Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

[Michael Booth]

Jez, I'm confused :)

Your first email recognised the difference between a recycling centre 
(i.e. a council-run 'tip' / 'dump' that you can normally drive into) and 
a recycling point (i.e. one with containers, found in supermarket car 
parks etc.).


So I'm really not sure why you would tag the "Golf Drive Recycling 
Point" as recycling_type=centre when it is clearly 
recycling_type=container? There's really only two options in the OSM 
data, and photos on the wiki page also make it clear which is which: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:recycling_type


Examples in Aberdeen - centre: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116883204 and container: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/464736817


On 27/11/2020 09:40, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Agreed, "point" sucks as a value, I won't use itmy fundamental 
reason for it not being a 'centre' was size, but a Recycling Point 
_could_ be seen as a mini Recycling Centre that only accepts 
recyclable waste. You can see a perimeter boundary by the concrete 
area it is set on. I could go with a site relation but you can't 
physically carry out other activities between the constituent objects 
(unlike a wind farm).


I will try with 'centre' and including 'Recycling Point' in the name.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, 08:58 Dan S, > wrote:


Op do 26 nov. 2020 om 19:21 schreef Jez Nicholson
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>>:

Okay, bear with. I know that this is detailed mapping, but I
enquired a while ago on the amenity:recycling talk page and a
single recycling container == a single node. A group of
containers == a group of nodes.

Here is an image of the highly attractive Golf Drive Recycling
Point
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golf_Drive_Recycling_Point.jpg

featuring 6 * "amenity"="recycling" +
"recycling_type"="container" which accept different items
including https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379145
 glass,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379151
 cans,
cardboard, paper, plastic bottles, and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379142
 a clothes bank.

The area they are contained in is called "Golf Drive Recycling
Point". There's a sign that says so. I've added a polygon
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/877940580
 as
"amenity"="recycling" + "recycling_type"="point"

I can only really see containers or centres in
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/recycling_type#values

but this place is neither.

Are you offended by "amenity"="recycling" +
"recycling_type"="point"? It seems like the UK term for it.


Honestly, "point" seems dangerously prone to misunderstanding,
when used as a value here in OSM. I know we tend to say "recycling
point", but that doesn't mean that we say "point". "I'll just go
to the point".

I wish I could suggest a good alternative word, e.g. a word we
already use for some other type of feature.

What is the fundamental reason this is not a
recycling_type=centre? Is it the size? (If so, no problem - use
"centre" on a suitable polygon.) Is it the fact that it's
unstaffed? (Could use self_service=only or supervised=no.) Is it
that there's no perimeter boundary?

Best
Dan

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 4:25 PM Jeremy Harris mailto:j...@wizmail.org>> wrote:

On 26/11/2020 11:16, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Am I missing something, or is there no concept of a
Recycling Point in OSM?
> Have you seen/used anything else?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:recycling_type
>

-- 
Cheers,

   Jeremy

___
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] Documenting tagging practice for place nodes in London

[Michael Booth]

It seems like a number of those hamlets could be changed to something else.

Also worth having a look at place=locality nodes, to see if they can be 
tagged as another place type (if it's a populated place - e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4678882808) or the name added to a 
feature.


On 23/06/2020 22:30, Russ Garrett wrote:

Hi folks,

By way of lockdown procrastination, I started looking at place nodes
in London. The main things which were annoying me are:

* The presence of a few archaic place names which were presumably
derived from NPE or other historic maps but are generally out of use
now.
* A surprisingly large number of place names present in OS StreetView
are unmapped on OSM.
* Most places in London are tagged as place=suburb, regardless of
their size/importance. This issue especially is annoying me quite a
lot now I've started noticing it.

I started demoting some place=suburbs to place=quarter, and promoting
one or two of them to place=town (as this seems to be almost
universally used as the next level up from suburb in London), when it
was pointed out that it's probably worth discussing this.

These place tags are quite subjective, especially because they
frequently get used for reasons which don't really tie in with their
name, and wiki is pretty vague about their definition, so I don't
think we can avoid some level of tagging for the renderer here.

I think it would be useful to document which of these tags we want to
use in London, and ideally some kind of heuristic for where to use
them.

I've generated a list of all place nodes within Greater London and the
City, by type:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ru/London_Place_Nodes

Cheers,




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

Re: [Talk-GB] CWGC: worldwide, war graves

[Michael Booth]

This seems to be it: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-August/010110.html


Found via a search for: site:lists.openstreetmap.org "talk-gb" 
"Commonwealth"


Daniel, what is actually being proposed to be added to OSM? Is it a list 
of CWG cemeteries that could then be checked against the data we have in 
OSM? I remember seeing a maproulette for cemeteries in Texas, perhaps 
something similar could be done to find missing CWG cemeteries.


On 25/04/2020 20:20, Nick Allen wrote:

Hi,

I think it was some years ago, but there was a question on this
mailing list about Commonwealth War Graves, and someone in authority
replied on the list that their data was open for use - not sure how
easy it would be to search the archives for that.

Sorry, I don't remember any more info than that.

Regards

Nick

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020
19:21:13 +0200 Daniel Pocock  wrote:


Hi all,

We were discussing[1] this on talk-au recently as today is Anzac Day

I sent a request to CWGC asking if they will make their list of
cemeteries available under either the ODbL or UK Open Government
License (OGL v3.0)

Has anybody else had any discussion with CWGC or looked at ways to use
their data?

They provide an easy way to download all 20,000 cemeteries as a CSV
file.  I've put more details on https://anzacathon.com

Regards,

Daniel

1.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2020-April/013791.html

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


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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Strava heatmaps - permission reconfirmed

[Michael Booth]

Are you definitely logged in to an account on strava.com with that 
browser? If I log out then I too am missing the CloudFront cookies.


On 24/11/2019 12:35, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Wed, 2019-11-20 at 12:16 +, Michael Booth wrote:
Just tried it and it works for me. The cookies have an expiry date of 
+7 days so I think you need to change the policy and signature in the 
url regularly.


Log in to Strava, in Chrome go to 
chrome://settings/cookies/detail?site=strava.com, then click on the 
CloudFront-Key-Pair-Id cookie and copy the "Content" value. Paste it 
into the Key-Pair-Id value below and do the same for signature and 
policy.


tms[3,15]:https://heatmap-external-{switch:a,b,c}.strava.com/tiles-auth/both/bluered/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png?Key-Pair-Id===


The word cloudfront does not appear in the cookies that I see.

I see
_dc_gtm_UA-nnn-nn
_fbp
_ga
_gid
_strava4_session
ajs_anonymous_id
ajs_group_id
ajs_user_id
sp

Phil (trigpoint)


On 19/11/2019 19:55, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 17:28 +0000, Michael Booth wrote:
Only problem is that Strava's iD fork includes the low-res heatmap 
tiles, plus I don't think the Slide tool works anymore and it's a 
really old version of iD.


The high-res heatmap tiles can be used in JOSM however, by creating 
a Strava account and following the guide at: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strava#High-res_Global_Heatmap_in_JOSM



Has anyone been able to get this to work recently.

I have retrieved the cookie information, using both firefox and 
chrome, but the fields do not match those in the instructions.


  * CloudFront-Key-Pair-Id
  * CloudFront-Policy
  * CloudFront-Signature


Phil (trigpoint)

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



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
<mailto: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] Strava heatmaps - permission reconfirmed

[Michael Booth]

Just tried it and it works for me. The cookies have an expiry date of +7 
days so I think you need to change the policy and signature in the url 
regularly.


Log in to Strava, in Chrome go to 
chrome://settings/cookies/detail?site=strava.com, then click on the 
CloudFront-Key-Pair-Id cookie and copy the "Content" value. Paste it 
into the Key-Pair-Id value below and do the same for signature and policy.


tms[3,15]:https://heatmap-external-{switch:a,b,c}.strava.com/tiles-auth/both/bluered/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png?Key-Pair-Id===

On 19/11/2019 19:55, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 17:28 +0000, Michael Booth wrote:
Only problem is that Strava's iD fork includes the low-res heatmap 
tiles, plus I don't think the Slide tool works anymore and it's a 
really old version of iD.


The high-res heatmap tiles can be used in JOSM however, by creating a 
Strava account and following the guide at: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strava#High-res_Global_Heatmap_in_JOSM



Has anyone been able to get this to work recently.

I have retrieved the cookie information, using both firefox and 
chrome, but the fields do not match those in the instructions.


  * CloudFront-Key-Pair-Id
  * CloudFront-Policy
  * CloudFront-Signature


Phil (trigpoint)

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Strava heatmaps - permission reconfirmed

[Michael Booth]

Only problem is that Strava's iD fork includes the low-res heatmap 
tiles, plus I don't think the Slide tool works anymore and it's a really 
old version of iD.


The high-res heatmap tiles can be used in JOSM however, by creating a 
Strava account and following the guide at: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strava#High-res_Global_Heatmap_in_JOSM


On 16/11/2019 13:34, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

In 2014 Strava developed a custom version if the ID editor which 
included their heatmap. The tool could adjust OSM ways to better align 
them with their GPS heatmap.


Some years ago that tool stopped working and use of the heatmap for 
improving OSM was drawn in to doubt. That doubt has now come to an end 
as Strava have been able to reconfirm that we are ok to use it in to 
improve OSM:


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-November/083564.html

This is a good supplement to the OSM GPS traces and can be used to 
help map public rights of way and improve road alignment.


Happy mapping,
*Rob*

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



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

[Talk-GB] Additional NLS map layers

[Michael Booth]

Hi,

Just to let everyone know there are now additional NLS maps available 
for use - some detailed ones mostly covering Scotland, but there's also 
the 1940-60s National Grid maps covering all of Great Britain.


I got in touch with the NLS after noticing they were available on their 
website, they updated the wiki page, and I recently added them to the 
editor-layer-index on github.


They are available to select in JOSM but not iD (since they are more 
than 20 years old), though the custom imagery urls are available from: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland


Cheers


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Next quarters project will be fixmes and notes

[Michael Booth]

Great idea.

Think there should also be an effort to open notes for some fixmes which 
require a survey, as many go unnoticed. Fixmes can only be viewed in iD 
or with a QA tool, while notes can be viewed on osm.org and 
StreetComplete which is useful for actually going out and surveying them.


Maybe a list of fixmes that haven't been edited in a few years would be 
good to review?


Found out about the NotesReview tool from Chris' talk - if you set the 
"to" date to 1/1/2014 or similar you can find some old notes in your 
area that perhaps have already been fixed or don't have useful info in 
them so can be resolved.


On 22/09/2019 14:14, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

As we near the end of the current quarterly project (solar power) the 
time has come to announce the project for Quarter 4 2019.


By popular demand when discussing OSM UK's 2019/20 priority areas, the 
quarterly project will be fixmes and notes.


I have already made a start on the wiki page. Please update as you see 
fit:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2019_Q4_Project:_Fixmes_and_Notes

With best regards,
*Rob*

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'Sources' tags

[Michael Booth]

From the wiki:

Tags  such as imagery_used=Bing 
are set automatically by the iD editor 
 and Vespucci 
 on changesets 
. It indicates which 
imagery (e.g. which aerial imagery 
) was being 
displayed in the editor while the user made the changes. It doesn't 
necessarily mean the imagery was actually used as a source, though it is 
pretty similar to Key:source 
.


If you make an edit in using Bing and then another using Maxar, both 
will be listed by iD, same with Mapillary, etc.


On 07/09/2019 21:32, Simon Poole wrote:


I don't know how iD does it, but Vespucci includes the imagery used 
when you actually made an edit, potentially multiple different 
sources. You should still enter a source comment, imagery_used is 
simply for additional documentation purposes.


Am 07.09.2019 um 18:54 schrieb Edward Bainton:
I've noticed the changeset data includes the aerial image used 
(presumably at the moment you hit 'save', if you've referred to 
several?)


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


Thanks.

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


___
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

[Michael Booth]

Tagging it as type=memorial and memorial=yes doesn't seem very useful to me.

Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a 
relation, I would tag it as that. It would be similar to this one nearby 
[1], would still get rendered and be recognised by data consumers. Or 
failing that, just add it as a node.


[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7838824

On 03/09/2019 11:40, Andy Mabbett wrote:

I've just added the RNLI Dunkirk Memorial at Margate to the map:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9995162

but I wasn't sure how to best tag the relation, and the three
connected ways that comprise it.

It's an area of white-painted conrete, in the shape of an anchor.

Any suggestions for improvement?




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Alignment at Point of Sleat

[Michael Booth]

In addition, the ESRI imagery doesn't have the distortion around the 
rocky cliffs and also seems to match Bing further inland where the path 
comes from, so that should help you.


On 12/08/2019 18:51, SK53 wrote:
I had a quick look. The lighthouse as currently mapped sits fair & 
square on the building outline on OS Streetview. As Grant (Firefishy) 
rectified these tiles using the full OSGB-02 transform this is 
probably the most accurately located layer. The coastline as mapped 
accords with this (probably mapped from OSSV or pulled in from vector 
data). Therefore I'd pretty much use the current mapping of the path & 
the lighthouse to align other layers.


Jerry

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 at 18:38, Silent Spike > wrote:


Was recently at the Point of Sleat (Isle of Skye) and as part of
the Q3 project was going to add the solar panels there
(https://imgur.com/a/VAE5A0L) into OSM.

When I check out the area
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/57.01809/-6.01793) I notice
I can also add some detail with the photographed railings so on,
however it's proven tricky to deduce the accurate alignment here.
Aerial imagery seems to show the path joining the base of the
lighthouse on the east rather than the west (as in reality) and
unfortunately I forgot to take a GPX trace while I was there.

Anyone more experienced with unclear alignment want to take a
crack at this one?
___
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] How to Fix a "Fix-Me"

[Michael Booth]

Looks like the fixme was added to the end node of that road when it was 
first created, and then the person who added the loop probably didn't 
realise it was there so it remained.


If you look at the node history and the changeset where it was created, 
you can see the loop being added and the fixme staying on the node: 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=52127592


In case you're not aware, you can use tools like Keepright to locate 
fixme tags, and then try to fix the problem or even remove the tag if 
you're sure there's no issue: 
https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14=52.03865=-0.71392=B0T=0%2C170_ign=1_tmpign=1


Personally, for things that need a survey I prefer using OSM notes as 
they are accessible on osm.org so you don't need a QA tool to check if 
there's something worth surveying in your area when out and about.


On 31/07/2019 18:42, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
If this is not the correct place / route to seek assistance with this 
issue, please advise me where to go.


I see that, on a new housing estate near me, there are a number of 
"Fix Me" tags on highway=residential, which I would like to fix.


The tags all say, "noexit? turning_circle? stub?"

These are all streets that link to only one other highway, mostly 
highway=tertiary (i.e. they are cul de sacs / dead ends).


Where the highway=residential is mapped as a single line, I can see 
that it would be sensible to mark whether there is a turning circle, 
or turning loop, at the end and, if there is no exit by vehicle, 
bicycle, or on foot, to mark it as "noexit".


However, where there is a turning loop, which is already mapped as a 
looped highway, I don't understand what the "FixMe" is asking for.  
See, for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5111774622


Acording to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_loop,


"Draw a closed highway=* way around the traffic island and connect it 
to the main road, giving it the same name. If traffic is required to 
flow in a particular direction around the traffic island, add 
oneway=yes. This method is preferred for large turning circles, 
because navigation applications decide whether the user is on- or 
off-route based on their distance from the roadway. This method also 
makes it possible to accurately map features inside the loop, such as 
parking spaces, trees, or a flagpole.
If a turning loop has been mapped as a way, do not remap it as a 
simple node, as that would remove detail from the map."


Are these "FixMe"s generated automatically?  Can I just delete the 
"FixMe" in these cases?


I would be grateful for any advice.

Peter




___
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] Is this a footbridge?

[Michael Booth]

Ctrl + Shift + M for the measurement panel which shows the length of a 
way or dimensions of an area.


Ctrl + Shift + B, H or L also show other info panels.

On 05/05/2019 18:18, Martin Wynne wrote:
p.s. Am I missing something? How can I see the actual dimensions of an 
element in the iD editor?


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] We're missing changes to M1 Junction 36 which have apparently been in place for a year.

[Michael Booth]

You can get an RSS feed to keep an eye on the in your area at 
https://tyrasd.github.io/osm-qa-feeds/


There's also one for the UK: 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20Kingdom


I think a quarterly project on notes would be good for the summer, while 
people are more likely to be out and about to survey issues raised by 
the notes.


Not sure of the need for an app, as the OSM website is good enough for 
finding notes near you or wherever you are visiting. At least they are 
more accessible than the fixme tag - a lot of which could be moved into 
notes so they are visible to more people.


On 10/02/2019 12:11, Brian Prangle wrote:

Hi Jerry

You've spotted a major omission!  You can see  the road layout in 
Sentinel-2  Satellite Imagery ( if you've got good eyes - resolution 
is pretty poor). But you've raised a much wider question. I've always 
felt that we kind o f owe it to people who have bothered to alert us 
to errors via notes to fix them as quickly as we can ( and encourage 
them to enter more notes). However notes are undifferentiated as to 
what is major what is old etc which makes "patrolling" notes irksome. 
and so we fail to respond adequately I feel we need something a little 
more organised and the UK chapter has had a plan for a notes 
application  to 
help with this but just doesn't have the resources in terms of time to 
complete it. Any help appreciated from teh UK community. Other ideas 
might be to have a future Quarterly Project deveoted to clearing up 
notes, and to have designated  "patrol" areas where OSMers check for 
major errors and we have a an alert mechanism.

I'll contact  Amazon Logistics offlist to see if they can resolve this

Regards

Brian

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 10:41, SK53 > wrote:


* A message on the forum points out that the roads immediately to
the east of Junction 36 have been substantially altered:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65350

* There is a note dating back over a year too:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1221610#map=15/53.4976/-1.4580=N

Aerial imagery, GPS traces, and ImproveOSM do not seem to offer
any help. There are however traces on the Strava layers, but these
are no longer suitable for making edits directly.

I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been picked up the Amazon
Logistics editors as I would have thought this would be relevant
to them.

Jerry


___
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] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

[Michael Booth]

Replying to this message as for some reason Dave's emails never come 
through to my inbox.


I agree these should be updated to the new tag, but not simply with a 
automated edit - it would be much better to check each individual 
instance first before retagging.


I've just looked at some of the highway=ford nodes, and a number of them 
could do fixing/improving other things as well. For example there's a 
ford tag but the roads visible on bing haven't been added, with some the 
road and waterway aren't connected, and on others there's a ford tag on 
a road but no waterway running through it.


So let's get the tag updated but not as a find/replace exercise - do it 
as a UK project, maproulette or whatever so that these other issues can 
be fixed as well.


On 06/01/2019 09:32, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 1/5/19 9:49 PM, Dave F wrote:

I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes
(4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area
edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up.

It sounds as if you are belittling those who "like to get upset" but at
the same time you're writing your message in a combative and
uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting
upset!


Yes, it has been discussed a couple of times on Tagging, & once on
OSM-carto when deciding on the icon to use.

It would be good if you could link to these discussions instead of just
claiming they were had, for the benefit of those who joined between "a
few years ago" and now.

Bye
Frederik




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Network tag on railway stations

[Michael Booth]

If you look at the history of some stations, you'll see that about 6 
years ago this was corrected to National Rail but it was reverted soon 
after, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1305070561/history 
Clearly "Nation Rail" is wrong so it should be fixed.


Perhaps this could be as part of a project to ensure all the stations 
are properly mapped.  Check that none are missing against the ORR list, 
checking there's no duplicate railway=station tags for the same feature, 
tag the building=train_station, add the operator, 3-letter station ref 
etc., also make sure the use of railway=halt v station is correct.


On 17/11/2018 07:12, SK53 wrote:
I've just come across a large number of instances of network=Nation 
Rail on stations. Clearly this is a mistake, presumably National Rail 
is intended.


As the station concerned is heavily branded with Merseyrail my first 
instinct was to change the tag to this, but then I wondered if 
National Rail is more useful. Today a network=Merseyrail would be more 
useful to me because I have a day rover for that network.


I wonder what others think, and can we clean up the erroneous name?

Jerry



___
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] House of Fraser

[Michael Booth]

If you are going to do it use the notes feature, much more likely to get 
noticed than fixmes.


On 07/06/2018 20:53, Andrew Hain wrote:
House of Fraser today announced today that half their branches are to 
close, listing which ones. Although shops should not yet be removed 
does it make sense with this announcement (or others like it in the 
future) to put notes or fixmes in the 31 locations involved?


--
Andrew


___
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] Petrol stations with fixme tag

[Michael Booth]

For the overpass-turbo link on your blog, I suggest you use this one 
instead: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/uZR - which includes "in UK" in the 
query to limit the search to the UK instead of a normal bbox. The same 
can be done for other countries, councils and towns/cities with areas.


On 17/01/2018 21:52, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

I just published the third blog update for the quarterly project to 
map petrol stations. This time focused on the 130 forecourts with a 
fixme tag.


Read more at 
http://www.mappa-mercia.org/2018/01/petrol-stations-with-a-fixme-tag.html


Upcoming topics:

- My experience with the OSM Conflate and Community Validation tool.
- Mapping as ways

As always, happy to have guest content if you are feeling eager to put 
pen to paper :-)


Thanks,
*Rob*


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map: abandoned railways may still have bridges.

[Michael Booth]

Assuming you are talking about this way: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201674137


Nothing to do with disused=yes - it's not rendered because it's marked 
as railway=abandoned, which is the correct way to tag a former railway 
line where the tracks have been lifted but the route is still visible 
(which I presume is the case here).


Though I do agree that bridge=* and railway=abandoned would be useful to 
have rendered.


On 02/11/2017 13:43, Paul Berry wrote:

Thirded.

Examples abound but an egregious one, in this context, is the south 
side of Leeds City Centre where you have the Holbeck Viaduct with its 
92 brick arches 3 stories high marching across the urban landscape. An 
extremely visible structure in reality but rendered invisible on all 
the main layers simply due to *disused=yes*.


Regards,
/Paul/

On 2 November 2017 at 13:37, Philip Barnes > wrote:




On 2 November 2017 13:23:53 GMT+00:00, ael
> wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 01:02:13PM +, Dave F wrote:
>> >
>> > o Another is railways - I'm guessing you'd want to remove the
>rendering
>> > of dismantled railways, and also possibly abandoned ones,
>
>But please render existing bridges: these are quite common in
Cornwall
>and are highly significant particulary where they cross roads.
>Just because the railway is dismantled or abandoned does not mean the
>bridges have magically evaporated.
>
+1

The embankments, cuttings and trackbed have not evaporated either.
Their presence on the map is useful for rural navigation (ROW
still climb disused embankments and cutting), and they are
potential routes for ROW improvement projects which start by
staring at a map so let's make OSM useful for this purpose.

With 2026 looming we need to avoid hiding useful countryside
information.

Phil (trigpoint)

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

___
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] Select and correct a discovered key duplication of sorts in JOSM

[Michael Booth]

I think select all includes all of the vertex nodes in each of the ways. 
You need to select all, ctrl + F, then choose "find in selection" and 
click "type:way" to select only the ways.


On 08/10/2017 15:50, Bob Hawkins wrote:
I return to this thread because there is something I do not 
understand.  I wish not to make an error undertaking the change I 
plan.  I queried ‘ref:chiltern_society=* within South Oxfordshire in 
Overpass Turbo and exported the result to JOSM.  Selecting all, and 
viewing the results I see in excess of 3,000 unset values against the 
keys. ‘ref_chiltern_society’ reads ‘<220 different, 3416 unset>’, for 
example.  ‘prow_ref’ shows the same, fortunately, because the numbers 
should match.  I fail to understand the number of unset values if I 
have queried a particular key.  Why are there not 220 ways selected?  
I ran the query without nodes and relations and the result was the 
same.  I believe it would be acceptable to edit the tags in question 
but am concerned to know the answer before I do so.
One further question: how do I search for the keys 
‘ref:chiltern_society’ and ‘source:prow_ref’ in JOSM?  It appears that 
the use of a colon is not recognised in these cases because of its use 
in other circumstances?


 
	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


___
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 "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Michael Booth]

One of the first edits I did in OSM was to change my local high street 
to a tertiary road from a living_street. I think I noticed it because 
it's rendered different by osm-carto and some routers wouldn't use the 
road for directions.


It's a 20mph two lane road, except with three traffic calming tables 
(one of which is a pelican crossing), and some larger pavements after 
improvement works reclaimed some parking spaces - so not somewhere like 
a "home zone".


I read about the "shared space" scheme in Poynton, which seemed to be 
about narrowing/redesigning the roads to reduce speeds, and allowing 
pedestrians to cross almost anyway. However I think it's marked wrongly 
as a living_street in OSM: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19753268/history - funnily enough also 
by Pete Owens...


On 01/10/2017 14:12, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, 
and some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways 
are now designated as 'shared space' 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space


Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street". 
Earlier this year fellow mapper 'lakedistrict' left a note saying that 
this seemed incorrect as this wasn't a residential scheme, I agreed 
and changed the roads to unclassified highways (+ 1 tertiary), adding 
traffic calming, surface and access tags as appropriate. These roads 
have recently been changed back to highway-=living_street by another 
mapper 'Pete Owens' https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52072635


To move things forward I would like others' opinions about how we 
should map such shared space schemes Are we happy to broaden the 
definition of living_street to include them or are they better mapped 
as ordinary streets with additional tags? Another potential option 
which I toyed with was mapping them as highway=pedestrian, adding 
access tags (bicycles are permitted, motor vehicle access varies 
across the area from 24/7 thoroughfares, to time 
conditional/destination/psv only access).


I'll draw lakedistrict and Pete Owens' attentions to this email so 
that they can contribute to the discussion.


Kind regards,

Adam (ACS1986)







___
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] Building that have been replaced

[Michael Booth]

Do you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/445288438 is no longer 
there, and has been rebuilt into a rectangular building?


If so, have a look at the newer DigitalGlobe imagery, and also OS 
OpenData StreetView to see the new building. Mind and check imagery 
alignment as there's normally an offset to Bing.


On 03/08/2017 16:39, Andrew Black wrote:
What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down 
and rebuilt.
Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back 
and add them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.

I have added a note  #1077006

I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!


___
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] Birmingham Tree Import

[Michael Booth]

Surely instead of just using email to let users know about comments on 
changesets and notes, there should be some sort of notification on the 
OSM website as well? There already is a notification in the top right 
corner for unread messages - this should be extended to changesets and 
notes.


There will always be some people who have problems with emails getting 
through to them, so they shouldn't be solely relied upon.


On 13/04/2017 16:53, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 13/04/2017 16:12, Brian Prangle wrote:


On the subject of fixing things, my block seems to have been 
precipitated by my not participating in changeset discussions of 
which I still remain oblivious because apparently the automatic email 
notification system breaks randomly and it seems I'm one of its 
victims. I can't fix this and I think it's a problem of at least two 
years standing.




I've seen a few different ways that emails can "not be delivered"; the 
good news is that they're all user-fixable.


1) One kind of problem is over-zealous spam filtering by your email 
provider.  A bit of training (regularly checking spam folders and 
fishing valid mail out) should work here.  If it doesn't, change your 
email provider.  With gmail (which your list mail and mine are using) 
I occasionally have to check the junk folder to fish out non-English 
emails, but otherwise it's pretty good at spam recognition.


2) Another is that you've tried to change email addresses in the past 
and not confirmed the "new" address.  To fix this go into "My 
Settings" and change email again, this time making sure that you click 
on the link within the "Confirm your e-mail address" email.


3) A third problem I've seen (but pretty unlikely to be the case here) 
is where you'd specified to your email provider that you want email 
delivered to a particular host and then for whatever reason that 
becomes impossible (perhaps the target server goes down).  Again, fix 
the problem that prevents email delivery, reconfirm the settings with 
your email provider and hosts should start retrying again shortly.




In the meantime is there any workround for viewing changeset discussions?



The ubiquitous Pascal Neis has an answer that's actually far better 
than a workaround.   Using the userid for a particular user you can 
browse to e.g.:


http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=9065

or you can click through from an entry in e.g. 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=United%20Kingdom .


Best Regards,

Andy



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering Stiles

[Michael Booth]

Might be worth commenting on this issue about adding kissing gate/stile 
icons, with any suggestions for rendering them on the standard layer: 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/846


On 05/04/2017 10:09, Ian Caldwell wrote:
I am having a conversation with a new mapper, he was adding stiles by 
using name="stile".


The reason he is interested in stiles is as he says:  "I like to walk 
with my dog but find that many of the stiles are not dog friendly and, 
being almost eighty, I  find it difficult to lift my dog bodily over 
the stile."


One of the reasons I think he was adding  name="stile". is that stiles 
are not rendered on the standard map. Is there are web based map that 
does render stiles? I cannot find one.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Blackwall Tunnel

[Michael Booth]

Seems to be missing from OSRM's list of barrier features that cars can 
be routed through: 
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/c2727f202975414ffdaf9bfb8a4dd54615bcb9d0/features/car/barrier.feature


Might be worth opening an issue on their github about the problem.

On 08/03/2017 22:08, Philip Barnes wrote:

Thank you Adam, I can't even guess what that one is.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017, Adam Snape wrote:

Also this barrier http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/88830172

Regards,

Adam

On 8 March 2017 at 21:51, Philip Barnes  wrote:


Thank you Franz

I will try adding an access=yes tag.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017, Franz v. Gordon wrote:

Hello Phil,

I found this barrier=flood_gate [1] at the exit of the southbound
tunnel, which may be an unknown barrier with no access for anyone. Mabe
an access=yes may help here.

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4062586422

Regards
Franz (OSM:FvGordon)



--
Sent from my Jolla
___
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] Propose automated edit to update NAPTAN data in the west mids

[Michael Booth]

On a related note, what is the process for getting an import in places 
that don't already have NAPTAN data? I'd be interested in having bus 
stops in Fife imported.


On 03/02/2017 17:52, Brian Prangle wrote:

Hi everyone

We have an opportunity to work with the regional transport authority 
TfWM to update this data which is 8 years old and partially edited by 
OSM users. They have assigned 2 developers to work on this and I'm 
spending a half day each week working with them.


We've agreed and discussed this in our mappa mercia group and also 
contacted a prolific local public transport OSM editor who's not part 
of  our group.


In line with the automated edits policy there's a wikipage 
 
with full details


Comments welcome as this exercise might be useful elswhere as the 
state of NAPTAN data will be in a similar state


regards

Brian


___
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 editors working on parks

[Michael Booth]

It's been mentioned on reddit: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/5q4ctl/warning_players_of_pok%C3%A9mon_go_may_be_editing_osm/ 
and 
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSilphRoad/comments/5pvkkn/about_openstreetmap_and_pokemon_go


People are commenting on changesets but if new users don't read their 
emails or it goes to their spam folder then there's not much chance of a 
reply. Needs to be an indication on the website like with user messages.


Some are just carrying out drive-by vandalism by adding fake parks, etc. 
- easily reverted. Others are adding more features which is good but 
they usually have the newbie mistakes of paths not connecting to roads 
etc. - hopefully they respond to the comments and stick around.


On 27/01/2017 16:03, Andy Robinson wrote:

There has been a large number of new editors in the wider midlands over the
last few days (32 since Monday) most of which have been adding new or adding
to exiting park areas. Some are fine first edits (a little awkward in placed
but not unreasonable) but others are not, so if it's also happening in your
area keep a close eye. I'm reverting those in my watch rectangle that are
obviously inappropriate and I, along with I note some others, have added
some changeset comments to try and make contact where appropriate, though
thus far no responses.

Mostly these seem to be id edits so I'm guessing perhaps a University course
or something.

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] [OSM-talk] This is an auto-generated note from MAPS.ME application:

[Michael Booth]

I don't think it's possible to delete an object in Maps.me. When you 
edit a place, after all the other details the option at the bottom is 
"place does not exist", which presumably leaves a note and comment.


With the complaints people have about Maps.me, just imagine how many 
more there would be if places could be deleted from within the app.


On 09/12/2016 12:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On 9 December 2016 at 11:49, Dave F  wrote:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Peter%20Mount/notes

They are all for the same entity.

How can we stop this annoying repetition? Can it be blocked at OSM's end,
contact individual users or, better still, get it blocked at source? Does
anyone have a contact at Map.me?

I wonder if this could be down to a simple misunderstanding of the
Map.me UI. As far as the user is concerned he's stated that an object
on the map no longer exists. He may not be aware this his action is
adding a note rather than deleting the object immediately. So when the
object stays on the map, he assumes his action has failed for
technical reasons, and so tries again.

Robert.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Suspicious edits in Tarbrax, South Lanarkshire

[Michael Booth]

There seems to have been a number of new users editing in the West 
Calder area, all creating their accounts around 25th November:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/beeemm
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Agnes%20Cosgrove
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ldrin

It looks like they have come from this mapping session: 
https://www.facebook.com/WestCalderandHarburnCDT/posts/1613084722334278 
or perhaps this Sustrans project: 
https://www.facebook.com/WestCalderandHarburnCDT/posts/1606142299695187


Most of the edits are ok, just a few which have been incorrectly tagged 
and some buildings that could do with being squared.


If you have a look at 
http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?zoom=13=55.83714=-3.57228=B0TTTFT 
and set the date back to 2016-11-25 you can what's been edited in the area.


On 04/12/2016 10:38, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 09:39 +, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

Is there anyone with knowledge of South Lanarkshire that could take a
look athttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43929865  and the
other
changesets by this user? It looks to me as if the user has added
fictitious items for fun, but whether this is vandalism or just
misunderstanding is not clear. Either way, I think some clean-up may
be needed.



Probably worth commenting on the changeset, see if you get any
response. I wouldn't hold my breath.

I did also spot another suspicious user in the area, looks like they
are connected in some way.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Hannah%20Ross


Phil (trigpoint)




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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[Michael Booth]

In case you haven't seen it, the roundabout is on Mapillary from both a 
car and bike perspective: 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=W8Ri1G-L6w5ytkcMy_nv1w=map=51.6437334501=-0.254655100079=17


On 05/12/2016 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

Greetings

At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence 
also available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the 
roundabout (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory 
glance at satellite mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. 
But it will also highlight that where you cross the southbound A1 to 
the south of the roundabout (and likewise the northbound A1 to the 
north) it is highly dangerous. You have to cross three lanes of 
traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort, either from the A1 
or from the side roads.


What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it 
reflects what is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This 
isn’t an idle question - a user of my website has stated that it is 
dangerous to use, and has asked me to remove it. My conclusion was to 
leave it in, but as it cuts to what it is that is being produced here 
- an accurate cartographic representation of the world, regardless, or 
something a little different - I thought I would ask for views.


Regards,
Stuart





___
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 suburbs

[Michael Booth]

addr:locality could cause confusion in OSM because place=locality is a 
named place with no population?


I live in a post town so things are straightforward, but I've never been 
entirely sure how to tag addresses in the village and town either side 
of me.  For example the Royal Mail address:


xx street
village/town
post town
post code

I decided just to ignore the post town and use this format for OSM.

addr:housenumber addr:street
addr:city

addr:postcode

Am I doing it wrong? Maybe this is a question for the tagging list...

On 06/10/2016 19:10, Colin Smale wrote:


Royal Mail would agree with the residents. The postcode finder returns:

Lloyds Pharmacy
2-4 West Street
Rottingdean
BRIGHTON
BN2 7HP

What do you mean with "it is technically..."?

The current OSM tagging for addresses doesn't cater very well with the 
UK address model, which can get really messy in extreme situations.


I would probably use addr:city=Brighton, addr:locality=Rottingdean. 
According to this page it would be a "dependent locality":


http://support.qas.com/all_you_need_to_know_about_uk_address_elements_1478.htm

//colin

On 2016-10-06 18:48, Jez Nicholson wrote:

I was just looking at the address for Lloyds Pharmacy in Rottingdean 
whilst adding the fhrs:id. It is technically "2-4 West St, Brighton, 
BN2 7HP". There is a West Street in the centre of Brighton, so 
residents would probably put "2-4 West St, Rottingdean, Brighton, BN2 
7HP"


Seems like a silly question, but which tag do we commonly use in the 
UK for suburbs? addr:place?

Regards,
  Jez

___
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] Users tagging Farmyard as place=farm (Was Summer quarterly project)

[Michael Booth]

I noticed via overpass-turbo there's quite a lot of place=farm to the 
north of Dundee, which seem to have all been added by the same person. 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/inl


Many of them have the place=farm node on top of an unnamed farmyard way, 
for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3922104085 - surely the 
name should just be added to the farmyard?


On 13/09/2016 13:29, Dave F wrote:

Hi
Off on a slight tangent.

There's been an increase (world wide) in the use of place=farm. If you 
fill out the boxes on this site you'll see: http://taghistory.raifer.tech/

Over 19k are in GB: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/place=farm

The reason for the increase could be it being displayed in the OSM 
carto rendering

Just one example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4364588497

I believe many, if not all, are misinterpretations & should be 
landuse=farmyard.
The wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Farm says "a place named 
by a name of a farm"
To me, that means a collection of houses not associated with the farm 
being collectively given the name of that farm, so in effect, a hamlet 
has been named, say, Manor Farm.


Is that a common occurrence? I know of no such in my locale.

Dave F.

On 11/09/2016 18:45, Brian Prangle wrote:


Today saw us pass the 1,000 total for farmyards added during this 
project(1008 to be precise).


Well done to everyone who has participated. What has been the most 
unusual farm name anyone has come across?


Only a couple of weeks left - time to start thinking about our next 
quarterly project, while we see how many more farmyards we can add.


Regards

Brian



___
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] wrong tag "tunnel_name""bridge_name"

[Michael Booth]

That's just for the UK though - global stats show bridge:name is used on 
ways 9611 times (plus a further 6565 nodes) compared to 5388 for 
bridge_name.


On 10/08/2016 10:42, Ed Loach wrote:


Checking taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk there are 1957 bridge_name 
compared to 633 bridge:name – is the wiki’s use of bridge:name perhaps 
the mistake?


Ed

*From:*heimlik...@mail.com [mailto:heimlik...@mail.com]
*Sent:* 09 August 2016 18:25
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* [Talk-GB] wrong tag "tunnel_name""bridge_name"

Hello OSM UK Community,

I found a some tunnel_name  and 
bridge_name  in United Kingdom and I 
think we should use correct "tunnel:name" and "bridge:name".
I can do this in a single edit, but only if this is OK for the local 
mapper.


regards from South Tyrol

luschi



___
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] defibrillators - was: phone boxes used for other purposes

[Michael Booth]

Wow, poor excuse from the leisure centre - they should deal with the 
actual problem and not a hypothetical one!


I've added one in my town's High Street, but unfortunately it doesn't 
show up on the standard map layer. It would be good if there was an 
"emergency" layer, which listed all the emergency tags and other 
important POIs. The humanitarian layer has police, fire, medical, ATMs, 
taxis, etc. - would make sense to add defibrillators to that list as 
well. How do we go about getting a defibrillator icon on the map?


On 21/04/2016 16:51, Ed Loach wrote:


I spent some time not that long ago trying to survey all the ones in 
Tendring using the list available at


http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/Get-involved/Community-Public-Access-Defibrillators.htm 



as a starting point of where to look.

I’ve fed back to them some spelling mistakes that are on their list 
(they’ve not corrected them yet), and mentioned one that they aren’t 
aware of (I need to get Morrisons at Waterglade in Clacton to let them 
know officially before they can add it). There are also a couple on 
their list that I can’t find. Possibly inside the swimming pool and 
office that are mentioned, but not externally accessible outside 
opening hours when I surveyed, so they aren’t in OSM yet. I might try 
and get back during opening hours at some point, but this suggests we 
might need opening hours tags (or maybe access tags if they are only 
for customers, for example) for those not always accessible.


I used Overpass to view them

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cgh

The reason I mapped them was because our CAMRA branch decided to apply 
for some available funding to purchase some for local village pubs, 
getting the funding for all three that we applied for. One of the 
conditions was that there weren’t any near where we were applying to 
add another. So I needed to know where the existing ones were, and the 
overpass map seemed perfect for that. One of the pubs that was 
originally suggested already had one on the outside. Anyway, the three 
have been delivered to the pubs, and the one I know has been attached 
to the pub I mapped yesterday. One of the other two is (or will be) at 
the pub around the corner from another new one I need to survey


http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/532309

as it appears the different funding sources don’t co-ordinate (or the 
Firs decided to get their own). The final one is (or will be) at the 
Plough in Great Bentley.


This story is another reason why we might want to consider access tags:

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/leisure_centre_did_not_lend_defib_to_school_when_teacher_collapsed_because_of_health_and_safety_1_4462686

Ed

*From:*Brian Prangle [mailto:bpran...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 21 April 2016 09:57
*To:* Paul Berry
*Cc:* Talk GB
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] phone boxes used for other purposes

Well as we have a healthcare QP running which seems not to have 
generated a community focuslike we did with schools and there's some 
interest in defibs - why not get cracking on this for the rest of the QP?


regards

Brian

On 19 April 2016 at 12:21, Paul Berry > wrote:


On the subject of defibrillators, they could make a useful GB mapping
project. They need surveying, but it is something that both urban and
rural mappers could get out and find on the lighter evenings.

I quite agree. I've just mapped two near me (one in an old phone box, 
one affixed to the wall of a shop).


I suspect there are far more out there than would be apparent from the 
map: 
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/defibrillators-uk_81299#8/53.635/-2.304


Regards,

/Paul/



___
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 users and P2

[Michael Booth]

There's already an android app that does some of that: 
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.guillaumin.android.osmtracker


I record traces and add notes/markers for various things and take 
photos, export it as a gpx, share the trace/photos to google drive, then 
download them for use in iD.


Apparently you can customise the buttons to show different things, 
haven't tried it yet though.


On 25/02/2016 17:04, Nick Whitelegg wrote:



One thought I've had for a long time (and have probably mentioned in 
the past) is a walkers' editor (app rather than web-based). To be 
used something like:



User goes for walk and records GPX trace, following this sort of pattern.


Each time the type of right of way changes, the user selects a high 
level type ("Public Footpath", "Public Bridleway" etc in the UK) 
together with optional surface tags.



User can also enter relevant POIs like stiles, gates etc when they are 
encountered.



When user returns home, track simplification algorithm used to make a 
way from the GPX trace and tags it with the tags equivalent to the ROW 
type.



User downloads data from OSM and algorithms are used to auto-join the 
user's new ways to existing ways where appropriate (or alternatively, 
the user does this manually)



Would there be any interest in this I wonder?


Nick




*From:* Gregory 
*Sent:* 25 February 2016 15:37
*To:* Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] New users and P2
Probably a side-effect of being more recently created, but I've got 
the impression iD is easier to make coded adjustments to & specialised 
implementations of (certainly these exist).


That's just another small sales point for iD. But also provides the 
argument: if you can't get improvements added, fork it and add them 
yourself (could apply to Potlatch too).


Anyway, I use JOSM mainly. I agree with Jerry(SK53) in that we should 
be supporting multiple editors and even specialised ones (for 
data-types or entry-device).


From "Durham Ridge",
Gregory.

On 25 February 2016 at 15:13, SK53 > wrote:


Apart from other factors a very strong reason for favouring iD
over P2 is that the latter is Flash-based, It therefore has a
degree of in-built obsolescence, and may not be allowed for
security reasons in some organisations.

iD has been the default editor for a number of years now (just
under 3 IIRC), and the bulk of additional code for on-line editors
is added to iD, mainly by MapBox. There have been enhancements to
P2 too, but these are many fewer. So the latter is neither
obsolete, nor in an end-of-life stage. However, when it's end
comes it's likely to be swift as flash gets eliminated by major
browsers.

There's still plenty of space for on-line editors (for instance
one which deals with highways, buildings etc as primitive objects
rather than OSM elements as the current ones do): but whether
anyone is willing to take on the odium of maintaining an OSM
editor is moot.

Furthermore, editors on mobile devices are much less mature, and
there are substantial potential benefits in reducing or even
eliminating the survey-edit-update cycle.

Jerry

On 25 February 2016 at 13:15, Dave F > wrote:

What's wrong with with suggesting users use P2 over iD?

P2 has a few advantages over other editors. The only real
benefit I've noticed in iD is it prevents loading of data if
user is zoomed too far out. Something that Richard Fairhurst
might be able to implement fairly easily into P2.

I'm even less encouraged to use iD after a couple of
conversations with two of the developers (the only two?). They
appear resentful to many of the suggestions for improvement.

From memory Richard F. was a developer in the start up of iD,
Is he still involved?

Dave F.



On 25/02/2016 09:30, Philip Barnes wrote:


On Thu Feb 25 06:43:23 2016 GMT, Andy Robinson wrote:

I noticed that too Rob. Day before yesterday they all
seemed to start at the same time so I assumed it was
uni students.

We spotted them as new users from the bot that reports in 
#osm-gb.


They were spread over the country,  I assume the lecturer
hasn't updated his notes, the default if you hit the edit
button as a new user is iD.

Phil (trigpoint)

From: Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
]
Sent: 25 February 2016 00:24
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] New users and P2


Hi,

[Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Michael Booth]

Hi all, new mapper with a question about the place=* tag.

I noticed my town (population 6,000+) was tagged as place=village, so I 
looked at the wiki and also other places in my council area before 
making any changes.


The wiki gives a suggestion to go by population: city > 100,000; town > 
10,000; village < 10,000, > 200. But if we do that there will surely be 
differences when compared to how these places are commonly or legally 
perceived?


In Scotland, only four cities are above 100,000: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_and_cities_in_Scotland_by_population 
- so should Perth, Inverness and Stirling be downgraded to towns in OSM? 
Currently Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy are tagged (wrongly IMO) as cities - 
should they be changed to towns?


Same goes for towns/villages - I've seen places tagged as villages when 
smaller places are marked as towns. Or places which Wikipedia refers to 
as villages, but are tagged as towns and vice-versa.


So my question is, how are we defining villages, towns and cities? Only 
by population, or do we also take into account their generally accepted 
status (whilst trying to be consistent across the country)?


Thanks!

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