Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 20:58 ael via Talk-GB, 
wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 08:30:01PM +, Neil Matthews wrote:
> > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways
> --
> > pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're a
> > potential anomaly but should they really be a mechanical edit (even if by
> > hand)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95739504
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles
> to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways.
>
> Perhaps I have misunderstood?
>

My understanding is that the stiles in question were mapped as a tag on a
bridleway / footway junction, and have been moved to a node on the footway.
This is highly likely to be to be correct, since a (foot) stile is a
construction at the point where a path crosses a fence and so topologically
cannot occur at a junction.

I would generally feel OK doing this without a ground survey if it was
reasonably clear that there is a fence paralleling the bridleway, and that
the footpath is crossing. This might be visible on aerial photography where
the bridleway runs in the gap between two fields, for example.

>
___
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 Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley, 
wrote:

> On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will allow
> > people who can't dismount to go around by the road.
>
> Only if it is illegal to try to cycle up and down the steps.  Otherwise
> it is the duty of the renderer (router) to infer that this will be
> necessary because of the steps.
>

The sign visible on Mapillary says (white on blue) "Steps ahead cyclists
dismount". That seems pretty clear to me.
___
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 Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:02 Adam Snape,  wrote:

> highway=steps
> ramp:bicycle=yes
>

Right. The cycle route isn't mapped at all, from what I can tell?

Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will allow
people who can't dismount to go around by the road.



> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 18:53 Chris Hodges,  wrote:
>
>> NCR45 in Stroud goes down a rather steep flight of steps to cross
>> Dudbridge Road. I can confirm that is what the signs say, having been
>> there yesterday.  Also the Sustrans/OS map shows it taking the line of
>> the steps https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.73875,-2.23631,18
>>
>> There is a narrow ramp, so you can wheel a (conventional) bike up/down.
>> It's about as accessible as it sounds, but the north end of the path
>> isn't much better.
>>
>> On OSM the steps are shown (with a note about the bike route)
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.73895/-2.23568 but the
>> cycle path appears to break
>>
>> Mapillary shows the sign at the bottom:
>>
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.738716181265865=-2.236989543797598=17=map=true=7X9gKmoDzGaATOILuDGRuA=0.14213485370109913=0.4081370298673949=3
>>
>>
>> It's not unique - I know another example where the Bristol-Bath railway
>> path accesses the pub car park in Saltford
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.40521/-2.45026, and I've
>> seen similar on canal towpaths - in the latter case in particular it can
>> be crucial for route-planning even manually, as the next access can be a
>> long way away.
>>
>> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does
>> go down the steps?
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] driveway-becomes-track

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 10:23 Edward Bainton,  wrote:

> 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.
>

If I understand correctly, the way is at once a service road, a track, a
bridleway and a driveway, and the problem is that tagging it
service=driveway makes data consumers categorise it as a driveway, which is
considered to be less important than a track or bridleway.

So why not tag it highway=service service=track driveway=yes? That should
allow data consumers to reach the correct category while preserving
information.


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
>>> cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through 

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:52 PM Martin Wynne  wrote:

>
> Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned?
>
>
I don’t know the legal basis, but according to OSM there are plenty of
cycleways or roads from which pedestrians are banned in London:



https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/113w


As one example, where the Embankment superhighway passes the Tideway works
just up from the Hungerford bridge, pedestrians are very clearly told to
use the opposite sidewalk. Google SV:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5063194,-0.1223057,3a,26.8y,207.48h,85.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqF_1bNzLwyaHTn2LSmJFvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Although the signs have a red background, so that may be a temporary order
(temporary as in several years’ duration).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:04 PM Simon Still  wrote:

>
> I’d actually say *more* of an issue with OSM is paths that are marked that
> ARE NOT a legal right of way.  Around Peaslake in the Surrey Hills there
> are various ‘mountain bike trails’ shown on OSM that are not rights of way
> and which the landowners say should not be ridden.
>
>
If there is a path on the ground, it should be in OSM. Set access=no,
certainly, but the path itself should be in the database.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] City centre landuse tagging

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

There's landuse = mixed, but that feels like a cop out - there's no truly
mixed landuse within the planning system, it's always segregated vertically
typically with flats above offices above retail.

Overlapping land use polygons seems to work fine in practice - many towns
and villages have a larger residential poly and then a smaller overlapping
retail poly along the High Street or parade.

My feeling is that people tend to map landuse to fill in gaps on the map,
and since cities have been pretty busy from the start there's not been much
impetus to paint them. If you want to sort that out then I'd draw landuse
on the scale of a city block, with overlaps and level tags.

On Fri, 1 May 2020, 12:38 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/5/20 9:22 pm, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Meant to include this in my other post, but...I'm noticing that several
> cities in the UK (Bristol, Bath and Chester are good examples) don't seem
> to tag the city centre area with an appropriate landuse tag (presumably
> retail, commercial or residential).
>
>
> OSM does not (yet) have a way of tagging multiple landuses in the one
> place.
>
> If OSM did have multiple landuses in the one place, how would you render
> it?
>
>
>
> This is something I've missed over the years... but what is the common
> practice for tagging city centre areas? Presumably the above three landuses
> are not used because city centres are typically a mixrure of all three.
>
> What I'm trying to achieve is a 'built-up-area' rendering which covers the
> whole of the built up area of a town or city. Not looking for
> administrative boundaries - but the actual physically built-up area.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] underfoot art

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

These things can be permanent – mosaic or other types of inlay. From: Mike ParfittSent: 27 April 2020 08:56To: mar...@templot.com; neal...@yahoo.co.uk; talk-gb@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art There may be some merit in tagging permanent artwork on the sides of buildings.But tagging pavement/street art that will vanish after a couple of showers seems pointless. From: Peter Neale via Talk-GB Sent: 26 April 2020 18:38:06To: mar...@templot.com Cc: Talk-gb OSM List Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art  Pavement art, or perhaps street painting?   Street painting - Wikipedia Street painting - Wikipedia  Regards,Peter Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 15:32, Martin Wynne wrote:What is this stuff called?   https://goo.gl/maps/uVVfLbicFhT25TM5A   https://goo.gl/maps/5g1yJnsAGEHzpqqY6 I got as far as tourism=artwork but then   artwork_type= ? thanks, Martin. ___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

Re: [Talk-GB] Soild fuel

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

There's shop=chandler, and waterway=fuel.

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, 15:48 Nick Allen,  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The main usage that I'm aware of is to do with the waterways network in
> the UK. Many narrowboats, and others,  have solid fuel stoves on board, and
> buy from Chandler's or narrowboats that work the waterways supplying gas,
> solid fuel and other consumables.
>
> Mapping the mobile suppliers would be difficult, add they mover on after a
> few days,  but the Chandler's,  and petrol stations that supply the boaters
> could do with a consistent tagging scheme.
>
> Nick
> (Tallguy)
> my phone is responsible for any spelling mistakes!
>
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, 13:49 SK53,  wrote:
>
>> There's one 
>> fairly close to me (or at least their sign is still there, I've not
>> recently verified that they still exist). We used shop=coal (but see
>> below), which is not far off the more generic shop=fuel.
>>
>> It's over 20 years ago since I bought coal. I ordered it and was
>> delivered, perhaps 1 cwt which lasted the winter. I think that's how most
>> solid fuel will be sold, so most are not really shops but coal merchants
>> yards. I have no idea how these should be tagged, but shop is probably not
>> particularly correct. Similar things will be true for suppliers of LPG or
>> Oil for heating systems in rural areas. In Spain people used to buy butane
>> for cooking (probably still do) largely through Butano SA which became a
>> Repsol subsidiary. I ought to know how this worked as a relative worked for
>> them, but don't. I suspect it's possible to get regular deliveries (just
>> like the old Corona
>>  vans - fizzy pop
>> I hasten to add).
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 21:28, Andy Robinson  wrote:
>>
>>> Solid fuel; as in a coal merchants. Yes, still a few of those around,
>>> probably many of them in some countries.
>>>
>>> amenity=fuel / fuel=solid perhaps but that will receive a petrol pump on
>>> the map for your efforts.
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7171642306
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> 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] Soild fuel

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

amenity=fuel is specifically for fuel sold for immediate use by road
vehicles (air, water and rail fuel stations have their own tags). Unless
you're running a steam car, I think you want shop=fuel.

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020, 21:27 Andy Robinson,  wrote:

> Solid fuel; as in a coal merchants. Yes, still a few of those around,
> probably many of them in some countries.
>
> amenity=fuel / fuel=solid perhaps but that will receive a petrol pump on
> the map for your efforts.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7171642306
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Good idea - I've added a pull request to Osmose
https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/pull/714 - please take a look and
weigh in if you think it could be improved.

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:47 PM Ken Kilfedder 
wrote:

> Is it worth adding this to Osmose and the other QA tools?
>
> ---
> https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
> spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, at 4:31 PM, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
>
> Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing
> nodes in your area, which may be disrupting routing, the Overpass query
> is node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"] :
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/P5Y
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:20 PM Edward Catmur 
> wrote:
>
> Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem
> is. It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the
> presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb
> should *not* be used.
>
> Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki:
>
>  If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to
> add the kerb=* tag to the highway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=crossing
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing> node, which
> sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right
> if the kerbs differ.
>
>
> but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing
> node!
>
> I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake.
> Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of
> highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable.
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes 
> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
> > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied
> sports
> > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at
> low
> > > speed.
> >
> > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and the
> > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As
> > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.
>
> Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly
> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles  over lowered kerbs
> to access private property.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
>  ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> 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 list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing
nodes in your area, which may be disrupting routing, the Overpass query
is node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"] :
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/P5Y

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:20 PM Edward Catmur 
wrote:

> Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem
> is. It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the
> presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb
> should *not* be used.
>
> Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki:
>
>  If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to
>> add the kerb=* tag to the highway
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=crossing
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing> node, which
>> sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right
>> if the kerbs differ.
>
>
> but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing
> node!
>
> I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake.
> Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of
> highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable.
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
>> > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
>> > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied
>> sports
>> > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at
>> low
>> > > speed.
>> >
>> > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and
>> the
>> > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As
>> > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.
>>
>> Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly
>> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles  over lowered kerbs
>> to access private property.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>>
>>
>>  ___
>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Sailfish device
>> ___
>> 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] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem
is. It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the
presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb
should *not* be used.

Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki:

 If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to
> add the kerb=* tag to the highway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=crossing
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing> node, which
> sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right
> if the kerbs differ.


but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing
node!

I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake.
Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of
highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable.

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
> > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied
> sports
> > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at
> low
> > > speed.
> >
> > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and the
> > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As
> > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.
>
> Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly
> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles  over lowered kerbs
> to access private property.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
>  ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> 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] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

I think your new mapping is correct, as it reflects reality - which is what
most matters. You could improve it by curving the cycle path/sidewalk up to
the crossing and aligning the kerb nodes to the aerial photo, but that's
nitpicking.

That said, there's still a problem in that at least one routing
engine (OSRM in bicycle mode) still sees kerbs as impassable to bicycles:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike=55.0123%2C-1.4837%3B55.0130%2C-1.4810
but
that's something the routing engine devs should fix (if you feel like
contacting them); compare
https://github.com/fossgis-routing-server/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/foot.lua#L35

https://github.com/fossgis-routing-server/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/bike.lua#L40


Even a non-lowered kerb is an obstacle to cycling, but not an
insurmountable one, at least to able-bodied cyclists who can raise their
bike over the kerb, so it should perhaps have a penalty in routing but not
enough to make a 2km detour preferable. That said, the same goes for cars -
other than the lowest bodied sports cars, pretty much all motor vehicles
are capable of taking a kerb at low speed.

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:35 PM James Derrick 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> After investigating two reports of OSRM routing failures around North
> Tyneside, the common factor I can see is barrier=kerb tags added to
> highway=crossing nodes intersecting highway=tertiary and
> highway=cycleway/ footway ways.
>
> Here are links to the two map note reports:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2030228
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2030238
>
> To investigate the report, I entered the postcodes given into the
> default routing engine on the OSM map and found VERY odd routes going
> 10x the direct distance, and avoiding very obvious direct paths:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=55.0659%2C-1.4624%3B55.0511%2C-1.4530#map=14/55.0590/-1.4747=N
>
> Personally, I'd not noticed the OSM main map had added several routing
> engines as I use separate tools, so have no idea how often the routing
> engines update their database extracts but expect the issue to be
> visible for a few days.
>
>
> After two examples of bad routing, I checked the paths between the
> geolocated points given and found one common factor - barrier=kerb on a
> road / footway highway=crossing node.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4341572135
>
> My hunch is the router isn't familiar with barrier=kerb, so is assuming
> BOTH ways are blocked and using an alternate path.
>
>
> It is debatable how a routing engine should interpret highway=kerb tag,
> however my own thought is the kerb is not on the highway=secondary - it
> is on the highway=footway.
>
> If anywhere, there should be two nodes on the footway separate from the
> secondary to give information to wheelchair accessibility routers.
>
>
> As an experiment, I've removed the barrier=kerb from a highway-crossing
> and added two nodes on the cycleway, with the additional explicit tags of:
>
>barrier=kerb
>bicycle=yes
>foot=yes
>wheelchair=limited
>kerb=lowered
>tactile_paving=yes
>horse=yes  (ISTR UK law says cycle = horse!)
>
> This is rather cumbersome compared with one barrier=kerb tag on the
> node, but logic suggests this is more consistent with reality and
> current routers.
>
>
> Has any one used the barrier=kerb tag, or is familiar with the inner
> workings of OSRM or similar engines please?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Some mappers use meadow for permanent pasture, on the basis that this is a
fundamentally different use of land to putting it under the plough.

Others believe that meadow should be reserved for "real" meadow, and that
permanent pasture should be distinguished from cropland by some combination
of sub tags.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019, 16:09 Martin Wynne,  wrote:

> > I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
>
> Thanks Dave.
>
> But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two?
>
> It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous
> detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts of
> land which visually look very different are classed as one and the same?
>
> 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

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

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

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

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Tricky - it appears to be a rule that all the famous sea caves are
accessible by foot at low tide (there's probably a geological reason, like
why sea cliffs tend to have a ledge below exposed at low tide). That said,
some sea arches have inward-sloping sides - e.g. Stair Hole
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2128418334 on the 1:25000 the HWM and
LWM both appear to follow the outer edge of the arch above while the
interior is rendered with the cave/cave entrance symbol.

It's an interesting question how to map sea caves and natural arches - all
I've looked at so far have the coastline running along the outer edge of
the land above, but OTOH you have natural arches like Rainbow Bridge
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/569676595 mapped as an area natural=rock
with Lake Powell running uninterrupted underneath it; and Natural Bridge
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4325038750 is mapped as two cliffs, not
intersecting the creek or path beneath.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:56 PM Colin Smale  wrote:

> Good point. Do you know of one? Let's have a look at how the OS deal with
> it.
>
>
>
> On 2019-07-11 22:52, Edward Catmur wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:19 PM Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> * Where the coastline is essentially vertical (harbour walls, steep
>> cliffs) MHWS and MLWS can coincide in OS data (sharing nodes but not ways),
>> but of course low water can never be landward of high water.
>>
> Is this necessarily the case? Couldn't an overhang result in a low water
> landward of high water? Consider e.g. a sea cave that is flooded at high
> tide.
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:19 PM Colin Smale  wrote:

> * Where the coastline is essentially vertical (harbour walls, steep
> cliffs) MHWS and MLWS can coincide in OS data (sharing nodes but not ways),
> but of course low water can never be landward of high water.
>
Is this necessarily the case? Couldn't an overhang result in a low water
landward of high water? Consider e.g. a sea cave that is flooded at high
tide.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

An Overpass query for relation["type"="route"]["operator"~"parkrun",i]
throws up 38 mapped Parkruns globally of which I'm (at least partially)
responsible for mapping four. I should probably add some more, either from
memory or via tourism (could be a good personal project...)

I think if a bus route with all its potential complexity can be mapped then
a Parkrun can be as well - it's only 5km so how complicated can it be!

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:41 PM Jez Nicholson 
wrote:

> Yeah, the Parkrun idea was spur-of-the-moment. I could argue that I can
> verify it on the ground any Saturday morning as it'll be covered in
> runners. I don't really want to proliferate Relations, but could be
> convinced if we got Parkrun itself to hook up with us to provide route
> maps. Not even sure it works anyway as the route involves 2 laps with
> slight differences. Anyway, i digress. Not going to do it now.
>
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 13:27 Philip Barnes,  wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 4 June 2019, Tony Shield wrote:
>> >
>> > Parkrun as a relation - why not, its similar to a country walk and we
>> > notate those. Would want to add parkrun description to UK wiki as to
>> the
>> > meanings in the relationship.
>> >
>> We only map walking, or cycling, routes which are verifiable on the
>> ground.
>>
>> These should only be mapped if there are permanent markers.
>>
>> I am always  on the lookout for waymarks and I certainly haven't spotted
>> any around The Quarry in Shrewsbury, where apparently one happens every
>> Saturday.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>> --
>> Sent from my Sailfish device
>> ___
>> 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] Farmland (crop or animals)?

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Fair enough, I agree that a wildflower meadow is a very pleasant place to
be. However, I would still be more concerned to avoid the unpleasantness of
walking through cropland where the path is variously ploughed under,
utterly obscured by wheat or maize, or in the best case surfaced with heavy
clay that clings to one's shoes or boots.

On Fri, 24 May 2019, 16:22 Philip Barnes,  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, 24 May 2019, SK53 wrote:
> > As a walker I appreciate walking through a real hay meadow full of
> > attractive flowers rather than a sterile green desert of rye grass.
>
> And as a walker a real meadow is a very nice place to sit down and enjoy a
> relaxing lunch or coffee break.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> > Dudley Ibbett made this point long ago about the Peak District. The
> > difference is roughly equivalent to walking through a dark lifeless
> spruce
> > plantation and an ancient oak wood.
> >
> > As a naturalist these precious remnants are pretty much the only places
> > where many flowers, insects and birds are likely to be seen.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 11:59, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB <
> > talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > > As a walker, the most important distinction in agricultural land (not
> > > including orchards) is whether it is tilled or otherwise reduced to
> bare
> > > earth, or whether grass is allowed to establish permanent root
> systems. How
> > > long or varied the grass is allowed to get really doesn't concern me,
> > > especially as that can change in a matter of months after a wet spring
> or
> > > an enthusiastic flock of sheep have been through. The exact terminology
> > > used doesn't really concern me, but where I grew up "meadow" was the
> > > colloquial term for pasture, even close cropped grass.
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:07 AM Andy Townsend 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 24/05/2019 10:43, Gregory Marler wrote:
> > >> > What is going on with landuse=farmland, and what are we going to do?
> > >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmland
> > >> >
> > >> With regard to tagging, I agree with a lot of what you say there, but
> I
> > >> suspect that the first thing to do is to talk to the wiki editor about
> > >> it.  It may be that they thought that they were just changing the wiki
> > >> in line with actual usage, it may be that they've actually discussed
> it
> > >> with lots of other people elsewhere first (just not visible at first
> > >> glance to me).
> > >>
> > >> For international tagging discussions the tagging list is probably the
> > >> best* mailing list, but it's probably worth also mentioning on the
> wiki
> > >> talk page for the tag too (and maybe the talk page for the wiki
> editor).
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Andy
> > >>
> > >> * or maybe "least worst" - there's a discussion there about how
> terrible
> > >> mailing list discussions are compared to controlled spaces on the
> > >> tagging list at the moment - but that's more to do with what happens
> > >> when people who don't agree (and don't even agree how to talk about
> > >> things) encounter people who don't agree with each other.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> 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
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Farmland (crop or animals)?

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

As a walker, the most important distinction in agricultural land (not
including orchards) is whether it is tilled or otherwise reduced to bare
earth, or whether grass is allowed to establish permanent root systems. How
long or varied the grass is allowed to get really doesn't concern me,
especially as that can change in a matter of months after a wet spring or
an enthusiastic flock of sheep have been through. The exact terminology
used doesn't really concern me, but where I grew up "meadow" was the
colloquial term for pasture, even close cropped grass.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:07 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 24/05/2019 10:43, Gregory Marler wrote:
> > What is going on with landuse=farmland, and what are we going to do?
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmland
> >
> With regard to tagging, I agree with a lot of what you say there, but I
> suspect that the first thing to do is to talk to the wiki editor about
> it.  It may be that they thought that they were just changing the wiki
> in line with actual usage, it may be that they've actually discussed it
> with lots of other people elsewhere first (just not visible at first
> glance to me).
>
> For international tagging discussions the tagging list is probably the
> best* mailing list, but it's probably worth also mentioning on the wiki
> talk page for the tag too (and maybe the talk page for the wiki editor).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> * or maybe "least worst" - there's a discussion there about how terrible
> mailing list discussions are compared to controlled spaces on the
> tagging list at the moment - but that's more to do with what happens
> when people who don't agree (and don't even agree how to talk about
> things) encounter people who don't agree with each other.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging a named building now used for a different purpose

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

The "building:name" tag would seem to be appropriate here.

Some examples:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170028507
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85945126
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25911545

An alternative could be to have two objects: the building as a way, and the
tenant either as a node or as a (possibly fully) overlapping way sharing
nodes. I wouldn't go for this unless the building is sufficiently notable
e.g. having a Wikipedia article.

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 9:37 PM Mark Goodge  wrote:

> Looking for some advice...
>
> There's a building in the town where I live that was originally
> constructed by the Jehovah's Witnesses and named, by them, "Wisdom
> Hall". It hasn't been used by the JWs now for several years, ever since
> they moved to a new location. The building is currently occupied by a
> jewellery company which uses it as their workshop.
>
> However, the building is still known locally as "Wisdom hall", and that
> also still appears on the nameplate on the front of the building along
> with the current owner's trading name.
>
> I've edited it to change it from a place of worship to a commercial
> building, as that's what it now is. (The previous tags were added in
> 2015, well after it had ceased to be a place of worship, so I suspect
> the editor then was working from historic information).
>
> However, I'm a bit unsure how best to tag it. Normally, commercial
> buildings have the owner's name as the value of the 'name' key. I could
> do that here, and then move the building name into the 'addr:housename'
> key, but that seems inappropriate. So I've left the building name as it
> was, which reflects current local usage.
>
> But then, where does the current owner's name go? For now, I've put it
> into the 'operator' key. But I'm not really sure if that's the right
> place either.
>
> This is the object in question:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/308217826
>
> Any suggestions gratefully received.
>
> 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] Best One vs Best-One vs best-one vs Best-one convenience shop

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Wikidata (and Wikipedia) use "Best-One" :
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4896532

I would favour "Best-one", though, as that's the company name.

On Sun, 5 May 2019, 17:46 Mateusz Konieczny, 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 5 May 2019, 18:25 by sk53@gmail.com:
>
> I think Rob is right here:
>
> My view on these cases is to use the name as the company uses in their own
> written context rather than any stylisation on the store sign. Their
> website uses "Best-one" so that's what I'd pick.
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
> Toys-R-Us at one stage was mapped with the relevant Unicode character for
> a backwards "R", so slavish copying of the trade dress (i.e., best-one, in
> this case) is not likely to be a good idea. Similarly former (and IIRC
> still about) trade dress for various Co-op brands was "the Co-operative
> Xxxx". I think agreeing a convention for names which are capitalised
> unconventionally would help in these cases.
>
> It is clear that Best-one use a hyphen so the most popular option is the
> least correct. Although I've used "Best-One" in the past it looks rather
> clunky, and is an odd form of capitalisation. "best-one" fits the trade
> dress, but this will likely change as they do, so a more conventionally
> capitalised "Best-one". I note The Grocer, a trade magazine, which must
> wrestle with this sort of style problem all the time, uses "Best-one":
> https://www.thegrocergoldawards.co.uk/grocer-gold-finalists/.
>
> Normalized to Best-one in
>
> https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/commit/4b779e42839a6aedb572647923fb42897194
>
> I hoped that it will be preferred name, but I wanted to confirm as it was
> the least used one.
>
> (Note, for now it will not appear in iD and Vespucci as
> there is no Wikipedia/Wikidata entry and name-suggestion-index
> unfortunately requires it
> to include it in the list of distributed names)
>
> PS. For Rob: you can reply using nabble in conjunction with a subscription
> to the mailing list without receiving messages by default. Richard
> Fairhurst does this.
>
> I use a separate mail account just for receiving ml.
> ___
> 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] New Bridge Gunnislake

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

There is also the temporary affix:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/temporary_(conditional)#Example_4:_Temporary_highway_bridge

I'm not entirely sure how well supported that is by routers etc though.

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, 20:33 Mateusz Konieczny, 
wrote:

>
> It is closed for repairs, so maybe highway=construction
> construction=primary
> would be better?
>
> It seems that it will be more likely to be caught if forgotten, really old
> highway=construction
> is far more suspicious that old access=no.
>
> Old highway=construction would be caught for example by StreetComplete.
>
> There is also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_date
> that allows to specify opening date - what makes possible to
> run query detecting objects that are supposed to be open now.
>
> Query example for London: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/HEq (pan map
> and press run to get results for other place).
>
> Apr 3, 2019, 6:19 PM by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
>
> With some hesitation, I have just added access = no to New Bridge
> in Gunnislake.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/608610775
>
> This is one of only two major routes across the lower Tamar, so it is
> of major importance for routing applications.
>
> The bridge has been closed after an accident damaged the structure, and
> it has been suggested that may be shut until 1st May.
>
> I know the area fairly well, and I believe that I had edited the bridge
> several times in the past, although the history now only seems to go back
> for around a year with edits from non local (armchair?) mappers.
>
> The relevance of that comment is that I am not aware of any very local
> mappers.
>
> Anyway, have I overlooked a way to tag a temporary restriction like
> this? I have put a note in my dairy to remind me to check the tagging in
> a week or two, but I could still forget ... which would be unfortunate
> :-)
>
> ael
>
>
> ___
> 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] Replacement of leisure=common

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Great work, thanks.

I note that you've linked
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/05c61ecc-efa9-4b7f-8fe6-9911afb44e1a/database-of-registered-common-land-in-england
- as this is OGL, I assume it's suitable for incorporation into OSM? Could
we pick that up as a small OSM UK project?

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019, 21:43 Russ Garrett,  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> (Inexplicably I haven't joined this list until today. Hi. I've been
> around for a while, ask me about power infrastructure sometime.)
>
> We've been chatting about the leisure=common issue in IRC, and I saw
> there was some discussion about this here. (Sorry I can't reply to
> that thread - I've just joined the list.)
>
> I think common land is one of those legal intricacies we love so much in
> the
> UK, which generally live in the designation= tag, so I've gone ahead
> and documented designation=common which already had some use:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation%3Dcommon
>
> I'm going to email the tagging list about marking leisure=common as
> deprecated, seeing as it's not a great tag anyway, and it's been
> removed from the map.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Russ Garrett
> r...@garrett.co.uk
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

And yes, I'm aware that tagging for the renderer is wrong, and that a
common isn't a park. But by making this change carto have effectively
redefined the common tag as deprecated.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 12:54 Edward Catmur,  wrote:

> They're going to be retagged anyway to get them to render in the main map,
> so I doubt that's a solution.
>
> Any conclusion on how to tag them now?
>
> Perhaps leisure=park, park=common?
>
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 12:51 SK53,  wrote:
>
>> Yup, it's gone. I think the standard thing is use Andy's (SomeoneElse)
>> map which is likely to retain features of value & relevance to British &
>> Irish map users.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 12:35, Ian Caldwell via Talk-GB <
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In the last day or two the standard renderer as stop rendering  common
>>> land (leisure=common) see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311973831
>>>
>>> Ian
>>> ___
>>> 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] Common Land has stopped rendering

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

They're going to be retagged anyway to get them to render in the main map,
so I doubt that's a solution.

Any conclusion on how to tag them now?

Perhaps leisure=park, park=common?

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 12:51 SK53,  wrote:

> Yup, it's gone. I think the standard thing is use Andy's (SomeoneElse) map
> which is likely to retain features of value & relevance to British & Irish
> map users.
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 12:35, Ian Caldwell via Talk-GB <
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> In the last day or two the standard renderer as stop rendering  common
>> land (leisure=common) see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311973831
>>
>> Ian
>> ___
>> 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] Common Land has stopped rendering

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Link to tagging thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-March/043380.html

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 12:46 Dave F via Talk-GB, 
wrote:

> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/commit/4df96c4e4927c
>
> Plus a discussion in Tagging 05/03
>
> Unsure if this is a step forward. If it's being "misused", the common tags
> should be amended to accurately represent the areas, not deprecate the
> render. Seems like the tail wagging the dog, again.
>
>  DaveF
>
> On 16/03/2019 12:31, Ian Caldwell via Talk-GB wrote:
>
> In the last day or two the standard renderer as stop rendering  common land
> (leisure=common) see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311973831
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Survey date

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Yes, that would be fine. You might also consider breaking up the edit into
multiple uploads each with an appropriate source tag - this may be a bit
tricky depending on which editor you use, though.

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, 22:02 Martin Wynne,  wrote:

> On 10/03/2019 21:33, Edward Catmur wrote:
> > Changesets have a timestamp attached (the time when you hit upload in the
> > editor, I guess), so the community (other mappers and data consumers) can
> > usually assume that the survey date is more or less the same as the
> > changeset timestamp.
>
> Thanks. But a changeset could contain several dozen different items, not
> all of which have been surveyed at the same time, or even surveyed at all.
>
> For example I might add a footbridge over a stream. The footbridge would
> have been freshly surveyed, but the course of the stream I would most
> likely trace from OS OpenData StreetView in the iD editor.
>
> My thought was to add the physical date to each separate item, the date
> I crossed or photographed the bridge or whatever, regardless of when I
> added it to OSM. It might be only a day or two later, or it might be a
> few months later.
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin.
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey date

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Changesets have a timestamp attached (the time when you hit upload in the
editor, I guess), so the community (other mappers and data consumers) can
usually assume that the survey date is more or less the same as the
changeset timestamp.

Adding survey date would be redundant unless it's more than a day, week,
etc (depending on area) before you got around to editing and uploading and
the area could have changed in the meantime.

Cheers Ed

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, 21:25 Martin Wynne,  wrote:

> I'm minded to start adding
>
>   survey:date=
>
> to some of my mapping (if you can call climbing over a stile surveying
> it). I've noticed on repeat visits that things do change quite a lot,
> and I can't guarantee to go back and keep everything I map up to date.
>
> But I'm puzzled by the wiki, which says:
>
> "This key should only be used when providing the survey date would be of
> some value to the OSM community, for example if the survey date occurred
> a reasonable amount of time in the past."
>
> Surely end users of the map are just as likely to want to check the date
> of something shown on the map as the "OSM community", which I assume
> means mappers?
>
> And what is a "reasonable amount of time in the past", and starting from
> when? It doesn't make sense. If I survey and map something now, and it
> is still on the map in 10 years time, I need to have put the date on it
> now.
>
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Marking closed businesses

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:25 PM Jez Nicholson 
wrote:

> Fuanctioning restaurants and food-related shops are listed in the FHRS
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Food_Hygiene_Rating_System
>
> As an aside, it can be useful to retain the old name of a
> restaurant/pub/takeaway so that other mappers don't re-add it...can someone
> remind me what tag they'd use for an ex-name please?
>
>
I would use old_name, possibly with a date namespace e.g.
old_name:-2018=Maplin
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb