Re: [Talk-GB] Updated MapThePaths app - with tagged GPS traces
Nick, I have noticed an anomaly in the MapThePaths site. Normally, clicking on a PROW shows its designation. But in my area, it does not seem to work if the path is within an access area. For example, footpath 505 008 (Blawith, Cumbria) crosses the access area boundary. Clicking outside the access area shows the reference. Inside the access area does not. If you close the OSM footpaths layer, the click then works. Thanks, Roger On 23/05/2020 12:28, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hello everyone, To follow up an email of just over a week ago, I have now updated the MapThePaths Android app (https://mapthepaths.org.uk/app.html; https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.org.mapthepaths.android) so that tagged GPS traces can be created. You can record a GPS trace, and tag each segment (GPX ) with the current path designation and path type (grass path, dirt track, paved service road, etc) by means of drop-down lists. The GPS traces can be uploaded to OSM and to the MapThePaths server. The high-level designation and path types are converted to OSM highway, designation and surface tags, and each track segment tagged with these three tags. It will shortly be possible to view the uploaded GPS traces on the MapThePaths website as a selectable layer. As I said in my original email, one of my aims is to provide a way for OSM beginners to easily survey rights of way. The UI is still very rudimentary; I am not a UX expert so what would be really nice is for someone with good UX skills to come up with a better UI aimed at allowing beginners to easily use the app. My general idea is that users can select high-level, unambiguous designations (public footpath, etc) and path types (grass path, dirt track etc) via the UI. If I get some nice designs, which the community is happy with as a whole, plus some nice graphics, I'm quite happy to then use those designs and graphics in code. The other component then needed is the JOSM plugin (either a new one or, probably bettter, a modification of an existing one - I'm thinking of the KML plugin that was mentioned - as we discussed last week) to allow the tagged traces to be imported into JOSM for use by experienced mappers to actually create the OSM ways. An alert system would be nice also, to alert experienced users of any new traces in their area. I have also added a new option to turn off the 'snap map to current GPS location' feature, allowing users to pan the map around. Any further thoughts, please let me know. Thanks, Nick *Nick Whitelegg* *Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)* *|* School of Media Arts and Technology Southampton Solent University*|* RM424 *|* East Park Terrace *|* Southampton SO14 0YN T: 023 8201 3075 *|*E: nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk <mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>*|*W: solent.ac.uk <http://www.solent.ac.uk/> Disclaimer <http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx> ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- -------- Roger Calvert www.rogercalvert.me.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
At that time, and for many years later, OS maps did not explicitly show rights of way, and always had a disclaimer on them along the lines of "The depiction of a track or path on this map does not imply the existence of a public right of way". Roger On 30/12/2019 12:02, Nick Whitelegg wrote: This reminds me of the old First Series maps last published around 1958-ish. Looking at an area I'm very familiar with: it does not show public rights of way; it merely seems to show paths which are physically present on the ground. Some of these are rights of way, and some are not. Nick *From:* Martin Wynne *Sent:* 29 December 2019 22:52 *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render On 29/12/2019 22:23, Andy Townsend wrote: > Looking elsewhere in a couple of areas I'm familiar with, as well as > missing data, there are plenty of of basic digitisation errors around, > e.g. gardens seeming to be significantly larger then they should be. > This is, I guess, only the free version - maybe there's a parallel > complete version for paying customers? Hi Andy, No there isn't - I'm a Premium subscriber. The "Standard" base map is rubbish as a map in its own right. For example it has contour lines, but no height indications on them, or even which direction is uphill. What's the use of that? It is used as a base map for other coloured overlays in addition to the Street map, such as the National Park Paths, Cycle Map, Greenspace maps. None of which work very well. On mobile devices there is also a low-brightness Night map which is useful. However, the Aerial, 25K and 50K maps are fine -- and the 3D stuff and fly-over functions are great. The main reason for subscribing however, is the ability to view a large database of routes, create your own custom routes to add to it (or not), and have an easy URL of your route which you can send to friends. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- -------- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
Round here (Cumbria), that would have sheep on it. When I did school geography, it was called Rough Pasture. Roger On 16/12/2019 14:13, Martin Wynne wrote: I'm happy to use "farmland" to mean cultivated land, whether for cash crops, pasture for livestock, haymaking, any farming activity. But I keep finding myself on land for which none of the available tags really seem to apply. There seems to be one missing. For example: http://85a.uk/bredon_960x640.jpg Beyond the hedge is clearly farmland. But I don't think any of farmland/grassland/scrub/meadow properly describes the foreground area. I believe the technical term is "unimproved grassland" but I would most likely call it "hillside". Here is some more of it: http://85a.uk/bredon1_960x640.jpg Is it perhaps "heath"? That usually means an open level area of "heather", on acidic sandy soil. The wiki says: "don't use heath for areas primarily covered by non-woody plants like grasses - use natural=grassland or landuse=meadow instead". cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] How would tag or name this wall crossing?
I think they are generally called a 'squeeze stile'. JOSM suggests barrier=stile;stile=squeezer Roger On 27/04/2019 17:18, Michael Collinson wrote: What do you call the type of wall crossing the that consists of two stone pillars placed close to each other (usually in a drystone wall) to leave a gap wide enough for humans and sheep dogs to squeeze through but not cattle or fully-grown sheep? Has anyone one got a barrier= tag for them? Just got back from Middlesmoor in Nidderdale where there are ton of them. They are typically not raised, so not a stile, and typically no gate, just a gap. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?
The surveyors are volunteers who are trained by the National Park to undertake periodic surveys of PROWs, monitoring the condition of paths, stiles, bridges, surface etc and reporting back to the Ranger team. I do not have a link - it is a leaflet issued to surveyors on the training course, and has no address or web link on it, just an internal file address. I am not defending this approach - simply reporting what the instructions are. My personal view is that both should be mapped in OSM. The issue is to determine which way the PROW should go in cases of doubt. If the right of way is deemed by the appropriate authority to go through the gate, the landowner should (ideally) not block it. If it is blocked, this will be reported by the footpath surveyors on their next trip. Roger On 22/04/2019 16:48, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: On 22/04/2019 15:34, Roger Calvert wrote: The Lake District National Park instructions to footpath surveyors recommends: "Where there are two items of furniture for the same crossing (for example, a gate and a stile alongside each other), then it is the one highest up the hierarchy .. or the one definitely on the definitive line, that is the most important." The gate is higher in their hierarchy than the stile, and thus would normally be considered to be the one on the PROW where there is doubt about the definitive line. Roger But that would mean, if the landowner wished to close or remove the gate, there would be no official PROW access. Could you clarify who these footpath surveyors are? Do you have a link to this statement? DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- ---- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?
The Lake District National Park instructions to footpath surveyors recommends: "Where there are two items of furniture for the same crossing (for example, a gate and a stile alongside each other), then it is the one highest up the hierarchy .. or the one definitely on the definitive line, that is the most important." The gate is higher in their hierarchy than the stile, and thus would normally be considered to be the one on the PROW where there is doubt about the definitive line. Roger On 22/04/2019 13:43, Martin Wynne wrote: Often in my travels I come across something like this: http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side? If the latter, which node should the way be connected to? It's a public right of way on foot, and walkers need to know that they must climb a stile if the gate is locked. But if you "map what you see on the ground" (which is the supposed golden rule), it is simply a track passing through a gate. If I split the way in two, and have a short section of footpath passing over a stile *and* a track passing through a gate, it looks daft on the map, as if there is a Clapham Junction in the middle of a grassy field. And if I do that, is it essential to split out the short bit of the track through the gate, from which the public right-of-way designation (and ref number) is removed? thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- -------- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates
Thanks, Nick. In fact Barry shows all 6 figures, but with a gap between the parish prefix and the PROW reference number. Regards, Roger On 02/07/2018 18:24, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hello Roger, Yes, I think I've noticed the 6-figure PROW IDs when I've been in the Lake District. The IDs I use are those that Barry Cornelius (rowmaps) uses, as my data is taken from his site. Not sure if he has access to the full IDs, but it's worth contacting him as he would probably know - his site is rowmaps.com. Nick *From:* Roger Calvert *Sent:* 02 July 2018 11:17:47 *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates I have found a difference in the references given in Map The Paths my area from that on the local authority maps, and I suspect it is universal. The paths are given with a 3 figure reference, but on the maps issued by the Lake District National Park Authority to volunteer footpath surveyors, they have a 6 figure reference, the first three referring to the Civil Parish in which they lie. (The LDNPA maintains footpaths in the National Park under contract with Cumbria County Council.) For example, OSM way 2186193630 coincides with footpath reference 049 in Lowick parish, but is numbered 551049 on the LDNPA map. All paths in Lowick are prefixed 551. Where this path crosses into the next parish (Blawith and Subberthwaite) it becomes ref 016 on Map The Paths, but is 505016 on the LDNPA map. All paths in this parish are prefixed 505. The 3 figure references are certainly re-used in different parishes. For example, there is a bridleway (OSM 54189587) also with the reference 016 (539016) less than 2 km away in the adjoining Kirkby Ireleth parish (it becomes 505023 where it crosses into Blawith and Subberthwaite, and I have spotted another 023 a few miles away in adjoining Colton parish), so that confusion is certainly possible. I do not know whether these parish prefixes are available under a suitable license, but if they are, I think they would be a useful addition to the Map The Paths references. Regards, Rogerc -- Roger Calvert -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates
I have found a difference in the references given in Map The Paths my area from that on the local authority maps, and I suspect it is universal. The paths are given with a 3 figure reference, but on the maps issued by the Lake District National Park Authority to volunteer footpath surveyors, they have a 6 figure reference, the first three referring to the Civil Parish in which they lie. (The LDNPA maintains footpaths in the National Park under contract with Cumbria County Council.) For example, OSM way 2186193630 coincides with footpath reference 049 in Lowick parish, but is numbered 551049 on the LDNPA map. All paths in Lowick are prefixed 551. Where this path crosses into the next parish (Blawith and Subberthwaite) it becomes ref 016 on Map The Paths, but is 505016 on the LDNPA map. All paths in this parish are prefixed 505. The 3 figure references are certainly re-used in different parishes. For example, there is a bridleway (OSM 54189587) also with the reference 016 (539016) less than 2 km away in the adjoining Kirkby Ireleth parish (it becomes 505023 where it crosses into Blawith and Subberthwaite, and I have spotted another 023 a few miles away in adjoining Colton parish), so that confusion is certainly possible. I do not know whether these parish prefixes are available under a suitable license, but if they are, I think they would be a useful addition to the Map The Paths references. Regards, Rogerc -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] British National Grid File for JOSM
You can download this from my site http://rogercalvert.me.uk/osm Regards Roger Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] British National Grid File for JOSM
Sorry, missed the www Http://www.rogercalvert.me.uk/osm Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
Perhaps the principle OSM editors could emit a warning whenever an edit is undertaken which could invalidate a relation, also noting how many other ways would be affected. This at least would give mappers a chance to consider carefully whether they really know what they are doing. Roger On 04/10/2014 21:34, Robert Scott wrote: On Saturday 04 October 2014, Antje (OpenStreetMap) wrote: I am sorry for the upset: this is the problem with someone carelessly editing at the very least. I'm afraid part of the price of having extremely high standards for relations is eternal vigilance. It is exteremely easy to inadvertantly (subtly) break route relations and I think most average-skilled mappers will have probably done it a few times. It would be unreasonable to expect ways with route relations on them to be considered hallowed ground and only to be edited by those skilled enough to leave the relations in perfect order. robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possible vandalism? New Forth Road Bridge being changed to motorway from construction
It might be worth considering a 'play' version of the data base, where beginners, schools and others could try things out without damaging the main map. This would be refreshed every so often, and changes would disappear. Roger On 10/02/2014 10:57, Filip Chirita Rares Cristian wrote: I agree with your points, especially since there's more and more talk about introuding OSM into school environments, and not just for the UK region but also being part of the curriculum in other parts of Europe. The only problem I see with that is that it seems to be against the open part of OpenStreetMap. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and eventually any errors will be detected. As long as each of us takes care of their area, maybe even instate some moderators to look over certain areas(such as highways) I don't see how major errors can slip unnoticed. Chris On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org mailto:m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 08:32:25PM +, Donald Noble wrote: Hi All, The user robbief14 [1] has changed sections of the M90 around the New Forth Road Bridge which are still currently under construction to live motorway. They had also deleted all of the tags for the current road bridge. I therefore reverted this changeset before further changes were made, and send a polite email asking why they had done it and if they realise they were affecting the map for everyone. No response to this message, however they have changed the crossing back to motorway. See [2] below for relevant changesets. I would appreciate somebody else trying to contact this user. Not good. Definitly not open for some time, I'm going to revert the changeset and get in touch with him again. This is the user: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/robbief14 Only been signed up for 5 days Looks like edits in Australia and Scotland... Cheers Chris [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/robbief14 [2] original changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20442315 my revert: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20452252 changed back to motorway again: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20458591 -- Donald Noble http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org mailto:m...@chrisfleming.org m: 07980 214061 tel:07980%20214061 w: http://chrisfleming.org/ t: @chrisfl ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Life is not the amount of times you breathe, is the moments that take your breath away. To all things comes an end. And to all things comes a beginning. Cred in inspirat, nu in expirat. in vise, nu in somn. In trait, nu in existat. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Magistrates and Crown Courts listings as open data – hack event coming…
It is also easy to find all addresses with a particular post code - the Post Office has an on-line tool for this http://www.royalmail.com/postcode-finder. Roger On 16/12/2013 19:31, tony wroblewski wrote: When listing such in newspapers or using online sites, they occasionally list the postcode/street, but not always. With post codes, it's often quite easy to find for a particular street or house number. A quick type of the name of the street and house number into Google will often bring back hundreds of results listing properties for sale, house numbers, electoral roll, etc. Often in this case, I've even seen listing of crimes commited by residences of a particular street (you can find out who if you pay). So I'm guessing more than likely the information will have this. On 16 December 2013 18:37, Tim Waters chippy2...@gmail.com mailto:chippy2...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 December 2013 21:00, Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com mailto:bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote: Was that a serious suggestion? yes, but I can see how it could look flippant. Sorry! Basically there are not many open data sources of house addresses. From what I hazily remember the courts already publicly publish on paper for anyone to view the names and addresses of people involved. I gathered that they include the addresses because there may be more than one John Smith going to trial at any one time. They may also do this for weddings.. I could be wrong, and my memory is fuzzy - hence the email wondering if they would publish them. If anyone knows, please enlighten us! I think it's likely that postcodes are excluded, but you never know. It's also likely that this information even if published on paper may not be on an API - makes sense, but again who knows! If there is a source of addresses, it is useful: * Mappers can use it to check to see if the street exists and has been mapped * Mappers keen on adding in addresses to streets can use it (or a bot) to validify that there is that number on the specified street. * FreeThePostcode or other open postcode database etc could be added to. The postcode and address exists, it can be contributed to. Assuming the licenses are compatible. Tim Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 15/12/2013 13:36, Tim Waters wrote: I wonder if court listings also has the addresses of those involved / defendants? A further source of addresses and postcodes On 9 December 2013 17:16, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: From: http://talkaboutlocal.org.uk/magistrates-crown-courts-listings-open-data-hack-event-coming/ Officials from HMCTS and MOJ will help organise a hack day with listings data from the court service. Possibly useful as a source of the locations of all court buildings and related data (not least their postcodes!) -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Roger Calvert http://www.rogercalvert.me.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Changes to OpenStreetMap.org website
On the new front page, the search button seems to have a broken link - if you type in a place name (I tried 'Kendal' and 'Barrow') it goes to http://www.openstreetmap.org/search, and says File not found Couldn't find a file/directory/API operation by that name on the OpenStreetMap server (HTTP 404) Roger -- Roger Calvert http://www.rogercalvert.me.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Changes to OpenStreetMap.org website
Thanks, Tom. I can also confirm the same thing as David. I can't take any credit for this - I just ran various tests under Tom's instructions until he identified the problem. Roger On 03/12/2013 19:41, david wrote: I've been working with Roger on this for the last couple of hours and I think we have got to the bottom of it now. Basically, this works: http://www.openstreetmap.org/ but this doesnn't: http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html If you use the second one to load the site then you will get an exception during page load that stops things initialising fully. I've just pushed a fix that should be live in the next half hour. Tom Thanks. I can confirm my bookmark is set to http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html and it is now working. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Roger Calvert http://www.rogercalvert.me.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
The problem seemed to be that the boundary of Rydal Water had been split into 3 parts which, although they were assigned to the Rydal Water relation, had no tags of their own. Potlatch was not identifying the area as water. I have joined them up, and given them the natural=water tag. Potlatch now recognises Rydal Water as a lake. I chose this approach after reviewing how Grasmere was tagged. I assume something similar happened to Windermere, but have not time to investigate now. If anyone is not happy with what I have done, let me know - there are always subtleties of these things to be learnt. Roger On 24/03/2013 10:47, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Any reason why these seem to have disappeared or is it just an incorrect edit? If it's just a mistake I'll add Rydal Water back later, whether I have the time to do Windermere is another matter though unfortunately... Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
Dave F, Please read the link on multipolygons: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon Thanks for this link - there is always something to learn! By making your edits you now incorrectly made Rydal Water a part of the River Rothay multi-polygon. Oops - I should have picked that up. I will correct it. The natural=water tag is included in the multi-polygon. Adding it to the way is an unnecessary confusing duplication. To avoid this confusion I often put a note tag explaining where the data is stored. Good idea. Remember that just because you think the potlach editor is displaying data incorrectly it doesn't actually mean the the data is wrong. In this example the lake doesn't have to be shaded blue to be correct. It's how the renderers handle it that matters. It's a pity if the default on-line editor renders 'incorrect' tagging in a more intuitive way than 'correct' tagging. This is not very helpful to the less experienced mapper (such as me). Thanks again for your advice. Roger -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere)
'description' might be an appropriate tag - after all that is what the phrase Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass actually is. Roger On 20/02/2013 08:30, Richard Mann wrote: I'd use alt_name. At least it's an established place to look for alternative stuff. On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net mailto:rich...@systemed.net wrote: Rovastar wrote: Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass, etc don't as far I I know appear on the ground however I think the some record should appear in OSM. I am worried about the trend in this case of placing them as the name of the road as what reference point would people use for these. Having lived near there (part time) for six years, certainly I never heard anyone call it that. I tend to tag C-roads with admin_ref rather than ref, on the basis that it's a reference for administrative purposes rather than general usage. By the same token, maybe admin_name would work here, or something like it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/road-names-along-the-A50-and-elsewhere-tp5749880p5750003.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto: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 -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
