do it is to get the relation
> boundary's id (from the link you gave in the forum)   & add it to
> 36 (which is the start of the databases numbering for relations
> so they don't overlap with ways & nodes).
>
> DaveF
>
> On 23/10/2019 16:32, Edward Bainton wrote:
> > This is Sutton the parish within the City of Peterborough unitary
> authority
> > (there is another in Beds and another in Norfolk).
> >
> > OP here: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67698
> >
> > The challenge was to get Overpass to return grit bins in *this *Sutton,
> and
> > not in all places called Sutton.
> >
> > The context (not in OP) was a query from someone who works with parish
> > councils asking whether OSM is a feasible GIS for their asset management
> -
> > because (1) parish councils are third parties to the Public Sector
> Mapping
> > Agreement and (2) they have just had a lot of  assets (or should that be
> > liabilities?) devolved to them from higher tiers of government.
> >
> > Edward
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 16:25, Dave F via Talk-GB <
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Which Sutton?
> >>
> >> Could you post the OP?
> >>
> >> DaveF
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 23/10/2019 15:49, Edward Bainton wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all
> >> On the forum marczoutendijk gave me an Overpass query to find grit-bins
> in
> >> Sutton.
> >>
> >> He added an admin-level to distinguish the parish of Sutton from the
> London
> >> borough.
> >>
> >> The only issue is, there are at least three Suttons at admin_level=10
> (as
> >> it happens, not far from each other).
> >>
> >> They have ref numbers thus: ref:gss=E04001120 (for example)
> >>
> >> Does anyone know what these are? There is a webpage in the wiki here,
> but I
> >> can't make sense of it.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2647
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Edward
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://
> 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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Reference numbers for UK admin areas?

[Edward Bainton]

PS 'grit bin' is arbitrary: I knew Sutton had only one or two, so it made
playing around with the database easier.

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 16:32, Edward Bainton  wrote:

> This is Sutton the parish within the City of Peterborough unitary
> authority (there is another in Beds and another in Norfolk).
>
> OP here: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67698
>
> The challenge was to get Overpass to return grit bins in *this *Sutton,
> and not in all places called Sutton.
>
> The context (not in OP) was a query from someone who works with parish
> councils asking whether OSM is a feasible GIS for their asset management -
> because (1) parish councils are third parties to the Public Sector Mapping
> Agreement and (2) they have just had a lot of  assets (or should that be
> liabilities?) devolved to them from higher tiers of government.
>
> Edward
>
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 16:25, Dave F via Talk-GB <
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Which Sutton?
>>
>> Could you post the OP?
>>
>> DaveF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23/10/2019 15:49, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>> On the forum marczoutendijk gave me an Overpass query to find grit-bins in
>> Sutton.
>>
>> He added an admin-level to distinguish the parish of Sutton from the London
>> borough.
>>
>> The only issue is, there are at least three Suttons at admin_level=10 (as
>> it happens, not far from each other).
>>
>> They have ref numbers thus: ref:gss=E04001120 (for example)
>>
>> Does anyone know what these are? There is a webpage in the wiki here, but I
>> can't make sense of it.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2647
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Edward
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing 
>> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Reference numbers for UK admin areas?

[Edward Bainton]

This is Sutton the parish within the City of Peterborough unitary authority
(there is another in Beds and another in Norfolk).

OP here: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67698

The challenge was to get Overpass to return grit bins in *this *Sutton, and
not in all places called Sutton.

The context (not in OP) was a query from someone who works with parish
councils asking whether OSM is a feasible GIS for their asset management -
because (1) parish councils are third parties to the Public Sector Mapping
Agreement and (2) they have just had a lot of  assets (or should that be
liabilities?) devolved to them from higher tiers of government.

Edward

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 16:25, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> Which Sutton?
>
> Could you post the OP?
>
> DaveF
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23/10/2019 15:49, Edward Bainton wrote:
>
> Hi all
> On the forum marczoutendijk gave me an Overpass query to find grit-bins in
> Sutton.
>
> He added an admin-level to distinguish the parish of Sutton from the London
> borough.
>
> The only issue is, there are at least three Suttons at admin_level=10 (as
> it happens, not far from each other).
>
> They have ref numbers thus: ref:gss=E04001120 (for example)
>
> Does anyone know what these are? There is a webpage in the wiki here, but I
> can't make sense of it.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2647
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edward
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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

[Talk-GB] Reference numbers for UK admin areas?

[Edward Bainton]

Hi all
On the forum marczoutendijk gave me an Overpass query to find grit-bins in
Sutton.

He added an admin-level to distinguish the parish of Sutton from the London
borough.

The only issue is, there are at least three Suttons at admin_level=10 (as
it happens, not far from each other).

They have ref numbers thus: ref:gss=E04001120 (for example)

Does anyone know what these are? There is a webpage in the wiki here, but I
can't make sense of it.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2647

Thanks,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Licensability of an employee's work

[Edward Bainton]

Thanks, David.

Discussion ongoing on the legal list, but FYI from Frederick Ramm, who
opines:

> PS: I would strongly advise against using a "corporate account" that
> groups the activities of many individuals as it makes communication
> between the group/company members and other members difficult, and good
> communication is a cornerstone of every successful organised editing
> activity.

I don't know if that's precisely what you meant, but here for info (without
judgment either way)

Edward

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 20:08, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 18/10/2019 17:43, Edward Bainton wrote:
> > *If an employee edits the map in the course of their employment, has the
> > work been adequately licensed to OSM/the big wide Open?*
> >
>
> I think it is true worldwide that employers have the copyright in work
> for hire, and only they can licence the use of their copyright.  If the
> map is being edited at the employers request, the employer should create
> an OSM account for such purposes.
>
> In the UK, if you day job is producing copyrighted maps, you will almost
> certainly find that anything you attempt to do on OSM comes under the
> employer's copyright.  California, in the USA, is a notable exception to
> 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] Licensability of an employee's work

[Edward Bainton]

Thanks, I'll repost.

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 18:04, SK53  wrote:

> This really belongs on talk legal rather than talk-gb. The people
> qualified to answer such issues are more likely to be there, and it's
> rather specialised for this list.
>
> Certainly when I worked for a large company which paid a great deal of
> attention to such issues we would not have been able to claim to be agents
> of the company: although certain actions (signing another company's
> confidentiality agreement did have the result of being an agent: we were
> strongly warned against doing this).
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 17:45, Edward Bainton 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Quick question arising from a 'lobbying' conversation:
>>
>> *If an employee edits the map in the course of their employment, has the
>> work been adequately licensed to OSM/the big wide Open?*
>>
>> According to Copyright Act 1988,
>> s. 11 (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F1
>> <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/11#commentary-c13754611>,
>> or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his
>> employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any
>> agreement to the contrary.
>>
>> Can the employee be regarded, as far as OSM is concerned, as an agent of
>> their employer with authority to license the work?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Edward
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Licensability of an employee's work

[Edward Bainton]

Hi all

Quick question arising from a 'lobbying' conversation:

*If an employee edits the map in the course of their employment, has the
work been adequately licensed to OSM/the big wide Open?*

According to Copyright Act 1988,
s. 11 (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F1
,
or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his
employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any
agreement to the contrary.

Can the employee be regarded, as far as OSM is concerned, as an agent of
their employer with authority to license the work?

Thanks!

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans & OSM

[Edward Bainton]

Thanks Jez, that's all very encouraging.

Local to me is Peterborough.

Yes will definitely aim to progress this to a national-level conversation -
I'll loop back here once it's clearer what they think their needs are. (or
better on Loomio? Another OSM channel, who'd ha' thunk it ;)

Ditto the NCN wiki.
On 10 Oct 2019 11:57, "Jez Nicholson"  wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>
> Good to see you lobbying on behalf of OSM. If they get really interested
> and you want to hook the national level organisation then give us a shout
> at OSMUK.
>
> BTW, where is 'local' for you?
>
> Looking on the bright side. Arguments *for* using OSM:
> 1. They/volunteers/helpers can add/edit locations that other mapping
> agencies might not be interested in, or might take a while to include
> 2. Creating and managing your own GIS infrastructure costs time, effort,
> and money
> 3. Other people are starting to trust OSM as a source, e.g. National Trust
> 4. Cycle maps often use OSM data
> 5. The data is somewhere where people can get hold of it if the want to
>
> Overpass Turbo is useful for querying http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MZy and
> it has options to export or create a map.
>
> This is the type of activity that could end up as an OSMUK Quarterly
> Project and/or a specific tool could be built.
>
> That wiki page is mostly from 2009. It would be good to update it.
>
> Regards,
>  Jez
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:26 AM Dave F via Talk-GB <
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> I've had the occasional limited discussions on social media. Arguments
>> against using OSM fall into
>>
>> 1. Claim of no cost to use OS data as it's via local authority licensing.
>> Unsure if it's all LAs
>> 2. They "wanted to use mapping that had 100% reliable data for the users
>> benefit."
>> 3. Mild resentment at being informed they may not be using the best
>> solution.
>>
>> Can you check if they have a sponsorship agreement with OS?
>>
>> DaveF
>>
>> On 09/10/2019 17:31, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I'm meeting the local Sustrans office next week as they've asked me to
>> compile a 'map' of the NCN mileposts in my area (I think they really mean
>> an inventory with locator maps).
>>
>> Obviously I'll be using OSM, and trying to get them to see the benefits of
>> doing the same. OSM seems to be largely unknown in the local office.
>>
>> 1. Does anyone know *any history of engaging with Sustrans*, to inform my
>> lobbying?
>> There's mention on the 
>> wiki<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network#Tagging_information>
>>  
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network#Tagging_information>
>> of
>> them making milepost locations available for mapping - but that's a long
>> time ago now.
>>
>> 2. Here's a sample 
>> page<https://www.dropbox.com/s/c3d686qnu77t0mz/Millennium%20milepost%20Compilation.doc.pdf?dl=0>
>>  
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/c3d686qnu77t0mz/Millennium%20milepost%20Compilation.doc.pdf?dl=0>
>> of what they sent me as a precedent.
>> *Any suggestions for how to leverage OSM's capabilities to improve it?*
>> I ask as a non-techie. My own thoughts: put it online & wikify; 'live'
>> locator maps updating as OSM changes; filterable by NCN route.
>>
>> Thanks as ever
>>
>> Edward / eteb3
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing 
>> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Sustrans & OSM

[Edward Bainton]

Hi all

I'm meeting the local Sustrans office next week as they've asked me to
compile a 'map' of the NCN mileposts in my area (I think they really mean
an inventory with locator maps).

Obviously I'll be using OSM, and trying to get them to see the benefits of
doing the same. OSM seems to be largely unknown in the local office.

1. Does anyone know *any history of engaging with Sustrans*, to inform my
lobbying?
There's mention on the wiki

of
them making milepost locations available for mapping - but that's a long
time ago now.

2. Here's a sample page

of what they sent me as a precedent.
*Any suggestions for how to leverage OSM's capabilities to improve it?*
I ask as a non-techie. My own thoughts: put it online & wikify; 'live'
locator maps updating as OSM changes; filterable by NCN route.

Thanks as ever

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[Edward Bainton]

My usual disclaimer that I have no great OSM expertise. Hopefully I can
give a newbie's/recently-a-non-editor's perspective.

This:

> How about not needing to start Google Maps
> when searching for a location on the go?

would be reason enough to bring in postcodes in this way.

Even if they're not strictly 'on-the-ground', every rule needs exceptions
and the payoff from this exception would be _enormous_.

(And is anyway consistent with loc_name which is allowed even where the
name is nowhere written on signs on-the-ground?)

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 11:20, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 04/10/2019 00:26, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> > There's no point in importing to stand alone nodes as deliveries are
> > destined for buildings. Adding to streets is also pointless for the same
> > reason plus they can have multiple postcodes.
>
> Deliveries are to specific points on buildings.  In principle they could
> also be to US style post boxes, on the property boundary.
>
> (Actually, the human entrance for a building might be in a different
> post code area from the mail delivery point, although I can't think of
> good examples.)
>
> ___
> 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

[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 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729709956> 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
<https://peterborough.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1e47538c3218418e86741bf13a33a04b>
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
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales:_Public_bridleways>
> which says "Public bridleways should be tagged: highway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=bridleway and
> designation <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key: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
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729709956>, which appears on OSM and
> also on the OS map
> <http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=511004=298838=115=511004,298838=4=y=map.srf=ids.srf=577=511004=298838=0>
> 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

[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] OSM UK volunteers required

[Edward Bainton]

Thank you, I think I could do a bit on 1, 2, and/or 3.

1, 3. Do you have brief case studies you could share as examples of what
you're looking for?

2. Could you clarify what a 'lobby group' would lobby for?

Thanks and best wishes

Edward



On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 22:33, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Last month OSM UK (the non-profit community interest company) set out it's
> strategy areas for the 2019/20 year. We have made a start on these but a
> bit more volunteer time will allow us to speed them up.
>
> If you could volunteer some time for any of the following, please let me
> know. Each requires some initial planning before implementing solutions.
> Help at either stage is appreciated.
>
>1. Use the quarterly projects to partner with another organisation to
>leverage their membership/supporters.
>2. Pursue a role as a lobby group. That is, getting OSM on the radar
>of large organisations.
>3. Proactive outreach to businesses, organisations and academia to
>show them a front door to using and contributing to OSM.
>4. Enhance / nurture the Talent Directory.
>5. Help shape tagging guidelines.
>6. Develop guidelines to work out when OSM UK should and should not
>support a mechanical edit / data import.
>7. A micro-grant programme to support those who want to help us grow
>the community via talks, workshops, etc.
>8. Focus on map fixes (e.g. a quarterly project on Notes, Fixmes).
>9. Assist with conflating TfL Cycle Infrastructure Data into OSM
>
> Thank you,
> *Rob*
> ___
> 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] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Edward Bainton]

Legal situation of leases, fixtures and fittings as far as I'm aware:
- Lease continues and rent continues to be payable.
- Liquidator can disclaim the lease, bringing all obligations to an end OR
- Once in arrears/other breach of covenant (such as keeping open for
trade), landlord can deem the lease forfeit: property returns to them
- Once owed 7 days' rent (which could be many months hence if paid
quarterly in advance), landlord has right to impound and liquidate fixtures
and fittings to offset their losses, after some procedural safeguards.

But as SK53 says, eyeballs must be best.

Not a lawyer, just a geek who read this up as a charity trustee.
Corrections gladly received.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:07, SK53  wrote:

> I suspect the fixtures & fittings will be cleared out fairly pronto,
> although not the fascia signage. As the firm has been liquidated I presume
> all leases on retail property are now in default, and consequently null and
> void. Landlords will be anxious to get new tenants as quickly as possible,
> and are likely to clear the shops for that reason. (A certain amount of
> speculation on my part as I don't know what the actual legal situation with
> ownership of fixtures & fittings is in these circumstances). Ether way we
> can learn more by some on-the-ground surveys.
>
> Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014, and their shops were
> cleared out of fittings pretty rapidly, although they remained as visible
> 'ghosts'  on high streets for a long time afterwards.
>
> A nice refinement of the shop=X => shop=vacant;disused:shop=yes would be
> to only go from name=Y to old_name=Y when the signage disappears. Frederic
> Rodrigo talked about pedestrian navigation by landmark at SotM, and
> prominent closed shops (and also pubs) are often useful landmarks. However,
> I think this is still a luxury for the average mapper trying to keep
> somewhere up-to-date.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:54, Chris Hill  wrote:
>
>> Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the public
>> today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in the future and that
>> may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if the administrator sells some or
>> all of them to another company. In the mean time they are still branded and
>> still a landmark of sorts.
>>
>> If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change that one
>> otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see what happens.
>>
>> cheers
>> Chris Hill (chillly)
>>
>> On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>>
>> I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself
>>
>> You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell,  wrote:
>>
>>> I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent since I
>>> wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case. Not all of them had
>>> the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>> 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

[Talk-GB] Georeferencing / zeroing imagery

[Edward Bainton]

Hi folks

Another query from me that I imagine has been done to death elsewhere (so
apologies), but I haven't found it on the wiki. The usual disclaimer that
I'm not well up on the technical side of the map.

I've read the wiki on Using Imagery
 and have understood
that the best way of 'zeroing' the offset of imagery is to look for GPS
traces, albeit even they are somewhat inaccurate.

A few questions:
- Over how wide an area does an offset obtained that way hold good?
- Are the old OS maps better/worse/same as this system? Are they an
alternative for zeroing imagery?
- If I know the grid reference of somewhere (eg, Environment Agency puts a
10-fig reference on a plaque on their assets) is that any help?

On the last point, this wiki page
 mentions OSGM02. The link has
rotted so I searched their site which gives hits for OSGM15
- Is 02 an outdated standard that I should update on the wiki?

Thanks,

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

[Talk-GB] Boundary_line at the coast

[Edward Bainton]

I'm interested in boundaries marked at Mavis Grind
 (thanks to SK53 for the waterway=portage
 tag - Mavis
Grind is an old Norse portage, still in use by Shetland Canoe Club).

1. Does anyone know if county boundary lines at the coast are set at mean
low water? There's a gap between coastline (which I understand is MHW) and
the county boundary: https://osm.org/go/e7tUHoc5F--?m==669235281

2. "coastline" is very coarse - is it ok to make it follow the coast more
finely, or is it some important legal line where it stands? (I've already
done this on the east side of the portage, but then thought perhaps that
was a no-no: https://osm.org/go/e7tUNAM7G?layers=D==669235281)

3. Also, there are two walls visible on aerial imagery that all but match
the doglegged county boundary as it crosses the isthmus. Is it safe to
assume that these mark the actual boundary, and can I tug the boundary to
match them? Or maybe assume the boundary is definitive, and the imagery is
misaligned, so I should move the walls? Or leave well alone?
West side: https://osm.org/go/e7tUHqdxn?m==669235281
East side: https://osm.org/go/e7tUHrpqY?m==669235281

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

[Talk-GB] 'Sources' tags

[Edward Bainton]

I've noticed the changeset data includes the aerial image used (presumably
at the moment you hit 'save', if you've referred to several?)

Does this mean I don't need to add a source=aerial_imagery tag before I
save a changeset? iD doesn't have it available as default; you have to
choose it under 'add field'.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps

[Edward Bainton]

Ah, I see that was probably just the point Jez was making: I missed the "
*tax* money " in his post. Sorry.

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 12:15, Edward Bainton  wrote:

> Jez wrote:
> > i'm just trying to get on with my businessusing a resource bought
> and paid for with my hard earned tax money
>
> My understanding, from a relative who did a lot of lobbying for libraries
> on copyright and data law, is that electronic publishing has caused a total
> revolution in how these things work.
>
> In the past the map you bought and paid for really was your resource. Fair
> enough, copyright prevented you from just going into business and printing
> off more copies to sell on, or even keep for your own use; but other than
> that you could do what you liked with the property in your hands -
> including trace round the field you want to sell to your neighbour.
>
> The recent change to electronic everything is that no one ever parts with
> the resource at all - they make it available under licence (= a permission
> to do with something what would ordinarily be forbidden). As a private
> contract that you freely agree to, the licensor can put just about anything
> in the terms they like and courts will enforce that agreement.
>
> Profit-making business will alway outgun the public/community/charity
> sector in the lobby rounds, so legislation grants only highly restrictive
> public-interest exemptions. In the case of OS that is especially galling,
> given that it was public money that built the map.
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps

[Edward Bainton]

Jez wrote:
> i'm just trying to get on with my businessusing a resource bought and
paid for with my hard earned tax money

My understanding, from a relative who did a lot of lobbying for libraries
on copyright and data law, is that electronic publishing has caused a total
revolution in how these things work.

In the past the map you bought and paid for really was your resource. Fair
enough, copyright prevented you from just going into business and printing
off more copies to sell on, or even keep for your own use; but other than
that you could do what you liked with the property in your hands -
including trace round the field you want to sell to your neighbour.

The recent change to electronic everything is that no one ever parts with
the resource at all - they make it available under licence (= a permission
to do with something what would ordinarily be forbidden). As a private
contract that you freely agree to, the licensor can put just about anything
in the terms they like and courts will enforce that agreement.

Profit-making business will alway outgun the public/community/charity
sector in the lobby rounds, so legislation grants only highly restrictive
public-interest exemptions. In the case of OS that is especially galling,
given that it was public money that built the map.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] How do I switch off digests?

[Edward Bainton]

Any way to get single emails from this list rather than a daily (ahem..)
digest? It was an option when I signed up but I can't see how to change it
after registration. (Tried by following the the subscribe/unsubscribe page
but it's not the right place.)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)

[Edward Bainton]

The idea of asking a ranger to trace the boundary (on a printout of a
thoroughly detailed OSM, of course:  better get to work...) is a great one.
iirc, the boundaries are all pretty major geographical features, so
hopefully fairly easy. But yes, Jez, what a faff.

Out of interest, is OS's position on derived data clearly the correct one
legally speaking?  I note the wiki talks in terms of OS 'claiming' IP in
the derived data, not that it actually *is* their IP, so I wondered.

Obviously whether OS have over-egged or not it is a wholly different
question from whether, if they have, OSM would want to challenge them - I'm
asking from a theoretical pov only.
___
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] Canoeing infrastructure/river features

[Edward Bainton]

Hi again Jez & others,

Just a quick question: what sort of role should overpass turbo play in my
researches on this topic (and on canoe portages especially)?

Is it an inductive browse for 'the feel of the map'? Do people like stats
when discussing new/changed tags, and if so what sort?

Answers to any other questions that I don't know to ask would be great too.
Thanks,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Canoeing infrastructure/river features

[Edward Bainton]

Thanks Jez, I have begun my researches and will loop back here in due
course - I think I've understood that the email list is much more active in
the UK than the forums.

dzidek23, quite right: multiple issues with apps and updates listed on
their 'view the map' page! And now all that data is presumably not free,
but Google's.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Canoeing infrastructure/river features

[Edward Bainton]

Hello all

I've started to map some features useful (I hope) to canoeists such as
myself.
Eg, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73814496 (Irthlingborough Lock)
Eg, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73815104 (bottom right)

However, there seems to be quite a lack of objects on the wiki that are
suitable. (Full disclosure: I'm an occasional, rather inexpert mapper.)

Is this the place to discuss?

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

[Talk-GB] OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data

[Edward Bainton]

As a new mapper around just long enough to know that I've made some crass
newbie mistakes already [point in case, just replied without editing the
subject line... apologies!], I agree with Andy. The iD editor is the the
go-to editor for newbies, myself included, and the snap feature is so
apparent in the UX that I have regularly taken its steer and made new
objects follow old nodes.

Presumably it would be possible to have some 'sticky' features that aren't
so easily modified - these boundaries would seem to be a good candidate; so
would roads when they've been rigorously established from multiple data
sources.

And/or perhaps a warning in iD that flags the pros and cons of snapping to
existing nodes, and/or gives the option of a bulk-undo/bulk-disconnect if
you've done that and thought better of it.

E

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 11:39,  wrote:

> Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Rick Bowlby)
>2. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Colin Smale)
>3. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (ael)
>4. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Mark Goodge)
>5. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Andy G Wood)
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Rick Bowlby 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 18:10:24 +
> Subject: [Talk-GB] OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and
> related boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data
> Hello, I quite recently imported Ordnance Survey Boundary-Line data
> (October 2018, OGL v3) for recently changed electoral wards in Manchester 
> (changeset
> 65101926 ). I hope this
> isn't controversial - these boundaries are useful to me and potentially
> others as well, and I understand that the OGL is compatible with OSM.
>
> But I've now noticed that the outer boundary of the wards is not
> coincident with the current administrative boundary for Manchester City
> Council in OSM (relation 146656
> ) - as far as I can see,
> the discrepancies are up to about 5m or so. However it is consistent with
> the city boundary in the same OS dataset. The sources for the existing OSM
> data seem to be mixed - there are references to Ordnance Survey sources
> (without dates), in some places the boundary ways are rivers, there are
> also references to the "historic course" of a river and so on.
>
> So I'm a bit out of my depth here. As things stand in the OSM data, there
> are slivers of land all around the periphery which are in Manchester but
> not in any ward in Manchester, or vice versa, which can't be right. Plus
> there are data in OSM which are labeled as sourced from OS Boundary-Line
> but which are not consistent with the latest data from that source. The
> problem is that there are numerous boundary relations sharing nodes
> (neighbouring authorities, counties, "historic counties" etc) and cleaning
> all this up - even if I was confident about where or whether the latest OS
> data has priority - would be quite tricky, not to say time consuming.
>
> So would it be best to leave things as they are, inconsistencies and all?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Colin Smale 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:05:51 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and
> related boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> As you can probably guess the whole of the country is divided into wards,
> which are subdivisions of council areas for electoral (and not
> administrative) purposes. The slivers are not correct of course - they are
> artefacts of the fact that the different boundaries have been created from
> different data sets, or at different times, using different levels of
> generalisation, or using different transformations. The latter is important
> as the data published by the OS uses the National Grid as its datum, and
> has to be converted to the latitude/longitude format used by OSM. This
> conversion 

Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 147, Issue 6

[Edward Bainton]

As a new mapper around just long enough to know that I've made some crass
newbie mistakes already, I agree with Andy. The iD editor is the the go-to
editor for newbies, myself included, and the snap feature is so apparent in
the UX that I have regularly taken its steer and made new objects follow
old nodes.

Presumably it would be possible to have some 'sticky' features that aren't
so easily modified - these boundaries would seem to be a good candidate; so
would roads when they've been rigorously established from multiple data
sources.

And/or perhaps a warning in iD that flags the pros and cons of snapping to
existing nodes, and/or gives the option of a bulk-undo/bulk-disconnect if
you've done that and thought better of it.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 11:39,  wrote:

> Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Rick Bowlby)
>2. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Colin Smale)
>3. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (ael)
>4. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Mark Goodge)
>5. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Andy G Wood)
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Rick Bowlby 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 18:10:24 +
> Subject: [Talk-GB] OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and
> related boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data
> Hello, I quite recently imported Ordnance Survey Boundary-Line data
> (October 2018, OGL v3) for recently changed electoral wards in Manchester 
> (changeset
> 65101926 ). I hope this
> isn't controversial - these boundaries are useful to me and potentially
> others as well, and I understand that the OGL is compatible with OSM.
>
> But I've now noticed that the outer boundary of the wards is not
> coincident with the current administrative boundary for Manchester City
> Council in OSM (relation 146656
> ) - as far as I can see,
> the discrepancies are up to about 5m or so. However it is consistent with
> the city boundary in the same OS dataset. The sources for the existing OSM
> data seem to be mixed - there are references to Ordnance Survey sources
> (without dates), in some places the boundary ways are rivers, there are
> also references to the "historic course" of a river and so on.
>
> So I'm a bit out of my depth here. As things stand in the OSM data, there
> are slivers of land all around the periphery which are in Manchester but
> not in any ward in Manchester, or vice versa, which can't be right. Plus
> there are data in OSM which are labeled as sourced from OS Boundary-Line
> but which are not consistent with the latest data from that source. The
> problem is that there are numerous boundary relations sharing nodes
> (neighbouring authorities, counties, "historic counties" etc) and cleaning
> all this up - even if I was confident about where or whether the latest OS
> data has priority - would be quite tricky, not to say time consuming.
>
> So would it be best to leave things as they are, inconsistencies and all?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Colin Smale 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:05:51 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and
> related boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> As you can probably guess the whole of the country is divided into wards,
> which are subdivisions of council areas for electoral (and not
> administrative) purposes. The slivers are not correct of course - they are
> artefacts of the fact that the different boundaries have been created from
> different data sets, or at different times, using different levels of
> generalisation, or using different transformations. The latter is important
> as the data published by the OS uses the National Grid as its datum, and
> has to be converted to the latitude/longitude format used by OSM. This
> conversion is actually rather complicated, and different implementations
> can give