Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

At the risk of throwing another edge case into the pot (and mixing metaphors), 
can I ask how I should tag our flat?
The Post Office Official postcode checker renders it as:
Flat  
where  refers to the whole block and is common to all the flats.
I cannot see what the Post Office is calling the various data fields, but I 
assume OSM would be happy with (taking elements from above) 
addr:housenumber=addr:street=addr:city=
addr:postcode=
That just leaves me to deal with the "Flat" element.
Consulting the Wiki, I THINK I can cover that with:
add:flats=  (for one specific flat)
...or addr:flats= (for the whole block)
However, I unsure whether to include the word "Flat" in the value field of 
"addr:flats=*", or not.  The Wiki page for Key:addr includes, as an example, 
"addr:flats=Suite 110A", which seems fine for a single living space unit.  It 
could be called "Flat 110A", "Suite 110A", "Apartment 110A", etc., so including 
the descriptor word could be useful to the data consumer.  However, the Wiki 
page for Key:addr:flats shows only numeric values. 
TagInfo shows 203.5k uses of "addr:flats", but only 38 uses of 
"addr:flats=*flat*" and 42 uses of "addr:flats=*suite*", again suggesting that 
only the unique value(s) (e.g. "1", "2", "13B", etc.)  are sufficiently used to 
warrant data consumers catering for them. 
So, should I omit the word "Flat", "Suite", "Apartment" etc., leaving the data 
consumer to guess (or to default to "Flat...")?

Regards,Peter

On Monday, 21 December 2020, 09:30:37 GMT, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:  
 
 Like it or not, in the UK addresses are defined by Royal Mail. They're
introduced the concept of a "postal town", and this is one of the few
common elements that each address must always have. Once you accept
that the Post Town is intended to be a nearby significant place (to
help with delivery routing and identifying the rough location of the
addressed property) rather than being a place that the address is
"in", then it's really no more of a fiction than the postcode. (The
village I grew up in had a GL postcode, despite it being in
Worcestershire. I've currently got an IP postcode, despite being in
Norfolk and closer to Norwich (NR) than Ipswich.)

On the basis that it's a required part of each address, I would
recommend that we do store the post town in OSM addresses. There are
significant advantages to storing it in a consistent way, and the best
existing tag to do this would be addr:city. (We wouldn't want to
invent a new tag (e.g. addr:posttown), since as a UK-only term that
will simply be ignored by most international data consumers.

We then have a possible hierarchy of named localities between the
street and the post town to record as part of the address. I would
suggest using appropriate values from the set {addr:hamlet,
addr:village, addr:town, addr:suburb}. (I don't see any other
alternatives to this.) Most of these key names already have a
reasonable number of uses in OSM (addr:town is the lowest, but that
still has 59k uses), so it seems that others are doing this too.

Regarding properties (e.g. on named terraces or sub-streets), where
there are two street names (Thoroughfare and Dependent Throughourfare
in Rail Mail terminology) then we need a second key to store the other
street name under. Certainly if there is an addr:housenumber or
addr:housename, I think we need to use addr:street for the
street/terrace name on which that name or number applies. Otherwise,
software that's unaware of the second key name will think it's house
number n on the main street not the sub-street. There are already
about 3.5k uses of addr:parentstreet in OSM, so I'd recommend using
that for the main street, and addr:street for the terrace or
sub-street name. If any data-users aren't aware of addr:parentstreet
it's not a major issue, since it will still pick up the correct
terrace/sub-street name, and the locality, which will probably be
enough to use as an address.

I would strongly argue against using addr2 in connection with
sub-streets, as it's not standardised, and is likely to not be picked
up by any software. There's an abondoned proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr2 , but that
was for the case of a single property on a street corner having two
formal addresses, one on each street, not for the case of two streets
in a hierarchy.

Robert.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 12:47, Dave Abbott  wrote:
> I am trying to make sure I tag addresses correctly. I am currently
> trying to understand how to map in my area.
>
> The postal addresses are like:
>
> 99 Postal Street
> Smalltown
> Largertown
> West Yorks XY9 7GY
>
> Smalltown is geographically separate to Largertown, which however is the
> Postal Town. Omitting Smalltown from the address is probably correct
> postally-speaking, but local residents would object as Smalltown is seen
> as completely separate to other places under the same Postal Town.
>
> Currently tagging as -
> addr:housenumber=99
> 

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Postal Town may be "mandatory", but it is not really needed.
When presenting a parcel at my local post office recently, to be sent by the 
"signed for" service, they wanted to have the senders address on the reverse, 
so that it could be used as a return address, in the event of non-delivery.
All I had to (hurriedly) write was the Housenumber and Postcode (no 
PostalStreet, no PostalDistrict, no PostalTown)
Regards,Peter


On Sunday, 20 December 2020, 15:00:31 GMT, Colin Smale 
 wrote:  
 
 
On 2020-12-20 15:41, Chris Hill wrote:

Addresses in OSM are not the same as Royal Mail's addresses. RM addresses are 
all about their processes for delivering post to delivery points. The postal 
town (Largertown in your example) is a convenience for RM that we have all been 
persuaded is useful, but RM have ceased to use postal towns for many years! 
Are you not thinking of Postal Counties? They were indeed deprecated many years 
ago (1996), but the Post Town is AFAIK a mandatory component of a postal 
address, and Wikipedia agrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_town 
___
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 a single Royal Mail mailbox with two references

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

The Wiki says,
"Sometimes several post boxes are standing together and can most often be 
tagged with one single node. If the boxes have different reference numbers this 
is tagged as ref=12242;23214. You can also use two separate nodes in such 
cases, which may be more appropriate if the boxes are two separate physical 
entities. It would also be necessary to use two nodes if the two boxes had 
different collection times or item restrictions and you wanted to tag these 
differences."
So, if their type and collection times are the same, I think you can choose to 
tag 2 separate nodes, or one node with 2 refs, separated by a semi-colon.
Regards,Peter


On Monday, 14 December 2020, 13:51:24 GMT, Mat Attlee 
 wrote:  
 
 What's the most appropriate way to map a single physical Royal Mail mailbox 
with two signs and references? I recently stumbled upon such a mailbox and 
created a POI for each sign / reference:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8214997322https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8215022917
However given the collection times are the same and it is just one physical 
mailbox would it be better to have a single POI with two 
references?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but 
could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else.
The Wiki says that a driveway is (with my bold for emphasis), 
" ... a minor service road leading to a residential or business property. It 
typically branches from a bigger road and leads toward an entrance to a 
specific destination (building, etc.). It may end at or pass the entrance, but 
either way, it gets close to its destination. It is rare for a driveway to be 
the way to access another roadway (but see Pipestems below)."
(pipestems allow a driveway to be shared between several properties)
So if, in this case, it leads on to another way (e.g. a bridleway, or a track), 
it is not a driveway.  Does this solve the problem?
Regards,Peter
 Peter Neale 
t: 01908 309666 
m: 07968 341930 
skype: nealepb 

On Sunday, 13 December 2020, 10:25:46 GMT, Edward Bainton 
 wrote:  
 
 Sorry, I joined this thread late and I see the initial query was, How to 
ensure tracks don't just pop up nowhere'. So driveway first then track doesn't 
solve the problem.
That makes me say track all the way, as someone else has said. The different 
surfaces can be caught in the attributes.
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 10:08, Edward Bainton  wrote:

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

I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland lights, I'd 
probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly once it passes the farm 
buildings (since I see a driveway as implying car-worthy access to a building). 
Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?
I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer is what 
we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging it for the 
renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this case, I'd say track is 
a valid choice - I think even for the whole length, if by "driveway" we infer 
something, short, tidy, and suburban.
But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I await 
correction by my olders.
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
 wrote:

>Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

  >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg


Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded 
familiar.
A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long distance 
walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary footpaths (planned 
using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme Valley. It was very 
nicebut​ the footpaths were in an appaling state of disrepair, I remember on 
several occasions that day having to scramble through dense shrub cover and 
attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as 
being the site of some particularly badly-maintained footpaths.
As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to 
illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it, which 
is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I still haven't 
illustrated this walk incidentally, but...
Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..
Nick



From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 12 December 2020 14:30
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy 
Townsend wrote:

> 
> Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it. 
> Perhaps that someone is you?

Hi Andy,

Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus, 
Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory space 
and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, possibly 
by hosting something from OSM.


 >  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the
 > standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/
 > (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the
 > logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as
 > 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475



Thanks. I have been looking at https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ but
I have a lot to learn. I can do Windows programming, but on stuff for 
the web I'm only a dabbler. I looked at Mapnik and saw interfaces only 
for Python and C. If that had been Pascal, I would have dived in by now.

I will have another look and see where I might start. The idea of 
creating my own map does appeal to me.

Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. 

Re: [Talk-GB] Nominatim oddity

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hmm.
Well, in my case, it seems to come up as "Royaume-Uni"!
I'll need to try to fix that. (presumably in my account settings...)
Regards,Peter


On Monday, 7 December 2020, 17:38:49 GMT, Ken Kilfedder 
 wrote:  
 
 That's the name in latin for the UK, I think.  Is it under name:la, and do you 
have your browser set to latin for some reason?

I was able to set Chrome to Latin, and your URL did indeed have "Britanniarum 
Regnum" for place:country.
But in Firefox, set to English (GB), it just displays as "United Kingdom".

I wonder how many users OSM has in Vatican City?  (Where the ATMs have a Latin 
option, IIRC)

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020, at 5:23 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> This may be a dim question, and this may possibly be the wrong place to 
> ask it. But, at the risk of being both dim and out of place... Why does 
> Nominatim return "Britanniarum Regnum" as the country name for objects 
> in the UK? For example:
> 
> https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=21279378=place
> 
> Mark
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lorries can't limbo

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hi Ed,
Yes, that looks like it.
Many thanks for finding it for me; I've been a bit busy in the last few days.
Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 17:44, Ed Loach wrote:   
#yiv7977330760 #yiv7977330760 -- _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered 
{}#yiv7977330760 #yiv7977330760 p.yiv7977330760MsoNormal, #yiv7977330760 
li.yiv7977330760MsoNormal, #yiv7977330760 div.yiv7977330760MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv7977330760 a:link, 
#yiv7977330760 span.yiv7977330760MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7977330760 
span.yiv7977330760EmailStyle19 
{font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv7977330760 
.yiv7977330760MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered {}#yiv7977330760 
div.yiv7977330760WordSection1 {}#yiv7977330760 
The one mentioned on this list in July 2017 perhaps?

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-July/020359.html

  

Ed

  

From: Peter Neale via Talk-GB 
Sent: 13 November 2020 08:37
To: n...@ijive.co.uk; Jez Nicholson 
Cc: Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lorries can't limbo

  

I am pretty sure that I remember checking bridges in my area some time ago, 
using a tool that someone kindly provided, which flagged up all bridges, where 
the clearance height was not specified in OSM.

  

I regret that I cannot now find the link.   

  

Regards,

Peter

  

  

On Friday, 13 November 2020, 08:26:48 GMT, Jez Nicholson 
 wrote: 

  

  

Added to the Quarterly Project list 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:UK_Quarterly_Project#Bridge_Heights

  

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:56 PM Neil Matthews  
wrote:


https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-reveals-most-bashed-bridge-in-britain-09-11-2020/

Saw this and thought it might suit a small virtual project - to 
check/add bridge heights from mapillary images or similar might be useful.

And maybe network rail have a longer list / more info?

Cheers,
Neil



___
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] Lorries can't limbo

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

I am pretty sure that I remember checking bridges in my area some time ago, 
using a tool that someone kindly provided, which flagged up all bridges, where 
the clearance height was not specified in OSM.
I regret that I cannot now find the link.   
Regards,Peter 

On Friday, 13 November 2020, 08:26:48 GMT, Jez Nicholson 
 wrote:  
 
 Added to the Quarterly Project list 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:UK_Quarterly_Project#Bridge_Heights
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:56 PM Neil Matthews  
wrote:

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-reveals-most-bashed-bridge-in-britain-09-11-2020/

Saw this and thought it might suit a small virtual project - to 
check/add bridge heights from mapillary images or similar might be useful.

And maybe network rail have a longer list / more info?

Cheers,
Neil



___
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] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hi @Ed,
What area is this, please?
NCN 51 comes near me through Milton Keynes, so I have made some adjustments to 
the relation in the past (when it was re-routed to avoid going through the 
middle of the intu shopping centre). 

Regards,Peter 

On Friday, 14 August 2020, 09:04:51 BST, Ed Loach  
wrote:  
 
 DaveF replied to:

> > So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t
> > it remain in OSM?

with:
 
> OSM should be using the most up to date data available. In this
> instance
> I think Sustrans saying they've decommissioned a few NCNs &
> publishing
> an updated map is the more accurate information. I don't think the
> relations should be deleted as they're probably to be reclassified (I
> think).

In some cases OSM *is* the most up to date data there is. Locally I watched as 
the local Sustrans ranger (I hope I've got the term correct) added NCN 150 to 
the map after getting home from putting up the stickers - the relation grew 
over the few days it took. I will be leaving the local part of the NCN 51 
relation that has been reclassified for him to update as and when it gets 
re-stickered.

Ed


___
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] UPRN tag proposal page

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Excellent proposal. No problems that I can see.
Peter 

   >On Tuesday, 21 July 2020, 09:18:02 BST, Tony OSM  
wrote:  
 
  
>Thanks for the effort.
 
>No problem to vote for this, no "red flags" for me.
 
>Tony
 
 >>On 20/07/2020 22:11, Rob Nickerson wrote:
  
 
   >>Hi all, 
  >>As discussed at the State of the Map online workshop, I took away an action 
to draft a proposal page for ref:GB:uprn. This page is now >>up online. 
  >>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ref:GB:uprn 
  >>This is the first one of these I have done in a long time so hopefully I 
got it right. 
  >>At this stage, please highlight any "red flags" that would prevent us from 
moving to the voting stage. Feel free to also edit the page >>directly, however 
I'm of the view that less is more in this case as it keeps it short for people 
to read and also reduces the chance that  >>something is added that others do 
not agree with (which would be bad during the voting stage). 
  >>If there are no red flags I will move for a vote. 
  >>P.S. My thanks to Nick for drafting the initial text. >>P.P.S If anyone 
wants to start a page for USRN, please feel free to, otherwise I will attempt 
this later in the week.
  
  >>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
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

>On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 22:07, ael

> wrote:  >On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:30:00PM >+0100, 
>Adam Snape wrote:
>> 
>> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
>> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
>> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
>> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
>> shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

>+1  (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians)
+1 for "segregated" referring to separate (or not) pedestrian and cycle lanes 
in a shared cycleway

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:30:00PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
> 
> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
> shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

+1  (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians)


___
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] UPRN Locations Map

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hi Nick,
Thanks for that.
I regret that my VBA and Python are about as good as my Swahili and Martian.  
(i.e. NOT)
Many years ago, I did a bit (sic) of coding in Basic, Fortran and Algol (look 
them up in the history books) and I used Prolog for my AI project in 1984, but 
since then, I've been gradually relegated to management.
However, I am sure that there are others in this community, who will be much 
better placed than I am to use the code that you  have so kindly provided.
Regards,Peter


On Thursday, 2 July 2020, 23:19:06 BST, Nick  wrote:  
 
  
Hi Peter
 
re: "I am still not clear how best to use the data available" - I have written 
a simple bit of VBA that enables address data to be retrieved for a given UPRN 
(I attach the VBA used in a form for Excel) - this only works for Scotland but 
may be available elsewhere. Using the concept you can use Python (a friend has 
done some preliminary work) or similar. This is not elegant but is perhaps a 
first step in enabling a whole lot of development?
 
 
Cheers
 
Nick
 

 
 On 02/07/2020 18:38, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
  
 
  Hi Robert, 
  Many thanks for producing that map. 
  I was able to look at my street and see a blue pin in each of the building 
outlines that I had mapped from aerial imagery, so that gave me a warm, smug 
feeling :) 
  I too noticed some not-yet-there properties in a nearby development that had 
UPRNs assigned - Not a problem really (IMHO).  There is also one allocated to a 
pond near me; I didn't know that was "addressable"!
  
  However, I am still not clear how best to use the data available, if you 
can't use it to look up the address of the property.  Similarly, I am not sure 
how a data consumer could use the data, if we laboriously edited every property 
in OSM to include a "ref:GB:UPRN=" tag (or similar; other tags are 
available.). 
  Sorry not to be able to contribute something more useful... :( 
Regards, Peter 
 
  
  On Thursday, 2 July 2020, 17:40:51 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:  
  
   I'm not completely sure if/how we can best make use of the new OS
  OpenData (UPRNs, USRNs and related links) in OpenStreetMap, but as a
  first step I've set up a quick slippy map with the UPRN locations
  shown:
  
  https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ (zoom in to level 16 to show the data)
  
  The UPRN dataset literally just contains the UPRN number and its
  coordinates (both OS National Grid and WGS lat/lon). There are some
  additional linking datasets that link these ids to other ids (e.g.
  USRNs, TOIDs). But no address information is available directly. (You
  may be able to get street names by matching to OS Open Roads via TOIDs
  though. Coupled with Code-Point Open, you might be able to assign
  quite a few postcodes in cases where there's only one unit for a whole
  street.)
  
  The UPRN data has already helped me find a mapping error I made
  locally though -- it looks like I'd accidentally missed drawing a
  house outline from aerial imagery, and also classified a large garage
  a few doors down as a house. The two errors cancelled out when the
  houses were numbered sequentially, so I didn't notice until now. Today
  though I spotted a UPRN marker over some blank space on the map, and
  no marker over the mapped house that's probably a garage.
  
  Now a few initial thoughts on the data that I've explored so far:
  
  I believe that the UPRNs are assigned by local authorities, so
  conventions may vary from place to place. I don't know who actually
  assigns the coordinates (authority or OS). Looking at those for rows
  of houses around me, they don't seem to have been automatically given
  coordinates from the house footprint, it looks more like someone
  manually clicking on a map.
  
  The UPRN dataset should include all addressable properties. It is also
  ahead of reality in some places, as it includes locations for houses
  on a new development near me that have yet to be built yet. For blocks
  of apartments/flats, the UPRN nodes may all have the same coordinates
  or may be displaced from each other, possibly in an artificial manner.
  
  Other objects also appear to have UPRNs. Likely things I've noticed so
  far include: car parks, post boxes, telephone boxes (even after
  they've been removed), electricity sub-stations, roads and recorded
  footpaths (the UPRN locations seem to be at one end of the street, so
  usually lie at a junction), recreation grounds / play areas,
  floodlight poles (around sports pitches), and allotments. There's no
  information about the object type in the UPRN data unfortunately.
  
  Anyway, I hope some of this is useful / interesting. I hope to be on
  the OSMUK call on Saturday to discuss things further. Best wishes,
  
  Robert.
  
  -- 
  Robert Whittaker
  https://osm.mathmos.net/
  
  ___
  Talk-GB mailing list
  Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
  https://li

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hi Robert,
Many thanks for producing that map.
I was able to look at my street and see a blue pin in each of the building 
outlines that I had mapped from aerial imagery, so that gave me a warm, smug 
feeling :)
I too noticed some not-yet-there properties in a nearby development that had 
UPRNs assigned - Not a problem really (IMHO).  There is also one allocated to a 
pond near me; I didn't know that was "addressable"!

However, I am still not clear how best to use the data available, if you can't 
use it to look up the address of the property.  Similarly, I am not sure how a 
data consumer could use the data, if we laboriously edited every property in 
OSM to include a "ref:GB:UPRN=" tag (or similar; other tags are available.).
Sorry not to be able to contribute something more useful... :(
Regards,Peter
 

On Thursday, 2 July 2020, 17:40:51 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:  
 
 I'm not completely sure if/how we can best make use of the new OS
OpenData (UPRNs, USRNs and related links) in OpenStreetMap, but as a
first step I've set up a quick slippy map with the UPRN locations
shown:

https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ (zoom in to level 16 to show the data)

The UPRN dataset literally just contains the UPRN number and its
coordinates (both OS National Grid and WGS lat/lon). There are some
additional linking datasets that link these ids to other ids (e.g.
USRNs, TOIDs). But no address information is available directly. (You
may be able to get street names by matching to OS Open Roads via TOIDs
though. Coupled with Code-Point Open, you might be able to assign
quite a few postcodes in cases where there's only one unit for a whole
street.)

The UPRN data has already helped me find a mapping error I made
locally though -- it looks like I'd accidentally missed drawing a
house outline from aerial imagery, and also classified a large garage
a few doors down as a house. The two errors cancelled out when the
houses were numbered sequentially, so I didn't notice until now. Today
though I spotted a UPRN marker over some blank space on the map, and
no marker over the mapped house that's probably a garage.

Now a few initial thoughts on the data that I've explored so far:

I believe that the UPRNs are assigned by local authorities, so
conventions may vary from place to place. I don't know who actually
assigns the coordinates (authority or OS). Looking at those for rows
of houses around me, they don't seem to have been automatically given
coordinates from the house footprint, it looks more like someone
manually clicking on a map.

The UPRN dataset should include all addressable properties. It is also
ahead of reality in some places, as it includes locations for houses
on a new development near me that have yet to be built yet. For blocks
of apartments/flats, the UPRN nodes may all have the same coordinates
or may be displaced from each other, possibly in an artificial manner.

Other objects also appear to have UPRNs. Likely things I've noticed so
far include: car parks, post boxes, telephone boxes (even after
they've been removed), electricity sub-stations, roads and recorded
footpaths (the UPRN locations seem to be at one end of the street, so
usually lie at a junction), recreation grounds / play areas,
floodlight poles (around sports pitches), and allotments. There's no
information about the object type in the UPRN data unfortunately.

Anyway, I hope some of this is useful / interesting. I hope to be on
the OSMUK call on Saturday to discuss things further. Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker
https://osm.mathmos.net/

___
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] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Sorry if I did not make myself clear enough.  (Every day is a new learning 
opportunity!)

At least it's good to know that I have not broken the system :-)

Regards,Peter 

On Monday, 27 April 2020, 11:24:14 BST, Andy Townsend  
wrote:  
 
  On 27/04/2020 11:16, Peter Neale wrote:
  
 
  It seems that we have had 2 of us attempting the same change at the same 
time. 

 
 
Generally speaking, IRC's better for this sort of request as everyone sees 
what's happening in real time
 
 
   I hope that the database change  control can cope with this. 

 
It can - multiple deletion requests will just be ignored
 
 
> I did try to avoid such a clash by responding here before starting work.
 
I've clearly been working with people from the Netherlands and Germany too long 
:)  - I didn't interpret "I think that I understand the issue ... A solution 
may be ... I am happy to spend a while trying this" as "I'm doing it NOW".
 
Best Regards,
 
Andy
 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Noted.  I have been careful to separate the ways sharing points and only delete 
the way in question.
Regards,Peter
 Peter Neale 
t: 01908 309666 
m: 07968 341930 
skype: nealepb 

On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:56:40 BST, Jez Nicholson 
 wrote:  
 
 Note that the vast majority of the points in the Way were pre-existing. Any 
fix should leave them in place.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:54 AM nathan case  wrote:


I’m fairly sure Potlach (assuming you want to tackle this via a browser editor) 
allows you to delete larger areas in one go – rather than deleting point by 
point.

 

Cheers.

 

From: Peter Neale via Talk-GB 
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:43 AM
To: Talk-GB ; Jez Nicholson 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

 

I think that I understand the issue.  A solution may be to delete individual 
points until the whole way is small enough to be shown on a screen at editable 
zoom.  

 

I am happy to spend a while trying this, but it is probably best if only one of 
us is stirring the pot at once.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

 

 

On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:32:44 BST, Jez Nicholson  
wrote:

 

 

A new user has created a new way in Brighton to indicate the Hollingbury 
residential error https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785162533 They freely admit 
their error but are unable to remove it, as am I. Would anyone be able to 
assist please?

 

I only have anecdotal evidence (like this one) but it seems that a 'new user 
thing to do' is to 'correct my local area'. Might be another reason to lock 
boundaries from new user changes?

___
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] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

It seems that we have had 2 of us attempting the same change at the same time.  
I hope that the database change  control can cope with this.
I did try to avoid such a clash by responding here before starting work.

Regards,Peter


On Monday, 27 April 2020, 11:12:59 BST, Andy Townsend  
wrote:  
 
  On 27/04/2020 10:56, Jez Nicholson wrote:
  
 
Note that the vast majority of the points in the Way were pre-existing. Any fix 
should leave them in place. 
  On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:54 AM nathan case  wrote:
  
   
I’m fairly sure Potlach (assuming you want to tackle this via a browser editor) 
allows you to delete larger areas in one go – rather than deleting point by 
point.
 
   
  
I believe I've resolved this in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84189877 - please let us know if all is 
OK.
 
 
For completeness, that was done in JOSM using the reverter plugin.  It also 
deleted the three extra nodes added in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82728827 .
 
Potlatch 2 would also have worked, but I'd have needed to delete the 3 new 
nodes separately.
 
Some combination of  "revert.pl" "undo.pl" and/or "delete.pl" in the OSM revert 
scripts https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Revert_scripts would have worked, 
but I'd have needed to explicitly say "yes please delete the new way and the 3 
new nodes".
 
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] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

I THINK I have done it.  
It took a bit of fiddling to separate some shared points, but then I was able 
to cut the offending line and delete a section at a time (which fitted on the 
screen).
I hope that I have not disturbed anything else in the process.  
Regards,Peter
 Peter Neale 
t: 01908 309666 
m: 07968 341930 
skype: nealepb 

On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:44:26 BST, Peter Neale via Talk-GB 
 wrote:  
 
 I think that I understand the issue.  A solution may be to delete individual 
points until the whole way is small enough to be shown on a screen at editable 
zoom.  
I am happy to spend a while trying this, but it is probably best if only one of 
us is stirring the pot at once.
Regards,Peter


On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:32:44 BST, Jez Nicholson 
 wrote:  
 
 A new user has created a new way in Brighton to indicate the Hollingbury 
residential error https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785162533 They freely admit 
their error but are unable to remove it, as am I. Would anyone be able to 
assist please?
I only have anecdotal evidence (like this one) but it seems that a 'new user 
thing to do' is to 'correct my local area'. Might be another reason to lock 
boundaries from new user changes?___
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] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

I think that I understand the issue.  A solution may be to delete individual 
points until the whole way is small enough to be shown on a screen at editable 
zoom.  
I am happy to spend a while trying this, but it is probably best if only one of 
us is stirring the pot at once.
Regards,Peter


On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:32:44 BST, Jez Nicholson 
 wrote:  
 
 A new user has created a new way in Brighton to indicate the Hollingbury 
residential error https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785162533 They freely admit 
their error but are unable to remove it, as am I. Would anyone be able to 
assist please?
I only have anecdotal evidence (like this one) but it seems that a 'new user 
thing to do' is to 'correct my local area'. Might be another reason to lock 
boundaries from new user changes?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

There may also be merit in tagging a location that is frequently / consistently 
used for more ephemeral art.  Any time you visit, you can reasonably expect to 
see something, but it might be a different thing from what was there yesterday.
Regards,Peter
On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:07:37 BST, Edward Catmur 
 wrote:  
 
 
These things can be permanent – mosaic or other types of inlay.

  

From: Mike Parfitt
Sent: 27 April 2020 08:56
To: mar...@templot.com; neal...@yahoo.co.uk; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art

  

There may be some merit in tagging permanent artwork on the sides of buildings.

But tagging pavement/street art that will vanish after a couple of showers 
seems pointless. 



From: Peter Neale via Talk-GB 
Sent: 26 April 2020 18:38:06
To: mar...@templot.com 
Cc: Talk-gb OSM List 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art 

 

Pavement art, or perhaps street painting? 

  

  

Street painting - Wikipedia 

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
Street painting - Wikipedia
 |  |

 |

 |


  

  

Regards,

Peter

  

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

  


On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 15:32, Martin Wynne

 wrote:

What is this stuff called?

  

  https://goo.gl/maps/uVVfLbicFhT25TM5A

  

  https://goo.gl/maps/5g1yJnsAGEHzpqqY6

  

I got as far as tourism=artwork but then

  

  artwork_type= ?

  

thanks,

  

Martin.

  

___

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Pavement art, or perhaps street painting?

Street painting - Wikipedia  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Street painting - Wikipedia
 

  |   |

  |

  |

  

Regards,Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 15:32, Martin Wynne wrote:   What 
is this stuff called?

  https://goo.gl/maps/uVVfLbicFhT25TM5A

  https://goo.gl/maps/5g1yJnsAGEHzpqqY6

I got as far as tourism=artwork but then

  artwork_type= ?

thanks,

Martin.

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

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

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Thanks for pointing out how to import and convert the file.  After a bit of 
trial and error, I discovered how to get Excel to use the "¬" as the delimiter 
and (as you said), the addresses are quite inconsistent, but the data all lines 
up again in the Post Code Column.  There are some further issues in the 
ParentName Column, with the County sometimes duplicated there and sometimes 
there instead of the County Column. 
Thank you for taking me a step forward in my "How to Use Excel" course!
Regards,Peter

On Thursday, 16 April 2020, 13:52:06 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:  
 
 On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 12:27, Peter Neale  wrote:
> I tried following the link to your proposed new source of “official” data, 
> but none of the 3 links to the data worked very well for me.
>
> Link 1:  (API format) led to http 404 error.
> Link 2  (CSV(TSV) format – led to http 404 error
> Link 3  (XSV format) downloaded a file with a “.csv” file extension that 
> seemed to be tab-separated, rather than comma-separated.  I took that into a 
> text editor and did a global Find and Replace of Tab with Comma.  The 
> resultant .csv file loaded into Excel just fine, but it has over 11,000 lines 
> and many of them must now have additional commas, because a number of fields 
> are right-shifted (Post Code in the Latitude Column, Latitude in the 
> Longitude Column, etc.)  Also, over 700 have Blank in the Address1 Field, 
> with the whole address in Address 2, Address 3, etc.  Then quite a few (from 
> my sample in the first 30) have County values in the ParentName Field.  So I 
> fear that, unless you can do a better conversion than I did (and you almost 
> certainly could, I know!) you will have a lot of manual cleaning up to do, 
> before you can use this data.

Yes, the first two links at
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies
are broken for me as well. For the third link, it looks like they
tried to do CSV, but didn't understand how to escape commas within the
fields, and so opted to use a different character "¬" instead. If you
import this into a spreadsheet, and tell it to use just "¬" as the
column separator, I think it works out fine, with all the entries in
the right place. (You can certainly do this with LibreOffice; I'm not
sure about Excel.) The address lines seem to be used inconsistently,
but everything is back aligned when you get to the postcode field.

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

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

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

"Anyone?"  Huh?  (seems to be lacking the back-story!)
Regards,Peter

On Thursday, 16 April 2020, 15:16:45 BST, Andy Mabbett 
 wrote:  
 
 Anyone?

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

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

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hi Robert,
I also don’t want to delete the objects completely; as they do exist, so we 
should be able to map them.  
However, I do take your point that a pharmacy which is not open to the public 
is not an “amenity” in OSM.  So my 2 “wholesale” pharmacies do not meet the 
wiki definition of “amenity=pharmacy: a shop where a pharmacist sells 
medications” > “A shop is a place selling retail products or services.”
I think they may both be better tagged as “office=company” (I know that one of 
them is also the head office of the company and they both function as offices). 
 I could add a Note explaining why they are not tagged as “amenity-pharmacy”, 
which might deter other mappers from using this tagging, in response to the 
flag generated by your excellent tool.
I tried following the link to your proposed new source of “official” data, but 
none of the 3 links to the data worked very well for me.
Link 1:  (API format) led to http 404 error.Link 2  (CSV(TSV) format – led to 
http 404 errorLink 3  (XSV format) downloaded a file with a “.csv” file 
extension that seemed to be tab-separated, rather than comma-separated.  I took 
that into a text editor and did a global Find and Replace of Tab with Comma.  
The resultant .csv file loaded into Excel just fine, but it has over 11,000 
lines and many of them must now have additional commas, because a number of 
fields are right-shifted (Post Code in the Latitude Column, Latitude in the 
Longitude Column, etc.)  Also, over 700 have Blank in the Address1 Field, with 
the whole address in Address 2, Address 3, etc.  Then quite a few (from my 
sample in the first 30) have County values in the ParentName Field.  So I fear 
that, unless you can do a better conversion than I did (and you almost 
certainly could, I know!) you will have a lot of manual cleaning up to do, 
before you can use this data.
The good news is that neither of my “wholesale” pharmacies is in that 
downloaded file, so, if you were able to use it as a source for your comparison 
tool, it would no longer flag them as “missing pharmacies”.
Good luck and thanks for the excellent tools, which keep me busy, trying to 
find missing post boxes, pharmacies and the like.


Regards,Peter 

On Wednesday, 15 April 2020, 16:46:43 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:  
 
 On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 20:40, Peter Neale  wrote:
> I looked up my 2 "wholesale" pharmacies on the list.  Unfortunately, they are 
> both classed as "community", so will continue to be included in your checking 
> tool.
>
> So... ...should we:
> a.  Continue as we are: Plot them in OSM, tag them as pharmacies, but give 
> them a name that makes it clear that they are not publicly accessible?
> b.  Delete them from OSM, so that consumers don't think they are publicly 
> accessible.  (But they do exist and who knows what consumers will really want 
> to find?)  Then we could ask you to manually delete them from the checking 
> tool (but you probably won't want to keep doing that).
> c.  Do something else?

I certainly wouldn't advocate any inappropriate tagging just to keep
my tool happy! So if we don't think they should be amenity=pharmacy,
then we shouldn't tag them like that. While they may technically be
pharmacies, I would think that amenity=pharmacy is best reserved for
places that are amenities for the general public to use, which would
rule out option (a). As for (b), I wouldn't necessarily delete the
objects completely from OSM: if there's a business presence on the
ground, that could still be tagged. The question then is whether it's
worth tweaking my tool to remove these false positives. You could just
ignore the "missing pharmacy" markers local to you that you know are
wrong. As you say, I would have a manually maintained "ignore" list,
but that would be more effort for me.

What I'd prefer to to is to switch to a better data source for my
pharmacy list. There is a list of NHS-contracted pharmacies at
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies
which I think would closer match what we want for amenity=pharmacy,
but unfortunately that list appears to be England only. So I'd need to
find corresponding lists for Wales and Scotland. (NI isn't in the data
I'm currently using. I've found
https://www.psni.org.uk/registration/premises-registration/changes-to-the-premises-register/
but the data is all locked up in PDFs.) Can anyone help out here?

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

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

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hi  Robert,
I looked up my 2 "wholesale" pharmacies on the list.  Unfortunately, they are 
both classed as "community", so will continue to be included in your checking 
tool.
So... ...should we:a.  Continue as we are: Plot them in OSM, tag them as 
pharmacies, but give them a name that makes it clear that they are not publicly 
accessible?b.  Delete them from OSM, so that consumers don't think they are 
publicly accessible.  (But they do exist and who knows what consumers will 
really want to find?)  Then we could ask you to manually delete them from the 
checking tool (but you probably won't want to keep doing that). c.  Do 
something else?
Regards,Peter 

   >On Sunday, 12 April 2020, 18:44:35 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:  > > >On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 18:08, 
Peter Neale  wrote:
>> As Boots' stores don't ALL have a pharmacy counter, IMHO they should be 
>> tagged as "shop=chemist".  Those that DO have a >>pharmacy (dispensing 
>> prescriptions) should be additionally tagged, either with "pharmacy=yes", or 
>> with a separate node for the >>pharmacy.  I think that would fit with the 
>> checking that you describe for your tool.
>>
>Both of those will get picked up by my tool. You could also do
>shop=chemist and amenity=pharmacy together, or just amenity=pharmacy
>on it's own. The best choice will probably depend on the nature of the
>Boots branch. Some may essentially just be a pharmacy counter with a
>small range of other medicines also available. Others branches will be
>a much larger store, where the pharmacy counter is more incidental.
>
>> As regards "pharmacy type", does your data identify what I would call 
>> "wholesale pharmacies", who have no public access, but supply >>medicines to 
>> hospitals, care homes and individual customers in their homes?  I know of 2 
>> in my area.  In one case, I changed the >>name to "Jardines (on line)" 
>> (Node: 6409354480) and in the other to "Mediva Private Pharmacy" (Node: 
>> 6443190532), in an attempt to >>make it clear that there is no public access.
>> Could these be excluded in future?
>
>The data I use can be downloaded from
>https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/registers -- it's the "list of
>registered pharmacies". As of today, I'm now just keeping those with a
>Type (the last column) of either "Community" or "Temporary -
>Community/Portacabin". I think doing this corresponds most closely to
>what we'd want to tag as amenity=pharmacy in OSM. For internal
>hospital and prison pharmacies, and for internet-only pharmacies that
>you can't get prescriptions from as a walk-in customer, I don't think
>they should be tagged as amenity=pharmacy.
>
>Best wishes,>
>Robert.
>
>-- 
>Robert Whittaker

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

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

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hi Robert,
As Boots' stores don't ALL have a pharmacy counter, IMHO they should be tagged 
as "shop=chemist".  Those that DO have a pharmacy (dispensing prescriptions) 
should be additionally tagged, either with "pharmacy=yes", or with a separate 
node for the pharmacy.  I think that would fit with the checking that you 
describe for your tool.
As regards "pharmacy type", does your data identify what I would call 
"wholesale pharmacies", who have no public access, but supply medicines to 
hospitals, care homes and individual customers in their homes?  I know of 2 in 
my area.  In one case, I changed the name to "Jardines (on line)" (Node: 
6409354480) and in the other to "Mediva Private Pharmacy" (Node: 6443190532), 
in an attempt to make it clear that there is no public access.   Could these be 
excluded in future? Regards,Peter 

On Sunday, 12 April 2020, 14:41:01 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:  
 
 >On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 18:39, Dave Love  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 12:08 +0100, SK53 wrote:
>> > Robert Whittaker has a Pharmacy QA > > > site
>>
>> That shows a Boots missing which I tagged as the brand from the
>> correction iD wanted (brand=Boots shop=chemist).  How should Boots be
>> tagged, and does iD need a fix?  (I assume all Boots have pharmacies,
>> but maybe not.)
>
>As far as my tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/pharmacy/progress/ is
>concerned, pharmacies are recognised as OSM objects tagged with 
>either>amenity=pharmacy or pharmacy=yes*. (The latter can be used on things
>like supermarkets and doctors surgeries, when things aren't mapped in
>enough detail to have a separate amenity=pharmacy node.)
>
>As for whether all Boots stores have pharmacies, I think most do, but
>some don't: 
>https://www.boots-uk.com/about-boots-uk/about-boots/boots-in-numbers/
>says there are 2,465 Boots stores, but in the General Pharmaceutical
>Council register of Pharmacies, there are only 2304 premises
>registered to 'Boots UK Limited'.
>
>Robert
>
>PS: I've just noticed that the data I'm using for my tool now contains
>a "Pharmacy Type" field. This means I can exclude internet only
>pharmacies, temporary locations (e.g. for events) and internal
>hospital and prisons pharmacies. This will hopefully make the
>comparison shown by the tool must more useful.
>
>* Because of the change to exclude hospital and prison pharmacies from
>the GPhC data, OSM objects with pharmacy=yes will only be picked up in
>my tool if they do not also have amenity=hospital or amenity=prison
>too.

--
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hi Lester,
Sorry if my post was a bit of a rant.  I have a history of having to fight to 
get IT systems that do the hard work and preventing them demanding that people 
do the translation into "machine-speak".
Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,Peter
On Thursday, 9 April 2020, 10:29:05 BST, Lester Caine  
wrote:  
 
 On 03/04/2020 10:15, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
> So, will I have to quote a 20-digit alpha-numeric code, if I want to 
> order something from Amazon? ..or get my grandchildren to send me a 
> birthday card?
> 
> (I do not know what these UPRN's look like, but I bet they are not as 
> easy to remember as "Rose Cottage, 3 Church Lane, XX3 4ZZ")
> 
> We have to think about human readability and memorability, versus 
> machine computability and we need to be careful not to make the humans 
> do all the work, just to make it easier for the machines.  Making me use 
> a PostCode is already making me do some of the work, but at least they 
> are only 6 or 7 characters.

The NLPG is intended to provide a single database of all the land in the 
United Kingdom. Councils have been building this for many years now, and 
it allows parcels of land that the Post Office do not have any reference 
to in their Postal Address File to be uniquely identified. Looking up 
data using Postcodes can be fun but often due to people having the wrong 
postcode anyway. We can identify the vast majority of residential and 
business locations using 'building Number'/'Postcode', but additional 
data is useful to identify that this short form is actually correct, but 
your council tax or business rates will be charged against the UPRN 
reference on the council systems. It is not intended to be anything 
other than a 'machine readable' unique refference ...

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

So, will I have to quote a 20-digit alpha-numeric code, if I want to order 
something from Amazon? ..or get my grandchildren to send me a birthday card?
(I do not know what these UPRN's look like, but I bet they are not as easy to 
remember as "Rose Cottage, 3 Church Lane, XX3 4ZZ") 
We have to think about human readability and memorability, versus machine 
computability and we need to be careful not to make the humans do all the work, 
just to make it easier for the machines.  Making me use a PostCode is already 
making me do some of the work, but at least they are only 6 or 7 characters. 
Regards,Peter

On Friday, 3 April 2020, 09:59:27 BST, Mark Goodge  
wrote:  
 
 

On 03/04/2020 09:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

> There will presumably be a drive in government circles to store
> addresses as UPRN's, and then fetch the associated location and
> address data from AddressBase. Assuming Rob's interpretation is
> correct (I think it probably is) then this could be bad new for
> sources of addresses and postcodes for OSM. While we'll be more easily
> able to geo-locate objects from their URPN's, the actual addresses in
> any datasets will become more likely to be contaminated by OS's IP
> rights in AddressBase.

In the long run, I suspect this could actually spell the end for postal 
addresses (as distinct from geographic addresses). If every property has 
a published, unique number, analogous to a telephone number, then all 
that's necessary for, say, Amazon to deliver a package to me is for them 
to know the UPRN of my house. Their routing software will then do all 
the heavy lifting of plotting how to get the package from their depot to 
my door.

Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

I commend your efforts, but can I suggest a small change to your proposal?
(I am still a bit of a novice on OSM, so please feel free to tell me I am 
totally wrong)
Rather than "lcc:id=1849" should you not use, "id=lcc1849", or perhaps 
"ref=lcc1849", or even "ref:lcc=1849".
I am not sure which (if any) would be most correct, but I feel that what you 
are trying to record is a type of reference or identity, not a type of lcc.
I also note that Taginfo shows 91,800 uses of "id=*", but over 10.3 million 
uses of "ref=*", so "ref =nnn"would seem by far the most popular tag for a 
reference number. 
Also, I do not see the need to "hide" the comment as "lcc:comments="; why not 
just use "note=under city centre team management"?
As I said, please feel free to tell me I am wrong; I am engaging here as part 
of my education in OSM.
Regards,Peter
On Thursday, 26 March 2020, 10:12:56 GMT, Patrick Lake 
 wrote:
 
 
 
Hi Jez,
 
  
 
I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source of 
data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential stuff like 
planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), however, will be 
relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we’re doing for LCC 
involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and where the 
optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points would be. So 
we’re keen for it to be accurate.
 
  
 
I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the tags we 
planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing (obviously we can 
change these):
 
amenity=waste_basket

   - waste_basket:model=”metal square twin”
   - condition=good/fair/poor
   - waste_basket:defects=loose
   - waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
   - lcc:id=1849
   - lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”
 
  
 
What do you think?
 
  
 
Cheers,
 
Patrick
 
  
 
o/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Abusive posts

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hi Matthew,
Thanks for dealing with this.
I'm just glad that it is so rare.
Regards,Peter
On Saturday, 14 March 2020, 12:14:46 GMT, Matthew Newton 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi all,

Seen all the messages. Apologies for the delay in sorting this.

In all the years I've been monitoring this list I don't ever recall
seeing behaviour like that. It most certainly isn't acceptable. Minor
disagreements at times, sure, but outright abuse is way over the top.

He's gone.

Cheers,

Matthew



___
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] European Water Project - Introduction

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Thanks Simon,
I had thought that such a tightly run and structured organisation as OSM 
would have someone moderating every mailing list 

Regards,Peter  
 

On Saturday, 14 March 2020, 08:47:49 GMT, Simon Poole  
wrote:  
 
  
Peter I don't believe there is/are any active moderators at this point. The UK 
community should nominate one or more, and ask the OWG to instate them as list 
moderators. In any case pleading to them here will not work (and likely 
wouldn't work even if there were some).
 
Simon
 
 Am 13.03.2020 um 23:37 schrieb Peter Neale via Talk-GB:
  
 
  List Moderators, 
  Please remove @Daniel Holsey from this list.  His contribution will not be 
missed. 
Regards, 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] European Water Project - Introduction

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

List Moderators,
Please remove @Daniel Holsey from this list.  His contribution will not be 
missed.
Regards,Peter
On Friday, 13 March 2020, 21:31:57 GMT, Daniel Holsey  
wrote:  
 
 Your A Nonce Mate
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 21:03, BD  wrote:

 Hi,

I quite like the idea of adding free water refill places to the OSM. One idea 
which could not only benefit the European Water Project but OSM as a whole is 
to add a tick box on the onosm.org. I could read something like "We do provide 
free water refills" - link to European Water Project. If we would promote the 
onosm.org a bit more not only numbers of businesses aware of/on OSM would 
increase, + people aware of Water Project. Water Project volunteers (if there 
are any) could direct businesses to onosm.org for ease of adding info, this way 
we would "kill two birds with one stone" - as we say where I come from.

cheers,
dzidek23


 
  
 Dnia 13 marca 2020 16:03 talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org napisał(a): 
 
 Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions totalk...@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gbor, via email, send a message 
with subject or body 'help' totalk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list attalk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: 
Contents of Talk-GB digest..."

Today's Topics:
  1. Re: European Water Project - Introduction (Colin Smale)  2. Re: European 
Water Project - Introduction (Tony OSM)  3. Cancellation of Nottingham pub 
meetup scheduled for 17th March (SK53)  4. Re: European Water Project - 
Introduction (Peter Neale)

--
Message: 1Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:12:15 +0100From: Colin Smale 
To: Daniel Holsey Cc: European 
Water Project 
,talk-gb@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: 
[Talk-GB] European Water Project - IntroductionMessage-ID: 
<29886cc9030c6a1cc989733c3fbec...@xs4all.nl>Content-Type: text/plain; 
charset="utf-8"
Daniel, that is completely uncalled for. If you can't live and let live,take 
your own advice and go procreate somewhere else. 
On 2020-03-13 12:27, Daniel Holsey wrote:

Fuck Off 
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 10:31, European Water Project 
 wrote: 
Hello, 
My name is Stuart Rapoport. This my first message on the UK OSM forum, so I 
decided to give an introduction to our project before jumping into the thread 
regarding the tag drinking_water:refill = yes.  
A small group of us have recently started a project called European Water 
Project. Our project is 100% collaborative and 100% open data, powered by OSM 
and wikidata. Our goal is to help empower individuals to reduce single use 
waste in their lives. With the help of many (including OSM members in Italy, 
Switzerland, France, and Spain), we have written a set of instructions 
available in 7 languages for adding new water fountains to OSM and as well as 
instructions on how to add photos to Wikimedia Commons and link them back :  
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH/Project/European_Water_Project 
We have developed a Progressive Web Application which allows individuals to 
find nearby locations where they can refill their sustainable water bottle for 
free anywhere in Europe.We strive to contribute to the builiding of a 
collaborative network of foutains, cafes, restaurants and other establishments 
which are willing to allow individuals to fill up their water bottle as part of 
the battle agains single-use waste.  There are currently over 235,000 fountains 
and 70 cafés available on the App. 
Our web App is available directly at https://europeanwaterproject.org  
(installation instructions are in the hamburger menu).  
A description of the project and the project genesis : 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1f0dts-RErPepgrEnddSAOh1rDqpxMYC3 
Best regards,
Stuart Rapoport
___Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
___Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb--
 next part --An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: 

--
Message: 2Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:18:37 +From: Tony OSM 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [Talk-GB] 
European Water Project - IntroductionMessage-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; 
charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
I completely agree with Colin
On 13/03/2020 12:12, Colin Smale wrote:

Daniel, that is completely uncalled for. If you can't live and let live, take 
your own advice and go procreate somewhere else.

On 2020-03-13 12:27, Daniel Holsey wrote:

Fuck Off
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 10:31, European Water Project 

[Talk-GB] Fw: European Water Project - Introduction

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

For the avoidance of doubt (and to retain my good name), can I please point out 
that "this swearing jerk" referred to by @BrianPrangle is not me but...
>- Forwarded message ->From: Daniel Holsey >To: 
>European Water Project >Cc: 
>"talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" >Sent: Friday, 13 March 
>2020, 11:29:24 GMT>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] European Water Project - Introduction
>Fuck Off


Regards,Peter
 Peter Neale 
t: 01908 309666 
m: 07968 341930 
skype: nealepb 

   - Forwarded message - From: Brian Prangle To: 
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, 13 March 
2020, 18:00:10 GMTSubject: Re: [Talk-GB] European Water Project - Introduction
 Can an admin please remove this swearing jerk from the mailing list, for 
totally unacceptable behaviour?

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 16:03, Peter Neale via Talk-GB 
 wrote:

Well. That's a powerful, reasoned argument (NOT!).
If you don't have anything constructive to add to the debate   I suggest that 
you keep your opinions to yourself.
Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 11:29, Daniel Holsey wrote:   
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] European Water Project - Introduction

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Well. That's a powerful, reasoned argument (NOT!).
If you don't have anything constructive to add to the debate   I suggest that 
you keep your opinions to yourself.
Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 11:29, Daniel Holsey wrote:   
___
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] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

 >On Tuesday, 4 February 2020, 16:40:21 GMT, Andy Townsend  
wrote:      >   >On 04/02/2020 15:37, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
  
 
    >>There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch
  
   >>IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single area 
object (do I mean "closed way"?) to be the >>university.  That would just be 
most of the city centre.    
   >>The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation...   
...except that each college is probably in >several buildings and they may not 
be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a relation of 
>buildings.  So you would have a hierarchy of relations. 
  
   >... or, if the general feeling is to go ahead with this change, just add a 
node in the vicinity of the Senate House / St Mary's  >Church for it.  It'd be 
no less wrong. 
>By the way, there is at least one "sensibly mapped" university in Cambridge:
 
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3987047
 
>Best Regards,
 
>Andy
 Yes, that indeed is fine, but then it is a single campus, which even a tourist 
could identify.  
The problem with THE Cambridge University  (as with Oxford,also) is that the 
colleges are all over the town and there is no campus.  Blame the founders in 
of the colleges in the thirteenth and fourteenth Centuries, who clearly gave no 
thought to the poor mappers in OSM.     

 
 ___
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] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

>> (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
>> if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
>> relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)
>
>There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch

IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single area object 
(do I mean "closed way"?) to be the university.  That would just be most of the 
city centre.   
The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation...   
...except that each college is probably in several buildings and they may not 
be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a relation of 
buildings.  So you would have a hierarchy of relations.
Then, I assume that there will be some buildings that belong to the University, 
but not to any college.  That was certainly true of my Uni (it lies about 70 
miles West of Cambridge and is a darker blue), where the Engineering Building, 
Physics labs, Museum, Examination Halls were all University assets. We used to 
enjoy the look of puzzlement on the faces of (mostly American) tourists, who 
stood in the middle of town, surrounded by colleges, mixed in with shops, 
offices and other buildings, and asked which way to go to the University.
Regards,Peter

On Tuesday, 4 February 2020, 15:15:38 GMT, Dave F via Talk-GB 
 wrote:  
 
 On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
> what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
> building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?

That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query 
into JOSM:
[bbox:{{bbox}}];
nwr[amenity=university][building=university];
out meta geom;

plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.

> (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
> if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
> relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)

There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH

These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be 
rectified at a later date..

Cheers
DaveF
> Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
> :
>> Hi
>> There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html
>>
>> Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
>> A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance
>> with the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
>> This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.
>>
>> The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time
>> to rectify.  I think this should be performed now.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Stale Developments

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hi Robert,
Thanks for producing this new tool.  I had already spotted the Bulldozer icon 
on the "Survey Me" map and, in my local area, I have already:
Updated one Brownfield Site to Construction Site, where work has started after 
years of nothing.Deleted one Construction Site, where there is nothing 
happening on the ground and the local council GIS shows no planning permission 
for development.Updated one small Construction Site of about 15 houses that is 
now complete.
Please keep up the good work providing tools to help us identify where work is 
needed.   
Regards,Peter
On Friday, 10 January 2020, 14:12:33 GMT, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:
 
 
 I'd like to announce a new mini QA tool that I've put together for UK
OSMers: Stale Developments: https://osm.mathmos.net/developments/

It finds OSM UK highway and landuse tags with tags values of
construction, brownfield and greenfield, which haven't been edited for
over a year. The idea is that such objects should correspond to
real-life developments, whose status is likely to change on that
timescale. Hence the OSM objects probably need reviewing and updating.

To keep the numbers reasonable, the page above only lists the most
stale objects (no edits for over four years), but the full set of the
data is exposed through my Survey Me tool at
https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ .

Do take a look if you're interested. I hope this is useful to some of you.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

[Talk-GB] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Having unexpectedly found myself with a spare hour,  I have had a go at 
amending NCN 51 in central Milton Keynes. 
There are 3 Changesets involved:
#78646743. The main changes. I marked this to be reviewed,  but I do hope that 
nobody wants it reverted because I got a bit carried away.  As part of the edit 
I had to correct a one-way road that isn't really one-way,  but I then carried 
on resolving issues flagged by the iD editor; sorry!
#78651993.  Mopping up. After the main edit, I spotted a few ways that I had 
not removed from the relation, so removed them here. 
#78647795. I have flagged some ways with "fixme". They were part of the old 
route, but now form a spur off the main route. I have asked Sustrans whether 
they consider the spur to be part of NCN 51 and await their response. I could 
tag them with "approach", but I'm not clear whether that would mean that all 
>1000 other ways in the relation would then have to be tagged "main ".
Open for comments / suggestions.
Regards, Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
   - Forwarded message - From: "Peter Neale"  To: 
"Talk-gb OSM List"  Cc:  Sent: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 
13:54 Subject: Fw: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN 
Route 51  Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their 
encouragement and help.  I will have a go at making the amendments using the iD 
Editor.  
I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that Christmas is 
coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with their families, not on 
the computer.
Before I start, I have one more question:
@Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is unambiguous,  
i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary 
branches and loops."
However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to link into 
other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths).  There are 2 that 
are relevant here; one is marked on the ground (probably because it was part of 
the old route), but the other is not.  I do not propose to include the unmarked 
one, but what about the one that is marked?  Should I include it, or not?  
Regards,Peter



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

Re: [Talk-GB] No Through Road Ahead

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

I can see the logic of placing the restriction on the bend, but how long is a 
"long vehicle"?
Is there an official definition?
Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 14:30, SK53 wrote:   
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their 
encouragement and help.  I will have a go at making the amendments using the iD 
Editor.  
I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that Christmas is 
coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with their families, not on 
the computer.
Before I start, I have one more question:
@Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is unambiguous,  
i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary 
branches and loops."
However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to link into 
other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths).  There are 2 that 
are relevant here; one is marked on the ground (probably because it was part of 
the old route), but the other is not.  I do not propose to include the unmarked 
one, but what about the one that is marked?  Should I include it, or not?  
Regards,Peter


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

[Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

NCN Route 51  has been changed in Central Milton Keynes.  It no longer goes 
through the intu Shopping Centre!
I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to go about it.  
From following the Tagging Discussions, I think that elements should be added 
in the order that they are traversed, but I would not know where to start.  Do 
I need to use the JOSM Editor?  I have only used the iD Editor so far
Would some kind person either:
a.  Teach me how to amend the Route Relation (and be prepared to hold my hand 
from time to time)or, b.  Take on the task of amending the Route Relation for 
me? I have surveyed the new route on my bike and generated a GPS trace, which I 
am happy to make available (I have already uploaded it to OSM, but can also 
email a copy).I have written a 3-page brief, with maps, which I can, of course, 
provide.  
Regards,Peter
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Name Suggestion Index

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hotel Chocolat could be tagged "shop=chocolate", I suppose, but chocolate is a 
sub-set of confectionery, so perhaps it should retain "shop=confectionery", so 
that users looking for a sugar high don't have to search for both 
shop=confectionery and shop=chocolate (and shop=boiled sweets and 
shop=fruit_gums and shop=seaside_rock and)?
Would that make it "shop=confectionery / confectionery=chocolate"?  (I am a bit 
new to the "rules" of tagging) 
Regards,Peter 

On Friday, 8 November 2019, 10:41:28 GMT, Silent Spike 
 wrote:  
 
 I'm a(UK based) maintainer of the NSI repository and can push changes directly 
to it. I haven't been as active lately, but previously was working my way 
through UK brands.
"The Range" is one I've looked at previously but never figured out the most 
appropriate tagging which is why it still isn't in the index (for cases like 
that I'd like to consult the community for some consensus). I'll actually start 
a new thread to discuss this brand today.
"Hotel Chocolat" I believe is shop=confectionery in the index purely because it 
was the established tagging. If there is some community consensus it should be 
changed then that can be done (and this is why the index is so useful, because 
all existing locations matched to the brand via `brand:wikidata` could be 
automatically re-tagged with the preferred value).

If there are brands missing or issues with the current brand tagging I'd 
suggest either:- Open an issue on the repository (or a pull request if you're 
comfortable with git and json) and all contributors will then see it- If you 
don't have a github account and don't want one, just bring things up on this 
mailing list (feel free to email me directly too) and I'll see them and can 
either open an issue or push changes

___
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] accurate GPS

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

... and if you had 2 devices, how would you know which is right? You would need 
at least 3 devices, so that you could take a majority vote. 
Actually 5 would better
Or 7, or 9 


Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 12:34, Simon Ritchie wrote:  
 ___
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] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

But, as I am sure has been said by someone else recently:
a.  A shop is still a shop, even when it is closed.b.  A permanently closed 
shop that still has the signage / branding all over it is still a useful 
landmark.
So, I think I would favour disused:shop=*  That way you know from the outset 
that you won't be able to buy anything there atm, but all the other details, 
like name= can be retained.
Regards,Peter

On Wednesday, 25 September 2019, 14:03:21 BST, Andy Allan 
 wrote:  
 
 On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 14:51, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 13:38, Dave F via Talk-GB
>  wrote:
> >
> > Because shop=* indicates it is still open for business.
>
> If it does not do so in "shop=vacant" then it does not do so in
> something like "opening_hours = none".

What you're proposing here is "oh no it isn't" tagging, which is
generally frowned on.

amenity = pub <- "yay, this is a pub"
opening_hours = none <- "oh no it isn't"

Any map, app, geocoder etc that doesn't parse the additional tags is
therefore mislead. It's much more preferable to avoid confusion by
changing the main tag, in this case changing the "shop" tag to
something else (like vacant) or removing it entirely by converting it
into disused:shop tag.

Thanks,
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] Next quarters project will be fixmes and notes

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

I too have encountered a number of Notes that have been addressed, but not 
formally "Resolved".  (e.g. the name of a business marked on a building that 
now has that name tagged)  I surmise that this is because (in the iD editor, at 
least) the Notes are not visible when in Edit mode, so the mapper adding the 
business name may be unaware that someone else has created a Note, suggesting a 
name.
Could this be changed to make all open Notes appear in the iD Edit window?  How 
could I request it?
Regards,Peter

 

On Tuesday, 24 September 2019, 13:56:09 BST, Tom Hukins  
wrote:  
 
 On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 01:24:49PM +0100, Michael Booth wrote:
> Think there should also be an effort to open notes for some fixmes which 
> require a survey, as many go unnoticed.

I'm not an extremely active mapper, but I often encounter fixmes that
have already been fixed and notes that have already been dealt with, but
the note or fixme remains open.

It's easy enough to close the note, or delete the fixme, but the risk of
the duplication you suggest is that mappers need to edit more stale
information as time passes.

If mappers follow the approach you suggest, it would be very helpful to
ensure the new notes refer to the existing fixmes, and the fixmes are
edited to refer to the new notes.

Tom

___
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] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

I am also a complete newbie to Maproulette, but have had a go at a couple of 
shop=yes near me.
Some are easy enough, but others are rather tricky to tag correctly (surprise, 
surprise!), so I'll have to do some more research, both on the ground and in 
OSMWiki, to try to find an in-use tag that is appropriate.
If you need to do a survey, I suggest that you don't hit any of the maproulette 
boxes, but back out and come back when you have done your survey.  (or is that 
too obvious a response ?  no offence intended)
Regards,
 Peter
On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 16:41:34 BST, Jez Nicholson 
 wrote:  
 
 giving it a go as a Maproulette newbie too.
I have shop=yes on a number of locations where I know that there is a shop 
open, but i need to survey in person to check what it is. In Maproulette, would 
that be "Not an issue"? or "Too hard, can't see"? (not expecting Robert to 
know, but someone else might)
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 1:18 PM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 12:40, Silent Spike  wrote:
> Perhaps a https://maproulette.org challenge would be a good way to track the 
> progress of this?

I've never really used Maproulette before, but I thought this would be
a good opportunity to have a go. So here's my attempt at a challenge,
for anyone who is interested in using it:
https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/9051 .

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker
https://osm.mathmos.net/

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

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

[Talk-GB] How to Fix a "Fix-Me"

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging a St John's Ambulance base

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

...Or, looking at their website, it is a charity, so perhaps that makes it a 
"social facility"?
Oh BTW, it is "St John Ambulance", not "St John's Ambulance" (I don't know why, 
but it is...)
See St John Ambulance - the nation’s leading first aid charity

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
St John Ambulance - the nation’s leading first aid charity

First aid is a simple skill with an incredible impact. We want everyone to 
learn it, so that they can be the dif...
 |

 |

 |


Regards,
 Peter Neale 
t: 01908 309666 
m: 07968 341930 
skype: nealepb 

On Wednesday, 10 July 2019, 21:20:36 BST, Peter Neale via Talk-GB 
 wrote:  
 
 Personally, I would have thought of it as a club, in which first aid is 
taught, as a hobby ( No offence intended to any St John volunteers)
Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 20:30, Mark Goodge wrote:   

On 10/07/2019 19:08, Ben Proctor wrote:
> Hello mapping people
> 
> There is a building and yard in Hereford used by St John's Ambulance. 
> The building functions as a meeting venue (like a scout hut but for St 
> John's) and some vehicles are stored in the yard.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.06051/-2.71419
> 
> How would you tag this?
> 
> It's currently amenity=doctors which doesn't seem right. 
> emergency=ambulance_station doesn't seem to describe this use.
> 
> I was heading down amenity=community_centre route but I'm not sure 
> that's right either.
> 
> A quick search for St John's Ambulance reveals a wider range of 
> approaches in other areas.

I'd be inclined to go for community centre, in this case. It isn't an 
emergency ambulance station, which is what the 
emergency=ambulance_station tag is for (and, in any case, is rapidly 
becoming obsolete with the new distributed means of organising an 
ambulance service), and it isn't a doctor or a clinic either. And the 
main purpose of the building (as opposed to the yard) is for things like 
first aid training (both for St John volunteers themselves and the wider 
community). So a community centre is probably closest.

Mark

Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging a St John's Ambulance base

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Personally, I would have thought of it as a club, in which first aid is taught, 
as a hobby ( No offence intended to any St John volunteers)
Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 20:30, Mark Goodge wrote:   

On 10/07/2019 19:08, Ben Proctor wrote:
> Hello mapping people
> 
> There is a building and yard in Hereford used by St John's Ambulance. 
> The building functions as a meeting venue (like a scout hut but for St 
> John's) and some vehicles are stored in the yard.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.06051/-2.71419
> 
> How would you tag this?
> 
> It's currently amenity=doctors which doesn't seem right. 
> emergency=ambulance_station doesn't seem to describe this use.
> 
> I was heading down amenity=community_centre route but I'm not sure 
> that's right either.
> 
> A quick search for St John's Ambulance reveals a wider range of 
> approaches in other areas.

I'd be inclined to go for community centre, in this case. It isn't an 
emergency ambulance station, which is what the 
emergency=ambulance_station tag is for (and, in any case, is rapidly 
becoming obsolete with the new distributed means of organising an 
ambulance service), and it isn't a doctor or a clinic either. And the 
main purpose of the building (as opposed to the yard) is for things like 
first aid training (both for St John volunteers themselves and the wider 
community). So a community centre is probably closest.

Mark

Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Snowdonia National Park missing?

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Dave,
Sorry to jump in, but perhaps your response was a little harsh?
Even given such advice, not all mappers will feel confident to fix an issue. 
Perhaps it is better that they ask for help (again), rather than ignore the 
issue, or try to fix it an just make matters worse?
Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 21:31, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:   ___
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 would tag or name this wall crossing?

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Sorry, but, to me at least, a "chicane" involves a (double) bend.
See: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/chicane
" NOUN1.  A sharp double bend created to form an obstacle on a motor-racing 
track or a road."
and these seem to involve a narrow "sqeeze", not a double bend.
 Peter 
On Saturday, 27 April 2019, 18:12:54 BST, Martin Wynne  
wrote:  
 
 barrier=stile seems unhelpful to me if rendered as a normal stile 
symbol, for walkers needing to know if they will have to climb any.

barrier=chicane would perhaps be more descriptive?

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] How would tag or name this wall crossing?

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Running Overpass Turbo, it seems that they are concentrated in a small area, so 
probably "hipster" is a local term.
Looking at a well-known global Aerial Imagery source, with links to Street 
level photography, shows at least 2 of them (adjacent to roads) to be narrow 
gaps in stone walls, so a version of "squeeze". 
Regards,
 Peter 
On Saturday, 27 April 2019, 17:54:03 BST, Andy Townsend  
wrote:  
 
 
On 27/04/2019 17:50, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dstile#Stile_details
>
4000 of those:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/stile#values

However also from that page I'm now wondering what "stile=hipster" (!) is?

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] Milton Keynes Redways - How to Tag Consistently

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Thanks to all for the helpful responses.
I have looked (again) at the OSM Tags for Routing at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdomfrom
 which it is clear that foot=yes (for example) is implied by highway=cycleway.
However, Andy's question (if I understand it correctly) set me wondering 
whether there is any need to / benefit from distinguishing between foot=yes and 
foot=designated, etc.  
MK council, in their public mapping, imply that Redways are NOT (generally / 
universally) PROW.  However, they DO seem to be "designated" for foot and cycle 
(and wheelchairs etc.), so perhaps they should be tagged; bicycle=designated; 
foot=designated,etc.,which highway=cycleway does not imply.
Also, at the end of my original post, I asked:
"NamingI am not aware of any Redways that have unique names (someone will 
probably correct me on this), but I see several on OSM tagged with 
“name=Redway”.  Whilst I can see the attraction of doing this, I suspect that 
would not be considered good practice.  Should I delete that name, whenever I 
see it? "
Nobody seems to have commented on that yet (perhaps it got lost somewhere).  
Any views? 
Regards,

Peter

On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 13:54:20 GMT, Andy Townsend  
wrote:  
 
 On 21/03/2019 13:35, Ed Loach wrote:
> How tagging changes over time...
>
> RichardF wrote:
>> highway=cycleway, segregated=no achieves all that in two tags
>> rather than
>> seven. :)
> I remember
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_Mapping_Party_2009
> where it looks like we (or at least I) only used highway=cycleway, e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34669428/history
>
If they have some legal status beyond being "mere shared cycleways" 
would some sort of designation tag also make sense here?  Currently 
that's used for legal designations such as public footpaths, public 
bridleways (and also I think core paths in Scotland).

Best Regards,

Andy



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

[Talk-GB] Milton Keynes Redways - How to Tag Consistently

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

I am relatively new to OSM, but am trying to contribute in a useful way, 
particularly in my local area (Milton Keynes).
Milton Keynes enjoys (among many benefits) an extensive network of joint-use 
Cycle Paths / Foot Paths, known as “Redways” 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_redway_system

Most (if not all) are already mapped in OSM, but the tagging is not consistent, 
so I was considering making small amendments to increase consistency.  However, 
I don’t want to make them consistently wrong, so I am seeking confirmation of 
how they should be tagged.
Official Status of Redways  MK Council publishes a map of the Redway Network, 
https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/assets/attach/51668/MK_Redway_Poster_PRINT_NOcrops.pdf
with a “Redway Code”, which states,
“The Redways are an important part of Milton Keynes.  They are shared-use 
routes for people on foot or on cycles.  The traffic free network is popular 
for leisure, for commuting and for staying active.  Redways may be used by 
anyone cycling and walking including people with pushchairs, or prams and those 
in wheelchairs (including powered wheelchairs / mobility scooters).”and,
“Redways and the Law:  Electric cycles which meet EAPC Regulations are 
permitted to use Redways.As Public Highway, all legal requirements and the 
Highway Code are applicable to the Redways: cycles should be roadworthy and 
able to stop in an emergency; cycle lights are required at night.All 
motor-powered vehicles including mopeds, mini-motos and motorcycles are 
prohibited from using Redways, with the exception of authorised vehicles e.g. 
emergency vehicles and maintenance vehicles.”
An Old RelationI have found a previous Relation, 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/145144) which I assume linked all the 
Redways, but which @andrewmk deleted some years ago, so I am NOT proposing to 
re-create that Relation.   
Access TaggingSo how should they be tagged for access?I believe it should 
be:highway=path  (but I see several tagged as highway=cycleway and both are 
shown in the Wiki at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=cycleway)foot=designatedmotor 
vehicle=permit (to allow the emergency vehicles and maintenance 
vehicles)moped=no bicycle=designatedhorses=not specifiedsegregated=noIs that 
correct?
NamingI am not aware of any Redways that have unique names (someone will 
probably correct me on this), but I see several on OSM tagged with 
“name=Redway”.  Whilst I can see the attraction of doing this, I suspect that 
would not be considered good practice.  Should I delete that name, whenever I 
see it? 
Regards,
 Peter Neale 
t: 01908 309666 
m: 07968 341930 
skype: nealepb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb