[Talk-GB] Using data from OS maps
Hi all, An enthusiastic new contributor in the Lakes area has admitted using OS data in one of their changesets — afaik copying from OS walking maps is not allowed, and I don’t think any of the OS OpenData data sets include PRoW designations (I’m happy to be corrected on this). What’s the right thing to do here? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65030319 Philip ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?
On Sun, 2018-08-26 at 20:35 +0100, Martin Wynne wrote: > Rural boundaries can be extraordinarily difficult to map. For > example, > is this: > > https://goo.gl/maps/FtjMZiwNj542 > > a) a fence, > > b) a hedge, > > c) a very narrow wood, > > d) all three at the same time? > > Is the area in front of it > > a) grass, > > b) highway, > > c) both? > > (Not mapping from Google, I walked along there recently.) I’d map it as a fence, with some tree nodes for each tree (since there aren’t many of them and they’re fairly distinct). I wouldn’t bother mapping the grass verge, since that’s not really useful for navigation or any other use of OSM data that I can think of; and life is too short. I would make sure to set sidewalk=left or sidewalk=right (depending on which way you’ve mapped the road) on the road line, since that’s useful for pedestrian navigation. It could be used to predict that there’s a verge on the other side too. I’d also say lit=yes on the road, for completeness. Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature
On Mon, 2018-08-06 at 08:01 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > A couple of updates to my tools that you might be interested in: > > First there's a new set of objects in my "Ghosts" tool at > https://osm.mathmos.net/ghosts/. There are 162 still-mapped "Co-Op > Pharmacy" branches, which should have been rebranded to become "Well > Pharmacy" branches now. Thanks to Tallguy for the suggestion here. > > Secondly, I'm now using HTTPS on my server, so I can enable the > previously requested auto-location feature on the "Survey Me!" tool > at > https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ . Click/tap one if the links just > below the map, agree to share your location with the site, and the > map > should zoom to your current position. > > I hope these features are useful, Thanks for the updates! A quick question about pharmacy matching: are we supposed to add the GPhC registration number of the pharmacy to its node/way in OSM, similarly to how we do FHRS IDs? There seems to be no guidance for/against this on your page for pharmacies. Thanks, Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices
On Fri, 2018-05-04 at 12:52 +0100, Lester Caine wrote: > On 04/05/18 12:28, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > Or do people think we should use amenity=post_office for them with > > some other tagging used to differentiate things? If we did want to > > use > > other tagging to differentiate, then operator=* wouldn't work, as > > most > > Post Office branches are run by third parties. network=* or brand=* > > could do, but it would be complicated to use either on objects > > which > > are tagged with both amenity=post_office and e.g. shop=convenience, > > since we wouldn't know which part the tags were referring to. > > Our local post office is now situated in a local supermarket while > the > main postbox is still located outside it's previous home. Post > Office > hours are shorter than the opening for the shop although some > services > are available full time which adds to the fun tagging it. In > addition > two other local shops are drop-off points for other other carriers > with > one also a collection point for held deliveries. The published > details > for some of these service points is already wrong but trying to add > a > comprehensive set of tags covering everything is I think wishfull > thinking? Especially when the shop handles several courier services? > This is an area where secondary databases should be linked to > provide > the fine detail and just a generic tag with an ID to access that > data. > Trying to map all the secondary data is silly, but it's not helped > when > postoffice.co.uk don't list the independent post offices in there > search > results! According to them Broadway does not have a post office ;) In these situations I’d probably add a separate amenity=post_office node *inside* the shop area. Then both the shop and the post office can have separate tagging for their opening hours, operator, network, etc. Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New Post Office Data and Comparison Tool
On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 13:29 +, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > Some of you may have already seen that a few weeks ago I eventually > got a positive response from Post Office Ltd. (POL) to a request I > made for a re-usable list of their branches, and permission to use it > to help improve OpenStreetMap: > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re_use_request_for_post_office > _d > > The raw branch list data can be found at > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/data/ and it licensed under > the Open Government Licence v3. It includes ID numbers, branch names, > addresses, locations, and opening hours. > > I've adapted one of my previous comparison tools to compare the > dataset to what is currently in OSM, and the results can be seen at > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/progress/ . I was hoping > we'd > be able to use some form of automated matching and import, but I > don't > think the data is quite good enough for that. In particular, the > locations aren't always accurate and sometimes appear not to have > been > updated following a branch move. (Based on a small sample that I've > matched so far, it looks like 10-15% may be out by more than 100m.) > Also the address data isn't easy to automatically parse into the OSM > keys. I’ve taken a brief look, and this looks very useful, thanks Robert. Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] NaPTAN merge tool?
Hi all, Who’s maintaining the NaPTAN merge tool? It seems to be broken — every request to the node layer gives a HTTP error 403. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Surveying_and_Merging_NaPTAN _and_OSM_data#Tools http://b3e.net/novam/ Thanks, Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 12:55 +0300, Ilya Zverev wrote: > Hi, > > You might remember a few months ago I discussed here importing of > Shell fuel stations. The data provider is Navads, which has a > contract with Shell for putting their stations on the map. They asked > me to proceed with the import and sent an updated list of the > stations. I have prepared an import and would like to do it in a few > days. > > Please help me review the data. Here is the updated map: > > http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/ I just checked the 4 nearest me (3 by Kendal, 1 at Newby Bridge): http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/#12/54.3 005/-2.8400 The changes to Lound Road are all entirely correct. The changes to Prizet services (on the A591) are mostly correct, although adding addr:street=A591 is incorrect, since that’s a ref, not a street name. The Newby Bridge services are a bit more of a mess. The import is proposing to add a new node on top of a house. The garage already exists in OSM, further to the south and incorrectly labelled as a Texaco garage. Having checked, it’s now a Shell. The proposed tags for the new node include the inappropriate addr:street=A591 — inappropriate both because it’s a ref, and because the road it’s on is actually the A590. --- Overall, I think this is valuable data to add to OSM, and it’s great that Shell are freely licensing it and working to get it included. However, as others have said, once data is in the map it’s assumed to be correct — spotting and fixing incorrect data is much harder than adding missing data. So this import should be done carefully. I’m not an expert, but I would suggest either: • Importing the data as nodes which are not tagged as amenity=fuel, and letting the community merge them over time. This is how the NAPTAN import was done. • Providing a comparison tool (like bl.ocks.org) and letting the community manually reconcile the map with your data. If you provide progress statistics (like http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postboxes/progr ess/) that might encourage people. --- Finally, the new nodes seem to have a navads_shell= ID on them. Perhaps it would make more sense to use a Shell-specific ID, just in case Shell decide to switch ad partners away from Navads at some point, which would leave a load of orphaned IDs in OSM? Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway
On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 14:06 +0100, David Woolley wrote: > On 29/09/17 13:56, Bob Hawkins wrote: > > > In the absence of the image, the two signs read as follows: 1. In > > white > > on blue: Oxfordshire County Council/No vehicles beyond this point > > except > > for access. > > motor_vehicle=destination > > > 2. In white on green: RESTRICTED BYWAY/PRIVATE > > ROAD/NO > > vehicle access except for residents. I should appreciate views on > > the > > motor_vehicle=private > > My reasoning, the first one allows all comers, as long as they are > visiting. The second one requires explicit permission, either from > the > land covenants or from a resident. It would be good if this were added as an example on the wiki, if one doesn’t exist already. Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenStreetCam or Mapillary?
On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 13:16 +0100, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 11:28 +0100, James Harrison wrote: > > > > As an aside to this conversation, where are photos most useful for > > OSM > > contributions? Just built-up areas or road junctions etc? If we > > were > > designing a selector given a bunch of different capture locations, > > what > > would produce the most useful images for map editing? > > > > Thats a big question, but my view is certainly not just built up > areas. > > In my view rural junctions with rights of way would be very useful, > as > would changes of speed limit, farm/housenames. I’d say town centres are quite useful to photograph regularly, if you can get a decent view of the shop fronts, since they change often and are probably quite useful to a lot of OSM users. (Another) Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of Way Data for Warwickshire
On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 18:37 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > PS: To contrast with the good news here, East Riding of Yorkshire is > being decidedly unhelpful at > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_ > 2 > , although they'll need to drag their feet for some time to beat > Warwickshire. That makes for some disappointing reading. What are the reasons councils could have for withholding a GIS file? That’s not a rhetorical question — I am actually interested in why they’re being dogged. Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 17:11 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > On 23 August 2017 at 15:25, Philip Withnall <phi...@tecnocode.co.uk> > wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 11:30 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) > > wrote: > > > Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way > > > comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ > > > which > > > aims to help mappers trying to complete the mapping of Rights of > > > Way > > > in their area. > > I’d be interested in the data for Cumbria and Lancashire being on > > there, though I’m unlikely to be able to devote any time to getting > > hold of the data or using the output from the tool for a month or > > two. > > I guess you can consider this a statement of interest. :-) > > Lancashire have already released their data privately to rowmaps, so > would hopefully be amenable to providing it for use in OSM if someone > asked. Cumbria do have the GIS data, but might it might be more of a > problem getting them to release it judging by > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/prow_data_14 . Since it might > take some time, I've put in an FOI/EIR request at > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_ > an_2 > and we'll see what happens. Thanks a lot, I’ll follow that WDTK request. > BTW: To help keep track of where we are with data availability and > licensing from different councils, I've set up > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/open-data . If you know > of > any significant stuff that needs adding / updating there, please let > me know. Great stuff! :-) Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire
On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 11:30 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way > comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ which > aims to help mappers trying to complete the mapping of Rights of Way > in their area. > > I've recently added data for two additional counties: Oxfordshire and > Hampshire to the tool. The other counties already there are > Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. > > Hopefully the tool and how to use it should be fairly > self-explanatory. The basic idea is that it compares official council > data to what's currently in OSM and flags up possible errors and > omissions for manual checking. > > I'd like to add data for additional authorities. The constraints here > are my time to actually do the adding, and having the data available > in a suitable format and under a suitable licence. If anyone has any > requests for new counties / unitary authorities, then please let me > know. If you can get the authority to make its PRoW data available > online under the Open Government Licence, then that will save me some > time too. I’d be interested in the data for Cumbria and Lancashire being on there, though I’m unlikely to be able to devote any time to getting hold of the data or using the output from the tool for a month or two. I guess you can consider this a statement of interest. :-) Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
