Re: [Talk-GB] Potential Vandalism - AGAIN
I am wondering who it is and why. THOU SHALT NOT REVERT confirms he/she/it knows what they are doing. Agreed. This one is called THE GENERAL SHALL NOT REVERT THEE http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12777187 Can we permanently block by IP? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Google Maps using Sustrans Cycling data
Dave F. wrote In Bristol users have been tagging links to NCN 4 (signposted on the ground with the number in brackets) with the ncnref tag. This just adds confusion when displayed on the maps. We need a way to distinguish links from the actual routes. In the recent thread about the Dft England Cycling Data it was suggested that signed link routes could be added with the ref in brackets, as it /should/ appear on the signs: e.g. *ncn_ref=(4)* on ways, or *ref=(4)* on any link routes large enough to warrant a relation. See http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108.html for the discussion. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Google-Maps-using-Sustrans-Cycling-data-tp5716106p5718014.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Google Maps using Sustrans Cycling data
Dave F. wrote I'm not sure OSM should want it...OSM tagging system is more detailed accurate. Yeah the OSM data is more accurate and detailed, no question, but the Sustrans data is way more complete in terms of coverage. For example in my area (Newcastle/Gateshead) I've worked to get good surveys and mapping of the NCN72, but the NCN14 on the south side of the river is very patchy and isn't mapped at all for large stretches. If we had the Sustrans data to compare to then it could highlight such missing sections and indicate where surveys and mapping work are required. To be clear, I'm definitely NOT suggesting a large scale import. As you say the Sustrans data has its own issues. But we /could/ do a piecemeal merge based on surveys and local knowledge, as we are doing for the DfT Cycling Data; or we could use it as a background tileset; or ITO might step forward to provide one of their excellent comparison tools. I think any of these approaches would greatly benefit us, especially given the number of cycling maps built on OSM data (BikeHub, CycleStreets, OpenCycleMap, MotionX etc). And we could feed back any map vs survey discrepancies to Sustrans which would benefit them. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Google-Maps-using-Sustrans-Cycling-data-tp5716106p5716223.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Google Maps using Sustrans Cycling data
It seems Sustrans have struck a deal with Google allowing them to use Sustrans National Cycle Network routes on Google Maps: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/about-sustrans/media/news-releases/safe-cycling-routes-to-appear-on-google-for-the-first-time http://road.cc/content/news/61516-google-maps-adds-uk-bike-navigation-sustrans-routes http://www.cyclestreets.net/blog/2012/07/11/sustrans-routes-and-google/ On the whole this is good news for UK cyclists. But why have Sustrans given this data to Google, rather than OSM? Has anyone from OSM approached Sustrans in the past? If so, might it be worth approaching them again, now that they are apparently willing to share the data with other parties? It would make an excellent data source and could be merged in the same way that the DfT England Cycling Data is being handled: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DfT_Cycling_Data_2011 -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Google-Maps-using-Sustrans-Cycling-data-tp5716106.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
Merging this data I see that some ways that just lead to an NCN route (but are not actually part of the continuous route) are still marked with the ncn=yes;ncn_ref=xx tags for the route the lead to. What's the feeling on this? I'm a bit torn: - On the one hand they are not the route, as in the signed route that goes from A to B. They are simply access ways leading to the route. Including them in the route could be misleading. - But on the other hand, the on the ground situation is that roads/paths near NCN routes often have signs pointing towards the route and these seem (to me) to be indistinguishable from the signs along the route. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108p5713603.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
David Earl wrote I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs That would be sensible. I think Newcastle Council must have run out of parenthesis :) David Earl wrote I think we could do well to do the same in the ncn_ref tag. Hmm... would make a degree of sense - but as noted earlier, most NCNs (and other routes) are stored as relations. I guess that ways signed as leading to an NCN could still use ncn_ref=(xx), but we'd probably want to carefully note this approach somewhere on the wiki (probably http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes ) -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108p5713607.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
Thanks both Andys :) As an example of somewhere this hasn't happened look at the current mapping around St Peter's Basin in Newcastle. It shows and extra spur of the NCN72 along Bottlehouse Street, but actually the NCN72 runs along a parallel road to the north (Saint Lawrence Street). http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.96592lon=-1.57369zoom=17layers=C I suspect the original mapper was misled by the NCN signs in Bottlehouse Street, which don't have brackets on them. I'll survey it sometime soon and fix it as suggested. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108p5713631.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging
smurph wrote I've just been looking through the CUBA data and I think we need to show that a route is part of a relation (specifically NCNs - which are mostly done by relation in the Bristol area) to avoid someone retagging all of the ways as NCN when they are already part of an NCN relation. Similar situation in Northumberland: the NCNs round here are all in relations. In fact the Cycle tab on Potlatch2 treats all cycle routes as relations, so it is likely to be very common across the country. Perhaps the tool could be modified to take account of the network and ref tags on any type=route+route=bicycle relation applied to the way? Or perhaps just warn against merging *_ref tags when a way also has type=route relations on it? On my local routes the DfT data is completely wrong anyway. They have parts of the paved NCN72 (Hadrian's Cycleway) tagged as unpaved NCN10 (Reiver's Cycle Route) , which is actually about 8km north. Will the errors/discrepancies we identify be fed back to the DfT? -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/England-Cycling-Data-project-DfT-cycling-data-now-available-for-merging-tp5713108p5713210.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] News: Ordnance Survey is moving to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Apparently the government has moved control of Ordnance Survey, Met Office and Land Registry agencies over to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/19/public_data_corporation_bis_ordnance_survey_met_office_land_registry/ From the article: The OS office had previously operated under the Department for Communities and Local Government but has been shifted, along with the Met Office and Land Registry, as part of the Cabinet Office's plans to debut the so-called Public Data Corporation later this year. BIS, whose Secretary of State is Lib Dem MP Vince Cable, isn't exactly considered a champion of the open data movement, so the fact that it has taken control of Blighty's mapping agency will come as a surprise to some. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/News-Ordnance-Survey-is-moving-to-the-Department-for-Business-Innovation-and-Skills-tp6598856p6598856.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Fantastic news - thanks to the License Working Group for their efforts on this. I've added a new answer to the http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/5792/can-i-accept-the-new-contributor-terms-if-ive-contributed-data-from-ordnance-survey-opendata /Can I accept the new Contributor Terms if I've contributed data from Ordnance Survey OpenData?/ question on the OSM Help Centre. I would encourage everyone on this list to seek out any contributors who have previously held off accepting the CTs because of this licensing issue and make them aware of this new announcement. Would a mention on the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:News OSM News be appropriate? -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6549115.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK road name coverage now over 80%
Lester Caine wrote: there is little incentive to make changes since OSM IS correct ... so the 80% is probably a little low in reality. There is still benefit in tagging these discrepancies (where OSM is correct and OS is wrong) with the not:name tag - it maintains the accuracy of this useful measure of our progress, helps direct effort to where it is most needed and saves other mappers repeating your work. Perhaps more importantly it helps us build a useful working relationship with OS where we demonstrate that we have something to give, as well as take. GrahamS -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/UK-road-name-coverage-now-over-80-tp6529750p6532460.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK road name coverage now over 80%
I just noticed that todays http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main ITO Analysis Summary shows we are now over 80% for road name completion (i.e. OSM road names compared to the OS Locator data). I think all UK contributors should buy themselves a pint for that. Top effort. We also now have 115 areas over 95% and 263 over 75% - this can only be a good thing for building confidence in the reliability of the map, particularly amongst users that are using the map data in car sat navs etc. The only black spot is that there are still 23 areas that are less than 50% road name complete, with the worst offender now being Easington with just 37.25% It's be great to get everywhere over 50% as ultimately we'll always be judged by our worst coverage. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/UK-road-name-coverage-now-over-80-tp6529750p6529750.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] ITO OSM Analysis not updating?
Hi Peter (et al), Last update of the http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main is currently reporting as 16/06/2011 (today is the 21st) Has it just fallen over, or is there anything that the community can help with to get this valuable tool running again? Cheers, GrahamS ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Potlatch 2.2
I've just been using the new Potlatch release and I'm sorry to report that I've seen a bit of instability too Richard. After flipping between the backgrounds a couple of times (between Bing, OS Locator and OS Street View) while working I suddenly lost the Bing background entirely and couldn't get it back. I also had an issue where it wouldn't let me edit the text in the Name box of a Residential Road. It just kept losing focus from the box whenever I clicked on it. And finally it all went a bit mad when I tried the new License status option. I was in Enhanced view and ways started disappearing as I moved the mouse over them. Obviously I'll try to reproduce these errors if I can and supply you with a proper bug reports on http://trac.openstreetmap.org if I manage it. Thanks for your hard work on this excellent editor. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch-2-2-tp6493415p6501007.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Richard Fairhurst said: The problem with these fast-moving mailing lists is that I get halfway through a reply to Graham's e-mail, go to the pub.. My emails often have that effect :) That raises the question of why on earth we're still using cliquey semi-private email lists when we could be using nice open public forums with categories, threaded discussions, formatting and voting - but that is a discussion for another day. ;) Worcester is nominally complete; yet despite the assurances of people in this thread that completeness will bring more mappers, Worcester has just one mapper, Steve, who was active anyway before OSSV came along. Does that not make you stop and think? So again you are basically arguing that we should avoid completing the map because having a patchy incomplete map is what brings in contributors? Even if that were true, it is not exactly a sustainable approach. Personally I'd rather people were drawn in by saying Wow, what a great map! I want to join in and add my local library/school/house than This map is terrible. It doesn't have half the roads in my village. Bob Kerr said: Using a bot to replace large sections of data in the UK is going to be counterproductive or destructive Just to be clear: no one is suggesting using the OS bot we are discussing to replace or destroy any existing data. I think we all agree that would be a very bad idea and as already stated the wiki is very clear about the circumstances under which it would add a name tag to a road. the UK is now 80% (road name)complete. Terrible news, as apparently the community will grind to a stuttering halt if we make it to 100% :) Seriously though, by the OS Locator comparison we still have 179,568 missing road names (many of which will also be missing roads) and we're plodding through them at around 11,176 a month (and falling). So even a generous guesstimate suggests we won't be nearing 100% for well over a year. Anything that helps with this task, especially in areas with no active mapping, is welcome by me. I believe we can both encourage people to join us and use the a bot on small areas at the same time. Agreed. It's just another tool we can use - nothing more. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSM Analysis: highlighting missing roads over those without a name
Peter (et al), I think everyone agrees that the OSM Analysis Summary ( http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main ) is extremely useful for gauging our efforts and highlighting areas that need work - even if there is clearly some disagreement about how we then use the OS data on the map. I was just idly wondering if we could also use a similar comparison to indicate the number of roads listed in OS Locator that apparently have NO corresponding way drawn in OSM? (i.e. not just no way present with a matching name, but no way that comes remotely close to matching the Locator bounding box, regardless of name) This might help identify any areas that remain completely unmapped and allow contributors (survey-purists and armchair-tracers alike) to focus their efforts. Graham PS (obviously VectorMap might be a more useful comparison, but I figure you already have the OS Locator comparison algorithm written so it hopefully wouldn't be such a big change) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
I'm arguing that completing the map by survey creates a community who will go on to improve and maintain the map. This is no doubt true. But surely having an area that has been *surveyed* to 100% road name completion is just as likely to put off any new contributors as one that was *traced* to 100%? (i.e. not very in my opinion) Also I think we're looking at this from two different perspectives. If you're near Birmingham where you have a nearly one million residents who might join in on a local community. Doing it the hard way to build a community spirit might work there. I'm in a rural Northumberland with a local population of 3000. Many of the back roads have hardly any traffic and I've barely seen a handful of edits in my local area since I joined OSM a year ago. If we insist on doing it the hard way round here then don't expect road completion for a decade or two. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis: highlighting missing roads over those without a name
I am pretty sure it already does that. See Back Crossflats Place at Yep, so I'd like to see that kind of mismatch (where OS Locator says there is a street called Back Crossflats Place and OSM doesn't have any way of any name at that location) presented in a separate list or perhaps in a different map layer to differentiate it from the ways that are present in OSM but are either unnamed or disagree on the name. That would highlight areas that are badly in need of the most basic road mapping over those that may have a comparatively good street map with all the roads present but are just missing lots of names. End users of the map are much more likely to be put off by missing roads than missing road names. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Great shame. So - recruit some more mappers. Write better tools to help the people who show up nearby on your user page, yet who haven't edited yet. You've got me there. Of the 30 nearby people on my user page, 20 have never made any edit. Only 3 have edited in the past 6 months and few of those were local. Sadly recruiting people and writing tools comes down to available spare time and I have precious little. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Forum (was OSM Analysis New Data and bot)
Jerry Clough said: Do you mean like this one: [1]http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=5. I was thinking more like the layout in nabble: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-f660402.html which I discovered shortly after making that comment and goes quite a way towards a usable solution for me. (Though I notice it doesn't seem to have all the mailing lists on it). It's just not very popular. I'm not surprised. It's pretty horrible. Not sure why we need a forum, dozens of mailing lists (+ multiple archives), wiki discussions, hundreds of blogs and a stackexchange site. Multiple channels of communication is good, but too much choice can be a bad thing. Noobs don't know where to go. Decisions made in one place are never communicated to the others. I'm of the opinion that if you want to build a strong community then it helps to gather everyone in the same place. Tom Hughes said (on the other thread): How is a mailing list with multiple public archives any more or less cliquey than a web forum? Well for a start you have to publicly expose your email address to post here, which may put some folk off (I know I was hesitant). And secondly there are no links to OSM profiles so you don't really know who you are talking to and what their agenda might be. Thirdly it isn't scalable. This list only really works because hardly anyone posts on it. I'm a member of forums where there are often over a thousand posts in a day - that would be a bit of a pain by email. Fourthly it just feels unnatural to me. My email is generally for private discussions. Public discussions belong on a public discussion forum. They also have threaded discussions, at least unless your mail client was written in about 1985 or something. Actually my webmail doesn't do threads ( http://fastmail.fm ) - my phone does, but it's a pain to try and quote lots of text on the phone. A proper forum would support quoting multiple users in one reply (i.e. nicely formatted in quote boxes with links back to their original messages) which doesn't really fit with email threading. Likewise other useful features such as polls, sticky threads, consistent formatting, image posting, moderators, spellcheckers, swear filters. Far and away the biggest advantage of mailing lists is that they deliver messages right to my desktop where I can skip through dozens of messages in a matter of seconds. Most forums provide email notifications if that's what you really prefer. Or it could provide an RSS feed - either for the entire forum or just for threads you are watching. By comparison the UI of web forums is just horrendous and time sapping to an extraordinary degree. Sorry Tom, but you've clearly used some awful forums. A good organised forum should be faster and easier than trawling through email. Anyway, let's not get carried away. My original comment was just a throw away aside. I'm not about to start a campaign to ditch the lists and bring in forums. GrahamS References 1. http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=5 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Fyi, here is the full list of content in the source:name field for Suffolk and bits of Cambs,Norfolk and Essex (ordered by frequency of occurrence)! Well that nicely demonstrates what a complete mess the source tags are! I particularly like source:name=Mrs Sylvia Secker :) If I can put in my 2p-worth: I've done a fair bit of armchair-mapping* (yeah yeah, boo-hiss, I know) Generally I use the OS StreetView or Locator backgrounds in Potlatch to spot missing roads, then I trace the roads from the Bing imagery and name them from the Locator. I attribute it as source=Bing source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator (as recommended at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS and provided by the 'B' shortcut in Potlatch). I've never used a verified/surveyed tag. So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used on a restricted area and sets the appropriate source tags then it would simply be automating something I'm doing already and I'd be delighted to use it. Cheers, Graham http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GrahamS * While it would be nice if every single road was properly surveyed (and I do survey when I can), but I just don't think that is a practical way to make progress with the map. My local areas (Tynedale, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Shields, Alnwick) were all pretty blank and there didn't seem to be a much editing going on at all. So I take a more pragmatic approach of surveying where I can, recording GPS routes when I'm out in the car, but also armchair mapping to fill in big blanks. Judging by Peter's breakdown of source tags I'm not alone. Apologies if this goes against the spirit of OSM, but I'd rather get the basic road geometry and names out of the way. All maps have those and they are nothing special. Once they are done with we can concentrate on the finer details that seem to be the real unique strength of OSM. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
I despair that the lazy, armchair mappers are taking over, but as I say, there's little I can do to stop it. Personally I think this project needs all the help it can get. The more data sources and contributors the better. We're trying to build a map from scratch. It's not a simple task. If an armchair-tracing takes it from a blank page to a few roads then that is a step forward towards that goal. If you then go survey it, correct the road geometry a bit, fix a road name or add in some POI then that is another step forward. It's all good. Despair less, enjoy more! If people want an carbon copy of OS datasets, why not just use OS datasets and let OSM mature into the best map of the world rather than a pastiche of imports. I described my approach: I trace roads from Bing and name them from OS Locator. It's not a carbon-copy. The names I add may be the same as OS (and are properly attributed as such) but my traces often differ from the OS version as I can typically see details on the Bing imagery that are not apparent on StreetView (road shape, alleyways, junctions, driveways, traffic lights, etc). Incidentally my Bing traces also seem better than most of the source=gps or source=survey traces I see, which often slavishly follow a GPS track as it zig-zags back-and-forth along a perfectly straight road. You'll no doubt point out that the Bing imagery may not be perfectly aligned and could be warped by lens distortion, atmosphere etc. And I agree. But it is great for getting a pretty accurate representation of the overall shape of the road where there was nothing before. If it then needs tweaked slightly following a ground survey with highly-accurate professional DGPS units then that's fine - but at least in the meantime it is on the map and end-users relying on OSM for their satnavs etc get immediate benefit. Cheers, GrahamS ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
There is definite room for arguing that it will reduce active mapping in some situations. This keeps getting raised and I'm not sure how true it is. Go and look at some of the areas that are 95-100% complete according to the ITO analysis: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main Did all mapping and surveys in these areas really stop as soon as all the roads were done? Or did people move onto to adding houses, shops, footpaths, traffic lights, post boxes, powerlines and an infinite array of other minutiae? I look at somewhere like Edinburgh and see a very detailed map with individual buildings and house numbers. Around my way I see entire towns that are completely absent from the map. If I lived in Edinburgh I'd be looking for fine-grained details that I could add or correct. Living where I do I just want to get a skeleton of road coverage sorted out. Both are valid activities and benefit the map as a whole. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
If you import data into an area that doesn't already have an active community, the community will spring up more slowly or not at all. But that logic suggests that we should actively *discourage* people from doing any mapping, as an overly complete map discourages community. In reality there is still plenty to do in areas that have achieved 100% road coverage. I strongly doubt that the UK community will disintegrate if we ever get the whole country close to 100% roads. And I don't think that fear should hinder us from trying to get to that point. ..Worcester was growing nicely until the OSSV fairies arrived: there's still a little activity, but the rich map is no longer growing at the rate it was. I took a look out of interest. Worcester is a mass of grey roads: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117lat=52.19568481654745lon=-2.2034480483935286zoom=13 So there doesn't seem much evidence of OSSV fairies there. (Or at least not with proper source tag). But Worcester does seem to have a nice detailed map. Plenty of foot and cycle paths, parks etc most of which won't have come from any OS product. Have the local mappers actually stopped mapping or have they just moved onto nearby areas that are more in need of attention? Ed said: It can help us to boost our map from 'excellent in parts, almost blank in others' to 'usable everywhere, excellent in many places'. Then as OSM becomes widely adopted, mapping parties and other contribution become a much easier proposition: rather than 'help out with this geeky new hobby' it becomes 'hey! you can contribute to the map you are already using!'. Complete agree. For every 1000 users getting taken on a 20 mile wild goose chase by their satnav I'd be willing to bet that 999 are left cursing the name of OpenStreetMap and maybe one decides to become a contributor and do something about it. That's not how you win people over! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Help persuade NavMii to update their UK+ROI map more often
For those that don't know, navmii make a car sat-nav app for the iPhone called Navfree GPS UK ROI This app is free, is built on OSM data, and is typically the #1 app in the Navigation-Free category in the App Store (ahead of skobbler which is currently #3) This is a pretty good advocate for OpenStreetMap, putting it in the hands of people that may not have been aware of us before. But unfortunately navmii only update their map whenever they release a new version of the app. Their current map dates from Feb 2011 and (according to the ITO coverage) we've added around 40,000 new road details since then! This has the knock on effect that NavFree users will use their Map Feedback tool to report errors that we've already fixed. If these are recorded as Map Dust then that increases the number of false reports we have to look at. I've posted a suggestion on their User Voice forum that they should update the map more frequently (I suggested once a month). If you think this is something they should do, please go to: http://navmii.uservoice.com/forums/76347-navmii-/suggestions/1813197-please-update-the-navfree-maps-more-frequently and vote for that suggestion. Thanks all, Graham ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Public Right Of Way map for Northumberland
Thank TimsSC - I knew it wouldn't be simple! :( Where do we stand if I manually create a way (i.e. by tracing from Bing imagery or by surveying it) and then refer to this published definitive map to determine if it is a designated footpath/bridleway/BOAT? (And possibly get other details that could be used in tags/notes like an identifier). Presumably this would be using the council's data and we would need some form of agreement with them? (God how I hate licensing/copyright issues!) If anyone has already had any contact with Northumberland council about this can they shout out? If we do need to contact them I wouldn't want to just go over old ground. GrahamS On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:46 +0100, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 21/04/11 10:40, Graham Stewart wrote: Northumberland county council have a definitive PROW map, showing over 3000 miles of public rights of way in Northumberland available online at: http://maps.northumberland.gov.uk/prow/frontsheet.asp?Cmd=INITHeight=600Width=1000 How could we go about using this rather excellent resource in OSM? You might want to take a look at an earlier thread starting here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-March/011253.html In short, there is some controversy as to if the deinitive map is a derived work from OS products. The council also have copyright on the data. It would be excellent to negotiate with the right parties to get permission to use it, as it was not included in OS Opendata. TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] tagging for average speed cameras
One point relating to Average Speed Cameras: Don't assume that the first camera is entry into a monitored section and the next camera exits the monitoring. This is not always the case. They can be set up as dual-exit-entry like this: Enter-A -- Exit-A-Enter-B -- Exit-B (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7048645.stm ) Or potentially overlapped like this: Enter-A -- Enter-B -- Exit-A -- Exit-B So the best we may be able to do is note the presence of the cameras. Attempting to place them in relations for the individual monitored sections could be tricky and misleading. Graham On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:31 +, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 4 March 2011 12:18, Robert Scott [1]li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Friday 04 March 2011, Peter Miller wrote: Any thoughts about how should we tag highways equipped with average speed camera enforcement? Do you think that it is sufficient to just add 'highway=speed_camera' to the way in question? [2]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dspeed_camera If so I will update the wiki with details that instant cameras should be on nodes and average cameras on ways. Dare I say it, this _is_ the right situation to use a relation. The camera nodes between which the average speed is calculated could be added to the relation in the correct order. Then again, this is the sort of detail that I'm sceptical we'll ever reach in openstreetmap in a remotely uniform (i.e. useful) way, so I'm not sure of the value of this level of complexity. Relations don't really seem to be necessary really. Responding to a later comment. Average speed cameras can monitor a network of roads so one can't assume that there is an order in which a vehicle will pass the cameras. Surely a simple fag such as 'speed_camera=average' to the relevant highways would be the logical. One could then add details such as 'speed_camera:type=Specs' or whatever. After all, the speed limit is on the way. Possibly the best tag would be 'maxspeed:enforcement=average'. That might work well. Regards, Peter robert. p.s. Then again again, the germans managed to map their whole power line network (?) didn't they? ___ Talk-GB mailing list [3]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org [4]http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb References 1. mailto:li...@humanleg.org.uk 2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dspeed_camera 3. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 4. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Update to OSM Analysis
Great work on this Peter, it's a really helpful tool. One suggestion: perhaps on the Area Summary page you could add an option to rank the missing roads by their approximate length/area*, rather simply alphabetically? Targetting the largest incorrectly named roads first seems like a good way to focus our efforts on the largest impact. I suspect most map users would forgive a map that doesn't name some obscure unsigned lane that is only 20 yards long, but would be deeply suspicious of a map that incorrectly identifies the main road through their town. (* I realise this is a flawed measurement, as it doesn't account for straight vs curvy roads, but it would probably be good enough.) Cheers, GrahamS On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:42 +, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: ITO are pleased to offer out updated version of OSM Analysis with a thematic overview page allowing us to see how we are getting on in different parts of the county. To get the top prize 95% of the roads represented in OS Locator need to be in OSM and there are 17 districts which achieve that today. We also have 88 districts with less that 50% coverage which need a little TLC and the rest are in-between. Check out our announcement here and give it a whirl! [1]http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2011/01/openstreetmap-gb-progr ess-report.html Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb References 1. http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2011/01/openstreetmap-gb-progress-report.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline Tidal Positions
No firm answer for you, but I can tell you that I've had to move stretches of coastline (around Newcastle) out to the MHW shown on the OS Streetview, as the PGS coastline had me, my GPS trace and a couple of nearby buildings bobbing about in the sea. :) On 16 Sep 2010, at 02:43, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline Which is more accurate: the OS Streetview data that shows MHW (spring, I assume) or the PGS data? http://os.openstreetmap.org/?zoom=16lat=51.26415lon=-3.01719layers=B0 Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Grouping related buildings in a relation
What is the correct way to group a collection of buildings into a relation when they are all part of the same institution? I traced (from OS StreetView) the seven buildings of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Gateshead: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.93834lon=-1.57941zoom=17layers=B000FTF I've tagged each building as building=yes and placed them in the relation. Then I tagged the relation as amenity=hospital+building=yes+name=Queen Elizabeth Hospital But now Mapnik and Osmarender don't display a name or the hospital POI icon, which rather defeats the purpose. What is the usual approach to this? The Wiki for amenity=hospital suggests: If you have a large hospital campus with multiple buildings, consider combining them into a relation instead of tagging each individual building to be a hospital -- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dhospital ..which I thought was what I had done. Should I also add a POI node with amenity=hospital somewhere amongst the buildings? That seems a bit redundant. Thanks, GrahamS PS I'm a new OSMer, so apologies if this is really obvious. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code
Tim, In Potlatch you can also use 'r' or 'Shift-R' to repeat the tags from the last way you had selected. See [1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch/Keyboard_shortcuts GrahamS On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:39 +, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: ...he scares me Only joking! I had come across a few of the non-underscored versions a few days ago, and was wondering why they were formatted like that. Now I know!! Also, today I learned you can do ctrl+shift+V to copy tags between ways/nodes - I've wasted large portions of my life doing this manually! Every day's a school day... *goes off to try and find a page with more neat time saving tricks...* References 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch/Keyboard_shortcuts ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
