Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - schema mapping

[Robert Norris]

> • Two-tier cycle parking: This is unfortunately becoming more and more
> present in the UK, but bizarrely OSM does not have a representation in
> widespread use currently, with only 6 instances worldwide of
> bicycle_parking=two_tier. It is proposed this be used, which will hopefully
> then galvanise usage beyond London.
> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#prk_tier

I'm not sure how representative the associated picture is.

Most of this type I have encountered are at railway stations, where they seem 
to always have roofs and perhaps side fencing or similar.
Thus I have normally used bicycle_parking=shed, but not really tried to record 
the multi tier system. A simple two_tier=yes might suffice, but maybe 
rack_levels=1 | 2 would be better.

It would be good to capture covered=yes/no - but this I assume is not in the 
TFL data (unless it can be derived from individual photographs).

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] BT phoneboxes

[Robert Norris]

> From: Jez Nicholson 
> Going back to this January discussion, has anyone tagged a kiosk/pod yet? 
> what would you tag it if it isn't a 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtelephone any more?

I tend to use either:

man_made=telephone_box typically for ones repurposed with defibrillators 
(emergency=defibrillator)
or
public_bookcase:type=phone_box for ones repurposed as small lending libraries 
(amenity=public_bookcase)

and then if confident about the phone box type then something like:
booth=K6 as mentioned on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtelephone

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Validating the Shell Fuel Stations import

[Robert Norris]

I've had a quick go at the validator, and I like it a lot.

However, I just had a thought about some tagging that I don't think has been 
discussed before.

My method of mapping is generally the amenity=fuel on/in the area of the actual 
fuel pumps and then the shop/paypoint/kiosk as a separate item. I think this is 
the approach is taken quite a lot.

But the import seems to be adding adding the phone number to the 'pumps' not 
the building to where the phone would be.
Does this matter much?

This means there is scope for phone numbers (and indeed address information) 
conflicting between the fuel object and any associated building/shop object - 
perhaps this could be detected and flagged for corrections later on...


--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: Ilya Zverev 
Sent: 11 December 2017 10:28:21
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Validating the Shell Fuel Stations import

Hi,

The validation had been going pretty well, with more than 800 points checked 
and 360 double-checked. Could you please visit the website for the import and 
validate the final 200 points?

http://audit.osmz.ru/project/shell

I'd like to proceed with the import, with suggested changes, by the end of the 
week — but I of course won't until all points have been checked at least once.

Thanks,
Ilya
___
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] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Robert Norris]

Hi Ilya,

I think some more attention needs putting on the creation of new/missing fuel 
stations.

Some issues I've come across:

Around:
http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/#18/50.85426/-1.73008

Looks like it will attempt to create a node over the top of an existing 
location.
Seems like the two nearby stations either side of the A31 are getting confused.

'New' Station NVDS353-10018810 seems a long way off the real position (about 
1.5 miles wrong).
http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/#15/52.0452/-0.0605
Existing location:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.03292/-0.09348


However a number other new locations randomly checked seem correct (i.e. looks 
like a fuel station from aerial imagery)

And at least the one here is definitely correct:
http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/#16/51.0455/-2.4317
Which I could create manually since I 'know it'


--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: Ilya Zverev 
Sent: 03 November 2017 09:55:59
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

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/

And here is a list of changed tag values for existing fuel stations, for your 
convenience:

https://pastebin.com/KvxiZ9mc

This import will be made from Zverik_imports account and will be described at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Navads_Imports page.

Ilya
___
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] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

[Robert Norris]

I agree with SK53 that identifying missing RoW is the primary importance.

Robert: Is your code open / available anywhere such that one can help improve 
it / take inspiration from / run it locally ?

I would like to use something better than flipping on/off a display of the ways 
in a Hampshire KML file over an OSM view and visually trying to spot ways in 
OSM that are missing!

SK53 has previously generated something along these lines - see 
http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/looking-for-footpaths-in-hickling-notts.html

I'd like to be able generate & keep these up to date myself, but never found 
out (or took the time to learn) the exact process and commands to do so.

Personally I don't really have much motivation for putting in prow_ref tags 
(IMHO I think they could be either be imported or have a tool to convert from 
lat/lon (or OSM way Id) to a prow_ref) - since they aren't often signed on the 
ground unless on  diversion notice or planning application or similar.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
Sent: 27 June 2017 15:05:55
To: talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

On 27 June 2017 at 13:30, SK53  wrote:
> It appears that the tool only accepts as mapped rights of way mapped with
> some local identifier, rather than those with a designation tag. Hampshire
> is one of the better mapped places in England and Wales.  have no problem
> with us eventually adding identifiers for PRoW, but surely at this stage we
> really should be focussing on finding and mapping paths which are not on OSM
> at all, and/or getting designation tags on those already mapped but without
> them.
>
> I personally do not find a tool which focuses on identifiers useful for this
> task.

Fair enough. In an ideal world I agree that you might want to do the
comparison / matching without needing identifiers. But I decided that
would be too difficult (for me) to programme, and possibly too
computationally expensive to do well. So I see adding the identifiers
as a useful tool to allow the matching to be cone more conveniently,
and hence allow gaps / missing paths to be more apparent. YMMV :)

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] the steepest residential street in England

[Robert Norris]

Ffordd_Pen_Llech is steep but it's one way (down), so if you're looking for 
challenge to go up it on your bicycle you have to do so illegally.

Apparently Vale Street (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32024547) in Bristol 
is meant to be very steep, but I don't know the incline. (Doesn't seem to have 
incline posted looking at GSV. DaveF: Was this the road you were thinking of or 
something in Bath?)

The posted incline (at least in the UK) is the maximum gradient.
This is also the definition used in OSM, see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:incline

Note that they mostly seem to be signed as 20%, 25% & 33% & 40% - so mostly a 
percentage version of the 1 in 5, 1 in 4, 1 in 3 gradients.
Thus you don't tend to get gradients of 22%, 23% etc...
So it seems the posted value is often rounded one way or another and certainly 
cycling up differing hills I've found some seem easier/harder than expected 
given the signed value.

An interesting list of steep roads is here:
https://roadcyclinguk.com/sportive/ten-uks-steepest-climbs.html/

Previously this steepest road question has been pondered several times. One 
interesting thread is here:
http://www.intelligentanswers.co.uk/index.php?topic=2962.0

Notionally the average gradient could be worked out fairly easy with reasonable 
SRTM or better LIDAR data or possibly given a number of GPX files to analyse - 
although I don't know whether any of these methods would give an accurate 
enough answer to be of comparable use.
Certainly for shorter (i.e. residential rather than long mountain/big hill 
climbs) road (such as Vale Street) the margin in error of the elevation 
readings will be considerable compared to the road length such that the 
calculated gradients could be very unreliable.

Some work on trying to auto calculate gradients can be found here: 
https://github.com/nautoguide/gradient_markers

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: Dave F 
Sent: 11 January 2017 22:04:03
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] the steepest residential street in England

On 11/01/2017 18:18, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Google is telling me Hardknott Pass and Rosedale Chimney Bank at 33%
> for England.
>
> They used to do hill-climb car racing up Porlock Hill in Exmoor but
> that is reported as a mere 25%
>
> I can't help but think that there are some short side-roads that are
> steeper. They may also have further criteria for the 'World Record'.
>

Indeed, "criteria" is paramount. Porlock & one in my vicinity is marked
as only 25%. I'm pretty sure sections within them are a bit steeper than
that. Can anyone clarify that it's an average over the whole rise or the
maximum gradient?

DaveF.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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] tag prow_ref

[Robert Norris]

> I cant follow the logic of  "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since
>that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible
>signed.

IMHO The ref key is for the primary key (so in these cases against the highway).
It keeps it simple for mappers and is verifiably the ground truth - AKA what 
one should see if travelling or being routed along that way.
As a bonus this is then used *now* by standard renderers/routers/data users 
with no extra effort.

So for a 'road' it's road signs, although it may have signs for subsections of 
users such as cyclists.

Then for ways with multiple uses/routes then subsidiary ref keys should  be 
namespaced to avoid conflicts or suggesting the ref is related to the wrong 
key, hence prow_ref and ncn_ref/lcn_ref/rcn_ref (bicycle route refs probably 
best set once on the relation anyway).

And then specialist data users can do more specific things e.g. OSM Cycle Map 
or SomeoneElses's UK Style using data in the additional keys.

I hope that makes sense.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Sent: 10 January 2017 01:17:24
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

The prow:ref tag emerged from a discussion I started on this list about
the problem of using the ref tag to refer to PROW references.  The
specific problem was that some highways were also designated footpaths /
bridleways, and so if the ref tag was used to tag a rights of way
reference it was given the same rendering priority on these ways as a
road reference.  There was also no way to distinguish between a ref tag
which was for a road reference, and a ref tag which was for a prow
reference on that road.  Thus the prow:ref tag was suggested.

At a later stage I noted the prow_ref tag started to be used.  I did not
follow the discussion / reasoning behind that, but I find it hard to
believe that we need both a prow_ref  tag and a prow:ref tag.  So I
assume the prow_ref tag supoerceeded the prow:ref tag, but for the
reasoning outlined in the first paragraph I would not think it helpful
to simple use the plain "ref" tag on the Isle of Wight.

I cant follow the logic of  "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since
that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible
signed.

David




-- Original Message --
From: "Robert Norris" <rw_nor...@hotmail.com>
To: "Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>; "David
Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Sent: 10/01/2017 00:36:41
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

>If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the
>reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are
>compatible with OSM.
>'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
>Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref'
>field since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference
>on the sign posts.
>Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the
>ROW references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that
>does it consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally
>see ROW references are on permissive notices or temporary route
>diversion notices.
>Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B
>Roads. Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads.
>'official_ref' or similar should be used for C roads.
>
>--
>Be Seeing You - Rob.
>If at first you don't succeed,
>then skydiving isn't for you.
>
>
>From: David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
>Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51
>To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref
>
>Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the
>prow_ref on rendering / routing
>
>I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was
>adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was
>recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.
>He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed
>it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me.
>
>I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not
>maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be
>nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used,
>other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file.
>
>Thanks
>
>David
>
>
>



___
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] tag prow_ref

[Robert Norris]

If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the 
reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are 
compatible with OSM.
'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref' field 
since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference on the sign 
posts.
Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the ROW 
references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that does it 
consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally see ROW references 
are on permissive notices or temporary route diversion notices.
Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B Roads. 
Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads. 'official_ref' or 
similar should be used for C roads.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: David Groom 
Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the prow_ref 
on rendering / routing

I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was adding 
to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was recommended to use the 
"prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.  He's now amended his entries 
to prow_ref but is a little disappointed it doesn't show up on the main map, 
OsmAnd, or Maps.me.

I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not maps, so 
not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be nice if I could 
point him in the direction of where it is being used,  other than my own web 
site and custom OsmAnd file.

Thanks

David



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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK Local Chapter now officially exists

[Robert Norris]

Well done to all those involved in drudgery of the formal legal process.


I know I'm too lax to have input into the procedure but it's great to have 
motivated people who are!


--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

From: Brian Prangle 
Sent: 18 December 2016 15:50:37
To: Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] OSM UK Local Chapter now officially exists

Hi everyone

On Saturday morning I received from Companies House the Certicifate of 
Incorporation for OpenStreetMap United Kingdom Community Interest Company Ltd. 
It is a private limited company, limited by guarantee.

It's taken us a year to get this far, through a protracted and  often tedious 
process of agreeing Memorandum and Articles of Association,Community Interest 
Statement, form-filling, and signature gathering. Thankyou to everyone who 
participated, especially the volunteers who agreed to be the first directors 
necessary to get the thing off the ground.

Now we can start doing the fun stuff of how we make this work and transform it 
into a living organisation.(Although I'm sure we'll still have our share of 
bureaucratic process to navigate).

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

[Robert Norris]

Another thought about tagging is when using JOSM what value(s) should be put in 
the changeset source field.


So far I've been using "FHRS" rather than the full name expansion.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

From: Gregrs <gre...@fastmail.co.uk>
Sent: 28 November 2016 22:15:23
To: Robert Norris
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

Thanks Rob. I hope you don't mind me CC'ing the Talk-GB list.

I've updated the wiki page 
[http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Food_Hygiene_Rating_System] a bit but 
the recommendations for tagging are a bit out of date compared with what's been 
discussed on the list more recently. It seems generally accepted that we 
shouldn't add transient data such as the rating.

I wonder if someone might be able to update the wiki page linked above?

Rob - I'd be happy to add a link at some point once it's a bit more up to date. 
(I'll add a GitHub issue just to remind me!)

Thanks,
Greg


On 28 Nov 2016, at 21:48, Robert Norris 
<rw_nor...@hotmail.com<mailto:rw_nor...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

At the bottom of the comparison tool, is it worth adding a link back to the 
Wiki page - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Food_Hygiene_Rating_System - 
about FHRS and the best tagging practice?

I didn't think this was worth a github issue <OutlookEmoji-?.png>

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project - taginfo tracker

[Robert Norris]

Does anyone have any idea how best (if at all) to tag "mobile" caterers - e.g. 
Burger vans and variants thereof?


Some mobile caterers are truly mobile going to various events - and so 
obviously not for inclusion in OSM, however some are trade from a fixed 
location (or may be a couple?) although the mobile van will only physically be 
there around the actual opening hours. And then some practically never move at 
all[1].


I've been wary (thus never done it) about adding such places as 
'amenity=fast_food' for things that would not necessarily be physically there.


It seems to me the criteria is that the service would operate from some sort of 
hatch, such that the customer would be outside for both the ordering and 
consuming of goods - and theoretically the operator could easily move.


So:

"takeaway=only"


and/or

"seating=no"

+

"order=outside" ??

and/or

"caterer=mobile" ??

This is not strictly FHRS related, but they should have an FHRS entry.


[1] 
http://ratings.food.gov.uk/business/en-GB/68231/Mick's-Monster-Burgers-Portsmouth
 
/

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2494365584

(This place is open 24/7 and a large container but the wheels seem permanently 
deflated, so hard to tell how movable it really is!)


--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

From: Greg 
Sent: 18 October 2016 20:28:56
To: Rob Nickerson
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project - taginfo tracker

Hi Rob,

I've been working on some visual analysis of the CSV file data at 
[http://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhrs-stats/] using R but it's not quite 
ready for public viewing yet...

I hope to show the most complete districts in terms of fhrs:id and postcode, 
the districts with the most errors, the districts with the most recent 
progress, the number of districts with zero matches and how that has changed, 
and the number of districts with certain levels of completeness (i.e. a 
histogram).

Watch this space!

Thanks,
Greg


On 18 Oct 2016, at 19:31, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:

Hi all,

A bit delayed but I have added fhrs:id to the taginfo script I run. You can see 
progress for the last few days at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G9KXfp4Ho3fVROO9MxotcYTydl9CEXB_fi5ko2pM5Kc/edit#gid=1693558506

I really like the daily data that Greg produces. Is there anyone with some time 
to try to convert this into a chart/visual tracker? The data is at: 
http://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhrs-stats/

Best,

Rob

On 2 October 2016 at 15:38, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:
Hi all,

Which tags would you like me to set up a tag-info script for? We can then track 
these throughout the quarter.

Rob

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] phone boxes used for other purposes

[Robert Norris]

> From: jack.fitzsim...@ntlworld.com 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 16:13:56 +0100 
> Subject: [Talk-GB] phone boxes used for other purposes 
>  
>  
> I’m sure it must have been discussed before but how do I map a K6 booth  
> with no phone currently used for another purpose? I visited two today  
> intending to get the phone numbers but discovered they were both local  
> information points. 
>  

I've mapped a few that I've seen used as book shares like 
amenity=book_exchange, although I'd use amenity=public_bookcase now.

Indeed the last one I remember doing has been kindly updated:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3775804762/history

For your case I'd probably use some form of tourism tag too (see 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dinformation)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project: Map of changesets

[Robert Norris]

___
> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 18:15:13 + 
> From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
> Subject: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project: Map of changesets 
>  
> Hi all, 
>  
> Can you please add "OSMschools" to your changesets so that we can track  
> them. For now you can see any changest with "school" in the comment at  
> the following site but this isn't restricted to our UK project - hence  
> the request to use "OSMschools". 
>  
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-changesets?comment=school#5/54.965/-1.780 
>  
> Rob 
>  

I was thinking about this earlier today, but not had a chance to post.

I was thinking about a slightly a more general id scheme such as "#GB2016QP1"

Hence with idea subsequent quarterly projects would be #GB2016QP2 and so on. Of 
course the comment/tag is less understandable in of it's own as they would be 
are more for analytics.

However I'm quite happy with 'OSMschools', although IIRC using a hash at the 
beginning of a semantic tag is the preferred form (#OSMschools).
 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Projects Update

[Robert Norris]

 Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 10:42:01 +0100 
 From: bpran...@gmail.com 
  
 This could be Royal Mail postboxes (still loads to do); Royal Mail  
 delivery offices and sorting offices; delivery areas/gates to factories  
 and town centre shopping malls; maxheights and maxweights on roads;  
 courier depots; distribution warehouses; new internet shopping parcel  
 lockers (see wiki  
 entryhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/Parcel_Lockers);
   
 there's a new parcel-collection service based around mainline stations  
 called Doddle.it; airfreight facilities; railway marshalling yards;  
 secure lorry parks; port/dock facilities and anything else you can  
 think of. All suggestions and stories welcome. 
  

My 2p:
If surveying postboxes, is to also record the postbox type (mostly lamp, pillar 
or wall) and the Royal Cypher.
See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=post_box

The postbox type seems to be available in Royal Mail dataset(s) but AFAIK the 
Royal Cypher is not, hence this is an opportunity for OSM crowd sourcing 
capabilities.

Hardly any one (no one?) seems to have gone to detail of recording the 
manufacturer of the post box, which is often visible on older postboxes.

Personally I have given up recording collection times, since now the Royal mail 
have changed their timings and of course this is not geographically relevant / 
likely to change more often thus unlikely to be correct. Hence it's better to 
link from the postbox to the Royal Mail's own current service provision level.

However what is probably more guaranteed is the latest collection box for the 
area (most boxes say which one it is - often located the local delivery 
office). I suspect it can be calculated by processing all collection_times for 
an area (which area - postal code?) but could also be served via a specific 
(new) tag on those specific late collection postboxes.

The flickr group https://www.flickr.com/groups/postboxbypostcode/pool has a 
vast collection of images (currently 28,000+ - variable copyright), maybe worth 
trying to reinvigorate / promote OSM additions there.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Year -New idea - OSM UK Quarterly projects

[Robert Norris]

  
 Anyone know if it is possible to download the OS OpenData Locator layer  
 (by ITO) to use on a smartphone in offline mode? 
  

I believe one can access the overlay tiles via this sort of TMS URL scheme:

http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/{z}/{x}/{y}.png

You'll need have some kind of method of downloading (a suitably small!) subset 
of tiles and then transferring it/using it on your phone.
(Similar to any other TMS Tile service)

I have used Viking to download tiles into it's cache (well since I write/use 
Viking my cache may be vaguely up to date if I've been using the ITO World OS 
Locator tiles), convert the cache into a mbtiles file, copy to my phone and use 
Locus Free to view the mbtiles file.

Not necessarily the most obvious or easiest way...

Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

[Robert Norris]

 Ignoring the source information for now, but I suspect it is very
 similar to rights of way information in that it is probably derived from
 OS maps.

 The following overpass query highlights the issue, Norfolk standing out
 as especially bad. This is just tertiary roads, there are issues with
 unclassified too.
 http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4xS

AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted but 
not that I'm aware of any explicitly.

Whether any of these have ever been captured in OSM is hard to tell.

Unfortunately a brief cross check with Google Streetview, for the very few 
tertiary roads with 'source:ref=survey' don't seem to bare much scrutiny. The 
visible signposts don't have a 'C' in them. The 'source:ref' bit is only on a 
short section of an otherwise longer road anyway, so possibly a road split 
editing leftover.

Obviously source=survey tags it too imprecise to tell whether a ref was 
surveyed.

However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only* 
change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary.

e.g. using something like this:
   has-kv k=ref regv=^C/

In the above query will prevent altering too many things.

Possibly only change things without source tags or with source=[nN][pP][eE], as 
a first iteration too.


 I am going to use the horrible word, mechanical edit, but I feel it
 needs sorting out.

 I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and
 unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and
 allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data.

 I know we should not tag for the renderer, but I think its ok to give
 the renderer a clue as to which are displayed on signs and which aren't.

 Phil (trigpoint)



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

[Talk-GB] 10 fascinating facts about OSM OSGB - 2014

[Robert Norris]

Happy 10th Birthday OSM!

For a 10th birthday present - I thought I'd reprise SK53's 10 fascinating facts 
posting from April 2013[1],
 to see where OSM GB is at, at of the beginning of August 2014 compared to 
Ordnance Survey GB(OSGB)[2] (values not updated).

So here's the comparison with the changes in OSM in that period.

   Object: OSGB ; OSM ; OSM Change since April 2013

   1. Pylons: 80,517 ; 69,562 ; +11,075
(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=tower#values)

   2. Post Boxes: 93,728 ; 47,501 ; +4,759
(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=post_box#values
Also see http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postboxes/)

   3. Camp sites: 8,908 ; 3,826 ; +644
( 
1493+3+1+1camp_sitehttp://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=camp_site#values)
   + 2331+4+3 
(caravan_sitehttp://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=caravan#values)

   4. Buildings: 35,397,754 ; 2,731,351 ; 1,890,835 ; +840,516
(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=building)

   5. Bus Stops: 354,099 ; 220,490 ; +4,770
(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=bus_stop#values)

   6. Residence within 500m of a football ground: 2,115,006 ; Not analysed ; 
Not analysed [3]

   7. Petrol Stations: 7,702; 6,339 ; +1,142
(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=fuel#values)

   8. Addresses: 27,341,262; 764,082 ; +231,196
(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/addr:housenumber)

   9. Electricity Poles: 183,987; 134,998 ; +40,799
(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=pole#values)
   10. Road length: 407,532 km ; 413,296 km ; Different analysis[4]


Of course there is no guarantee we are comparing like for like.

All values from UK taginfo (except for road length[4], which is sum of the 
lengths of the following highway types:

living_street  250.9 km
motorway  6985.1 km
motorway_link 1474.7 km
primary  28690.1 km
primary_link   257.4 km
residential 131145.1 km
secondary    30977.3 km
secondary_link  47.8 km
tertiary 56068.5 km
tertiary_link   86.9 km
trunk    27320.7 km
trunk_link    1716.6 km
unclassified    128275.3 km
=431,296 km

Quirky OSM values:

   1. 6 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/royal_cypher=EVIIIR post
   boxes with Edward VIII's royal cypher. NB There's 327 Queen Victoria 'VR' 
Postboxes

   2. only 278 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/memorial=war_memorialWar
Memorials - many may be mapped simply under the generic historic=memorial but 
with the specific memorial type.

   3. 1907 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=police#valuesPolice
and 1596 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=fire#values Fire 
Stations

   4. 955 Fire Hydrants (see above)

   5. 180 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=real_aleestablishments 
purveying Real Ale, and
   188 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=cider Real Cider out
   of 34,086 Pubs http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=pub#values and
   2,243 Bars http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=bar#values( ONLY 1 
with
   
osm:london=approvalhttp://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/osm%3Alondon#overview)

   6. 7,094 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/bicycle_parkingBicycle 
Parking locations
 With a capacity of 87611 [5]

   7. around 30 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=hide#values 
bird/wildlife hides

   8. 6 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=knitting#valuesknitting 
shops

   9. 9069 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/stile#overview stiles

   10. 2025 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=lock canal locks

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-April/014681.html
[2] 
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2013/04/10-fascinating-facts-from-ordnance-survey/
[3] Some SQL query code may be needed to perform this one - for OSGB given the 
high number of homes, presumably they are considering any football pitch (not 
just league football grounds). I still haven't gotten around to doing any DB 
things...
[4] https://gist.github.com/rnorris/6efe00b00e70821c5b23 - Run with 
'great-britain-latest.osm.pbf'
[5] https://gist.github.com/rnorris/1e8ecf7850cc6c672616            
 

OSM User: robbieonsea

Be Seeing You - Rob 
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you. 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding links to Wikidata (and Wikipedia?)

[Robert Norris]

 It might be useful to give a couple of examples. We would link St
 Paul's Cathedral to :

 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q173882

 That, in turn has links to the Wikipedia articles about the cathedral,
 in ~50 languages, 
cut

How do/would Wikidata links relate to Wikipedia links in OSM objects?

i.e. Does this suggest Wikidata links should supercede Wikipedia links or would 
they be complimentary?

Presumably if complimentary (to maintain existing data users' usage of 
Wikipedia tags) - one could write a test to confirm they are referencing the 
same thing to check consistency.


--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] One for Post Box obsessives

[Robert Norris]

  
 I've been doing a bit of attributing to post boxes of late, and have a  
 couple of queries: 
  
*   Around Maidenhead a wall post box mounted in a brick pillar is a  
 fairly common type. I'm at a loss as to how these might be tagged using  
 post_box:type. A good example is SL6 4, which is tagged as a pillar,  
 but according to Post Hoc is a wall box  
 http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postboxes/boxinfo.cgi?ref=SL6+4. See this  
 box on Flickr  
 http://www.flickr.com/photos/oxfordshirechurches/2558826678/ 

I have always used post_box:type=wall for these, since the post box is 
literally embedded in something else.
Even if in these cases the 'wall' is rather short.

*   Old hexagonal Penfold postboxes come in different types  
 (according to  
 wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_box#Penfolds), but there  
 are also nearly as many 1990s replicas as the real thing.  To date  
 there are only 3 or 4 post boxes tagged post_box:design=penfold , but  
 it would be nice to hunt down a few more and then work out which are  
 which. 

I think I have used note=hexagonal_pillar or similar for the few I have come 
across.

I agree a post_box:design=X is better for the more interesting post boxes - 
specially when you know what type they are!
learns about Penfold
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence use of data

[Robert Norris]

Given the efforts of AndyS, NickW, myself and many others - most of Hampshire 
is very well mapped.

An interesting question is how much? (Compared to the Hants CC).

There is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hampshire/Rights_of_Way
but that was last updated over 2 years ago :(

I suspect in terms of raw highways it's mapped98%.
In terms of designation these are quite well tagged, I can only hazard a guess 
maybe as much as 66%.

Some of the 'Green Lanes' (ex Roads Used as Public Path?) are a bit mysterious 
- (seemed to be called 'Public Ways' in West Sussex speak).
These don't seem appear in OS Locator or OS Streetview, nor are they covered by 
the ROW datasets. It's not clear to me where the designation of care lies with 
these or the legality of using them (especially in terms of Cycling).

I suspect several of the remaining ROWs for Hampshire not in OSM are either 
limited use ones (ways that don't go anywhere useful so no-ones mapped it) or 
not very visible for some reason.

 With all this importing going on it's worthwhile remembering the  
 basics. If a footpath has been surveyed it'll have at least one gpx  

IHMO 'at least' - 'might have a'. As I very rarely upload my GPX tracks.

Normally I visually compare Hants KML (and indeed West Sussex) vs OSM tile 
images to identify missing ROWs and then make that a basis to include in a 
route for a days out walking or cycling.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you. 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence use of data

[Robert Norris]

 A quick comparison of HCC's numbers with the latest Geofabrik
 Hampshire extract yields the following:

 51% designation=public_footpath
 60% designation=public_bridleway
 58% designation=restricted_byway
 111% designation=byway,public_byway,byway_open_to_all_traffic

Nice - thanks for the stats update.

 The OSM extract includes the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton
 as well as bits of other counties near the border but it's probably
 good enough to get a feel for current progress.

 Some of the 'Green Lanes' (ex Roads Used as Public Path?) are a bit
 mysterious - (seemed to be called 'Public Ways' in West Sussex
 speak). These don't seem appear in OS Locator or OS Streetview, nor
 are they covered by the ROW datasets. It's not clear to me where the
 designation of care lies with these or the legality of using them
 (especially in terms of Cycling).

 Public roads? Around here there are a number of unmetalled tracks that
 appear in Hampshire's maintained highways list and are drawn on an OS
 Explorer map as green dots.


Case in point (green dots on OS Explorer, sort of track on NPE, nothing in OS 
Streetview, perfectly good track for 4x4s (maybe even cars - memory is fuzzy 
now)  mountain bikes).
Something I've mapped  (Potlatch2 claims AndyS has modified it - but then I've 
never quite understood Potlatch2's change list compared to one from the OSM 
website).
I don't think it was marked as a Byway hence I did not mark it as such but 
feels like one (presumably the reasons for the additions Sailor Steve has made).

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41984943/history

'Hampshire's maintained highways list'
Are you referring to 
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/roads/highway-factsheets/maintained-roads.htm ? Or 
something else?

However it's hard to search for unamed/unknown ways, such as the above. 
  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Primary or Trunk?

[Robert Norris]

 Sorry if I've not seen the old posts on this, the wiki pages are
 contradictory which is why I asked the question.

 In the UK we are defining Trunk or Primary based on some arbitrary
 definition not on anything that is of use to any user or renderer.

 What we should be mapping is reality, so that people can use that data
 to build on. Whether a road is signed in Green, Pink or Purple tells a
 user nothing, it may have a legal definition but that is all. The tag
 we give it should tell the user something about the road's capabilities,
 importance, size and potential timings/traffic flow. A Trunk road that
 is a dual carriageway with a maxspeed of 70 mph is very different to a
 Trunk road that winds around fields and has a maxspeed of 50 mph or less!

Other tags such as lanes=*, width=*, surface=*, maxspeed=* etc... are for more 
the detailed nuances of route calculations based on the physical properties of 
the road. Or for how a renderer could choose to emphasize certain roads over 
others.

Of course the bendyness of the road should be interfered from the geometry of 
the node positions themselves.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Chiddingfold/Dunsfold Footpath Mapping

[Robert Norris]

I would be, however I'd be more keen to take my mountain bike out - there's 
seems to be a few missing bridleways...

However if one goes a little further south 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/51.0600/-0.5734) - there is a 
suspiciously ROW free zone in the OSM data.


Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

From: nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 12:54:14 +0100
Subject: [Talk-GB] Chiddingfold/Dunsfold Footpath Mapping


Hi,

This is just a preliminary see if there's enough interest message really; I'm 
not even sure if I can do it in the near future but if there is enough interest 
I'll see if I can make time.

Was thinking of running part 3 of an annual series of footpath parties in SW 
Surrey to fill in the gaps. In 2011 we did Chiddingfold area, in 2012 Cranleigh 
area but there are still some gaps in between Chiddingfold and Dunsfold (see 
www.fixmypaths.org: search for Chiddingfold; FixMyPaths overlays council 
footpath data on OSM so can be used to easily locate unmapped paths).

As for the earlier events in the series, the idea is to licence the mapping 
data gathered as public domain, so that it can be used in OSM while Tim and 80n 
can use it in fosm.

Please let me know if you're interested. It would either be within the next few 
weeks or from around mid Feb onwards, to avoid the limited daylight of 
midwinter, and probably Sun rather than Sat (but can be flexible)

Thanks,
Nick

___
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] Search for location

[Robert Norris]

 
 I'm buried in other code at the moment so don't have time to dig for an 
 answer, 
 so can someone point me in the right direction to get a 'search result' via 
 the 
 API for looking up a location.
 
 I know I can go via the website, but I need to be able to search for
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/515065315 but using the 'McMurdo 
 Station' name. I am expecting that I'll get several results at times, so the 
 node/way number will be used eventually, but initial search to give a list to 
 select from would be helpful.

OSM uses Nominatim.

The wiki contains a guide to the seach API:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nominatim

From which you can get answers in html, xml or json formats.

In at least the XML sample, the osm_id is returned within the results.

HTH.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Map Man Series 2 Repeated on BBC iPlayer

[Robert Norris]

Just a note to mention that this is being repeated on Saturday mornings on BBC2 
and of course now on iPlayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0078y2t/Map_Man_Series_2_Bartholomews_Cycling_Map_of_England_and_Wales/

A must see for map, walking, cycling, history, geography enthusiasts or any 
combination thereof.

Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.
  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire: Volunteers needed for testing FixMyPaths, a rights of way problem reporting app

[Robert Norris]

I encountered a tree blocking[1] the byway along Stancomb Broad Lane back on 
the 1st July this year.

Which I thought about reporting but wasn't bothered / didn't know how - I 
guessed a local person would do it in time.

Now, I'm not sure if it was actually on  'Bighton 7' or on the track further 
along to the East as indicated by Freemap.

Some where along it anyway[2]

[1] Only passable by an able bodied pedestrian between branches - i.e. good 
thing I didn't have my MTB that day!

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.10914lon=-1.09071zoom=16layers=M


What no permalink option on the map?

What does the search actually search?

Is there a list of open ROW problems?

How many are there (i.e. display this somewhere)

I think I came across one by chance - but can't find it again - it just said 
'broken' on a pin popup

Might be worth saying reported issues are shown as 'pins' on the maps if that 
is the case.

Might be worth moving all/some of the gumpf/disclaimer/key from the top of the 
map to blue panel on the left - since this panel has got a lot of wasted space.

HTH.


Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.



 From: nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:20:55 +
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire: Volunteers needed for testing FixMyPaths, 
 a rights of way problem reporting app



 As you probably know, Hampshire County Council released its rights of way 
 data in the summer.
 I have been developing a site (OpenHants, www.free-map.org.uk/openhants) 
 which makes use of this data and also allows users to report path problems, 
 which are sent on to the council.

 Sorry, there was a typo in this URL. It should be:

 www.free-map.org.uk/hampshire/

 (though the first URL now works as well)

 Nick

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Request: Norfolk Broads National Park Boundary

[Robert Norris]

I've downloaded the some of the data sets and fired up qgis.

So, yes the Natural England datasets are a better resolution for National Parks.


Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.



 From: e...@loach.me.uk
 To: rw_nor...@hotmail.com; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Request: Norfolk Broads National Park Boundary
 Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 07:50:33 +

 I've not looked at OS Strategi, but the Natural England datasets are
 now OGL licenced and they contain the national park boundaries, and
 I think are better resolution.

 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/data/default.aspx

 Ed

  -Original Message-
  From: Robert Norris [mailto:rw_nor...@hotmail.com]
  Sent: 02 November 2012 23:50
  To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: [Talk-GB] Request: Norfolk Broads National Park Boundary
 
 
 
  I believe that currently a boundary way or relation for the
 National
  Park of the Norfolk Broads is missing from OSM.
 
  I was wondering if any one in the East Anglia area would be up to
 the
  challenge of creating it?
 
  I assume the best way of creating a tentative out-line would be a
  manual conversion or trace from the OS Strategi product, similar
 to
  how the South Downs National Park area was mapped.
 
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_
  National_Parks
 
  Sounds ideal for something to do on these long winter nights...
 
  Be Seeing You - Rob.
  If at first you don't succeed,
  then skydiving isn't for you.
 
 
  ___
  Talk-GB mailing list
  Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Talk-GB] Request: Norfolk Broads National Park Boundary

[Robert Norris]

I believe that currently a boundary way or relation for the National Park of 
the Norfolk Broads is missing from OSM.

I was wondering if any one in the East Anglia area would be up to the challenge 
of creating it?

I assume the best way of creating a tentative out-line would be a manual 
conversion or trace from the OS Strategi product, similar to how the South 
Downs National Park area was mapped.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_National_Parks

Sounds ideal for something to do on these long winter nights...

Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Addition of Wikipedia links in German!

[Robert Norris]

 Looks bonkers to me. Have you tried sending them a polite message
 asking them what what the purpose of the links are that they're adding?


It was quite succinct, so maybe not that polite.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Addition of Wikipedia links in German!

[Robert Norris]

because of the WIWOSM feature in Wikipedia. By adding one link to a 
Wikipedia-Article  (which language is not important) on the relation of 
an administrative district, the area will be marked in the maps of some 
wikipedias (de, it, es etc (however, not yet en)) as a field. Find more 
information to WIWOSM feature here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WIWOSM

You can see this in action if you open the England article in the German 
wikipedia and click on Karte link on the top right.


Best regards
Longbow4u
But I still think it would be better to put wikipedia=en:ENGLISH_NAME for 
places in England.


Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Should highway=byway be deprecated?

[Robert Norris]

  
 In the case of motor vehicles only being prohibited for half of the  
 year, is there any consensus on the correct way to tag it? 
  

Yes, that reminds me I need to update some byways around Avebury...
[e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25793851]

I think the idea is to use the syntax from 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Opening_times

So I think for example only in summer months:
motor_vehicle=Apr 01-Sep 30

As to whether any data consumer will be able to decipher it, is another 
question
  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Meetup - Botley - 24/07/12 - NEW DATE

[Robert Norris]

Ok good stuff.

I will be wearing a Red and Blue 'Beat the Block' emblazoned cycle top, so 
you'll be able to recognize me.


Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.



 From: nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:40:51 +0100
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Meetup - Botley - 24/07/12 - NEW DATE




 On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 14:18 +0100, Robert Norris wrote:
  I propose the Bugle Inn at Botley at 8pm on Tuesday the 24th July.

 Sounds good to me. I'm out of town during the day but I'm fairly
 confident that I'll be back in time.

 Cheers,

 Andy

 I should be able to make it.

 Nick


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

[Talk-GB] Hampshire Meetup - Botley - 25/07/12

[Robert Norris]

Some time ago I mentioned a Hampshire area meetup, however with a busy schedule 
of summer time sport (Euros/TdF/Wimbledon) and poor weather I haven't been 
particularly motivated, however this week looks very promising.

I propose the Bugle Inn at Botley at 8pm on Wednesday the 25th for July.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.91443lon=-1.27005zoom=15layers=M

This pub (http://www.thebugleinnbotley.co.uk/) is not in OSM.

I suspect I will be cycling there to checkout out some missing footpaths* 
nearish (pushing the bicycle appropriately).

Attached is a small track from Botley to the train station and nearby missing 
footpaths* which someone might find useful.

*Missing paths derived from the Hampshire CC ROW KML listing.

Other opportunities for mapping before / during / after the meet up are:

Missing / incorrect road names:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/map_browser?bbox=449642.299583,111631.24375,453341.992083,113900.99375layers=os_locatorbase_style=white,aa_2clear_map_history=truereferrer=area

Speed limits.

POIs in Botley village centre

etc...

Since I plan to cycle around I will almost definitely stop in for pint 
regardless, it would be nice to see some follow OSMers.

Feel free to promote this on the wiki (I don't have time ATM)


Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

  

BotleyMissingPaths.gpx
Description: Binary data
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence

[Robert Norris]

What is actually meant by 'Rights of Way Data' here?

As per the online maps [1] it also includes:
. Long Distance Routes
. Countryside Services
. District Boundaries

Are these part of the Open Data release as well?

Note they don't appear in the KML download that I've looked at. (I've not tried 
the shapefile)

[1] http://localviewmaps.hants.gov.uk/LocalViewmaps/Sites/ROWOnline/#

Probably means we can't fix up OSM routes using the HCC online version :(

Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Robert Norris]

 I always use Potlatch an editor, and so the majority of the paths I have 
 added are highway=footpath, unless I know it's designated as a bridleway in 
 which case I've set it as highway=bridleway. If I use a path, but it's not 
 actually signed as a public or otherwise footpath then I think I should use 
 highway=path, but actually tend to just use highway=footpath as it's there 
 for me in Potlatch.

Generally for 'countryside' mapping I use JOSM for larger scale edits. Potlatch 
for smaller detail updates. Each to their own of course.
I think JOSM can be setup to use special presets, i.e. for UK tagging presets - 
although I've never done this myself.

 Semantically it feels cleaner to use highway=path/track/service depending on 
 width and condition (a tarmac'd driveway I tag as service, a muddy path that 
 is wide enough to fit a car is a track for me, narrower is just a path) and 
 *then* adding designation tags e.g. public_footpath or permissive_footpath 
 (as is around the Hampden estate). In my experience around Bucks, walkers, 
 cyclists and horse riders all use the same paths, so I only add specific 
 access tags when it is a 'NO' (as in a few no cycles signs around here, 
 against mostly in the Hampden Estate area).

 My dilemma is that essentially all of my walking routes so far are 
 highway=footpath / highway=bridleway with very little designation= (because I 
 haven't done much mapping since I saw designation= being discussed), so 
 changing to a combination of path/track/service  designation would be quite 
 a chunk of work. I'm up for doing it, if that's a good thing to do.

Certainly best adding the designation where known. 

 Is there any consensus on whether this is a good thing to do or not (yet)? If 
 it is a good thing, then I'd love to see Potlatch updated somehow to allow 
 for this (perhaps changing footpath to be highway=path  adding public 
 footpath with highway=path/designation=public_footway), and would be up for 
 doing that piece of work if that helps, as it would really help me.

Not sure this will happen as the it too GB specific. Again there are ways to 
change Potlatch's presets if you run your own instance and edit the config 
files appropriately.


 On a minor tangent - is there any pattern or spec around tagging the 
 signposts at all? I'm starting to think it would be useful, as not all 
 junctions have sign posts, and so it could help people know which junction is 
 which when on a new walk. I had a quick search on the wiki, but couldn't find 
 anything (I could be searching for the wrong thing).

There is:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dguidepost

Which is rendered on mapnik, eg:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.894405947279346lon=-0.64825295438012698zoom=16layers=B000FTF

However I only tend to use it for 'elaborate' or 'special' sign posts, rather 
than every single signpost everywhere.

Think things like this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacqib/359764976/in/pool-21939087@N00/



Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way - Image vote

[Robert Norris]

I've added my 2 penneth.

Maybe we should gather more samples of signs - e.g. to show differing Councils 
styles (and then hopefully agreed tagging) to give better guidelines.

I've have a look my photos but I think I tend to delete these types of pictures 
after use.

If I remember, next time I'm out walking I may take more such type of pictures.

There may some samples on flickr / whatever (with friendly copyrights) we could 
use.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Post boxes!

[Robert Norris]

NB There's a group on flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/postboxbypostcode/

With a reasonably active number of members and photos with varying amounts of 
tag info.

Photographs are under the copyright terms of the original taker.

Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.
  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Robert Norris]

 I could equally claim that information on the surface of paths is  
 absolutely essential for cyclists with road bikes, and that toilet  
 opening hours are absolutely essential for people with weak bladders.  
 In many areas OSM is completely hopeless at accurate routing for cars,  
 motorbikes, HGVs, but we don't stop people adding roads unless they've  
 got every last routing detail correct. 

+1

I haven't had time to write on the tag voting document, but I did notice the 
for 'private' bridleway pic, I would probably tag this as a highway = service.

This probably more as tag for the render, but in IMHO there's not much 
difference between a h=service and h=track,surface=asphalt,(or 
tracktype=grade1). The bonus is the service is currently rendered in Mapnik and 
Cyclemap etc...

Sometimes I think it would be good if OSMers had more focus on aspects that 
*all* the other map providers don't do (especially OS). 

As Tom notes above, it's generally impossible even using OS maps to tell if one 
would like to take a road bike down a Bridleway. One doesn't really want to 
have to keep accessing the OSM data directly for these bits. If A N renderer or 
routers showed/considered such detail (as appropriate for eg road bike users, 
pram/wheel chair pushers, wheelchair users and various use cases) then it would 
be much more powerful.

Also for toilets it is nice to know if they required a fee too!

Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Robert Norris]

On a slightly different tangent, how if at all do we have have timed 
restrictions on access types?

As the other day I was walking around the Ridgeway:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.422242618282993lon=-1.8314579782714844zoom=15layers=B000FTF

1. Some byways have permissions of no motorised vehicles in 'winter' (30th Oct 
to 30th Apr)
2. ATM in OSM it's listed as designation = BOAT

For the moment I'll probably just add it as some form of note description.




Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?

[Robert Norris]

 
  
   Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:27:31 +0100
   From: openstreet...@jordan-maynard.org
   To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
   Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?
  
   On 29/03/2012 19:30, Robert Norris wrote:
   
I've just noticed Bere Forest (and trails) has been wiped from the map:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.91178lon=-1.15578zoom=15
   
It's literally empty space!
   
Probably most where Andy Steets initial trials, but he's agreed so was
there some over zealous deletion by some one?
   
Unfortunately the history service contains to many world edits to be of
use, and the general OSM history is quit slow at the moment.
I think user monxton has tried to repair stuff.
  
   If it helps, I don't mind if you revert my changesets to get back to a
   better place. I reinstated the roads, but clearly there's a lot more
   that went missing too.
  
 
  This afternoon I went to the Forest of Bere in search of Bluebells as 
  recommended by the Woodland Trust website [1]
 
  However it didn't live up to it's 5 star rating, but it was quite nice 
  nevertheless - maybe I'm a bit late for Bluebells - there were some but not 
  that many.

I now realise the 5 star rating is for overall wood, not just the Bluebell 
quality (my mistake).

 I've not been down there this year but IIRC the Upperford Copse/Woodend
 bit is often a good area for Bluebells.

Doh! That's the bit I didn't go to.

That needs remapping especially for the missing Soberton and Newtown Millennium 
Walk route.

  So I've had a good wander and should be able to redo most main tracks 
  (there's also loads of little paths - which where never in before anyway - 
  not that I walked many of them).

 Great stuff!

  What's all nice is the Forestry Commission allow you to cycle on *all* 
  paths, and horse riding is by permit only (tag as 'horse=permit' ?)

 Be careful as not all parts of the forest have the same access
 permissions. As a rule of thumb I'd say that it is worth double checking
 any part of the forest that you have to cross a road to access.

Yes, although their own leaflet which I picked up there (West Walk section) I 
quote The Forestry Commission welcomes walkers, cyclists and horse riders to 
use any of the forest trails. Horse riders will need a permit,  Also 
available here: (http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/WestWalk.pdf/$FILE/WestWalk.pdf)

IIRC the OSM map before had the Upperford Copse as footpaths only which is 
correct (I remember once going to cycle there several years ago but found out I 
was not allowed). The Southern section (name North Boarhunt?) only has signs 
about 'Riders needing permits', which previously I thought applied to cyclists. 
But now I think means Horse Riders.

Well I've now finished my edits 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/robbieonsea/edits) and hopefully got them 
right, but still many more paths there and the 'Oak Trail' is only partly 
surveyed.


  I'll remap it time permitting tomorrow morning (out and about tonight) plus 
  fixing the longer routes that go through it from previous outings / and 
  renewed knowledge.
 
  I didn't go to the north parts of the Upperford Copse section though.
 
  [1]http://visitwoods.org.uk/en/visit-woods/Pages/get-involved.aspx
 

 It looks like the rain is clearing here so I'll probably try and get out
 this afternoon to put some of Swanmore parish back on the map. I've
 started up the Bishop's Waltham  Dundridge valley end and slowly making
 my way back towards the village.

I was lucky yesterday - the sky looked quite black when I started and tried to 
rain - but then it rapidly improved into sunshine :)

 Cheers,

 Andy


Maybe we should organize an East Hampshire OSM people (maybe for a pub walk / 
or mapping party ) get together some time this summer - it would be great to 
meet AndyS, NickW and any other like minded individuals. 
  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?

[Robert Norris]

 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:27:31 +0100
 From: openstreet...@jordan-maynard.org
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?

 On 29/03/2012 19:30, Robert Norris wrote:
 
  I've just noticed Bere Forest (and trails) has been wiped from the map:
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.91178lon=-1.15578zoom=15
 
  It's literally empty space!
 
  Probably most where Andy Steets initial trials, but he's agreed so was
  there some over zealous deletion by some one?
 
  Unfortunately the history service contains to many world edits to be of
  use, and the general OSM history is quit slow at the moment.
  I think user monxton has tried to repair stuff.

 If it helps, I don't mind if you revert my changesets to get back to a
 better place. I reinstated the roads, but clearly there's a lot more
 that went missing too.


This afternoon I went to the Forest of Bere in search of Bluebells as 
recommended by the Woodland Trust website [1]

However it didn't live up to it's 5 star rating, but it was quite nice 
nevertheless - maybe I'm a bit late for Bluebells - there were some but not 
that many.

So I've had a good wander and should be able to redo most main tracks (there's 
also loads of little paths - which where never in before anyway - not that I 
walked many of them).

What's all nice is the Forestry Commission allow you to cycle on *all* paths, 
and horse riding is by permit only (tag as 'horse=permit' ?)

I'll remap it time permitting tomorrow morning (out and about tonight) plus 
fixing the longer routes that go through it from previous outings / and renewed 
knowledge.

I didn't go to the north parts of the Upperford Copse section though.

[1]http://visitwoods.org.uk/en/visit-woods/Pages/get-involved.aspx
  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?

[Robert Norris]

I've just noticed Bere Forest (and trails) has been wiped from the map:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.91178lon=-1.15578zoom=15

It's literally empty space!

Probably most where Andy Steets initial trials, but he's agreed so was there 
some over zealous deletion by some one?

Unfortunately the history service contains to many world edits to be of use, 
and the general OSM history is quit slow at the moment.
I think user monxton has tried to repair stuff.

I suspect this happened may be over a week ago. Unfortunately I'm not around 
from now  over the weekend to investigate further.

It would be great if someone else could investigate.

Thanks in advance.

Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you. ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update

[Robert Norris]

 On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
 
  Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
  odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
  sources?
 
 Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic contributions
 from people who have not agreed to the new contributor terms [...]
 *and where those contributions have since been superceded or washed
 out by subsequent changes*
 
 Emphasis mine.
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean

OK may be I wasn't quite using it quite with the proper intention, although I 
think most of the ways I added it to have been revised in some manner.

However it's quite difficult to determine how much a ways' geometry has changed.

 
 Of course, I've been advising people from the beginning to avoid the
 tag in the first place. Since so many people are misunderstanding it,
 and accidentally misusing it, it has become meaningless. Therefore I
 don't see how it can be relied upon during the license change, and if
 it can't be used with confidence, there's even less point in tagging
 anything with it.

I think that's why I hadn't really bothered until now.

To my mind, I was generally just going to wait until things were deleted and 
then create my own version, but I was inspired by Nick Austin's efforts, to 
attempt to do something first.
 
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update

[Robert Norris]

 OK may be I wasn't quite using it quite with the proper intention, although 
 I think most of the ways I added it to have been revised in some manner.
 
 However it's quite difficult to determine how much a ways' geometry has 
 changed.

You should definitely always err on the side of caution. If you add 
odbl=clean, you are making a very strong statement about all the contributions 
that made up that element. I would ask that you please go back and remove 
odbl=clean from everything you have added it to, unless you can be truly 
certain about the history of that element. My worry is that if odbl=clean is 
diluted by uses that are not 100% clean, it will simply be ignored and that 
will waste a lot of effort by people who have carefully checked that ways are 
in fact clean.

I've now rechecked these changes and they are all correct - some I initially 
created, but agree with the highway type tagging (previously marked 'byway' is 
really a track), one way I moved it around, and finally one which was initially 
by Nick Austin, but split by Andy Street to correct path-track part - again is 
better tagged this way (i.e. can't delete the tag just to put back in the same 
key+value)

Luckily I didn't put in many odbls, which I was planning to add more with my 
prior (mis)understanding.

I shall be extra vigilant in any future use - if I use it at all.

Happy Friday Night!
  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update

[Robert Norris]

Re: Andy Streets changes in Hampshire.

So I thought I should get around at least to sticking in odbl=clean on ways 
(mainly paths  tracks) I know to be OK, that I've personally been on whilst 
cycling or walking.

Which turned out to be more interesting than I thought...

First via using JOSM it was telling me some ways might have problems, the 
history check wasn't a green CT for the user 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/essjayhch.

Initially I thought odd, since they have agreed to the CTs, however checking 
their diary entry revealed they have been entering in C classifications for 
roads from Hampshire Council Council (via 
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/adoptedroadsearch/). It's not clear this is allowed - 
hence I assume essjayhch has been 'black listed' some how - but not reverted as 
I guess these edits will be removed/reverted come the license change switch. 
They also seem to have entered in many footpath refs too.

Clearly I can't stick a odbl=clean on any such way.

Next I then discover Andy Street had been also using Hampshire Council Council 
as a source reference in various changesets, such as:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/5184209
http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/8257081

Possibly this could a reason why he can not accept the CTs

In my check the other day I did not check for this type of source reference. 
This also means potentially any of his 2000 changesets could be problematic - 
so not just after 1st April 2010 for the OS Locator/Streetview allowed data.


PS Thanks Nick Austin for your efforts in Portsmouth (and all over Hampshire). 
I don't have the patience / time / willing to do that amount of remapping.
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update

[Robert Norris]

 
 Robert Norris wrote:
  Here's my manual check (taking me about 2 hours) of Andy 
  Streets changes.
 
 That's excellent. Thank you very much for that.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nick%20Austin/edits

I note the above user has been very busy with remapping efforts in Hampshire 
(with a healthy dose of odbl=clean tags too).

However it's unlikely this effort (much appreciated) will match the quantity of 
changes that Andy Street made :(
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update

[Robert Norris]

 Michael Collinson wrote:
  On 19/03/2012 13:40, John Sturdy wrote:
   I think the time's getting close enough that I'll resume that work 
   anyway.
  This is almost certainly a person I had an amicable phone 
  conversation with a week last Monday who is still concerned 
  that OS open data somehow is not compatible with the 
  new terms. Probability is dropping like a stone given the time 
  that has passed but there is still a chance of a yes.
 
 AIUI only a small amount of Andy Street's work (I don't see the point of
 pussyfooting around, we all know who it is!) is OS-derived. And, with the
 best will in the world, any monkey like thee or me can trace from OS
 OpenData, but Andy's footpath surveying work is excellent and it would be a
 shame to lose it because of an unrelated issue.
 
 Would a sensible solution be for LWG and/or any other volunteers to work
 with him on identifying the affected changesets; for those changesets to be
 retained; and for the remainder to remain 'declined' and be dropped in early
 April?

Here's my manual check (taking me about 2 hours) of Andy Streets changes.

Everything before 01/04/2010 has been assumed ok, which is around 1100 
changesets.

Everything after this change has been considered:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4281583

This is about 900 changesets.

I've grouped these into a few different categories for which could be 
considered to have OS 'issues' - amounting to around 37 changesets:

// OS Derived changesets
// Changesets with OS named in changeset comment:

// OS StreetView
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4415489
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4415876
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4416305
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4595934
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4595929
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4595853
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7312608

// OS Locator
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7303315
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7367792
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7362036
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7321053
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7512624

// OS OpenData Locator+Streetview
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7286972

// SDNP (South Downs National Park) Import
// OS_OpenData_Strategi (except western edge)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8216155
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8216120
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8216047
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215988
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215902
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215608
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215522
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215395
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215211
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8216603

//
// Named in source:name tag
//

// OS StreetView
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8323516
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7550902
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7499950
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7460982
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7314486
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6780651
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5844267
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5306397
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5251524
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4537078

// OS Locator
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7436665
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7362367
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5353674

/// End

I'm not sure which one's he's concerned about (I have now asked him explicitly 
too).

I don't see any Code-Point data used, so there should be no worry there.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool

[Robert Norris]

 
 On 24 January 2012 03:09, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
  The Taunton Sedgemoor import data seems pretty messed up.
  Eg Mansuel Road, seems have picked out wrong points (over 5+ miles away) to 
  generate crazily wrong geometry.
 
 Thanks Robert - I'll have a look at that and find out what's gone wrong.
 
  Other areas look OK.
 
 Great!
 

I don't want to steal Andy's thunder, but I thought I'd check the progress and 
what good timing!

. My reported geometry issues are solved.
. Many more areas have been processed (~ 1/3 of DfT areas including my local 
area*)

Updates  (yesterday) are on the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DfT_Cycling_Data_2011

But I thought a heads up on the GB mailing list would be useful too.* 
Portsmouth - however I may wait until after the license change before arm-chair 
mapping updates...
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Online Tools for Searching Changeset Comments?

[Robert Norris]

Are there any online tools for Searching Changeset Comments?

Preferably by area ala OWL, but perhaps also on a per user basis?

I appreciate this is probably computationally intensive / large resources 
required.

Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you. ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Subjective value of adding FIXMEs by a bot?

[Robert Norris]

I can't say I'm convinced about the value of adding FIXMEs to 7000+ postboxes 
in the UK in changeset:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10834378

1. Collection Times when missing can be cross referenced with the open data 
request with the Royal Mail when the postbox has a reference. See:

http://www.dracos.co.uk/play/locating-postboxes/
+
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/location_of_every_post_box_that

2. If the postbox doesn't have a ref tag, then the absence of itself is an 
obvious thing that doesn't require a FIXME to tell me that it's missing.

There exists tools such as http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postboxes/ helps one 
determine the absence of ref tags and other UK postbox issues.

Consider other data, is it useful to put a FIXME on highways that have no name?
What about those without speed limits?

Generally tools like http://keepright.ipax.at/ and 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ can tell us about these issues. And if not then 
presumably they can be improved to do so, rather than adding FIXMEs into the 
database.

In general this simply adds extra noise into the changeset history of objects 
and areas where no useful (IMHO) change as occurred.

Such large changes (probably performed by a bot) should (and almost be a must) 
be discussed in an appropriate forum before the change - in this case OSM Talk 
GB mailing list.


As such I'm thinking the changeset should probably be reverted/removed.


Message sent to user osmmaker  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.
  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Blue Plaques and others

[Robert Norris]

Seeing as it's Charles Dicken's 200th Birthday soon,
http://www.charlesdickensbirthplace.co.uk/charles-dickens/charles-dickens-200

I thought I should get around to mapping the Blue and other Coloured Plaques in 
my area of Portsmouth, especially as there's one at his birthplace.

However OSM seems a little vague in the best way to tag them, as there's 
nothing recommended in the wiki AFAIK.

TagInfo has some clues of in use methods

He's my planned tagging scheme:

Basic:

historic=memorial
landmark=memorial_plaque
memorial_plaque:colour=blue|brown|whatever|RGB code?
name='name' - just the name of the person / organization the plaque is about eg 
'Charles Dickens' 

Optional Extended Detail:

openplaques:id=number
description='full inscription text' - without operator information
operator='civic society name' | 'local council name' | whatever if known
start_date= date plaque was erected if known

It would be really good if the only existing map I know of - that uses OSM data 
- could be expanded to cover the whole of the UK:

http://mappa-mercia.org/blue-plaques-map.shtml

(Or maybe a bit more information on how the 'blue-plaques.tsv' was created to 
power that map).



Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Blue Plaques and others

[Robert Norris]

 I have stated to map the 60ish p laques (mostly blue) in Hull and  
 update the openplaques site too. I wrote a blog about it earlier this  
 month http://chris-osm.blogspot.com/2012/01/plaques-blue-or-not.html .  
 It seems there is a plaque to Dickens here too, though I haven't  
 checked it out yet. I'm creating a small-scale tourism site including  
 blue plaques and other memorials such statues. 

Interesting read - thanks.

Yeah, Dickens seemed to get about!
 
 I use historic=memorial, memorial=blue_plaque, description=summary,  
 openplaques:id=* I will happily change if there is a consensus, but the  
 blog and comments show some issues. Many a wiki page would help discuss  
 the issue (now I feel dirty). 

I feel as long as the information is there, then we can always run some 
auto/manual conversions to the latest scheme to make it easy/obvious for data 
consumers.

The landmark = memorial_plaque came from the 'landmark wiki page'

If we agree on things up front it makes it simpler.

I was thinking about making a initial Wiki page, perhaps after some discussion 
here.
I choose talk-GB, as mostly these plaques are GB (over 5000 exist according to 
OpenPlaques), rather than the wider tagging mail list for a start point.
 
 Cheers, Chris 
 Cheers, Chris 
 User chillly 
 Blog http://chris-osm.blogspot.com 
  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK

[Robert Norris]

I notice the South/ South West is looking a bit empty, so I started a list of 
places I know but need investigating further before marking on the map (some I 
could do as single node as a very rough placement - but should be able to get 
better trace / identify stuff using Bing Aerials).

Thanks to user m902 for mapping some that were on my list.

= My local ones =

http://www.irvingbrewers.co.uk/ - Cosham, Portsmouth

http://www.hopback.co.uk/ - Downton, Hampshire

http://hampshirebrewery.com/ - AKA Downton Brewery - (Also) Downton, Hampshire

http://oakleafbrewing.co.uk - Gosport, Hampshire

http://www.uphambrewery.co.uk/ - Upham, Hampshire

http://www.bowman-ales.com/ - Droxford, Hampshire

http://www.triplefff.com - Four Marks, Hampshire

http://flackmanor.co.uk/ - Romsey, Hampshire

http://www.thehavantbrewery.co.uk/ - Havant

http://www.laverstokepark.co.uk/ale.aspx - Overton, Hampshire - Farm Shop / Ale 
/ Wine / (Real) Lager

http://www.langhambrewery.co.uk/ - Lodsworth, W Sussex



http://ballards-brewery.co.uk/ - Nyewood, W Sussex





http://www.hepworthbrewery.co.uk/  Horsham, W Sussex

http://www.nyetimber.com - Vineyards - West Chiltington / Bignor / Tillington 
and Upperton - West Sussex (and maybe some in Hampshire?)

http://www.ascot-ales.co.uk - Camberley, Surrey



http://www.skinnersbrewery.com/ - Truro, Cornwall

http://www.glastonburyales.com/ - Glastonbury, Somerset

http://www.exmoorales.co.uk/ - Wiveliscombe, Somerset

http://www.cotleighbrewery.com/ - (Also) Wiveliscombe, Somerset

http://www.rchbrewery.com - Weston Super Mare, Somerset

=

Update The Southwick Brewhouse
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1299321606
? tourism = attraction ?
? tourism = musuem ? (Steam Engine)
? realale = yes / draught / bottled ? (It does all!)



Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.



 From: rw_nor...@hotmail.com
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:37:12 +
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK



 My 2p on the industrial/craft split:

 I don't think this has been mentioned before but perhaps also the output of 
 the brewery could be tagged.

 e.g.

 brewery:output:beer|cider=n (in barrels per year)
 brewery:output:source=local knowledge/URL ref/beer mat/whatever
 brewery:output:date=year of output

 This isn't a geographically measurable feature so I'm not sure how useful it 
 is or how easy it is to obtain copyright compatible information.

 This leaves defining the split in terms output (when available), out of OSM.

 Alternatively, or in conjunction with I think a 'industrial=brewery_national' 
 would a useful distinction as I see there's around 4 levels of production 
 (rather than 3):

 . Brewpub
  - Pub like hours

 . Micro brewery - generally serves local area - e.g. Dark Star, etc.
  - Possibly can turn up on premises and can buy stuff direct

 [redefinition of current 'industrial=brewery']
 . More akin to a regional brewery eg: - Ringwood, Hook Norton, Fullers
  - Probably have proper shop and organised tours

 [New level - hence new tag info of some kind eg 'industrial=brewery_national' 
 or 'industrial=brewery_massive' or something]
 . National - Carling, Fosters, HP Bulmers etc.
  - Generally no public access features [Hence not so interesting on a map, 
 other than it's there]

 Any thoughts?

 Be Seeing You - Rob (AKA robbieonsea / rnorris)
 If at first you don't succeed,
 then skydiving isn't for you.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK

[Robert Norris]

 Brian Prangle wrote:
  How to distinguish real ale from industrial mass market breweries?
 
 
 Put something descriptive in real_ale= perhaps?


In my mind, in the UK most (small/micro)breweries are real_ale, thus this 
should be assumed default.
(According to http://www.beermad.org.uk/, there are nearly 2000 breweries of 
real ale).

Map on http://www.quaffale.org.uk/php/showmap.php, shows we (OSM) have a long 
way to go.

NB quaffale state Most of the information contained within this site is within 
the public domain., so it may be interesting to pursue as a line of 
investigation...

Perhaps all breweries should state what they do, such as:

CAMRA definitions:
real_ale=yes
real_lager=yes
real_cider=yes 

and then
lager=yes
cider=yes
ale=yes
for other methods.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Portsmouth cycle paths and routes

[Robert Norris]

  
 I’m primarily a cyclist and interested in ensuring that our cycle  
 coverage is great. Whilst looking at the Bing! aerial imagery in  
 Portsmouth recently I spotted some cycleways and cycle lanes which we  
 don’t have in our map. They looked like they were in fairly established  
 areas of the city so I wonder whether there’s any other cycling  
 facilities that we’re missing? Portsmouth is a little far for me to go  
 on a GPS mapping expedition, so I was wondering if there are any more  
 local cycle mappers that may be interested in scouting out facilities.  
 It seems that we’ve probably missed quite a bit of cycle parking in  
 Gosport too, given its density in Portsmouth, but seeming absence in  
 Gosport: 
  

Sorry I'm a little late to thread, but given I live in Portsmouth - well
 Southsea :) and I cycle a lot - I've been slowly updating OSM on an ad 
hoc basis it over time.

(Actually I'm more interested in footpaths and bridleways...). Anyway if
 you can point me to somewhere precise, I can double check things on
 the ground.



Remember Bing images are a couple years old and some of the infrastructure *has 
definitely* changed around here.



NB1 - I don't go to Gosport very often - it's not on my commute and the ferry 
costs money :(

NB2 - Portsmouth CC have relatively recently been putting in single/double 
cycle parking ground loops around local shops
NB3 - You've got me to thank for most of the 20mph (and other) speed limits on 
the Portsmouth map.

NB4 - This reminds me to add cycle parking for Waitrose, Palmerston Road  
Albert Road that I can remember off the top of my head.
[There must be more near the seafront - but I need to check locations+numbers]


PS1 Nice work on the cycle parking heat map - it's good to spot things missing 
(i.e. for NB4 above) 
PS2 how often does this get updated?
PS3 It would be even better if one could select the open cycle map as the base 
layer.


Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to use relations for The Chiltern Way and its extensions

[Robert Norris]

 From: bobhawk...@waitrose.com
 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 16:25:08 +0100
 Subject: [Talk-GB] How to use relations for The Chiltern Way and its  
 extensions
 
 
 The Chiltern Way has a North Extension, a South 
 Extension and, new in 2010, a Berkshire Loop.  Perhaps this is true of some 

 other long-distance paths.  The Chiltern Way is shown at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Long_Distance_Paths as
 
 only 33% complete.  As the South Extension and part of the 
 Berkshire Loop are within my area of interest in South Oxfordshire, I 
 should like to gradually add them as relations to the already-mapped ways in 
 order to increase that percentage.  I should be interested to learn 
 other mappers' views: should the three extensions be part of one 
 existing Chiltern Way relation, or relations in their own right, or both?  
 If part of one existing Chiltern Way relation, how can the three extensions 
 be 
 identified separately?


I think each part should be a stand alone-relation, and then the whole 
way would be 'super-relation' which groups the smaller relations 
together.



More detail about this is in the Multiple routes share the same path in 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route 

  

Be Seeing You - Rob.

If at first you don't succeed,

then skydiving isn't for you. 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb