Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse polygons created by TimSC: delete them?
I think the original email makes more sense as a discussion point if instead of being about deleting data it's more about getting started early on the problem of re-surveying data which might be removed. Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 12, 2011, at 18:16, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote: Wow, what an incendiary email, I presume that was intentional and so as an outsider I feel compelled to respond with these 3 thoughts: 1) Unnecessary destruction of data seems particularly short sighted (maybe it is necessary, I'm not equipped to judge to be honest). 2) The points that are in the link in your email all seem perfectly reasonable, which makes me wonder what your objections to them are. 3) Are you carrying out some-kind of personal vendetta (or are you leading a group vendetta) against this TimSC person? I only ask because that is how it comes across to someone who is not at all engaged in the politics and history of involvement behind the open street map project. Adam On 12 Jun 2011, at 15:44, Andrew wrote: There are many landuse polygons in the London area that were created by user TimSC, who has not yet accepted the Contributor Terms. They will all be purged from the database when the licence changes if he continues not to do so. TimSC is now demanding changes to the way OSM is run with the treat of not accepting the CTs. (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.legal/6102) I believe that, whatever the merits what he wants are, his methods are unacceptable and the community should reject them. I therefore propose to delete every landuse polygon that TimSC created with the hope that they will eventually be replaced with polygons based on high- resolution imagery and ground surveys that we can use going forwards. -- Andrew ___ 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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Or as close to it as possible, yes. I don't care what the result is, it's just too fashionable to automatically believe the imports are bad thing. Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 10, 2011, at 7:05, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 06/09/11 18:01, SteveC wrote: I know it's fashionable to claim imports are bad, what I seek is actual data. As in, A comparative study of the development of the OSM community in X in the standard universe where data has been imported, and in parallel universe P281/304-II where all other factors are unchanged but no data has been imported? Bye Frederik ___ 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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
There are tons of things. People drive in the US so pubs are difficult to arrange things around. Mapping in the US is boring because of the big gridded cities. I map much less in the US than the UK. It's not just that there are roads there already, which by the way is a good thing because I have sat for hours correcting them against aerial. It's just not that simple to say imports killed it. Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 10, 2011, at 8:15, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: As in, A comparative study of the development of the OSM community in X in the standard universe where data has been imported, and in parallel universe P281/304-II where all other factors are unchanged but no data has been imported? I'm sure Muki's working on it. ;) My contention is that the US community is still struggling with such basic issues because it didn't have the shared experience of creating a map from scratch, whereas the UK and Germany, largely import-free, have strong communities built out of this experience. This might be wrong, and if the US's problems spring from something other than the big import, I'd be very interested to know what. The old canard of but the US is so _big_ doesn't count :) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Analysis-New-Data-and-bot-tp6455312p6461116.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:42, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a substantial body of evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and nuture new mappers. Could you cite the evidence? Is it just hand waving about AND or something more specific? Recent posts about Latvia, Austria and The Netherlands on talk all substantiate this: in many cases the people recognising the issue were those who either carried out the import or agreed to it. I think a completion bot is a distraction from a much more important issue. In order to get a better level of completeness in the UK what we need are more mappers. There are several ways to recruit mappers: they require a decent amount of hard work, and probably a broader range of skills than writing a bot. We need a more organised way of generating publicity on a regular basis both for national and local media. We need a better press kit. We need to move the emphasis of mapping from getting GPS tracks: dont get me wrong this is still valuable, but a local mapper without a GPS can do a fine job with Bing, OS OpenData, Walking Papers, a camera, and ground surveys. We need more outreach techniques: not just mapping parties, or pub meets or mini-mapping, but workshops for people interested in consuming data, workshops to review the data from particular usage perspectives (cyclists, walkers, sustainable living, wheelchair users, etc.). We could do with more supporting materials for such things: slideshows, posters, how to organise I'm finding this ain't that easy, but at least I'm trying. We also need to recognise that the more detailed each area becomes the harder it becomes for a new mapper to feel that they can contribute, not forgetting the I might break something. If we are to devote effort to code its better directed at tools which can make the life of new mappers easier: this obviously includes contributing to existing editors, but it may mean creating new ones. It almost certainly means working to get a much more sophisticated OpenStreetBugs integrated into the rails port: many new mappers will initially be happy to point out bugs (see recent examples on OSM Help where the first thing someone wants to fix is a turn restriction). I strongly dislike the meme OS data is always more accurate than OSM, because it implies there's no point in doing surveys anyway. Yes, errors occur, although mainly in transcription rather than in surveying as can be seen by errors in using OSSV OSL, but tools like ITO OSM Analysis and OSL Musical Chairs really help to pick up these errors: I've been able to go back to pictures and audio recordings and indeed verify that I'd not changed Street to Road when I copied the tag over from another way. There is also the spurious accuracy problem: people filling in a road name from OS Locator when there is NO evidence on the ground that the road has that name (pace RichardF in W Oxon): see my blog post on Kenyon Road. Many of the unnamed roads in the immediate vicinity of where I'm writing this are of that type: sometimes dogged persistence can nail down that the road is still called that, for instance from address information. Take a look at Corby: its OSL road complete: a small part on the N edge was surveyed, the rest is largely from OSSV. There is a huge amount of information missing: footways, paths in parks, information about Places of Worship, other POIs. Corby is the classic sort of place which is less likely to receive attention from OSMers according to Muki's studies: its out of the way, it lacks a strong middle-class demographic. There are plenty of people living in places like this who are using Skobbler's apps, but we're never going to reach out to them if we do the easy bits from our armchairs and leave the harder less rewarding mapping activities for others. Why not build a separate database render which merges the missing names ( roads) from OSSV/OSL and OSM data, but is external to the OSM planet database. This could use many of the same techniques as a bot. A bot is putting short-term gain ahead of our long-term interests. Regards, Jerry ___ 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] Are you coming to London on Sunday?
:-( sorry Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:14, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: On 07/06/11 19:18, Steve Coast wrote: or saturday night http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Board_Meeting_June_2011 Would be awesome to see you there Steve With a little bit more notice I would have been able to make it down :( :( Cheers Chris ___ 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] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On Apr 18, 2011, at 2:42 PM, TimSC wrote: On 18/04/11 22:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: I'm an outsider to all this OS business but if you guys in the UK should really have been uploading data that requires attributing OS in every downstream product then we have a problem which has nothing whatsover to do with the license change. I can see *no* OS attribution on any of the major tile providers, including our own. Of course you can always go to the source and see from the object history that OS was involved, but that is a technique that you seem to discount above. So either this is all a big misunderstanding, or nobody who used OS data until now has cared sh*t for the license. Now I could understand if someone has always maintained that OS data was incompatible with OSM and thus refused to use it. What I cannot understand is if someone has happily used OS data until now, in the full knowledge that nobody would attribute OS downstream anywhere, but now says they cannot sign the CT because they codify exactly what has been happening. Reality check, anyone? Bye Frederik I actually agree with you Frederik, but the entire project so far overlooks the even bigger problem that CC-by-SA technically demands that every contributor is attributed in every derived work. reasonable to the medium it says in the license. Not every contributor. It would clearly be unreasonable to list tens of thousands of people on a paper map, for example. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] friday thing
Will anyone at the event have anything capable of, for example, skype video? I'd love to join virtually, pint in hand. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:28 PM, 80n wrote: Does CloudMade as a corporate body have an existing OSM account? I doubt it. How would a corporation indicate that their ODbL licensed derivative databases can be imported back into OSM? An excellent question for the LWG. Can you now drop the dark mutterings regarding intentions because we haven't signed something which may not exist? Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:42 PM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 22 July 2010 18:23, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter. Experimental forks are beginning to appear... 80n, you were one of the people agitators pushing for a fork. Grant, if you read my posts carefully what I've been saying is that the ODbL proponents should have forked. They'd have got what they wanted a whole lot sooner and we wouldn't be in this sorry mess now. Nah, you PD folks should fork like I said a few years ago, but that would take actual effort. Painting what the LWG, OSMF and a bunch of individuals are doing as 'ODbL proponents' doesn't fly when many of them are PD folks who have just looked at the logic of the situation and concluded the ODbL is the best way forward. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:45 PM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com wrote: I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would want to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of looking at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa that it will make negligible difference. The ODbL license is pretty similar (though some people may have strong feelings about SA no longer applying to 'produced works'). I would be hopeful that many large-scale data sources (OS included) could be persuaded to allow their data to be used under ODbL However, the proposed contributor terms change things significantly, in two ways: First you need to give full rights to your contributions to OSMF, who could then (subject to community approval) re-license them without SA or By requirements. If you are a strong believer in either of these, you may not want allow this possibility with your work. Equally if you are a company with valuable data, it's entirely reasonable that you will only provide it if there are SA and/or By provisions. Secondly, the terms would severely restrict the data sources we could make use of. In particular they would mean that despite the SA clause in ODbL, users of OSM data can prevent OSM from re-importing any added data by simply refusing to sign the contributor terms. Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have already signed the contributor terms. If they haven't then it is hard not to draw some conclusions about their intentions with our data. Yet more dark mutterings from 80n. Where and when could we voluntarily sign up? Oh right... that's exactly the next step for the LWG that you guys are holding up. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB Chapter
don't think so On Apr 24, 2010, at 5:07 AM, Christopher Osborne wrote: Did we get anywhere with starting a GB Chapter? -- Christopher Osborne www.itoworld.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Announce: OpenOS
As you've probably heard the Ordnance Survey is going to open some data next week. We don't exactly know what data or what license it will be under but there's a reasonable chance it won't be importable in to OSM because either the data will be low scale or released with an incompatible license. If that's the case then I propose we start, separate from OSM, an OpenOS project. I basically see it as either a clearinghouse for putting up converted formats for the data and/or a full OSM stack, mapnik, potlatch and all for editing and fixing it. Because as Russ Nelson keeps saying, datasets without a community are dead. I propose that until we know it's compatible, usable and so on in OSM that no OSM resources are spent/used on something like this. Thus, I've bought the domain openos.co.uk to host it and set up a google group which you're welcome to join to help discuss what to do if/when we get some data. I think this data will need a community, tools and editing and who better to build all that than people from OSM? Thoughts? http://groups.google.com/group/open-os http://openos.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] GB Chapter
All I've talked to a few people recently in the UK geo-scene about various partnerships and other bits and bobs that would make sense for OSM. Unfortunately they don't make a whole lot of sense to do anything official with OSMF. It would make a lot more sense if there was a GB/UK chapter of OSMF which could build out a lot of the UK specific relationships and partnerships. Of course, OSM started in the UK but that doesn't mean OSMF is all about the UK. Especially today, where only one board member actually lives there. Abroad, the US and ES chapters seem to be picking up speed and a UK chapter, if it makes sense, would help build out a ton of potential things that OSMF can't (perhaps shouldn't) do. Thoughts? Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Sheffield / Nottingham
Anyone in Sheffield or Nottingham want to meet up next week drop me a line, doing a talk on OSM in Nottingham too at the uni. Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Kent County Council Highways Gazetteer
WHy excluding Medway? Isn't KCC HQ in Chatham? On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Colin Smale wrote: I applied to KCC for permission to use data from their Highways Gazetteer in OSM. They have approved on the condition that the data is attributed to them. My request and their official reply are below. What this gives us is an authorititave source for road numbering and classification in Kent (excluding Medway), although it does require a little bit of thinking as there are no coordinates, only road and place names. So for example we take Whitehill Road and Highcross Road between Longfield and Bean [1] the Gazetteer makes clear that these roads are still officially the B255, even though the signs have not revealed this for years. For the attribution they require I intend to use source:ref=kent.gov.uk. Which brings me to a dilemma: If a road is ostensibly one type but officially another, how should this be tagged? Both are verifiable. Traditionally the official classification takes precedence - otherwise the single-track A-roads in the Scottish highlands and islands might better be tagged as as track in some cases... The Wiki [2] specifically refers to the Administrative classifications. Another use of this Gazetteer is to arbitrate between road classes, particularly between tertiary (i.e. C-roads) and unclassified, where there is mostly no visible difference on the ground. That throws up the odd anomaly as well: New Ash Green [3] got its very own bypass in the seventies, which is single carriageway but very wide. The much smaller original main road which goes through the village still retains the C classification, and the relatively enormous bypass is still unclassified. It occurred to the cynic in me that the lengths of roads of various classes might be fed into some spreadsheet in Whitehall to calculate some kind of grant to the local councils, giving them an interest in keeping the administrative classifications as high as possible, despite downgrading them on the ground. But that's unlikely to be true of course. Colin Smale [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40868lon=0.2965zoom=15layers=B000FTF [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.3665lon=0.30171zoom=15layers=B000FTF = Dear Sirs, I am one of an army of volunteers who collectively are producing and maintaining openstreetmap.org ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/ ), a crowd-sourced map of the world under the CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons by Share-Alike) licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ ), with which you may be familiar. Having found the KCC Highways Gazetteer, I would like to request your permission to use and republish certain information contained in this document by incorporating it in OpenStreetMap. One of the problems we frequently face is that the official category of a road (or segment thereof) is not always immediately obvious on the ground. I would like to use this document to classify (minor) roads correctly as (for example distinguishing between unclassified and tertiary), add the official road number, and possibly its status as a private (unadopted) street. The Highways Gazetteer contains no location information (other than place names) and therefore is probably unencumbered by Ordnance Survey restrictions, which would render the data unusable in the CC-BY-SA licence model. The alignment of the road will still be surveyed on the ground, but thereafter the Gazetteer will be used to classify the road correctly as mentioned. Yours sincerely, Colin Smale = Dear Mr Smale, Further to your request for information relating to re-use of information from the Kent Highways Gazetteer, because the information you have requested falls under the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and is information held within the Environment, Highways Waste Directorate (the directorate), your request has been forwarded to me so that I can co-ordinate the response on behalf of the directorate. This is to comply with procedures that the County Council has for dealing with all FoIA requests. You ask the Council: • Having found the KCC Highways Gazetteer, I would like to request your permission to use and republish certain information contained in this document by incorporating it in OpenStreetMap Although the response below has been sent from me, I have liaised with Kent Highway Services who have provided the following in answer to your request: Kent County Council are willing to allow the information in the Highway Gazetteer to be used for the purpose of Open Street Map on the proviso that we receive confirmation that the data source is kent.gov.uk. = On 03/01/2010 12:36, Colin Smale wrote: While searching the internet for arbitration in a
[Talk-GB] BBC Lincolnshire live interview this evening
6:30pm or so, you can listen over the interwebs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/lincolnshire/programmes/schedules Anything local I should try and mention? Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS DG Vanessa Lawrence on the Future of mapping
nice, can anyone do it? On Jan 23, 2010, at 2:29 AM, Nick Austin wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:43 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jan 21, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Robert Scott wrote: Perhaps it would be good to downplay Haiti, as it could give her a handle to say 'Of course projects like that are great for situations like Haiti but when it comes to real mapping...' allowing her to appear 'up with the new trend'. which is basically reasonable, it's not the OS' job to map Haiti perhaps some maps of the venue, or Southampton? How about where the new Ordnance Survey offices are being built: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.93761lon=-1.47093zoom=16layers=B000FTF OSM may well have been the first with an online map of the building and access road. The roundabout to the South and nearby cycle path are also new features. Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS DG Vanessa Lawrence on the Future of mapping
I think we should organise an OSM crowd to go. Who's up for it? On Jan 20, 2010, at 2:53 AM, Steve Chilton wrote: UK GEOforum is pleased to announce its forthcoming UKGEOforum 2010 Lecture featuring guest speaker Vanessa Lawrence, Director General and Chief Executive, Ordnance Survey Title: The Future of Mapping Thursday 28th January 2010, 18.00 - 19.00 Lecture Hall, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors 12 Great George Street, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD This lecture is free of charge and open to all. There is no requirement to reserve a place in advance. The RICS bar will be open after the lecture. Please arrive from 17.30 and ensure that you are seated promptly. Hope to see some of you there, Cheers STEVE Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow Manager of e-Learning Academic Development Centre for Educational Technology Middlesex University phone/fax: 020 8411 5355 email: ste...@mdx.ac.uk http://www.mdx.ac.uk/aboutus/elearning/chiltons.asp Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/ SoC conference 2009: http://www.soc.org.uk/southampton09/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey response
Richard your views on the rasters seem a little bizarre, harking back to a golden era where cartography was respected by the good folk of the land and had pride of place... etc. Basically you're shamelessly protecting your own pretty small industry from competition with a lot of waffle about OS' mapping the far north and how they need 9 million quid. I know you don't like the free market, but surely them opening up the rasters too would provide more interesting and better maps, and the rising tide would raise all the boats. I don't buy the vision that it would decimate the 'industry' I think if anything it would strengthen and improve it. Yours c. Steve On Jan 14, 2010, at 3:52 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Hi all, As threatened I've finished a response to the Ordnance Survey consultation: http://www.systemeD.net/documents/os_consultation.pdf For those without the appetite to read five pages of PDF, the summary is: - Good news generally - Releasing 1:25k and 1:50k rasters is not necessary and may be harmful - Access to aerial imagery should be provided, with no restrictions on tracing - Licence should take account of EU database rights I'd encourage everyone here, whether or not you agree with this, to send your own response to the consultation. You can bet that there will be well-funded people lobbying for the other side. Volunteer projects like OSM have traditionally not been great at having their voices heard in the corridors of power; let's make sure this one doesn't get away. The original consultation is at http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/ordnancesurveyconsultation . cheers Richard ___ 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] Ordnance Survey response
On Jan 14, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Andy Allan wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Though custom cartography is the right answer for many applications, it will find it difficult to compete with the free, universally-recognised cartography of the OS. Are you saying you want to prevent these releases to protect the likes of OSM? Competition leads to improved services through innovation. Ah, but you need to consider this not simply as competition, but as state-funded destruction of a competitive market. Tax-payers money would be being ploughed into producing raster maps, which are then given away well below production cost in order to destroy the businesses of other companies and individuals. Anyone trying to compete would be up against the government who aren't trying to cover their costs - pretty hard to compete with, and not really a level playing field. Well, it also damages the OS in that Richard thinks they'll lose 9 million quid, or about 10% of their income from what I remember. I think you have the wrong vision that you'll be competing with free maps, just the same as the big guys are terrified of competing with a free OSM. The value just moves to more interesting things up the stack. You also ignore the potential it has to enlarge the market, and thus bring in more paying consumers. Have you guys read Free by Chris Anderson yet? Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey response
On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:40 AM, David Earl wrote: On 14/01/2010 18:27, Dave F. wrote: Andy, The taxpayers have already paid for it, many times over. I resent having to pay £7.50 for a map I've already financed to construct. As I've paid for it, I think it should be given to me free of charge. For a paper map, I think not. You've helped pay for the data collection and technology, but not for the printing and paper etc for your particular map. As the printing is to a particularly high standard, and in 6 colour, I'm sure that is a very substantial part of the cost (and of course, probably half the selling price is from the retailer's markup anyway). Which gets to andy's point that anyone should be able to print them and just pay OS for the data, which is a nice idea but not the one being consulted on AFAIK. Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey response
On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: SteveC wrote: Basically you're shamelessly protecting your own pretty small industry What, magazine publishing? :p No, carto Looking forward to your, and others', response to DCLG. Yeah, it's very cool you've put it together and I generally like it, but the protectionism for your specific use case is pretty odd in the middle of it. Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey response
On Jan 18, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Andy Allan wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:21 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I think you have the wrong vision that you'll be competing with free maps, just the same as the big guys are terrified of competing with a free OSM. The value just moves to more interesting things up the stack. Except you can't. This isn't the OS releasing data plus an example end product built from that data, since (unless someone wants to correct me) the data needed to recreate Landranger maps isn't the data that's being released. You also ignore the potential it has to enlarge the market, and thus bring in more paying consumers. Have you guys read Free by Chris Anderson yet? I have, but I must have missed the chapter that says the government should provide free consumer goods in order to stamp out innovation and competition. Can you point me to it? What, like it's not holding back innovation and competition already? Why're you guys so hung up on this one or two maps but totally fine with everything else? Richard's a socialist so I can see him arguing for weird government monopolies on making pinball machines for one-legged immigrants living in wales or whatever, but what are you arguing this for? What product will be nuked by OS releasing this? Are your commercial interests in OCM somehow affected? I don't get it. Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey response
On Jan 18, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Andy Allan wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:33 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Richard's a socialist so I can see him arguing for weird government monopolies on making pinball machines for one-legged immigrants living in wales or whatever, but what are you arguing this for? What product will be nuked by OS releasing this? Are your commercial interests in OCM somehow affected? I don't get it. I'd be much more interested in replying if you discussed the issue, instead of attacking the people. Oh don't be so sensitive, Richard and I go back and forth on this all the time. I can understand why he argues for strange monopolies given his politcal ideals. Is that better? Now, why shouldn't I get free access to these maps? What is so special about them that we ned to grant a monopoly to protect a supposedly valuable sub-industry? I find it super weird you want a monopoly to protect industry, but there you go. What are the companies, products or jobs that will be hurt by it? Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey response
On Jan 18, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Andy Allan wrote: This isn't me saying that I disapprove of a commercial company giving away a whole load of raster maps for free, I'm saying I don't think the government should be funding it. Okay so you feel rasters are a special case, different to vectors. But given the choice between a) giving away the rasters and OS losing 9 million quid a year, or b) selling them as they do now surely (a) is better because it frees up the maps, provides a better platform for innovation and weakens the OS? And I say weaken, because a weaker OS is far and away more likely to be more clueful about licensing and so on than it is now. And if it isn't, then a weaker OS is far better for the british geodata industry in that it will allow more competition. I think the point we're disagreeing on is that you would see that 9 million quid as filled in by central government raising their funding, whereas I'd expect the budget to remain static (I can't see central government upping OS at the expense of hospitals and schools right now) and OS to have to cut other activities or start other for-profit activities to compensate. Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey response
On Jan 18, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Tom Chance wrote: Wading in (though for the purposes of a putative OSMF response, we can just leave this whole argument to one side and focus on the data)... 2010/1/18 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com I didn't say I wanted a monopoly. I'd rather either a) the government (i.e. the OS now, and doubly so if they stop trying to cover costs and just take subsidies instead) didn't produce printed maps at all b) or if the OS is going to produce finished maps, they spin out the cartographers and printing presses into a commercial organisation and let it sink or swim without government subsidy in competition with the like of, well, everyone else. I think approach (b) is about right, although there are a lot of public bodies using the raster maps too. Presumably we'd then have to suggest that they just pick any product on the open market for their own use, and perhaps that in certain circumstances where uniformity across local authorities is important there would be a centrally procured contract with a particular company or a standard stylesheet. I find it a bit odd to attack somebody as a socialist whilst advocating a free-of-charge state-run enterprise! No no, I'm picking the least worst solution. If we have to have an OS, then we should make it as open and free as possible and allow competition on top. Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey response
On Jan 18, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Andy Allan wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jan 18, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Andy Allan wrote: This isn't me saying that I disapprove of a commercial company giving away a whole load of raster maps for free, I'm saying I don't think the government should be funding it. Okay so you feel rasters are a special case, different to vectors. But given the choice between a) giving away the rasters and OS losing 9 million quid a year, or b) selling them as they do now surely (a) is better because it frees up the maps, provides a better platform for innovation and weakens the OS? And I say weaken, because a weaker OS is far and away more likely to be more clueful about licensing and so on than it is now. And if it isn't, then a weaker OS is far better for the british geodata industry in that it will allow more competition. I think the point we're disagreeing on is that you would see that 9 million quid as filled in by central government raising their funding, whereas I'd expect the budget to remain static (I can't see central government upping OS at the expense of hospitals and schools right now) and OS to have to cut other activities or start other for-profit activities to compensate. I take your point on the least worst thing, but Page 11 of the consultation shows, for both Option 2 and Option 3 (Option 1 being as-is) that the funding would increase to compensate. Significant funding from government would be required. Government would provide funding for the maintenance and delivery of these datasets. This option would require substantial changes to the existing sources of revenue, at the heart of which is a shift towards government paying more. Ah apologies I didn't realise. It feels like one of those catch 22 heads we lose, tails the OS wins kind of situations. I kind of suspected it would be like that which was my reasoning for not bothering with it in the first place. I'll read the full doc. Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Inaccurate Sea Boundary of England
Familiar with sealand... passing on to talk-gb Yours c. Steve On 14 Oct 2009, at 02:36, Paul wrote: Steve, First of all, what a great job you are doing. I know this may sound trivial to you, but Sealand is a a legal entity on a old WW2 platform 6 miles off the coast of Suffolk, England. They claim a sea boundary of 12 miles which conflicts with the UK boundary of 12 miles as shown on your map. I know Sealand is very small to put on your map, but it is there and should be on any map. More about Sealand at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand or http://www.sealandgov.org Keep up the good work. Paul ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Announcement re new 'moderation' email list to develop effective responses to vandalism and mistakes
On 28 Sep 2009, at 06:33, Peter Miller wrote: To avoid spam subscriber's the first posts will be moderated so don't expect them to appear immediately. Subsequent posts will not be moderated. How... recursive! :-) Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] St Kilda
Anyone fancy a mapping trip... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8175119.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Kilda,_Scotland http://osm.org/go/e4atZrr1- Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Anyone in Newport
Can fix this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8129695.stm If not already :-) Best Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] fings in london innit
Biggin' up the LDN. I'm at Geomob tonight http://twitter.com/osbornec/status/2387356451 Guardian tomorrow http://www.guardian.co.uk/activate OpenTech on Saturday http://www.ukuug.org/events/opentech2009/ if anyone is around... Best Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fwd: climate bubbles environment 2.0
Begin forwarded message: From: Drew Hemment d...@futureeverything.org Date: 1 May 2009 12:55:14 PDT To: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com Subject: climate bubbles environment 2.0 Hi Steve Please can you send details of these projects to your networks, announcement attached and link here http://www.futuresonic.com/env20 Coverage on RSA here http://bit.ly/h6v4j Thanks! Drew ENVIRONMENT 2.0 AT FUTURESONIC 2009 Manchester To Host Unique Mass Participation Projects On The Environment http://www.futuresonic.com/env20 Futuresonic 2009 with the Met Office and the Natural History Museum are presenting a range of mass participation projects conference events in Manchester, 13-16 May. Climate Bubbles is a playful, participatory project in which two bubble blowing games enable people across the city of Manchester to test air flow circulation, and by sharing the results online, enable the Met Office to get a snapshot the Urban Heat Island phenomenon. Biotagging Manchester is a participatory 'citizen science' project to discover and map Manchester's urban wildlife in new ways. People will move along a straight line through Manchester, traversing a range of microclimates, including cooler and warmer areas of the city. Or you can experience 100 Years Of Climate Change simply by taking a short, late night walk across cooler and hotter areas in the city. The accompanying Environment 2.0 art exhibition features 30 international artists and 10 world premiers, including a public recital of the recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an art device for striking it rich by prospecting for oil in the city centre, and an installation of ceramic plates with portraits of Presidents created by exposure to smog. Environment 2.0 conference events at the festival include Jamais Cascio, founder of Worldchanging.org, James Marriott, founder of PLATFORM, plus a series of free talks on Friday 15 May. And everybody interested in how to design mass participation projects on the environment is welcome to sign up in advance and attend a free open lab on Saturday 16 May. For more information on the Environment 2.0 Open Lab please see http://www.socialtechsummit.org/env20Lab . CLIMATE BUBBLES: MANCHESTER http://www.futuresonic.com/bubbles Futuresonic and the MET Office invite people in Manchester to join together in a unique experiment to map air flows and examine the ‘urban heat island’ phenomenon. Climate Bubbles will see hundreds of people across Manchester simultaneously blowing soap bubbles and noting where and how quickly they float. People will then be asked to input their individual bubble data into an online interactive map of the city - giving the MET office access to a wealth of urban climate data that is difficult to observe via conventional methods. ENVIRONMENT 2.0 AT FUTURESONIC 2009 Manchester To Host Unique Mass Participation Projects On The Environment http://www.futuresonic.com/env20 Futuresonic 2009 with the Met Office and the Natural History Museum are presenting a range of mass participation projects conference events in Manchester, 13-16 May. Climate Bubbles is a playful, participatory project in which two bubble blowing games enable people across the city of Manchester to test air flow circulation, and by sharing the results online, enable the Met Office to get a snapshot the Urban Heat Island phenomenon. Biotagging Manchester is a participatory 'citizen science' project to discover and map Manchester's urban wildlife in new ways. People will move along a straight line through Manchester, traversing a range of microclimates, including cooler and warmer areas of the city. Or you can experience 100 Years Of Climate Change simply by taking a short, late night walk across cooler and hotter areas in the city. The accompanying Environment 2.0 art exhibition features 30 international artists and 10 world premiers, including a public recital of the recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an art device for striking it rich by prospecting for oil in the city centre, and an installation of ceramic plates with portraits of Presidents created by exposure to smog. Environment 2.0 conference events at the festival include Jamais Cascio, founder of Worldchanging.org, James Marriott, founder of PLATFORM, plus a series of free talks on Friday 15 May. And everybody interested in how to design mass participation projects on the environment is welcome to sign up in advance and attend a free open lab on Saturday 16 May. For more information on the Environment 2.0 Open Lab please see http://www.socialtechsummit.org/env20Lab. CLIMATE BUBBLES: MANCHESTER http://www.futuresonic.com/bubbles Futuresonic and the MET Office invite people in Manchester to join together in a unique experiment to map air flows and examine the Ôurban heat islandÕ phenomenon.
Re: [Talk-GB] Announcement: Second City, Birmingham, and its surrounds completed
Seriously, super, awesome cool. On 23 Dec 2008, at 09:37, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: It is with great pleasure, and not just a little excitement, that I can announce that the mappers in Birmingham having set the task of completing the whole of the city by Christmas have achieved just that. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.4708lon=-1.8972zoom=12layers=0B00FT F Birmingham and the area inside the major motorways which has been mapped, including Solihull and Sutton Coldfield, has a population of approximately 1.25 million. The achievement is somewhat similar to that of Hamburg, announced a few weeks ago. The major difference is that Birmingham does not have any Yahoo! aerial imagery, thus the whole of Birmingham has been mapped by GPS and many hours of cycling, walking and driving by the major contributors. About 100 mappers have been involved in completing the whole work, although the vast majority has been contributed by just a handful of OSMers. The list of the major contributors can be found on the mappa mercia wiki page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mappa_Mercia I'd like to say a specific thank you to Brian Prangle (brianboru) and Christoph Böhme (Xoff) who joined me over the last weeks to complete the Christmas target, they weren't the only ones, but without their efforts we would never have made it! As a group (the OSM Midlands User Group (MUG)) we are planning how to promote the Birmingham map and will be meeting at our monthly social to discuss ideas on January 15th. We have jointly lots of interesting ideas to explore, some of which are on the wiki. After the 15th Jan we plan to put out a wider media release. Of course the mapping work doesn't end here. We still have plenty of POI, verification and address data to add in Birmingham plus there is still much work to be done in the coming year to complete the Black Country, Walsall and the area to the west of the M5. Cheers and Happy Christmas Andy (blackadder) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Best Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] URGENT: potential stand at Linux Expo Live
Guys just to say this is awesome work, good luck and hope to see pictures? Best Steve On 20 Oct 2008, at 02:01, Grant Slater wrote: Tom Hughes wrote: I guess we need to work out a schedule of whose doing which days. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_at_London_Linux_Expo_2008 I can probably do Saturday afternoon, and one other day if needed. Thursday would probably be best though I'd prefer not to need to get there for when it opens if somebody else is able to. ___ 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] Change of pub for tonight's mapping party
oh that sucks :-( used to be good On 17 Sep 2008, at 14:41, Grant Slater wrote: Shaun McDonald wrote: Steve has changed the pub for tonight to The Fettler. http://openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.51581mlon=-0.17868zoom=17layers=000BFTF http://openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.51581mlon=-0.17868zoom=17layers=000BFTF Has it re-opened? It was closed down last year. / Grant ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Best Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fwd: Social Technologies Summit - Call For Submissions
may be of interest... Begin forwarded message: From: Drew Hemment [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3 September 2008 23:09:58 BST To: Steve Coast [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Social Technologies Summit - Call For Submissions Hi Steve fyi Call For Submissions -- Deadline 5pm, 13 October 2008 SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES SUMMIT http://www.socialtechsummit.org 13-16 May 2009 Manchester UK Digital culture burns bright with social connectivity Futuresonic's acclaimed international conference, the Social Technologies Summit brings 500 opinion formers, futurologists, artists, researchers, technologists and scientists from the digital culture, technology and art communities together around shared issues to do with social media, society, art and the city. Inviting proposals for talks, presentations, workshops and session themes. Submissions of innovative formats for social interaction and experimentation are encouraged. Call For Submissions -- Deadline 5pm, 13 October 2008 http://www.socialtechsummit.org See also -- A GBP 5000 commission plus many other opportunities are available in the Futuresonic 2008 Art EVNTS calls for submissions. http://www.futuresonic.com/getinvolved View images from the previous Social Technologies Summit in May 2008 http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/sets/72157606972379839 Social Technologies Summit http://www.socialtechsummit.org The Social Technologies Summit has prefigured new trends and is a place where important international discussions take place on the latest developments in social media and their implications for society. Discover the small sparks that unfold into new ways of seeing the world and critically explore the latest upgrade affecting today’s digital culture. It will combine keynotes, critical debates, demos and experiences with open space and participatory sessions, in a fun and engaging event. Computers have become social interfaces for sharing digital media and collaborating to build online communities and folksonomies. Social technologies create an extension of social space, and new ways for people to come together, meet and share in today's society. The Social Technologies Summit will explore the new social spaces and the social implications of technologies for the many different kinds of people who make, use and are affected by them. In keeping with the Environment 2.0 theme of Futuresonic in 2009, this year it will also explore the interface between our digital footprint and our environmental footprint, and new thinking on sustainability in a globalised world. Call For Submissions http://www.socialtechsummit.org Inviting proposals for talks, presentations, workshops and session themes. Submissions of innovative formats for social interaction and experimentation are encouraged. Call For Submissions -- Deadline 5pm, 13 October 2008 Download an application form / guidelines here: downloads.futuresonic.com/social2009.zip For further information contact Lisa Roberts Social Technologies Summit Programme Manager FutureEverything +44 161 237 9000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] See also -- A GBP 5000 commission plus many other opportunities are available in the Futuresonic 2008 Art EVNTS calls for submissions. http://www.futuresonic.com/getinvolved Reasons To Attend http://www.socialtechsummit.org - If you want to meet the creative thinkers, artists, programmers, digital media experts, scientists, industry specialists, hardware and software developers, marketers, political thinkers and activists - If you want to find out about new technologies and their impact on tomorrow's society - If your group or company is looking for new and exciting ways to create, do business and interact Then sign up to the Social Technologies Summit. Ticket information available soon via http://www.socialtechsummit.org Futuresonic http://www.futuresonic.com The Social Technologies Summit is the conference of the Futuresonic 2009 festival. Futuresonic has 4 strands: Art, Music, Ideas and EVNTS. Currently in its 13th year, the festival occupies the orbits of both music and digital culture. Futuresonic is presented by FutureEverything CIC. It is a Regularly Funded Organisation (RFO) of Arts Council England North West and has been awarded Pillar
[Talk-GB] OSM quality in the UK - academic paper
I'm still reading... http://povesham.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/osm-quality-evaluation/ Best Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Anniversary
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OpenStreetMap_4th_Anniversary_Birthday_party I won't be in the UK - someone needs to organise... Best Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] mapping props
Yes I;ve found high-vis vests very useful. Beyond that, I sometimes pretend to be confused or play with camera/GPS which makes people feel a bit better, or say hello and say I'm mapping. I think it's a special case in this country though where an outsider is automatically going to rape and bomb you, things are much more relaxed in various sections of the EU. On 4 May 2008, at 15:22, Matthew Gates wrote: On Sunday 04 May 2008, Shaun wrote: You might also be interested in printed OSM hi-vis vests that Graham Smith is going to do: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-May/025909.html on the main talk list. Exactly the sort of think I was thinking about. I shall contact Graham - thanks for the pointer, I hadn't seen that. Matthew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb Best Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS costs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/25/charles.arthur Best Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Message for Nick Austin
Can't you use openstreetmap.org/user/NickAustin or whatever? On 10 Mar 2008, at 08:35, Nick Whitelegg wrote: (Apologies to the list - don't have an email address) Hello Nick, Looks like you've been doing a lot of countryside mapping near me - maybe we should try and coordinate efforts? Nick (W) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb have fun, SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Surrey pub meet this Sunday
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/WikiProject_Surrey_England have fun, SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] London progress and unnamed roads
Almost there... possible to tone down the other stuff more? On 31 Jan 2008, at 18:04, Dave Stubbs wrote: On Jan 31, 2008 4:03 PM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 31 Jan 2008, at 16:02, Dave Stubbs wrote: I was aiming more for a map of what's really there, rather than a map of what's not there. The tracing people haven't actually managed to do everywhere yet, so I thought it gave a slightly better impression. There's also the false positives, ie: residential streets that actually don't have a name... in a highlight mode these become more obvious than you really want them. In dehighlight mode they just vanish, and you don't notice. I did try all residential streets with no name bright pink, but it was kind of scary. But there's no reason I can't do that too... I'll play with some style sheets. Cheers - so my aim would be to clear all the unnamed roads near me, which somehting like I describe would be super helpful Not so pretty, but probably does what you want: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/progress/?region=london-highlightnoname have fun, SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] free freethepostcode
I get occasional mails asking about freethepostcode / people entering bad coordinates that I have to remove. I don't have time any more. Does anyone want to take it over? I will provide you with the domain name, the code and the data. Else, I'm going to put a big 'not maintained' notice on it or take it down. I still think there's a lot of value in it, I just don't have the time. have fun, SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
