Re: [Talk-GB] Rockall

[Warin]

On 16/6/20 7:43 am, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2020-06-15 23:14, barry b wrote:


Hi Folks, I made the below changes to rockall.

snip

I don't know the exact procedure here. I feel i didn't do it right.
Don't worry too much about "not doing it right", just about everybody 
here has "been there done that got the t-shirt".
+1. If we all waited until we were certain it was 'right' the map would 
be very vacant. Best effort etc but there come a time when you have to 
go with what you think is correct.


Me?
place=islet

surface=rock


If you tag just natural=rock then will it be above the sea or under it? 
Place=islet says it is above the sea and then the surface tag gives you 
the rock aspect.



I'd level the admin borders up to the 'experts' ... tends to get messy 
on international things.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] City centre landuse tagging

[Warin]

On 1/5/20 9:22 pm, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Hi,

Meant to include this in my other post, but...I'm noticing that 
several cities in the UK (Bristol, Bath and Chester are good examples) 
don't seem to tag the city centre area with an appropriate landuse tag 
(presumably retail, commercial or residential).



OSM does not (yet) have a way of tagging multiple landuses in the one place.


If OSM did have multiple landuses in the one place, how would you render it?




This is something I've missed over the years... but what is the common 
practice for tagging city centre areas? Presumably the above three 
landuses are not used because city centres are typically a mixrure of 
all three.


What I'm trying to achieve is a 'built-up-area' rendering which covers 
the whole of the built up area of a town or city. Not looking for 
administrative boundaries - but the actual physically built-up area.


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] CWGC: worldwide, war graves

[Warin]

On 26/4/20 10:50 pm, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2020-04-26 14:26, Tony OSM wrote:

If we generate a tag schema it clearly needs to be applicable to 
other grave organisations - e.g. German War Graves Commission - 
/Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge/ in German.



So we need a more abstract concept like "War Cemetery":

war_cemetery=cwgc

or

war_cemetery:cwgc=yes

I suspect the CWGC don't "own" or "operate" many of these (shared) 
locations or graves - they would just be cataloguing the facts.




Australia pays for the upkeep of its war dead graves.


I would hope that a similar respect is shown by other countries to their 
war dead.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism.

[Warin]

On 21/3/20 11:02 pm, ael wrote:

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:45:53AM +1100, Warin wrote:

On 18/3/20 1:42 am, ael wrote:

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote:

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:

On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:

The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always seemed 
like a massive shortcoming of the project to me. Stopping people re-aligning things based 
on a bad phone GPS or badly aligned aerial imagery is impossible and even realising that 
things have been incorrectly moved is random at best.

I agree entirely and have often wished for exactly that. I sometimes use
source=gps_surveys  (plural) to try to convey that this is not just one
random gps trace.

"source=average of multiple gps surveys, high accuracy"

Be really descriptive... the 's' on the end of gps surveys is really easy to 
miss.

Well, yes, and I do quite often expand the source tag to try to
convey more. But in your example "high" accuracy is a problem.
If I was using differential gps with cm accuracy, I would call
that "high" accuracy. In the present case, the accuracy is
not really known, but probably approaching a meter.
But I guess that sort of thing could be included in a source tag,
although free form text might be better in a note tag.


Is not the source tag free form? Indeed any OSM tag is 'free form' - i.e.  "Any tags 
you like".

I don't think any one uses the source tag other than mappers looking at where 
the data came from. As such it can be anything you think suitable.

The 'high accuracy' is a relative term simply there to help those that don't 
understand the previous 'average of multiple gps surveys'



But my impression is that many armchair mappers just don't look.


In this case any tags will be ignored. Pointless coming up with another tag.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism.

[Warin]

On 18/3/20 1:42 am, ael wrote:

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote:

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:

On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:

The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always seemed 
like a massive shortcoming of the project to me. Stopping people re-aligning things based 
on a bad phone GPS or badly aligned aerial imagery is impossible and even realising that 
things have been incorrectly moved is random at best.

I agree entirely and have often wished for exactly that. I sometimes use
source=gps_surveys  (plural) to try to convey that this is not just one
random gps trace.

In this case, I just had source=gps_survey.


"source=average of multiple gps surveys, high accuracy"

Be really descriptive... the 's' on the end of gps surveys is really easy to 
miss.



I too regret the awful smartphone (and satnav) gps traces which suggest
all gps is rubbish. I try not to upload any gps which is not reasonably
accurate. And add a note if the gps quality is poor when it still has
value, perhaps because there are no other traces in the area.

I suppose that we ought to start a discussion on the tagging list to
suggest
   source:accuracy = low|medium|high|differential


Why? This can be placed in to source=phone for location, poor accuracy. This 
then is where you look for information on the source ... rather than yet 
another key.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism.

[Warin]

On 17/3/20 8:53 pm, John Aldridge wrote:

On 17-Mar-20 02:08, Warin wrote:
A single GPS trace is fine if that is all there is, better to average 
many GPS traces, in some locations I have 50+.


Though, AIUI, once you've reached this level of precision, remaining 
errors are likely to be systematic (e.g. satellites in a particular 
direction being generally received via a -- delaying -- reflection 
rather than directly). No amount of averaging will help with that.



Yes, a source of error. When placed over some reasonable imagery any 
discrepancies can be seen, evaluated and if necessary compensated for. 
However most users will not be aware of the discrepancy as they would be 
using another GPS to 'see' it.


If the GPS tracks are separated by days, weeks and months then the 
satellites will have changed, and the satellite positions too. Usually 
there will be 'outliers' that are more than 2 standard deviations from 
the average. It is valid to delete these from computations.


I don't bother with the calculations and do it by eye, more satisfying 
than loading it all into a program, taking the result and entering it. 
And I like to see the raw data anyway.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism.

[Warin]

On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:


I have only just got around to looking in more detail, and discovered
that it is much worse than I had realised: vandalism.

I have taken waypoints on nearly all of the individual stones, and then
refined those positions with waypoint averaging on multiple visits.



In cases like this I would use the source tag on the way so that others have a 
very good chance of seeing it and respecting the previous work rather than 
simply changing it to what they think it should be.
It is too easy to over look hard work that may have gone into establishing data.
A single GPS trace is fine if that is all there is, better to average many GPS 
traces, in some locations I have 50+.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds

[Warin]

It was I who raised the issue.


Interest to see others thoughts, and some ideas on some sort of 
consistence, if that can be obtained?


From an Australian perspective of 'our' showgrounds' in the countryside.

Most of the year they are vacant. They do get some use from equestrian 
activities.. some have sports activities. A fair few provide camping 
facilities.
The 'shows' typically have 'sports' such as wood chopping and equestrian 
activities. They also have the 'side show ally' things of rides.


I think the above fit into recreational use, and so most of the use is 
as a recreation ground, access and fees can be indicated using those 
tags I see no reason to stipulate that a recreation ground must be 
'public'.


I was trying to find any other way for tagging showgrounds using 
taginfo, and came across the amenity=showground with some ~6 uses. I 
then selected on of these in the UK where they are most prevalent. This 
one is tagged as 'amenity=showground' with 'landuse=grass', that mix to 
me is wrong. If it is 'amenity=showground' then the grass should, 
strictly speaking, be tagged with surface=grass, however this will not 
render. Using 'landuse=grass' obtains rendering.


A difficulty with OSM is mapping permanent things is the norm, cyclic 
things get less attention.


On 24/2/20 8:57 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

Morning all,

Someone has commented on a change I made to the Three Counties 
showground last year when I changed the tagging to landuse=grass 
rather than landuse=commercial. Their suggestion is that it really 
ought to be landuse=recreation_ground, with a secondary tag of 
surface=grass.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74103491#map=16/52.0834/-2.3235

I've responded to that comment on the changeset, but I thought it 
would be worth throwing out here as well.


I do think that tagging showgrounds as landuse=commercial is generally 
incorrect; it doesn't match the description of 'commercial' in the 
wiki and doesn't reflect the typical uses of showgrounds both when a 
show is on and when one isn't.


The reason I tagged the Three Counties showground as grass is because, 
most of the year, that's precisely what it is - an open area of 
grassland. Unless there is an event on (which only happens for a 
minority of days in a year) it is just an open space.


Looking at a few other showgrounds across the country, we don't seem 
to have any consistency.


The East of England Showground is tagged as landuse=recreation_ground:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.5456/-0.3170

The Suffolk Showground is tagged as a park:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0330/1.2277

So is the Staffordshire County Showgound:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.8255/-2.0643

The former Royal Showground at Stoneleigh is tagged as commercial, but 
in that case that's probably now correct as it's no longer used as a 
showground and is gradually being redeveloped as a business park:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3435/-1.5220

The Great Yorkshire Showground isn't tagged as an area at all, just a 
network of roads and individual features:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.9830/-1.5065

Similarly with the Norfolk Showground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.6490/1.1793

And the Bath and West Showground:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.1552/-2.5265

So, what do people think? Personally, I think that showgrounds ought 
to be tagged as an area, because they do, typically, have clear 
boundaries and are distinct from their surrounding context. But I'm 
less sure what the area should be tagged as. I think commercial is 
usually wrong, for the reasons I've already given, but I can see an 
argument for either grass, recreation_ground or even park.


Thoughts, anyone?

Mark


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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Warin]

On 01/01/20 18:13, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 01/01/2020 05:11, Warin wrote:

I would map the area around the road as

landuse=highway.

I would do the same for the lane/track between farm fields, while it 
supports the use of the farm it is not a field.


Thanks, but the problem is that landuse=highway is not a valid tag. 
Voting on it was suspended in 2013 after several votes against, see:


 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway

However, I have discovered that highway=track, *area=yes* is valid - 
as evidence of that it is rendered on the standard map as a light 
brown infill between the fences with the existing highway=track as a 
routable way superimposed over it, in darker brown.


It seems odd to have highway=track twice, but if that's what it takes 
to have a meaningful mapping for an area of land, I'm happy to do it 
that way. Presumably the developers of the standard map know what they 
are doing.


So I seem to have answered my own question, thanks all for the replies.


OSM - any tags you like. (that includes landuse=highway, 
sport=cricket_nets etc)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Warin]

On 01/01/20 12:20, David Woolley wrote:

On 01/01/2020 00:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing 
with mapping every *square inch* of land.


I also don't think you should be mapping in that detail, but if you 
really want to, I would suggest that you map the wide area with just 
landuse, and then do nested mappings of the fields, with the crop, 
etc., type as well.


Similarly, I wouldn't want a residential estate broken up by road 
corridors.


David some want to map in a lot of detail. So .. let them.

The  road in front of my home has a verge. If pushed I would say that is 
landuse=highway as the verge is used, or should be, for foot traffic and 
to provide some safety from motorised transport.


While the road and verge are there to support the residences 
(landuse=residential) I would map the area around the road as 
landuse=highway.


I would do the same for the lane/track between farm fields, while it 
supports the use of the farm it is not a field. Hair splitting. I don't 
actually map to that detail. I have mapped a few farm fields .. and left 
the lane/track areas blank at this stage. I will go back and map in the 
access driveways to the house but I will leave the rest .. if someone 
else wants to do them .. fine.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Entertainment venue - what tags?

[Warin]

I think 3 nodes. While all operated by the one company .. do they all 
have the same fees, opening hours, contact details?


The building can have the address .. and the company if it has all of 
the building. But each facility can have its own node or area (if you 
have that detail).


The bar and restaurant may be separate facilities too, if so may them as 
separate nodes too (or areas again if you have that detail).


On 30/12/19 04:27, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi

In your example they're all different companies with different 
addresses & contact details, FHRS etc Tony's is one company, one 
address etc, so I think it should be one node, or if mappable, a 
building part area.. The facilities should be listed in sub tags - 
bar=yes, restaurant=yes  etc


On 29/12/2019 11:20, Chris Fleming wrote:

On 29/12/19 at 10:40am, Tony OSM wrote:

   Hi

   In Chorley a new entertainment business has opened -
   https://www.escapeentertainmentvenue.co.uk/

   It's primary offering is TenPin bowling, Gator Adventure golf (a form
   of indoor golf) and a bar & restaurant.

   What is the best way to tag? One node or three nodes?

   The new building is multi-tenanted and includes M Food and a cinema
   (already tagged).

I would tend to map these all as individual nodes. An example is here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/55.94187/-3.21604=N

Sometimes, it makes sense to tag the building with the main occupant
then add any cafe's or restaurants as nodes, in your case this would be
the bowling then add the others as nodes. I would also tend to do this
for a big store which may also have a cafe or restaurant.

Cheers
Chris



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




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



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

[Talk-GB] Roundabouts one piece or segregated

[Warin]

I'm looking at Wivenhoe B1028 way 477263099.
This is a segment of a roundabout.

Would it not be better for the way to be a single feature in OSM?

I think the route relations now handle roundabouts so there should be no 
problem there.

Thoughts?


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

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

[Warin]

On 21/12/19 02:55, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
Having unexpectedly found myself with a spare hour,  I have had a go 
at amending NCN 51 in central Milton Keynes.


There are 3 Changesets involved:

#78646743. The main changes. I marked this to be reviewed,  but I do 
hope that nobody wants it reverted because I got a bit carried away.  
As part of the edit I had to correct a one-way road that isn't really 
one-way,  but I then carried on resolving issues flagged by the iD 
editor; sorry!


#78651993. Mopping up. After the main edit, I spotted a few ways that 
I had not removed from the relation, so removed them here.


#78647795. I have flagged some ways with "fixme". They were part of 
the old route, but now form a spur off the main route. I have asked 
Sustrans whether they consider the spur to be part of NCN 51 and await 
their response. I could tag them with "approach", but I'm not clear 
whether that would mean that all >1000 other ways in the relation 
would then have to be tagged "main ".


I would think 'main'; is the default role - so no need to state it.

And yes I would add the roll 'approach' to the spur off to the train 
station.





Open for comments / suggestions.

Regards,
Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers_wl=ym_sub1=Internal_sub2=Global_YGrowth_sub3=EmailSignature>


- Forwarded message -
*From:* "Peter Neale" 
*To:* "Talk-gb OSM List" 
*Cc:*
*Sent:* Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 13:54
*Subject:* Fw: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route
Relation - NCN Route 51
Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for
their encouragement and help.  I will have a go at making the
amendments using the iD Editor.

I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that
Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time
with their families, not on the computer.

Before I start, I have one more question:

@Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is
unambiguous, i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route
without unnecessary branches and loops."

However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably
to link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other
cyclepaths).  There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on
the ground (probably because it was part of the old route), but
the other is not.  I do not propose to include the unmarked one,
but what about the one that is marked?  Should I include it, or not?

Regards,
Peter





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



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

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

[Warin]

On 20/12/19 00:54, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their 
encouragement and help.  I will have a go at making the amendments 
using the iD Editor.


I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that 
Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with 
their families, not on the computer.


Before I start, I have one more question:

@Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is 
unambiguous,  i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route 
without unnecessary branches and loops."


However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to 
link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths).  
There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on the ground 
(probably because it was part of the old route), but the other is 
not.  I do not propose to include the unmarked one, but what about the 
one that is marked?  Should I include it, or not?




Some discussion on the tagging list on this... a read of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles

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

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

[Warin]

On 19/12/19 19:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Peter Neale wrote:

I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to
go about it.

Brilliant. Thanks for taking this on!

You can do it from iD - no particular need to use JOSM for this. Essentially
the trick is, for each way that needs to be removed from the relation,
select it, scroll down to the bottom of the tags panel, find where it says
'NCN 51', and click the rubbish bin. Then, for each way that needs to be
added, select it, click '+' at the bottom, and start typing "NCN 51". Select
it and the route will be added.

Don't worry about ordering... the majority of bike routes in the UK aren't
ordered. If someone desperately wants it to be ordered they can fix it
themselves afterwards. It's more important that the route is unambiguous,
i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary
branches and loops.


It is 'nice' if it is ordered. It does show the elevation profile in waymarked 
trails well when ordered.

Peter .. when your finished I'll order it and go over it for anything that I 
think might be wrong/improved.
Feel free top disagree with my ideas .. I am not always correct!
Just leave a message here, I should see it (eventually). Same if you have any 
questions/problems .. ask and you'll have a few answers.

I'm not an iD user so cannot help there.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

[Warin]

On 19/12/19 13:01, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 19/12/2019 01:41, Andy Townsend wrote:
Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that 
happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" -


I'd rather the mapper make a clear choice as they know what is there, 
the render makes a 'best guess'.




Not really. pub & hotel are synonymous but building=yes (which 
indicates it's operational) is antonymous to disused:building



Some pubs are not hotels - no accommodation.

I have taken to mapping the building as a close way with building=* and 
then adding separate nodes for pub and another for the hotel if it has 
that.

Note I am not consistent in this (but I should be)!

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

[Warin]

On 19/12/19 00:41, Mike Baggaley wrote:
Perhaps setting both building=yes and disused: building=apartments 
would fulfill all the needs.


Err no. Having both tags on the one object is contradictory.

How is it determined which tag to render?


A building=* is rendered one way.
A disused:building=* is rendered another.

So .. is it a "building" or a "disused building"???



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition

[Warin]

My understanding?


If the feature is disused then place disused: in front of the existing tag;

so
building=apartments
becomes
disused:building=apartments

or
building=yes
becomes
disused:building=yes


Having both disused:building=* and disused:building=* is a conflict, it 
is disused or not?


OSM does not map history, the past use of a building is not what 'we' 
map. OSM does map what the building 'looks' like - apartments, church, 
post office etc. Using the disused: tag does not change this, but adds 
the information that it is presently disused.


On 18/12/19 03:58, Silent Spike wrote:
The `building` tag actually specifies the original purpose or form of 
the building - it just happens that this usually aligns with the 
current use. As such, I think it's fine to leave them tagged as 
`building=apartments`.


See: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:use. Interestingly 
that wiki page points to the lifecycle prefix page for the case of 
disused buildings, but I'd say feel free to use `building:use=disused` 
to explicitly tag them for future mappers to see.


On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:22 PM Jez Nicholson > wrote:


Change it to building=yes + disused:building=apartments ?...it's
still a building, but the original use is now disused?

- Jez

On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 14:51 Gareth L, mailto:o...@live.co.uk>> wrote:

There are some tower blocks near me which have been emptied of
residents ahead of eventual demolition of the buildings.
They’re not coming back into use due to issues with their
construction.
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/lzDlWfY8iYo2cUVmO1FNmQ/photo They’re
boarded up to secure them in the interim.

All the guidance I can find on the abandoned or disused tags
are to leave the building as defined but to use
abandoned/disused prefix on the amenity.

These didn’t have an amenity though. They do still exist on
the ground, but no longer function as apartments.

I’d like to use construction style tagging, but it doesn’t
feel quite right looking at all examples I’ve found. e.g.
Building=disused
Disused=apartments

What have you used for buildings which are awaiting
demolition, or are undergoing a protracted demolition process
but are not amenities?

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

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



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Warin]

On 15/12/19 04:12, John Aldridge wrote:

On 14-Dec-19 16:52, SK53 wrote:
Like Dave I have come to the view that mapping individual fields as 
farmland is a good way to do it.


I too concur. Here's the diary entry I wrote when I was doing the 
fields round here...


I have at least some crop fields where livestock go in after harvest to 
much on the stubble... so multiple use.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jpsa/diary/17738


Nice entry there John. Some of 'my' fields abut one another so there is 
no gap. Others have patches of scrub inside them, some have water ways 
part way through them. There is rather a lot of the country side here 
that is not mapped and a fair proportion of it are these crop lands. To 
give you an idea of the size .. many times the area of UK. Urban areas 
get more attention as there are more visitors and more mappers there.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

[Warin]

On 10/10/19 00:40, Simon Ritchie wrote:


The real question, really, is why you're aiming for that level of
precision


That's what the emerging equipment does.


For 'precision' i.e. repeatability then simply monitor the indicated 
position over a short time frame - where the satellites used remain 
constant. The change in position is your 'precision'.


This does not take into account the corrections that are needed for each 
satellite that change with time, and corrections for the atmosphere that 
changes with time.
So I expect the data you collect will be worse that the actual equipment 
performance due to the lack of these corrections. Unless you pay real 
money then your stuck with that.



I'm just planning on showing how it can be put together, but I'd like 
to be able to say with confidence that it works properly.


As to who will use it, there's the readers of this forum, or some of 
them, and surveyors and architects, of course. There's also 
archaeologists, because they are required to log where they find 
objects, and they use GPS trackers to do it.  They often leave objects 
in the ground to protect them, and then come back a few years later to 
have another look using new techniques.  It would be nice if they knew 
precisely where their target is. They would only have to dig a small 
hole to find it.


Usually there are 'bench marks' that professional surveyors used (past 
tense in the UK) as a stating point to do their surveys. I know where 
some of the ones around me are .. but I have no UK source as I don't 
know the local terminology there. These are far more numerous that the 
trig points of OS.


I note your point about plate techtonics. My local archaeology group 
recently re-excavated a site that was first excavated a hundred years 
earlier.  The records they had turned out to be quite misleading.  
That was due to poor record keeping, but I guess over that time, the 
UK might have moved around a bit.  I recall that one end is rising and 
the other is sinking.


However, when new equipment comes along, people find new uses for it.  
We moved house a few years ago and I saw our Land Registry documents.  
I was quite surprised at the rudimentary map that is the legal 
definition of our property.  I'm supposed to resolve a boundary 
dispute with this? Now that land is so valuable, I can see people 
demanding better, so the estate agent will walk around the boundary 
with a GPS device and the result will be logged with your land 
registry records.


In the future I can also see architects putting GPS coordinates on 
plans, and builders using accurate GPS devices to do the initial  
layout of the site.  At 2 cm accuracy, they will probably have to 
tweak the positions using better instruments, but if GPS speeds up the 
process or makes it more reliable, they will use it.

.


An architect will work off plans, title deeds etc. They won't specify 
lat/lon but the position on the land parcel, usually a distance from a 
boundary.


A  builder will employ a surveyor to get the thing located correctly, 
unless they are certain of a boundary.
Builders work with tape measures not GPSes. They use tape measures now. 
There is no improvement by going to a GPS and increased cost of 
equipment and paying for the correctional data. Why would they add costs 
to their business for no benefit???






Given the inaccuracy of the trig point locations, I can't even do that :(


The trig points are accurate. But need corrections applied that are time 
variable. A good old school surveyor could do it...


Your equipment without corrections will not be as accurate as the trig 
points.


Without corrections what you could measure is precision and that is that.

--
Without spending the money on the corrections you may as well buy the 
lower performance level equipment .. the overall result will be the same 
and it should cost less.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Warin]

On 09/10/19 21:21, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.


"Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under 
its own brand with immediate effect."


"planed' "are to be" "talks with individual landlords" 'rebranded"

That looks to me to take time ... so not immediate. And it may not be 
all shops.

Certainly the name will be different.

disused is the present state.
With some work these may be retagged to drop the disused and a name 
change, but that may not be all the shops .. so that may need a survey.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

[Warin]

On 09/10/19 22:57, Simon Ritchie wrote:
> You'll need a GPS receiver with the capability of outputting carrier 
phase data (u-blox receivers will do this) and ideally a 
well-characterised external antenna (these are quite expensive).


That's very useful.  Thanks.  I am indeed using a uBlox device as my 
base station.  I ran it for 48 hours and got accuracy to maybe half a 
metre, but I haven't tried post-processing thedata.


What do you mean by the term 'accuracy'?

Ubox use the term 'precision' which in metorology means repeatability in 
common language.


Something can be highly repeatable but be a long way from the true value.

In this instance ubox are only evaluating their chip.
In order to obtain the best measurement you need an expensive antenna, 
pay for the correction data at the time of measurement and apply that 
correction data.


Claiming a 2 cm accuracy without stating the need to apply the 
corrections is misleading.

Ubox claim a 'precision' - not the same thing as 'accuracy'.

Be very careful in your use of terms, some people will become very upset 
if you claim a 2 cm 'accuracy' when all you are giving them is 'precision'.

I would suggest you research metrology terms.
You might start with https://www.npl.co.uk/resources/gpgs ?

However, that still leaves the fundamental problem:   I can (and will) 
publish the kit of parts for making your own base station.  You could 
use something similar to build a rover or you could buy one off the 
shelf.  According to the ads this will give you an accuracy of 2 cm, 
but how will you check that you really are getting that accuracy?


True 'accuracy' can only be determined when you know the 'true value'.

Ultimately no one can really determine the 'true value' they can only 
estimate it and, if they are metorologists, give an uncertainty 
statement on that value.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

[Warin]

On 09/10/19 22:03, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

2cm? I'm intrigued, what model are you using?
What were the atmospheric conditions on the day you took your reading?


I'd think to get that level of accuracy you 'd need readings over some 
considerable time... days?


Otherwise you get bias from, as you hint, the atmospheric conditions, 
the satellites in view - their bias, angles ..

Unless you have access to correction data, say from a local fixed GPS.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

[Warin]

On 09/10/19 22:42, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
... and if you had 2 devices, how would you know which is right? You 
would need at least 3 devices, so that you could take a majority vote.


Actually 5 would better


6 is general taken as a minimum number to get a good student's T

And they should be independent as far as possible.

So chose times when there are different satellites in use.

And chose the different systems, GPS then GLONASS



Or 7, or 9


More is better - improves student's T but diminishing improvement.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings

[Warin]

On 30/09/19 20:55, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 30/09/2019 11:15, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in 
OSMcan anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'?


A possible (slightly contentious) view might be that:

  * some people have been complaining about the quality of HOT
additions - sometimes unfounded, because it's more a "new user"
thing than  a "HOT" thing per se.
  * one of the complaints - perhaps because it's an "easy to find"
problem - is unsquared (or unrounded) buildings
  * HOT therefore make a big deal about squaring buildings

I've never been hugely bothered by it personally - people can easily 
square them up later if that's appropriate.


My 1970s home is not that square, very annoying doing home renovations. 
On the other hand the 1910 terrace house is dead square! (It is just the 
council there that is stupidly irregular.)


HOT can train there new mappers better... people who join OSM from the 
crowd are without that benefit.


Does it matter? It does make the map 'look' better, giving more 
confidence to the end user thus improving OSMs reputation so .. to me .. 
yes it matters.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Warin]

On 30/09/19 00:30, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 29/09/2019 14:30, David Woolley wrote:


I think too much effort goes into these big changes.


The actual change is dead easy in JOSM. It's all this faffing about 
having to discuss it that takes up all the time.


+1
As I said in another thread this increasing reluctance to 
removing/updating data while allowing _anyone_ to add data is 
detrimental to the OSM database. Take the new quarterly project as an 
example - anonymous users are allowed to add notes, but are unable to 
delete.


The real problem with business directory mapping on OSM is that 
people like doing the first time mapping of shops on a high street 
but no one likes maintaining them.


This thread is *specifically* about maintaining.

The number of shops that are wrong because of churn or small 
businesses, or individual closures of chain shops is probably orders 
of magnitude more than the ones that get lots of publicity.


Preventing the mass (hardly "mass" though) edit of Thomas Cook & 
instead relying on individuals to update *will* guarantee more shops 
will be "wrong".


The benefit of a one changeset edit is that it would be extremely easy 
to update if there's an (unlikely) change in the firms fortunes.


The advantage of turning them all to disused: is that they are done.

The disadvantage is that there is no local confirmation. However .. I 
think most will agree that even without a local survey .. the shop is 
closed.


Raising not everything named 'Thomas Cook' is the travel agency is fine, 
once pointed out I would think the editor will take care of that issue.



If some mapper cares to do a survey they might as well do all the 
disused: etc in that locality, not simply the old Thomas Cooks.






I doubt that many people are going to get misled by a Thomas Cook or 
Maplins store that remains mapped, but many may be misled by the loss 
of a specialist store that didn't make the national press.


Unsure what you mean by "misled", but surely if any shop that's 
incorrectly tagged will inconvenience someone if they use OSM to plan 
their visit?


It may not mislead a UK person, it may well mislead a foreign tourist 
who may well be having enough trouble coping with English. The map is 
not really for the local, who knows the area and culture, but the 
visitor finding their way.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Warin]

A liquidator will try to maximalise money returned.
This could/should mean sale of fixtures and fitting of leased premisses 
and then terminating leases.




 On 25/09/19 22:03, Edward Bainton wrote:

Legal situation of leases, fixtures and fittings as far as I'm aware:
- Lease continues and rent continues to be payable.
- Liquidator can disclaim the lease, bringing all obligations to an end OR
- Once in arrears/other breach of covenant (such as keeping open for 
trade), landlord can deem the lease forfeit: property returns to them
- Once owed 7 days' rent (which could be many months hence if paid 
quarterly in advance), landlord has right to impound and liquidate 
fixtures and fittings to offset their losses, after some procedural 
safeguards.


But as SK53 says, eyeballs must be best.

Not a lawyer, just a geek who read this up as a charity trustee. 
Corrections gladly received.


On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:07, SK53 > wrote:


I suspect the fixtures & fittings will be cleared out fairly
pronto, although not the fascia signage. As the firm has been
liquidated I presume all leases on retail property are now in
default, and consequently null and void. Landlords will be anxious
to get new tenants as quickly as possible, and are likely to clear
the shops for that reason. (A certain amount of speculation on my
part as I don't know what the actual legal situation with
ownership of fixtures & fittings is in these circumstances). Ether
way we can learn more by some on-the-ground surveys.

Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014, and their
shops were cleared out of fittings pretty rapidly, although they
remained as visible 'ghosts'  on high streets for a long time
afterwards.

A nice refinement of the shop=X => shop=vacant;disused:shop=yes
would be to only go from name=Y to old_name=Y when the signage
disappears. Frederic Rodrigo talked about pedestrian navigation by
landmark at SotM, and prominent closed shops (and also pubs) are
often useful landmarks. However, I think this is still a luxury
for the average mapper trying to keep somewhere up-to-date.

Jerry

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:54, Chris Hill mailto:o...@raggedred.net>> wrote:

Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the
public today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in
the future and that may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if
the administrator sells some or all of them to another
company. In the mean time they are still branded and still a
landmark of sorts.

If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change
that one otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see
what happens.

cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:

I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself

You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell,
mailto:t4d...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I changed the three shops in N.I to
disused;shop=travel-agent since I wasn't sure what the
best practice was in this case. Not all of them had the
wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?



__



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps

[Warin]

On 5/9/19 12:26 am, Jez Nicholson wrote:
The curse of derived data! So much effort to be able to share the 
boundary of a property. **sigh**



If they had derived their data from OSM .. then all would be fine.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Warin]

On 4/9/19 9:16 am, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
The Uffington White Horse is tagged as man_made=geoglyph, which seems 
apposite and is documented (if underused).


+1. Not all on hills, small .. or historic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marree_Man



Adding a natural=bare_rock  tag to reflect the exposed bedrock 
underneath (yes, chalk is a rock) would seem acceptable, and would 
have the definite bonus of getting the shape to render.


Otherwise, a hill figure can be variously a tourist attraction, a 
memorial, a monument, an archaeological site - it would depend on the 
specifics of when, by whom and for what purpose it was initially 
constructed.


On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, 23:53 Andy Mabbett, > wrote:


On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:01, Jez Nicholson
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> Not sure that there is proper consensus on how to map
> drawn things, like the Cerne Abbas Giant

I've started a discussion, specifically about hill figures, on the
tagging list:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047860.html

-- 
Andy Mabbett

@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Warin]

On 4/9/19 7:58 am, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 17:03, Dan S  wrote:

Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :

Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
relation, I would tag it as that.

Done; though "historic" seems inapt.


The "type=*" tag on a relation is usually used to
indicate what sort of relationship is represented, e.g.
type=multipolygon.

Done, but JOSM protested that "the multipolygon is not closed"

Thanks, both - what do others think?



To get around the 'multipolygon is not closed' use the fact that the concrete 
has a width .. looks about 0.5 metres and map the outline area. Yes it is micro 
mapping ... and could be better with a width tag but it will close 
multipolygon. The other relation is a site relation ... not common and may not 
be rendered.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Warin]

On 3/9/19 8:22 am, David Woolley wrote:

On 02/09/2019 23:13, Warin wrote:


On 3/9/19 2:53 am, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at 
least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it 
distracts drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide 
the information instead.


What evidence have you of this "trend"?



I too, would like to hear of evidence of this 'trend'.



Google "reducing sign clutter" for the general principle.  Use of sat 
nav as an alternative I might have heard on the radio, or in a local 
paper.  However 
<https://www.driverknowledgetests.com/resources/what-is-signage-clutter-and-how-do-we-reduce-it/> 
is the only reference I can find to that, online, in a quick search. \



That is a personal opinion...

v.s. government link to a 3.1Mb pdf below..

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reducing-sign-clutter



I think, in practice, it why local councils often don't bother to fix 
AWOL and broken street name signs, even when told about them.


None of these are for the total removal of signs .. but for the removal 
of unnecessary signs.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Warin]

On 3/9/19 2:53 am, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at 
least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it 
distracts drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide the 
information instead.


What evidence have you of this "trend"?



I too, would like to hear of evidence of this 'trend'.






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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Warin]

On 26/07/19 22:14, Martin Wynne wrote:

The tag is *barrier*=gate.

A permanently open gate isn't a barrier, so I don't think it should be 
tagged as such. At least not across a way.


It is a barrier ready for use.



You could add a separate node to one side of the way, and tag that as 
a gate.


A gate which is often open, but sometimes closed, is just an ordinary 
gate. Many farm gates are like that. Potatoes this year = leave the 
gate open. They are not likely to escape, and it saves getting down 
off the tractor. Sheep this year = keep the gate closed.


As you say, the gate may be closed and it is good if the map alerts 
drivers to that possibility.

I'd rather be warned and find it open than not warned and find it closed.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Warin]

On 26/07/19 21:06, Colin Smale wrote:


I guess what we are trying to get out of this, is:

a) as a router, can i feel free to route "Joe Public" through here?


If the gate is open - yes.
If the gate is closed and unlocked - yes.
If the gate is closed and locked - no.

I would expect an access tag would be used if 'Joe' were not allowed or 
inhibited is some way e.g opening_hours, max_height.


b) as a router, how much time penalty should i factor in for passing 
this gate?




Depends. In Australia the gate would be an extension of a fence line. 
Fence lines are where animals tend to run at speed and collide with 
vehicles.
Even if open I tend to slow, if there is plant cover obscuring the 
view10 mph or less, even then I have had a roo collide with the side of 
my vehicle. I stopped, it took off and failed to render details... hit 
and run.


If closed and fastened I have spent a good 10 minutes figuring out how 
to open then close the thing! Most are a minute, but ..
The more difficult one can be seen as an intelligence test, if you pass 
the test you can enter :)



Anything else?


Good luck.



On 2019-07-26 12:58, Warin wrote:


To bring a little international perspective to this.

In outback Australia the convention is "leave the gate as you found 
it". Unfortunately there are some who don't.
To cope with this problem some gates are hung so that they close 
under gravity.
To keep these open the farmer locks the gate open. Few people stop 
and try to close the gate, and are defeated by the lock anyway.


So indicating that a gate is locked .. says little as to if it is 
open or closed to me.


I think the 2 conditions need to be separated and not assumed;

locked = yes/no

closed = yes/no
Not certain how to handle automatic - I think they are mostly 
automatically closing only, some do both closing and opening and 
there is the possibility of automatically opening only. Err some may 
have automatic lock features too...


In addition some gates are fastened, but can be manually opened if 
you figure out the mechanism (some are quite inventive!). A problem I 
have found is on re-fastening these inventive mechanisms .. can take 
some time to remember it or reinvent it. Perhaps these should be 
called 'locked' and the above 'key_locked'???


On 26/07/19 20:26, Gareth L wrote:


This was discussed on the wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate> with 
the suggestion of using a status tag. And was also discussed (9 
years ago?!) 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html 
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html>


Tagging things as access=private does impact routing a lot, so I'd 
evaluate that use carefully.


Gareth


*From:* Andy Robinson 
*Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 10:55:37 AM
*To:* 'Stephen Colebourne' ; 'talk-gb OSM 
List' 

*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default
If a gate opens automatically I would say it's an access=yes 
regardless of how the way is tagged.


Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebou...@joda.org]
Sent: 26 July 2019 10:47
To: talk-gb OSM List
Subject: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

I'd like to distinguish between two kinds of gate on private roads:

- those where the gate is closed by default (eg automatic closing)
- those where the gate is open by default (the gate exists, but is
rarely if ever closed)

Currently I'm marking both as barrier=gate & access=private, but I
can't see an obvoius way to mark the open/closed by default aspect.
One thought was to use access=permissive on those that are open (with
the highway still access=private).

Any suggestions?

Stephen
PS, I do want to mark the gate on the map even if it is always open




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Warin]

To bring a little international perspective to this.

In outback Australia the convention is "leave the gate as you found it". 
Unfortunately there are some who don't.
To cope with this problem some gates are hung so that they close under 
gravity.
To keep these open the farmer locks the gate open. Few people stop and 
try to close the gate, and are defeated by the lock anyway.


So indicating that a gate is locked .. says little as to if it is open 
or closed to me.


I think the 2 conditions need to be separated and not assumed;

locked = yes/no

closed = yes/no
Not certain how to handle automatic - I think they are mostly 
automatically closing only, some do both closing and opening and there 
is the possibility of automatically opening only. Err some may have 
automatic lock features too...


In addition some gates are fastened, but can be manually opened if you 
figure out the mechanism (some are quite inventive!). A problem I have 
found is on re-fastening these inventive mechanisms .. can take some 
time to remember it or reinvent it. Perhaps these should be called 
'locked' and the above 'key_locked'???


On 26/07/19 20:26, Gareth L wrote:


This was discussed on the wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate with the 
suggestion of using a status tag. And was also discussed (9 years 
ago?!) 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html


Tagging things as access=private does impact routing a lot, so I’d 
evaluate that use carefully.


Gareth


*From:* Andy Robinson 
*Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 10:55:37 AM
*To:* 'Stephen Colebourne' ; 'talk-gb OSM List' 


*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default
If a gate opens automatically I would say it's an access=yes 
regardless of how the way is tagged.


Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebou...@joda.org]
Sent: 26 July 2019 10:47
To: talk-gb OSM List
Subject: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

I'd like to distinguish between two kinds of gate on private roads:

- those where the gate is closed by default (eg automatic closing)
- those where the gate is open by default (the gate exists, but is
rarely if ever closed)

Currently I'm marking both as barrier=gate & access=private, but I
can't see an obvoius way to mark the open/closed by default aspect.
One thought was to use access=permissive on those that are open (with
the highway still access=private).

Any suggestions?

Stephen
PS, I do want to mark the gate on the map even if it is always open

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


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


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

[Warin]

On 27/06/19 22:11, Martin Wynne wrote:



seen this done in various places, but I've never understood the point
it. The two representations are identical in terms of the data, but
the latter requires 2.5 times as many objects and is much more of a
pain to work with in the editors.


This happens a lot in my area. Huge areas of "farmland" have been 
created as massive multipolygons, which are too big to fit in the iD 
editor, and include ways shared with other areas such as equally large 
multipolygon woods. It's a pain to split them up without damaging them 
where they include areas which should be mapped as meadow, orchard, 
scrub, etc., which I much prefer to map as separate closed field 
areas, sometimes with their own name. area


I am reworking an tree area that I created some time ago .. it is some 
300 km long, 40 km wide (186 miles by 25 miles). There are several 
similar sized areas that exist in my locally to me. They have to be 
mulipolygons as they have holes in them. And people keep adding things 
inside them .. that are also holes in them (they usually omit making the 
hole, so an added car parking area will be covered by trees until I 
notice).


Map your closed fields .. and simply included them as an inner in the 
tree area?




Likewise several woods are mapped as a single large multipolygon wood 
where in fact they are several separate woods each with a *name*. How 
can I apply names to parts of a multipolygon?


You cannot. However for 'my' above tree area there are several National 
Parks .. I map those and name them .. they still have the tree area 
through them (in parts) but they are still rendered and named on the 
map. I separate out the forestry areas as these don't have trees all the 
time, so they get landuse=forest rather than natural=trees.



I have other places where there are ways that are in up to 6 relations, 
much easier to map them this way for me. They all share this common way, 
when they move off this way they then 'only' share the remaining ways 
with typically 2 relations, possibly 4.


It is all variable as to what is easiest and suits the local map and the 
local mappers.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] SuDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems)

[Warin]

The area I would tag as a landuse=basin, 
basin=detention/retension/infiltration. That is what I have done around me.
Most of these are larger than your example, the largest one that I know 
of is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/282846991.


Some sports field are used as a detention pond when high rates of rain 
fall cause the drainage system to back up, the over flow is held by the 
low lying sports field for later drainage. I have left these alone - a 
temporary use that won't often be seen I hope.


On 20/06/19 00:09, Jez Nicholson wrote:
My client GeoSmart are experts on SuDS, further reading at 
https://geosmartinfo.co.uk/knowledge-hub/sustainable-drainage-systems/


Many/most planning applications for new developments now have to 
mitigate the drainage area that has been lost to 
houses/drives/roads/etc. It can be difficult to identify a SuDS 
installation as they are deliberately blended into the site. It might 
just be a pond at the bottom of a larger dipped area that'll take some 
of the bite out of a flash flood.




On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 2:46 PM SK53 > wrote:


Last night before visiting the pub we had a look at part of
Sheffield's "Grey-to-Green" SuDS system. Unfortunately all my
batteries ad packed up at this point, but there are some decent
pictures on twitter
.
The bit we looked at was outside the courthouses. It consisted of :

  * A bio-swale. Planted with a colourful mixture of plants most
of which I've forgotten now, although I do recall Jerusalem
Sage. The ground was a gravel mix with presumably a
geo-membrane underneath to retain water. A few birches were
also planted along the length of the swale. Superficially this
just looks from a distance like a large ornamental flower bed.
  * Concrete 'dams' periodically, along the swale, rising to
within a few inches of pavement level and with a v-shaped
notch in the centre. Obviously these are not really dams, more
a type of weir, being designed to moderate the flow of water
through pooling behind each dam. I've seen similar
constructions in the Alps albeit on a larger scale.
  * At the bottom of the swale a more obvious drainage channel.
Where the swale is broken for pedestrian access this runs in a
recessed gutter covered by a grille.

There are probably other features of the completed scheme which we
didn't see. I notice many new-build housing estates will have an
area set aside as a water retention basin.

I've previously noted a SuDS along Ribblesdale Road


in Nottingham, but the features involved are on too small a scale
to consider mapping for now.

This type of infrastructure is becoming much more popular,
particularly with extreme flooding events due to surface run-off.
I'd hoped to look at the one in Sheffield, and fortunately Laura
both remembered this and where it was. Larger ones are relatively
simple to map the main features, choosing viable & appropriate
tags is more challenging. I've had a go
, but am
very open to other suggestions. I suspect the whole swale should
be mapped as a waterway feature. For now I've used waterway=drain
with intermittent=yes for the channel in the swale & the
connecting part of the drain running in a covered gutter (one
import in Santa Clara Co, CA opted for waterway=stream). However
many of the features could use man-made rather than waterway tags.

In conclusion: there's probably a SuDS near you; they're hard to
tag (for know); but not too hard to map; we could do with thinking
about better tags.

Regards,

Jerry


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



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

[Warin]

On 09/06/19 23:58, Martin Wynne wrote:
we now have 2 natural=heaths named  as nature reserves and with 
operator tags but

without nature reserve tags.


Hi Adam,

But they are now nested within a larger area which does have a nature 
reserve tag. Much of the publicity material for this area treats it as 
a single nature reserve.


But the nature reserveS have different names and ownership and should be 
tagged as such.


The heath is the common aspect between the two yet this is where the 
names and ownership are applied? This is clearly tagging for the render.


And it fails

https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=52.3600=-2.2836
Results in the wood and the combined nature reserve ... but no idea of 
which nature reserve applies here.



The two nature reserves should be separate entries as nature reserves - 
which is what they are. Truth in tagging should be applied.



--- Quibble
There is also the aspect that the heath has a wood in it .. yet the 
heath covers the wood. The heath should be a multipolygon relation with 
an inner for the wood


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

[Warin]

I am reminded of at least one single way I have edited (there could be 
more, it was some time ago)... it is a single way used for;


boundary of 2 states of Australia
boundary of 2 councils
boundary of 2 National Parks - note that these 'National Parks' are 
administered by the individual states and have different rules...


All of these are separate relations... with quite a few shared ways. 
Messy, but done.


The rendering looks good to me.

While you may have 2 nature reserves adjacent they both need to be on 
the map, so they can be individually found. So they should not be 
combined in the data base.


Rendering of boundaries of the same type .. but with less prominence?
Would not be high on my priority list... but doable. The render could 
should them with the same prominence as one single boundary.
Councils and countries usually share boundaries so they would have some 
thought to combining there boundary rendering.

There must be similar things between England/Scotland/Wales...


On 06/06/19 18:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

5 Jun 2019, 19:55 by mar...@templot.com:

But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a
bold green line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground
and could be misleading for visitors.

Note that maps are not aerial images - there is often significant 
level of abstraction and

especially for borders there is often nothing visible on the ground.

This rendering was used as compromise between several different problem.

Note also that the same styling applies to all nature reserves across 
the world.


Is there a better way to map this?

There are two nature reserves there, right?

If I combine them as a single nature reserve

sounds like tagging for the renderer - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer


Is there a way to show the common boundary less prominently?

This is on side of renderers. This one has repository at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/
where proposals to improve it or pull requests with code improving it 
may be submitted.


Though again, the same rendering rules are applied globally, and for 
every single one
there are cases where it fails horribly. Improving one specific place 
may have really bad

results elsewhere.

On the data side - I would consider tagging borders on the shared way 
(mapping boundaries

as multipolygons), currently each nature reserve is a separate way.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/694760748#map=17/52.37217/-2.28169

(it would not change rendering, at least on default OSM map)



___
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] Playground age limits

[Warin]

On 05/06/19 09:35, David Woolley wrote:

On 04/06/2019 16:09, Martin Wynne wrote:
The main reason for the fence would seem to be the several NO DOGS 
signs, which I have tagged.


I've always assumed that such fences and the "adults must be 
accompanied by a child sign", that often accompany them, is to keep 
out adults who are not related to the children, as a child protection 
measure.


humm ... the child is required to supervise the adult. I'd call that an 
adult protection measure.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

[Warin]

On 04/06/19 20:13, Jez Nicholson wrote:
I have to admit that Preston Park is my personal micromapping 
playground. I walk the hound there nearly every day and I can capture 
excruciating detail (so shoot me!). 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1800140#map=18/50.83914/-0.14432=N 



Any suggestions?


Some of the fields are edged with small wooden posts to prevent 
driving onto the grass. Is this a 'fence'? if so, what is its type?




I'd do them as a
barrier=bollards
material=wood
bollard=fixed
foot=yes
motorvehicle=no
And so on with as much detail as you want...





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

Re: [Talk-GB] max_age=toddler? | Re: Playground age limits

[Warin]

Rather than enter text into a value where a number is expected .. why 
not use the description tag?

Description=For supervised younger children.
Description=For unsupervised older children.

??

On 05/06/19 03:51, SK53 wrote:
It might be germane to this discussion to consider minheight & 
maxheight as possible values. Certainly in ski resorts it is not 
uncommon to see minimum heights for certain chair lifts (typically 
1.25m) and I think I've seen similar on amusement park rides. Height 
is more likely to be a determining factor, even if not explicitly signed.


Jerry

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 18:34, Philip Barnes > wrote:


On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 16:49 +0100, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > What about `max_age=toddler`? (i.e. the oldest you can be is "a
> > toddler"), likewise `min_age=young_child` for the "older" one? (Is
> > that
> > the best term?) Yes it's not a numeric age, but it's better than
> > nothing?
>
> Thanks Rory.
>
> I wondered about that. If a tag expects a numeric value, is it
ok to
> enter text?
>
> Or should I invent a new tag, such as maybe age_range=toddler?
>
> Is "toddler" too UK-specific? Does everyone understand it to mean
> the
> same thing? Is "infant" younger or older than "toddler"?
>
> For the older children, I wondered about "school-age", although of
> course there are also infant schools for toddlers.
>
The playgrounds around here have a specific age on the signs, can't
remember off the top of my head what it is, but it is a lot older than
toddlers. If it stops raining I will go and have a look at the local
one. It will be something between 8 and 12.

The other area has no age limits and it would be wrong for us to
assume
one, each child is different and they will work out for themselves (or
with parental guidance) when they are ready. There will certainly be a
huge crossover.

Phil (trigpoint)




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging farmland in the UK

[Warin]

On 23/05/19 04:52, James Derrick wrote:

Hi,

For about three years I've been adding field-level detail to 
Northumberland spreading out from the main conurbations, into to the 
rural network of farms and up into the higher hill areas where I walk 
and cycle.


As well as adding field boundaries and farm settlement detail, I've 
been adding land use detail, which has just started a discussion with 
Gregory (Living with Dragons).


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70502558

I've been differentiating between cultivated areas mainly ploughed for 
crops and areas of grass used to graze animals.


If I understand Gregory's comment (and well accept this may be 
incorrect...), the crux seems to be the use of landuse=farmland verses 
landuse=meadow.



Can I ask what are you thoughts on (any) difference and best practice 
for the UK please?



My interpretation (right or wrong) has been...

landuse=meadow : grassy areas, not regularly ploughed, used for 
grazing animals such as cows or sheep.
Evidence on imagery - cows, sheep, lack of tractor compaction tracks, 
medieval ridge/ furrow.


landuse=farmland : cultivated areas ploughed for crops such as wheat 
or barley.

Evidence on imagery - tractor compaction, ripening wheat, no animals.

This is not a rigorous definition - e.g. a green field of barley 
without tractor tramlines could look like an empty field without 
sheep, but with local knowledge of cultivation, height, etc., my 
intention was to show differences as rich arable lowland areas fade 
into less fertile higher ground.



As the altitude rises into the Northumberland National Park, sheep on 
grass gradually changes to open moorland, which, whilst you're reading 
this, is also worth a sanity check.


landuse = heath : heather, and other low shrubs, formerly burnt but 
now cut, high hills


Heath and heather are not land uses. What next? landuse= hill : cliff : 
beach : mud ?


And no, I wasn't avoiding natural = fell as it doesn't render in 
Mapnik; there was a lot of existing heath sketched in before I 
started, so it seemed best to continue!


Tag the truth .. don't tag for some render, tempting though it is.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Farmland (crop or animals)?

[Warin]

Humm, warning, pedantic hat on...

If you  cannot determine what it is used for .. don't use the tag landuse.

For the presence of vegetation use the key 'natural' (it applies to both 
natural and unnatural things!) and if you have problems with that (like 
me with unnatural things being tagged 'natural) then use the landcover 
tag (unapproved).



On 25/05/19 16:06, Martin Wynne wrote:
Apart from the specialised tags such as "orchard" there appears to be 
only 2 tags available for general agricultural land:


farmland

which I have taken to mean arable land. i.e. land suitable for the 
growing of crops, even if currently used as pasture for grazing by 
livestock; and


meadow

which I have taken to mean other land which has no history of being 
used for crops, usually because it is unsuitable in some way -- too 
steep or uneven, liable to flooding ("water meadows"), poor soil, 
presence of too many trees, areas of scrub, poor drainage, etc. In 
many cases used only for sheep.


Here are a few pics of what I would tag as "meadow" even if not 
technically "unimproved grassland" or whatever is the proper 
definition of a meadow:


 http:/85a.uk/meadow1_960x640.jpg

 http:/85a.uk/meadow3_960x640.jpg

 http:/85a.uk/meadow4_960x640.jpg

 http:/85a.uk/meadow2_960x640.jpg

If "meadow" is not the correct tag, what is? Do we need a new tag? 
"farmland" doesn't seem right -- none of the above is going to become 
a field of potatoes any time soon.


landcover=grass (and I hate it, but for the rendering landuse=grass) for 
the landcover.


But to me that is landuse=farmland, surface=grass, product=? sheep? 
wool? wool;sheep?
Landuse=meadow is not something I'd use, rather than being a use of the 
land it is someone tagging what they see - a land cover.


As for the need to have a specific tag for this use of the land ... well 
there are vast differences between farm land used for grazing cattle in 
Australia e.g.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Cooplacurripa_Station%285%29.jpg/450px-Cooplacurripa_Station%285%29.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/01/Anna-Creek-homestead-1.JPG/405px-Anna-Creek-homestead-1.JPG

And the Anna Creek one will change with some rain.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Farmland (crop or animals)?

[Warin]

Humm What is it that needs to be tagged? Possibly some sub tags for

tillage=yes/no/yearly/* ? to indicate if ploughed and if known how 
frequently


produce:category=animal/plant to indicate the broad group of produce?

This could then be applied to any 'landuse' ... no matter how it is tagged.


On 25/05/19 06:57, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
Fair enough, I agree that a wildflower meadow is a very pleasant place 
to be. However, I would still be more concerned to avoid the 
unpleasantness of walking through cropland where the path is variously 
ploughed under, utterly obscured by wheat or maize, or in the best 
case surfaced with heavy clay that clings to one's shoes or boots.


On Fri, 24 May 2019, 16:22 Philip Barnes, > wrote:




On Friday, 24 May 2019, SK53 wrote:
> As a walker I appreciate walking through a real hay meadow full of
> attractive flowers rather than a sterile green desert of rye grass.

And as a walker a real meadow is a very nice place to sit down and
enjoy a relaxing lunch or coffee break.

Phil (trigpoint)

> Dudley Ibbett made this point long ago about the Peak District. The
> difference is roughly equivalent to walking through a dark
lifeless spruce
> plantation and an ancient oak wood.
>
> As a naturalist these precious remnants are pretty much the only
places
> where many flowers, insects and birds are likely to be seen.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 11:59, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB <
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>
> > As a walker, the most important distinction in agricultural
land (not
> > including orchards) is whether it is tilled or otherwise
reduced to bare
> > earth, or whether grass is allowed to establish permanent root
systems. How
> > long or varied the grass is allowed to get really doesn't
concern me,
> > especially as that can change in a matter of months after a
wet spring or
> > an enthusiastic flock of sheep have been through. The exact
terminology
> > used doesn't really concern me, but where I grew up "meadow"
was the
> > colloquial term for pasture, even close cropped grass.
> >
> > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:07 AM Andy Townsend
mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> On 24/05/2019 10:43, Gregory Marler wrote:
> >> > What is going on with landuse=farmland, and what are we
going to do?
> >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmland
> >> >
> >> With regard to tagging, I agree with a lot of what you say
there, but I
> >> suspect that the first thing to do is to talk to the wiki
editor about
> >> it.  It may be that they thought that they were just changing
the wiki
> >> in line with actual usage, it may be that they've actually
discussed it
> >> with lots of other people elsewhere first (just not visible
at first
> >> glance to me).
> >>
> >> For international tagging discussions the tagging list is
probably the
> >> best* mailing list, but it's probably worth also mentioning
on the wiki
> >> talk page for the tag too (and maybe the talk page for the
wiki editor).
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> * or maybe "least worst" - there's a discussion there about
how terrible
> >> mailing list discussions are compared to controlled spaces on the
> >> tagging list at the moment - but that's more to do with what
happens
> >> when people who don't agree (and don't even agree how to talk
about
> >> things) encounter people who don't agree with each other.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___



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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to tag this?

[Warin]

amenity=notice_board???


On 08/05/19 22:22, Philip Barnes wrote:

Also building=phonebox which I use.

The most common usage is defibrillators and bookshares.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 08/05/2019 12:46, Andy Townsend wrote:


It's a bit of a stretch, but perhaps some kind of tourist information
feature?

Thanks Andy. I think it is intended for locals rather than tourists.
It's in a village on a country lane, not a recognised tourist destination.

On closer examination of my original photo, I think it is advertising a
themed "pub night" at the local village hall (which is nearby), rather
than an actual pub. There is a notice inside with a date and admission
charges.

I found this, but it's rather more than a notice board:

  
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/62741/best-tag-for-a-community-notice-board


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] RFC: Solar panel mapping in the UK

[Warin]

Don't use landuse=grass.

Use surface=grass and/or landcover=grass to state the land cover, I'd 
use these with the power=plant tag.


(For those that don't know .. I hate the tag landuse=grass)

On 05/04/19 02:38, SK53 wrote:
Yup, I don't think industrial is appropriate in many circumstances, 
any more than it would be for an area of wind turbines on moorland. 
For instance I've seen sheep grazing in between the panels (which IIRC 
are mounted on heliostats) on this solar farm: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168359464#map=15/39.8239/-5.6562=N. 
I presume that after installation the ground is more-or-less as it was 
(not for instance contaminated as is the case of many rural industrial 
areas, nor with traffic of heavy goods vehicles).


Jerry

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 16:25, Russ Garrett > wrote:


On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 16:18, Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
> Why not? If area is covered by solar panels then it is used for
power generation.
> And power generation seems clear case of industrial use

I guess it is. I just think "industrial" carries a number of
connotations which solar power doesn't have. Also, in some cases the
land under/around solar farms is used for grazing, or at any rate it's
still mostly grass. I'm not too bothered either way, though.

Cheers,
-- 
Russ Garrett

r...@garrett.co.uk 




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

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

[Warin]

On 22/03/19 02:35, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:

Thanks to all for the helpful responses.

I have looked (again) at the OSM Tags for Routing at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom
from which it is clear that foot=yes (for example) is implied by 
highway=cycleway.


However, Andy's question (if I understand it correctly) set me 
wondering whether there is any need to / benefit from distinguishing 
between foot=yes and foot=designated, etc.


MK council, in their public mapping, imply that Redways are NOT 
(generally / universally) PROW.  However, they DO seem to be 
"designated" for foot and cycle (and wheelchairs etc.), so perhaps 
they should be tagged; bicycle=designated; foot=designated,etc.,which 
highway=cycleway does not imply.


Also, at the end of my original post, I asked:

"*Naming*
I am not aware of any Redways that have unique names (someone will 
probably correct me on this), but I see several on OSM tagged with 
“name=Redway”.  Whilst I can see the attraction of doing this, I 
suspect that would not be considered good practice.  Should I delete 
that name, whenever I see it? "


Nobody seems to have commented on that yet (perhaps it got lost 
somewhere).  Any views?


I have transferred several 'names' to the description tag. Might be 
acceptable here?




Regards,

Peter

On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 13:54:20 GMT, Andy Townsend 
 wrote:



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

Best Regards,

Andy




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

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

[Warin]

On 21/03/19 04:58, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
I am relatively new to OSM, but am trying to contribute in a useful 
way, particularly in my local area (Milton Keynes).


Milton Keynes enjoys (among many benefits) an extensive network of 
joint-use Cycle Paths / Foot Paths, known as “Redways” 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_redway_system



Most (if not all) are already mapped in OSM, but the tagging is not 
consistent, so I was considering making small amendments to increase 
consistency.  However, I don’t want to make them consistently wrong, 
so I am seeking confirmation of how they should be tagged.


*Official Status of Redways *
MK Council publishes a map of the Redway Network, 
https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/assets/attach/51668/MK_Redway_Poster_PRINT_NOcrops.pdf


with a “Redway Code”, which states,

“The Redways are an important part of Milton Keynes. They are 
shared-use routes for people on foot or on cycles.  The traffic free 
network is popular for leisure, for commuting and for staying active.  
Redways may be used by anyone cycling and walking including people 
with pushchairs, or prams and those in wheelchairs (including powered 
wheelchairs / mobility scooters).”

and,

“Redways and the Law:
Electric cycles which meet EAPC Regulations are permitted to use Redways.
As Public Highway, all legal requirements and the Highway Code are 
applicable to the Redways: cycles should be roadworthy and able to 
stop in an emergency; cycle lights are required at night.
All motor-powered vehicles including mopeds, mini-motos and 
motorcycles are prohibited from using Redways, with the exception of 
authorised vehicles e.g. emergency vehicles and maintenance vehicles.”


*An Old Relation*
I have found a previous Relation, 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/145144) which I assume linked 
all the Redways, but which @andrewmk deleted some years ago, so I am 
NOT proposing to re-create that Relation.


*Access Tagging*
So how should they be tagged for access?
I believe it should be:
highway=path  (but I see several tagged as highway=cycleway and both 
are shown in the Wiki at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=cycleway)

foot=designated
motor vehicle=permit (to allow the emergency vehicles and maintenance 
vehicles)

moped=no
bicycle=designated
horses=not specified
segregated=no
Is that correct?



I would add

wheelchair=yes
surface=paved

Then you can add additional details, like width=*, etc.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Measuring building height

[Warin]

On 21/03/19 08:39, Devonshire wrote:
This stuff is hilarious. Standing outside people's homes taking photos 
of their cars and house isn't going to end very well.


I'd simply visually estimate the hight of a home - no photo required.

For a multi story building visual estimations start to get uncertain. 
Here I'd be using other methods.





Is it maybe possible to get building heights from lidar data?


Too much clutter (multiple reflections) in a city for that to work well 
I'd think.


Kevin

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019, at 11:17 PM, Warin wrote:

On 20/03/19 07:51, Neil Matthews wrote:
>
> So, I just tried this and I think it has a reasonable chance of giving
> a reasonable result.
>
> Take a photo of a car outside the building. Measure number of pixels
> for the car and number of pixels for the building and the height can
> be approximated by:
>
>     building_pixels / car_pixels * car_height_in_m
>
> I reckon an average of 1.5m might be reasonable for the car height --
> otherwise use something more detailed:
> https://www.automobiledimension.com/ford-car-dimensions.html
>
>
> Obviously, the further the car is from the building the less accurate
> the measurement will be.
>

The further the camera/photo is from the building the better too. Less
camera distortion.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Neil
>
>
> On 19/03/2019 16:23, Tony Shield wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Been figuring out how to do this for a while - my solution-
>>
>> rule - I used 30cm (aka 1 foot), calculator, known length of arm - in
>> my case .6m, OSM map to measure distance from target.
>>
>> With hand holding rule vertically measure the target height against
>> the rule for rule height, this is the key measurement, note the
>> measurement point. From the map measure the distance from the
>> measuring point to the target
>>
>> With this information and using proportions (which is what a tangent
>> is) -
>>
>> target height = (rule height in metres * distance from measuring
>> point to target) / length of arm in metres.
>>
>> Using this technique I have this morning measured known height of of
>> a local landmark, and the unknown height of a building. The known
>> height of 50m measured 8cm at a range of 375m. The unknown height of
>> the building with 5 floors was calculated to be 20.7 metres which
>> would on the face of it be realistic (from 3cm and 414m). (Botany Bay
>> mill in Chorley).
>>
>> TonyS999
>>
>>


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





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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Measuring building height

[Warin]

On 20/03/19 07:51, Neil Matthews wrote:


So, I just tried this and I think it has a reasonable chance of giving 
a reasonable result.


Take a photo of a car outside the building. Measure number of pixels 
for the car and number of pixels for the building and the height can 
be approximated by:


    building_pixels / car_pixels * car_height_in_m

I reckon an average of 1.5m might be reasonable for the car height -- 
otherwise use something more detailed: 
https://www.automobiledimension.com/ford-car-dimensions.html



Obviously, the further the car is from the building the less accurate 
the measurement will be.




The further the camera/photo is from the building the better too. Less 
camera distortion.



Cheers,

Neil


On 19/03/2019 16:23, Tony Shield wrote:


Hi

Been figuring out how to do this for a while - my solution-

rule - I used 30cm (aka 1 foot), calculator, known length of arm - in 
my case .6m, OSM map to measure distance from target.


With hand holding rule vertically measure the target height against 
the rule for rule height, this is the key measurement, note the 
measurement point. From the map measure the distance from the 
measuring point to the target


With this information and using proportions (which is what a tangent 
is) -


target height = (rule height in metres * distance from measuring 
point to target) / length of arm in metres.


Using this technique I have this morning measured known height of of 
a local landmark, and the unknown height of a building. The known 
height of 50m measured 8cm at a range of 375m. The unknown height of 
the building with 5 floors was calculated to be 20.7 metres which 
would on the face of it be realistic (from 3cm and 414m). (Botany Bay 
mill in Chorley).


TonyS999





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

[Warin]

On 19/03/19 11:22, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 18/03/2019 23:41, Warin wrote:


For a chimney that is surrounded by a building  I used the shadow of 
the chimney vs the shadow of the building.


That may be more feasible more of the time where you live than where I 
do!


Point. :)

Some satellite images have cloud cover .. I can usually find another 
satellite image that does not have that cover...


There is some tool on my android phone (named umm swiss army knife?) 
that is supposed to determine height ... I have never used that bit of 
it...


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

[Warin]

On 19/03/19 10:13, Andy Townsend wrote:


On 18/03/2019 21:05, Neil Matthews wrote:


P.S. Any suggestions  on how I can measure buildings "on-foot" 
greatly apreciated...



If you can't get hold of one of these*: 
https://www.aols.org/archives/historical-artifacts?page=13 , and if 
you're after the heights of large buildings in a city that you can get 
fairly close to, how about a plastic set-square held horizontal by 
aligning the perpendicular side to a piece of string held down by a 
weight?  The height of the building should be half your distance from 
it.  Or just cheat and count the floors.


Best Regards,

Andy

* turn the mirror through 90 degrees, look through the gap and at the 
reflection of your eye, adjust the weight and read the number off the 
scale


For a chimney that is surrounded by a building  I used the shadow of the 
chimney vs the shadow of the building. Do tag the source:height !  
Someone may be able to do better, if not at least it provides amusement 
for others.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Warin]

Path and footway are the same .. to me. When I first joined OSM I was 
told they had different default permissions to allow UK people to do a 
short way of tagging those permissions, true or false I don't know. 
Seemed like a nasty way of doing it to me. In Australia .. the view was 
taken - country side = path, city = footway. Still nasty.


I disagree that path is being 'actively discouraged'. If it were then 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath would be marked 
'depreciated'.


On 15/03/19 00:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi

Nothing except the fact people walk along a way is implied by path or 
footway. The legality or ability to use it is defined with 
sub/adjective tags, such as width.


The path tag is actively being discouraged. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333


OSM-Carto rendering doesn't distinguish it from 'footway' any longer.

Cheers
DaveF

On 12/03/2019 09:17, Devonshire wrote:
Both footway and path infer a way of a certain width suitable for 
people to use, neither infers any legal right of use as far as I am 
concerned.


If starting over path is a better word as people outside of OSM have 
clue what it is but otherwise I see them as interchangeable.


Kevin





___
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] Lake District NationalPark

[Warin]

There is a start on the 'standard' map rending 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=54.6443=-2.8172#map=15/54.6447/-2.8189


The larger something is the longer it takes of the renders to see it.

And if it is a change the renders are slower to see that too.

Something new and small gets rendered fairly quickly.

Give it a few more weeks.


On 14/03/19 08:29, SK53 wrote:
It was fixed about 6 days ago, but looks OK now 
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=287917&_noCache=on


Jerry

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 21:13, Brian Prangle > wrote:


Can someone take a look at this relation? It doesn't seem to be
rendering on the main map

Regards

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



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 10:45, Martin Wynne wrote:
There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be 
marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length 
as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get 
between adjacent fields.


It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument 
about that.


But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?

There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor 
gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of 
hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.


What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to 
represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?


Arr ..
I'd tag the present use.

highway=track
motor_vehicle=private?
horse=yes
surface=unpaved

Where the 'wheeled use' is not evident then I'd tag highway=bridleway etc.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 10:03, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:



On 10/03/2019 22:37, Martin Wynne wrote:

Thanks for the comments.

I'm surprised some folks can be so dogmatic,


A surprising comment considering on your 'rarity' claim.


Comment? If a clear distinction between two things is wanted then there 
needs to be a dogmatic answer? :)




Changing the subject a little, is it still a track if wide enough for 
a vehicle, but the landowner has physically blocked vehicles from 
entering it with barrier=block


There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be 
marked as a bridleway, 

Is there evidence of bridleway use?
but It's advisable to check the whole length as sections can be used 
by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get between adjacent fields.


Then the sections will have to be separated and individually tagged.

{beer? I think I'll just have a cup of tea. (meaning .. don't take any 
of this discussion personally)}






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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Warin]

On 04/03/19 10:22, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:



On 03/03/2019 22:54, Warin wrote:
If a field is used for a helicopter landing .. should you tag it as a 
heliport?
If a one off, no, but if occasional then Helipad is appropriate in 
that case.




My answer is - what is it regularly used for and is suitable for that 
use? Not what it could be or seldom used for.


Please remember 'regularly' doesn't mean the same as 'frequently'. It 
can still be 'seldom used' & regular.


Frequency of use should have no bearing on tagging. if it's able to be 
used for certain purpose, then it can be tagged to indicate it. It 
doesn't have to be a primary tag.


A helicopter can land where ever there is space.
e.g. all football pitches can be used by a helicopter, therefore you 
would have all football pitches tagged as helipads?


The fact that something can be used for a certain purpose does not mean 
that it is used for that purpose.
And even if it is used for that purpose, but seldom, it may have only 
done with special permission, so it is a temporary thing - which OSM 
does not map.






If it has not been used for some time then disused:*=* could be useful. 


Disused indicates an official closure, not how rarely it's used.


Err  it indicates that a feature is no longer used, but could be put 
back into use with little effort.
Nothing necessarily  'official'. If I see a shop has closed .. I do not 
know if it is 'official'. But I know it is 'disused' from the state of it.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Warin]

On 04/03/19 03:11, Martin Wynne wrote:

What is the dividing line between:

 highway=bridleway  designation=public_bridleway

and

 highway=track  designation=public_bridleway

The wiki says a track must be suitable for farm vehicles, but it's a 
rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse, and not for a 
small tractor or 4x4 type vehicle.


Which taken logically would mean that highway=bridleway would hardly 
ever be used. But it's a useful indication for map users when rendered 
-- in the UK at least a bridleway is almost always a public right of 
way. Whereas a way rendered as a track is often private.


The standard renderings for a track differentiate between surface 
conditions, but not access.


Rule 1: Ignore the renders! Tag the truth.

Some renders do show access restrictions.



Does a track require actual evidence of recent vehicular use? The wiki 
doesn't say so. And must the vehicle be motorised? For example if the 
last time a way was used by a wheeled vehicle was a horse and cart 50 
years ago, was it then a bridleway or a track? And what is it now?


If I tag a way as a bridleway, and then a few weeks later see a 
tractor using it, should I change it to a track?


If a field is used for a helicopter landing .. should you tag it as a 
heliport?


My answer is - what is it regularly used for and is suitable for that 
use? Not what it could be or seldom used for.


If it has not been used for some time then disused:*=* could be useful.

Yes, there will be some judgement required.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] We're missing changes to M1 Junction 36 which have apparently been in place for a year.

[Warin]

On 14/02/19 03:42, Ed Loach wrote:

Paul wrote:


Jerry,

No worries. I think I'll still pop down for a survey anyway because I now want 
to
try the GPS + car trick and see how it turns out. We'll compare changesets 
later :)

Much of Clacton was originally mapped using that method, when there was no 
imagery covering the area.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/EdLoach/traces/page/79
When imagery and OS opendata became available it was usually pretty close. I 
was using (and still use) a Locosys GT-31.

I have seen areas where the uploaded traces and the OSM roads seem to follow 
the pavement in the imagery and suspect it was mapped by a walker who hadn't 
adjusted for not walking down the middle of the road (I'm not talking a 
constant offset here as it depended which side of the roads they were walking).


Same applies for car traces. Best to average multiple trips in both directions.



Accuracy will depend on the receiver and signal reception.


Yep. Multiple trips can help with everything but reception problems caused by 
local obstructions (buildings, cliffs etc.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering Problems

[Warin]

On 18/01/19 20:49, Brian Prangle wrote:
Has anyone else noticed problems with edits failing to render?. Stuff 
I did 2 days ago still not showing up


I find a new entry goes through (zoomed in) fairly quickly

Changed old stuff takes it time .. and is not consistent with the zoom 
level.


If you mark a tile dirty then that usually takes a day. I only do that 
when I'm stuffy or not certain if I need to do more. I always mark dirty 
from a zoomed in level first, then the next day zoom out to see if I 
need/want to mark dirty there too.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Notice from Bedford Borough Council about Church Lane, Yielden

[Warin]

On 16/01/19 18:39, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

Bedford Borough Council has sent a letter to the OSMF regarding the
"Application for the Stopping Up of Public Vehicular Rights over Part of
Unclassified Road U6 (Church Lane; Yielden) in the Parish of Melchbourne
and Yielden, in the Country Of Bedfordshire".

They write: "You will recall that on 18 January 2018 either you or a
local representative of your organisation was consulted on a proposal to
stop up public vechicular rights..." and "I can now tell you that the
Court Hearing is scheduled to take place on tuesday 05 February 2019 at
09:30 at the Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates' Court".

The letter also includes details of the application and a map sketch and
a text for a draft order to be signed by the judge(s).

I don't know who of you was consulted by the council and in what form,
but now you know about the hearing ;)

Also happy to forward the letter if anyone is interested.



My sympathies to the 'consulted' individual.

I was once rung at work about the death of someone in recreational activities 
that I did at the time by the press.

They wanted background information.

About an hour later my recorded voice was on the radio.

Not impressed. I did not know the person, nor the area.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] account disabled due to bounces

[Warin]

On 14/01/19 20:09, Jez Nicholson wrote:
I get the occasional email from Talk-GB telling me that my email 
address has excessive bounces. I'm using gmail. Am I the only one with 
problems? Is there something I need to change?




I get the same.

I enquired once and was told it was something to do with google and that 
I should not worry about it.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] I have a philosophical question...

[Warin]

On 14/01/19 10:09, BD wrote:

Hi All,

I do make my little contribution to the effort of OSM. Recently I 
added some data to Mapillary and consider adding more (for the use of 
other mappers).


After reading someone's OSM profile I started to think and now have 
some doubts... We (mappers) are concentrating on various areas of the 
map. Some are dedicated to buildings, some to geographical features 
others add businesses etc. Can someone explain what is the aim of OSM, 
are we trying to build a map better than Bing and Google (in towns and 
cities) or are we planning to create a useful tool for tourists (with 
paths, places of interests)?


What is the aim of OSM, what should we concentrate on?


"We"?
OSM is a collection of individuals.
"We" all contribute what 'we' want to contribute.
If it was dictated that only contributions for 'x' are to be made then 
vast numbers of people would leave.


The aim of OSM? To map the world?

Whatever contribution that an individual choses to make to improve the 
map should be accepted.

I map in deserts. I map sports. I map all sorts of things.
What you chose to map is up to you.
A group may get together and chose to concentrate on some features, up 
to those individuals as to how much they contribute to that effort.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents

[Warin]

Even if it were open .. does OSM want it?

I don't see any specific tags for it?

And you do want to have them accurate and up to date.

---

Example of inaccurate property extent problems .. from Australia - 
https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/coroner-hits-out-at-police-use-of-google-maps-printouts-in-search-for-missing-man/news-story/0d005d8018e694433313ab2b941c7df4


A recent coroner hit out at the decision to rely on Google Maps 
printouts in the manhunt — noting that Queensland Police Service (QPS) 
had better tools available to them to search the area.


In fact, the inquest detailed how officers on the case were later given 
a much more informative aerial map of the area from the local council, 
at no cost to police whatsoever.


“It is quite apparent the quality of the images of the property on this 
map is far superior to the Google map images used in the search of the 
property and one wonders if the same mistake in conducting a search of 
only half the property would have been made if this map had been 
obtained,” Deputy State Coroner John Lock said in his report.


---

There are lots of potential problems from mapping private property 
extents. Don't think I would want to go there.



On 09/01/19 23:40, Andy Robinson wrote:


Tom, Jerry, Chris thanks for the very helpful prompts.

Cheers

Andy

*From:*Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net]
*Sent:* 09 January 2019 12:37
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents

Here's one of Jerry's blog posts about the not-so-open Land Registry data:

https://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2013/10/not-very-inspired-land-registry-open.html

and my post about testing using them:

https://chris-osm.blogspot.com/2013/10/land-registry-inspire-polygons.html

As Tom says, these datasets are not Open Data and we cannot use them 
as a data source in OSM. I feel that the Open Government Licence 
should not be used in this case as it isn't  Open.


On 09/01/2019 11:47, SK53 wrote:

Hi Andy,

Both Chris Hill & I blogged about them at the time, but they NEVER
had any semblance of being open data.

The same proved to be true of the Land Registry Prices Paid which
now can only be used if you are an estate agent.

Owen has covered both on his Map Gubbins blog.

Have to dash, so no time to find the links.

Jerry

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 11:07, Andy Robinson mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com>> wrote:

As a follow-up, has anyone looked at the OGL licenced INSPIRE
Land Registry index polygons?

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/download-inspire-index-polygons

Data is in GML format.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com
]
Sent: 09 January 2019 10:56
To: 'David Woolley'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org

Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Property extents

On Wed 09/01/2019 10:35 David Woolley wrote:
>Actually, that seems more valuable to OSM than the building
>outlines as it is much more difficult to accurately recover from
>aerial imagery and ground surveys can normally only see front
yards.

Agreed, though I wonder whether this will have any correlation
with Land Registry. I'm guessing .gov isn’t that joined up.

Cheers
Andy





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Mobility Stockport

[Warin]

On 10/01/19 07:17, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 09/01/2019 18:11, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Seeking your input...

One thing that struck me when I had to start planning for getting from 
A to B with someone on a mobility scooter or in a wheelchair was that 
the "obvious" things (kerbs etc.) weren't the biggest issue - it was 
things like the exact location of the shopmobility office (which level 
of the car park and exactly where on that level?) and gates that 
weren't mobility-scooter accessible not because they weren't wide 
enough but because the angle you'd have to turn through was impossible 
(I've still no idea how to map that).


Umm I'd try 'wheelchair=no' on the way. Presumably a wheel chair would 
have similar difficulty there.


I'd actually start by asking potential users in Stockport "so what do 
you want to see on a map?".  I bet a whole pile of requests will come 
in that aren't covered by any OSM map.


With regard to "what shows this" 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wheelchair#Rendering (which 
you've probably already looked at) has a couple of suggestions.  I'm 
sure that there are others though, even features of non-"accessibility 
sprecific" renderings such as the "shopmobility parsing" that I added 
to 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20=53.4955228=-2.514984 
when I found it personally useful.


I am thinking about making a new wiki page for mappers on tags available 
for disability/accessibility things. Presently there is no common page 
for them, something similar to;


the format of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway

and tagging on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Handicaps/R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rentiel


Yet to get off my bum and do some more research on it, the above will 
give me some more to do, thanks.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data

[Warin]

I have faced formal learning things by using tool A at first because it 
'is easy', then the next year learning tool B because 'we' needed to do 
more complex things, then the next year learning tool C because 'we' 
needed to do the most complex things...

on numerous subjects... taught in formal subjects.
Having to learn tools A and B were a waste of my time .. give the choice 
if I think I'm going to be around to need the more complex tools I go 
straight for tool C.

I have never bothered with ID .. I went straight for tool JOSM.

On 13/12/18 23:00, Edward Bainton wrote:
As a new mapper around just long enough to know that I've made some 
crass newbie mistakes already [point in case, just replied without 
editing the subject line... apologies!], I agree with Andy. The iD 
editor is the the go-to editor for newbies, myself included, and the 
snap feature is so apparent in the UX that I have regularly taken its 
steer and made new objects follow old nodes.


Presumably it would be possible to have some 'sticky' features that 
aren't so easily modified - these boundaries would seem to be a good 
candidate; so would roads when they've been rigorously established 
from multiple data sources.


And/or perhaps a warning in iD that flags the pros and cons of 
snapping to existing nodes, and/or gives the option of a 
bulk-undo/bulk-disconnect if you've done that and thought better of it.






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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Warin]

On 20/09/18 20:53, Martin Wynne wrote:

How can you verify it's the same stream?


I can't.  I've deleted it.

This raises the question of the maximum length of a culvert under a 
road, beyond which it is no longer permissible to map it as such. 
Under a country lane is ok? But under a motorway?


This one is some 470 meters long. It goes under shopping and residential 
areas, some roads and a train line, when (not if) it gets blocked it 
floods the area.

Way: Terrys Creek (447098073)
Fortunately OSM has access to data of where it goes, in the past I would 
think a straight line would have been used between the entry and exit 
points.

The culvert is large ... say 3 meters height and 4 meters wide.



What is a stream? Even if it's the same water, does that make it the 
same stream? Is a pipe a stream?


This one is a stream. It is well known in the area and thus easy to 
verify from local knowledge, topology and the lack of any matching 
features in the area.


And to my mind it is a culvert.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Warin]

On 27/08/18 06:05, Martin Wynne wrote:

I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
consensus in favour of deletion.


Should this consensus be among OSM mappers or OSM users?





OSM users can easily remove stuff in there pre filtering of OSM data. So 
it is not an issue for them.





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Wickham Market, Suffolk

[Warin]

On 07/09/18 21:04, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 07/09/2018 11:35, Martin Wynne wrote:
You were suggesting identifying them by observation, using street 
lights as a distinguishing factor.


Yes, in the event that you are uncertain. I said it was a useful 
indicator.


But it's not a useful indicator, because it's least reliable precisely 
in the cases where you are most uncertain.


You guys need to get back to the essential basic question.

How many pubs? :))


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[Warin]

On 29/08/18 01:46, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-08-28 16:43, David Groom wrote:

whilst in theory I'd say yes, in practice I'd say consensus is hard 
to achieve.
OK, I might as well give up now then. If everybody started thinking "I 
don't know why I bother," like I am now, where would we be?


To Colin I say in a loud voice ... "Up the Rebels" :)

On the Australian talk list this came up for an import or maritime 
boundaries -note the last bits


/Geoscience Australia definitions:/
/
/

 * /"The //Normal baseline// corresponds with the low water line along
   the coast, including the coasts of islands. Under the Convention,
   normal baseline can be drawn around low tide elevations which are
   defined as naturally formed areas of land surrounded by and above
   water at low tide but submerged at high tide, provided they are
   wholly or partly within 12 nautical miles of the coast. For
   Australian purposes, normal baseline corresponds to the level of
   //Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT)
   
//./
 * /Straight baselines// are a system of straight lines joining
   specified or discrete points on the low-water line, usually known as
   straight baseline end points. These may be used in localities where
   the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or where there is a
   fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity./
 * /Bay or river closing lines// are straight lines drawn between the
   respective low-water marks of the natural entrance points of bays or
   rivers./

/Waters on the landward side of the baseline are internal waters for the 
purposes of international law."/


Probably this same distinction exists in the UK - that difference of 
internal waters for international law. This may help achieve a 'consensus'?


/
/

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping horse steps?

[Warin]

On 27/08/18 23:28, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 27/08/18 13:32, Edward Catmur wrote:
amenity=horse_dismount_block has 4 occurrences, all in the north of 
England.


I think I'm responsible for half of those - happy to pick a different 
tag if someone's got a better idea!


There are actually a selection of tags used for this sort of thing:

--

-- Horse mounting blocks
--

   if (( keyvalues["amenity"]   == "mounting_block"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["bridleway"] == "mounting_block"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["historic"]  == "mounting_block"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["horse"] == "mounting_block"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["horse"] == "mounting block"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["amenity"]   == "mounting_step"    ) or
   ( keyvalues["amenity"]   == "mounting_steps"   ) or
   ( keyvalues["amenity"]   == "horse_dismount_block" )) then
  keyvalues["man_made"] = "mounting_block"
   end

https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L2211 



all very low usage.


horse=* is used as an access thing .. so I'd not encourage its use for 
other things.
e.g. there exists horse=dismount .. I think that means the rider must 
get off the horse to proceed .. an access condition, not a facility to 
assist dismounting.


I'll raise it on the tagging list and see what they come up with.
My personal preference at the moment is for man_made=mounting_steps. But 
that is just me.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Warin]

On 28/08/18 04:00, Chris Hill wrote:



On 27/08/2018 18:09, Martin Wynne wrote:



Landuse=highway does have some usage, and certainly the term forbidden
does not exist in OSM.

There is no such thing as available, if you think a new tag is needed
then you can use it.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway


Hi Phil,

I'm confused. If anyone can use anything, what is the meaning of 
having a vote about it?


That page says voting on landuse=highway was suspended 5 years ago, 
and there are more opposed to it than in favour.


There must be some distinction between "official" tags and home-made 
ones, otherwise how is the renderer to know what to do with them? If 
it is not rendered, and no-one knows it exists to be searched for, 
what is the point of adding it to the database? If I put 
landuse=ufo_landing_pad who would ever know that it is in there?


There are no official or approved tags. 


There are 'approved' tags. These are ones voted on and reach the 
required number of votes, proportion of yes votes and the required 
minimum times for comments on the tagging list and time for voting.
Tags existed before that system .. these normally have the status 
defacto. Tags that have not been 'approved' but have large use might 
have the status 'inuse'.


There are thousands of renders, each one is free to use the tags they 
want. If you want a specialist cycle map or specialist sports map you 
can create it, focussing on the items you want to show. The problem 
with having a few maps on the landing page of OSM is that newcomers 
assume they are the way things are rendered, when anything is possible.


Voting is, IMHO, largely pointless and possibly a bad thing as it 
lends an air of importance to a tag when in reality a couple of dozen 
people said Yes to an idea they may know nothing about nor even ever use.


By seeking the tagging groups discussion a wider world view can be 
obtained rather than a local view possibly of one person.

The voting can be destructive. But the discussions can be helpful.


The only metric that matters is whether a tag is used, and yes landuse 
= highway is used and makes a lot of sense to me.




Agree that landuse=highway makes sense.

I disagree that landuse=highway would confuse a router.. routers look 
for the key highway=* ... not the value *=highway.
So I think the comment that landuse=hightway cannot be used is totally 
wrong.


The acceptance of a tag by renders goes a long way to getting people to 
use it.
Catch 22 is that the renders don't like to use a tag unless it has 
significant use.

One way of encouraging use is to document it well on the OSM wiki.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.

[Warin]

On 06/08/18 06:10, Martin Wynne wrote:

Copyright doesn't work like that.


But you can't copyright names, addresses and similar material.

Road names and numbers would surely fall within that.

I'm not suggesting copying the document and posting it verbatim.


There was a long and costly court case in Australia where a firm had 
used the information in  phone books to make their own data base.


Facts cannot be copyrighted in Australian Law. but any skill etc can be 
copyrighted.

The case was fought.
The legal niceties are above me, but the phone book people won ... so 
even though the facts in the phone book are not copyright, practically 
you cannot copy them into your own data base.

Ridiculous but true.
I'd think similar legal arguments could be made in a British court.

Be carefull.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[Warin]

On 04/08/18 20:06, Andy Townsend wrote:

"Public right of way references, along with stiles and kissing gates, are for 
example rendered on Andy Townsend's specialist walking map."

That already has an idea about "unsigned names and refs" and at some point I'll 
add various unsigned road refs in brackets like PROW refs and other combinations (like 
waterway locks).

On the "there shouldn't be a standard map" question I'm aware of people who think that 
the "standard" OSM rendering is OSM Carto, the Cycle layer, Facebook, MAPS.ME among 
others.



One of the things I like about OSMand is that you can select the way in which 
the map renders .. to a degree.
It does give the feeling that you can have some influence over the map that you 
see and use.
(Now if I could just remember to keep the thing upto date!)


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

[Talk-GB] landuse=scrub wood

[Warin]

Hi,


I'm presently targeting low use, inappropriate and non rendering values 
of landuse.


Presently looking at landuse=scrub .. as a human use of the land I don't 
think scrub is one.


It is a land cover and would be better tagged as natural=scrub, it makes 
sense and it renders!



While doing this I can across this Way: 250644200 tagged as landuse=wood 
.. from 2013.


It is adjacent to Way: 250644211 tagged landuse=scrub.

This area should all be tagged natural=scrub .. no trees evident in 
current imagery.



Are that any disagreement with;


* landuse=scrub is better tagged as natural=scrub?


* landuse=wood is better tagged as natural=wood?


* that this particular area is better updated using the present imagery?


Note that a past edit was 'repaired' by woodpeck_repair in 2015 on the 
Way: 250644200.


Personally I see these as global issues rather than local issues. But 
there you go.





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

Re: [Talk-GB] University of Northampton new campus - mapper required

[Warin]

Rather than point as to what not to do .. it would be best to point to 
what to do.


So where is the 'best' OSM mapped university? Use that as an example of 
what to do.


On 14/07/18 08:26, Dan S wrote:
I hope this is not too much of a side-issue, but: one hopeful request 
- plase don't use amenity=university for each object in the 
campus, as was done for some other universities.


I don't think UK uni tagging is yet consistent across towns, but the 
wiki's advice looks broadly ok imho!


Cheers
Dan


föstudagur, 13. júlí 2018 skrifaði David Earl 
mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com>>:
> The University of Northampton is opening a new campus very soon 
between between Bedford Road and New South Bridge Road. They would 
like to get a detailed campus map onto OSM as soon as possible, 
ideally by August 1. I haven't looked but I'm assuming this would have 
to be a ground survey as it is all new buildings so won't be on 
satellite (though maybe some building footprints might be), and in any 
case that wouldn't get down to the level of access doors, or building 
occupiers. If copyright permission can be obtained, I'm guessing they 
may have plans that could serve part of the job.
> They would be open to employing someone to do the surveying, 
especially as it has a short timescale. I can't really do it as it's 
too far from home to do repeated trips or fit it into my current 
schedule, otherwise I'd have jumped at it (I worked with the contact 
doing Cambridge University maps, and I'm sending this with her 
permission).
> If anyone is interested, please contact Amy Moore in their estates 
services department: amy.mo...@northampton.ac.uk 


> 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] Toys R Us

[Warin]

On 06/05/18 00:24, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On 5 May 2018 at 14:24, Adam Snape  wrote:


I too disagree with intentionally ignoring outdated information.

+1


However, we cannot know from our armchairs whether a store is disused but
still signed

What if t is? It is no longer an outlet for that brand.

There are buildings near where I live with Victorian "ghost signs" for
the shops that once occupied them.




? umm use tag of disused:shop=* and name=*.

The old historic signs .. add an approximate start and end dates?
I'd have these as separate nodes and I'd copy them across to OHM.
This way if they are removed, there past existence is preserved in OHM.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bottle Kilns

[Warin]

There are more building=industrial so that may get some rendering 
eventually.

And a kiln/bottle making is an industry so it does fit.


On 06/04/18 16:40, Russ Phillips wrote:

Forgot to add:

Elsewhere, someone suggested using kiln=bottle_kiln and 
building=industrial instead of building=bottle_kiln. Any thoughts?


Russ


On 6 April 2018 at 07:38, Russ Phillips 
> wrote:


Right, I'm now thinking I'll tag as:

building=bottle_kiln
kiln=pottery
disused:man_made=kiln
former_product=pottery
historic=kiln

and add tourism=museum where appropriate.

Ideally
I'd have the building as a way.
Then the kiln as a node with the product.
This allows the building to remain 'intact' while the kiln
could go disused to abandoned depending on how bad it is.
I note that the kiln requires more than the building, for
example heat proofing, venting.

Most of the bottle kilns in Stoke-on-Trent are stand-alone brick
structures, and the whole building is the kiln. They were filled
with pottery, the doorway was bricked up, and fires were lit at
the bottom.

However, this brings up a related point. Some bottle kilns are
inside another building (eg the one at Moorcroft:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83551695@N00/4794476050/
) How
would I map those? I'm guessing I'd have two ways - one for the
outer building, and one for the bottle kiln, with a relation to
tie them together. If so, what type of relation should I use?

Thanks for all the help and advice.

Russ





___
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] Bottle Kilns

[Warin]

On 06/04/18 03:04, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

How about disused as a lifecycle prefix rather than a simple tag eg. 
disused:man_made=kiln

+1
I don't think much of disued=yes
* building=industrial
* kiln=bottle_kiln
* man_made=kiln
* product=pottery
* disused=yes
* historic=building

Which bit is disused? The building? Or the kiln? Both?

* building=industrial
* kiln=bottle_kiln
* disused:man_made=kiln
* product=pottery
* historic=building
Is specific ...

Ideally
I'd have the building as a way.
Then the kiln as a node with the product.
This allows the building to remain 'intact' while the kiln could go 
disused to abandoned depending on how bad it is.
I note that the kiln requires more than the building, for example heat 
proofing, venting.



tourism=museum

Alternatively, how about using the historic tag to differentiate old 
kilns from modern ones eg.

historic=kiln
tourism=museum

Fails to identify the state of decay, which may not be a bad thing.


Kind regards,

Adam


On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 16:00 Paul Berry, > wrote:


> Do we have precedence for handling such cases, in other types of
specialist buildings?

Not sure, but I'm now thinking about other kiln-like structures
close to my neck of the woods. Feel free to update the tagging on
these accordingly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catcliffe_Glass_Cone
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/155737916

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cementation_furnace,_Sheffield
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107004890

Regards,
/Paul/

On 5 April 2018 at 15:45, Andy Mabbett > wrote:

On 5 April 2018 at 13:18, Russ Phillips
> wrote:

> I'm intending to map the bottle kilns in Stoke on Trent.

Don't forget that there are some in Stourbridge, too.

> Based on feedback from a few people, I'm planning to use the
following tags,
> although I'm still open to suggestions.

the rest look OK, but Ilm not sure about:

> * disused=yes

Since, though disused as kilns, they tend to be used for something
else (shop, museum, etc.).

Do we have precedence for handling such cases, in other types of
specialist buildings?

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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


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



___
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] Edits in Wales

[Warin]

Hummm 

There area number of places around me that have name:ru ... yet there 
are no signs with this language on them.

And there are some in other languages too...

I see nothing wrong with that. These names do not have to be present on 
a local sign.


So I see nothing wrong with having name:cy where you may not find a sign 
with that Welsh name on it.


The "name" tag value should carry the value that the majority use in the 
local community, if that is reflected on local signs, good.


For rendering .. I would use the 'name' value where I wanted a map with 
the local names/languages.
Where I wanted to produce a map in a certain language - say English I 
would use the 'name:en', if that does not exist I'd use the fall back 
'name'.



On 26/03/18 23:04, Gregory wrote:
The OpenStreetMap rule for all time has been "what's on the ground is 
what we use", in the case of names that would be what's on the road 
signs.


I was in Wales last week and saw a mix of road names (I didn't focus 
on place names, but it should still stand):

1)Welshon top line, English below.
2) English on top line,Welshbelow.
3)Welshonly.
It seemed consistent for areas, maybe relating to how old the streets 
were or politics - I think this is interesting enough.


I would tag it the streets always with 2-3 name tags...
A) name:cy and name:en used whenever they are present on a sign. Do 
not transliterate. When we have a complete map, this then provides 
insight into the areas (where and % of roads) actually have Bilingual 
names.
B) You should additionally add a "name" value. My preference is for 
the name on the top line. I can see the argument for putting both/all 
names in, but I think this gets messy as OpenStreetMap doesn't have 
the concept of a separator.


The "name" tag is a used as a fallback (what a German-language map 
would show, what aWelsh-language map would show if no name:cy, etc). 
You should think of it as a fallback name, rather than a default name.
This can then provide us with insight, what streets haveWelshas the 
primary name (name:cy = name)?



While in Wales, I did do some filming so I could demonstrate how to 
map bilingual names/places. I've not finished the editing yet, but can 
share a link when it's published.



From England,
Gregory.


On 25 March 2018 at 23:13, ajt1...@gmail.com 
 > wrote:


On 25/03/2018 21:49, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo wrote:

...
Sorry to insist but you will undermine, especially, Welsh names,
for a generic rendering that uses "name" tags. Think about that.


Can you give a specific example of that?  Are you saying that
"it's important to pretend that Welsh names are displayed even
where they aren't used very often" by sticking them on the end of
the more commonly used name? The other way around (using Welsh in
"name" because it is the most used name) presumably wouldn't
"undermine ... Welsh names".  It could be that I'm completely
misunderstanding what you're saying here but I really don't follow
the argument at all.



Of course, for me, it's a must to fill "name:cy" and "name:en" too.


That's great news - it'll allow maps like
https://openstreetmap.cymru/ (and mine!) to render appropriate
names in appropriate areas.



On 25 March 2018 at 20:30, Curon Davies > wrote:

  * The fundamental problem is that there is no "name"
which is correct. In the medium term, as long as the
name:cy and name:en are correct then the value of
"name" should become less significant. Then it can be
up to the user to decide if they want to display
English, Welsh or both (and if both which language
taking priority).

The problem currently, is that display choice isn't available.



I don't think that that's actually true - I can think of at least
3 choices right now:

  * OSM "Standard map" (and a number of others), which just use
the "name" tag:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.88362/-5.26565


  * Openstreetmap.cymru, which uses "name:cy":


https://openstreetmap.cymru?h=51.88397494833407=-5.264972448348999=17



  * Mine, that show one of "name:cy", "name:en", "name:ga" or
"name" depending on location:



http://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=18=51.883531=-5.264898



and of course anyone making their own maps (Garmin etc.) can do
whatever they want.

Best Regards,

Andy

PS: Apologies to Curon if his message wasn't meant for the list -
I'm guessing that it was but that he's actually not 

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

[Warin]

On 21-Jan-18 09:46 AM, Colin Spiller wrote:

I have similar near here.
Keep the address at least! Remove the fhrs:I'd seems sensible.


old:name would seam sensible too.


Colin

Sent from TypeApp 
On 20 Jan 2018, at 22:42, Andrew Black > wrote:


If a pub has been taken over by a chain (and changed name), should
one delete FHRS info.
My gut feeling is yes but. ...



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



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Warin]

On 29-Dec-17 07:28 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 28/12/2017 19:31, Lester Caine wrote:

Get the return address right ...

On 28/12/17 16:12, Colin Spiller wrote:
I've been adding postcodes in the Bradford BD area using Robert & 
gregrs

useful tools. I've just noticed that the Shell station at the Rooley
Lane / Rooley Avenue junction BD5 8JR is now reported as having an
incorrect postal unit (the final two letters of the postcode). This
postcode appears widely on the internet for this site, but the RM
postcode finder thinks it should be Rooley Avenue, BD6 1DA.


PAF file has ...
Shell Filling Station
Rooley Avenue
BRADFORD
BD6 1DA

and BD5 8JR is not listed having been deleted in 2009
http://checkmypostcode.uk/bd58jr so the real problem is does one leave
the faulty postcode in place because we can't use the PAF data or do we
validate postcodes against the codepoint database and remove those that
are not listed


It's an interesting conundrum, on several levels. We can certainly 
validate against Codepoint Open or the ONSPD, as these are open data. 
So if they say the postcode is impossible (because it's defunct), then 
we can definitely delete it if we want to.


Replacing it with the correct postcode, though, is harder. We'd need a 
source that isn't derived from PAF. But Googling for this particular 
station, all the sources have the old, incorrect postcode - even 
Google itself! (I would expect they're all using the Shell data, of 
course).


So that leaves us with three options, at least initially:

1. Leave it as is. We know it's wrong, but it's consistent with every 
other source, and it's from the only canonical source.


2. Replace it with the right one. More useful, but potentially risky 
from a licensing perspective.


3. Delete it and leave the entry with no postcode. Probably the best 
we can do as far as accuracy is concerned (in line with the general 
principle that data is better missing than wrong, if it can't be 
right), and avoids any licence conflict. But this is the least useful 
for users of the data (since, in this case, even the wrong postcode 
will identify the location in practice - for obvious reasons, Royal 
Mail will deliver to defunct postcodes long after they have been 
deleted, and many sat-navs will work with defunct postcodes too).


Maybe the best solution is to leave it alone for now, and see if we 
can persuade Shell to fix it. Deleting the postcode risks it being 
re-added by someone else who spots its absence and decides to be 
helpful, without realising that if they use the RM postcode finder to 
validate it that isn't compatible with OSM's licence.


Usually a note is used to make comments to other mappers. In this case a 
note to say that post code xxx is defunct would explain the situation. 
Possibly a tag 'defunct:postcode=xxx would also be explanatory.


Could the post code be derived from surrounding features?
I don't know how detailed the post codes there are .. but if features in 
OSM surrounding it were of the same post code (and correct) then they 
could be used to derive the post code?


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Website Data

[Warin]

On 19-Dec-17 05:42 AM, Ilya Zverev wrote:

18.12.2017 19:14, Frederik Ramm пишет:

Hi,

On 12/18/2017 03:09 PM, SK53 wrote:

Personally, I'd also be chary of turning OSM into a repository of
scraped data rather than one of surveyed geodata.


And more: the more imports you do, the more OpenStreetMap becomes an IT
project where computer nerds script, collect, convert, conflate, and
interpolate away, instead of a project where all sorts of people from
all walks of life contribute their knowledge.

I think we're not an IT project, and that's good.


We are partly an IT project, which you cannot take away. Also, the 
number and size of imports does not affect how OSM is perceived.


For example, OSMers map very few POIs (relatively), and after they do, 
they update virtually zero of them. Not counting a few active mappers 
in UK and Germany.


To think that you can import everything is to overstate the quantity 
of open data in the world. Open data is mostly points of interest. In 
some countries it's also roads. And that's all. OSM is so much bigger 
than that.


As for importing POIs, I think that needs to be done, because no 
mapper group would be able to map all fuel station, all Tesco shops, 
or all museums. And if they do, in ten years, but that time half of 
what they've collected will be obsolete. The choice is not between 
manual mapping and importing, it's between importing and not having 
the data ever.


And since there isn't open data on everything, even if you import all 
POIs you can possibly have in machine-readable format, that will still 
be at most 10% of all POIs, even in UK or Germany. Plenty to map by 
going outside.


So even an army of IT folks armed with data scrapers and contracts 
with every data aggregator would be no match to common mappers, armed 
with a pen and a camera. I fail to see what you're afraid of.


Two divergent points of view if you go to the extremes. Here are some 
extremes;



A) Only physically survey data is for OSM.
Not possible to physically survey some things like National Park 
boundaries in Australia -  where they are marked the marks are well 
inside the actual boundary. A physical survey will result in large errors.

B) Only open data is to be used.
Some of this is out of data - an on the ground physical survey will 
confirm it.


The best for me is a mix of sources, with a preference for the on the 
ground physical survey. However I can map a lot more area from open 
source data quickly and accurately that I can from a physical survey. In 
some cases of tree cover or GPS reflections, satellite imagery is more 
accurate that GPS surveys. So a mix of sources for me.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Reception desks

[Warin]

One person raised the interesting possibility of  the 'reception desk' 
being 'staffed' remotely .. with a video terminal. I suppose that one 
receptionist could serve several points for the one organisation.

In that situation the 'desk' may be a shelf.

Personally I would be happy with 'reception desks' being a simple node 
rather than a way or area.


---
Reception area or waiting area ? Not too worried about that or what it 
is called. To me the most important thing is where to go as a visitor 
for first contact.
Once that is done I would think further instruction would be gained.  So 
I am not too worried about mapping it. So I leave it up to those concerned?


On 16-Nov-17 11:58 PM, Edward Catmur wrote:



On 16 Nov 2017 01:01, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com 
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:


A reception desk may not have a reception area?
Think I'd want to know where the desk is so I go there and am
directed to an area or straight on to what I want?


Ah, hadn't thought of that. So would you say that a reception desk is 
a staffed information facility while a reception area is more like a 
waiting room (though it may have a reception desk within or beside it)?


In which case there would be reason to use both tags when mapping the 
same overall facility.




On 16-Nov-17 11:04 AM, Edward Catmur wrote:



On 15 Nov 2017 20:15, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:

From tag info
amenity=reception_desk 121 uses
tourism=reception_desk 3 uses
office=reception_desk 0 uses

There are a few buildings named 'Reception', I think those
are not named but used to indicate where the reception
function is.
I have one of these myself.




However:

amenity=reception_area 111 uses






On 15-Nov-17 10:03 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:

There was a proposal for this:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/amenity%3Dreception_desk

<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/amenity%3Dreception_desk>

but since people could not agree on amenity vs. tourism
vs. office
during the voting process, it got rejected.
There is probably a lengthy discussion on the tagging
mailing list
archive about the proposal.

I still believe amenity=reception_desk could be used though.

regards

m.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Will Bailey
<w...@zipabout.com <mailto:w...@zipabout.com>> wrote:

Hi



I’m doing some internal mapping of hospitals in North
Wales with the
objective of allowing people to navigate from their
front doors to the front
desk of a relevant hospital department in our
accessible journey planner. I
haven’t been able to find a definitive way to tag a
reception desk – can
anyone help me with this please? Is their agreed
approach to doing this?

Thanks!

Will


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
<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
<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
<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] Reception desks

[Warin]

From tag info
amenity=reception_desk 121 uses
tourism=reception_desk 3 uses
office=reception_desk 0 uses

There are a few buildings named 'Reception', I think those are not named but 
used to indicate where the reception function is.
I have one of these myself.
 


On 15-Nov-17 10:03 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:

There was a proposal for this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/amenity%3Dreception_desk

but since people could not agree on amenity vs. tourism vs. office
during the voting process, it got rejected.
There is probably a lengthy discussion on the tagging mailing list
archive about the proposal.

I still believe amenity=reception_desk could be used though.

regards

m.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Will Bailey  wrote:

Hi



I’m doing some internal mapping of hospitals in North Wales with the
objective of allowing people to navigate from their front doors to the front
desk of a relevant hospital department in our accessible journey planner. I
haven’t been able to find a definitive way to tag a reception desk – can
anyone help me with this please? Is their agreed approach to doing this?

Thanks!

Will


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


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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging Schools with fhrs:id

[Warin]

On 21-Oct-17 07:13 PM, Lester Caine wrote:

On 21/10/17 08:55, Gregrs wrote:

Bottom line ... there should be separate objects where that is necessary
and it would be nice if the larger operations such as Rugby School
helped with detailed campus maps as many of the collage and university
sites have been doing?

I agree that in the case of more complex campuses each separate FHRS ID
should be attached to the relevant building if possible, and I think
that the associated postcode should also be attached to that building
rather than to the school boundary in these cases. This is what I have
done in the case of Rugby School (with the added bonus of local
knowledge) and it seems to work well e.g. Stanley House within Rugby
School: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/259571188.

This does keep showing the holes in the whole process :( While I
appreciate that one camp seem to think that scanning the whole database
for other objects with enclosing boundaries that MAY relate to the
contained object, information such as the edubase ref and even the fact
that Stanley House is part of Rugby School and not simply a house in
Rugby seems to get lost. I think that this still goes back to the
macro/micro mapping problem. At one level we only need an icon for
'Rugby School' and all the secondary tags appear against that, but with
all the fine detail now contained inside the likes of 'Rugby School',
some consistent way of combining that at the higher level is what is
missing?


Would a site relation help?


  I STILL think there is a 'place' for 'place=Rugby School' much
as Nominatim adds and that the place elements hold the macro view with
links to the micro elements ...

Other thought on this is ref:edubase defines the edubase link, so why
are we not using ref:fhrs for the food hygiene link. We then define
lookups from ref:xxx to the secondary dama on each of those database ...
I don't think we need to add fhrs:authority everywhere. It's inherited
from the ref:fhrs ...




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

[Warin]

On 16-Aug-17 05:27 AM, Philip Barnes wrote:

  The wiki is after all intended to document how people map not dictate how 
they should map.


I would think that the wiki should guide to the best mapping method, not what 
people have done in the past (as found using taginfo for example!).



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

[Warin]

On 14-Aug-17 11:49 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

On 14/08/2017 14:47, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo wrote:

I do not agree your change of the Wiki. You should ask before to do it.


Ask who?? Don't think there is a formal process to change the wiki, and 
I have made a few changes without comment.


I'm documenting the existing practice in Wales.

If you want to change existing practice, the onus is on you to justify 
your changes and get agreement.


Agreement with who?

If I disagree with with wiki .. I make comment on the talk page .. and 
then hope someone who disagrees, cares, notices and makes a reply.
Where the wiki page does not have much information .. I'll go ahead and 
add to it.


 If it is a tagging issue I'll raise it with the tagging group/list.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Multiple coincident boundary nodes. Data quality issue ?

[Warin]

Basic agreement with Colin.

The 'problem' is better described as 'data bloat' rather than 'quality' 
which implies inaccuracy.


I add the following observation  
 I am beginning to see that the ways should have a source tag.
This then means that where ways are coincident that the sources can be 
easily compared .. if the ways can be combined into one way then the 
source is both of the previous ways sources unless there is an addition?
The inclusion of the source on the way helps others with a comprehension 
of the accuracy of that way.
It also means that a relation can have ways from several sources and 
that any editing of a way in that relation can easily have that editing 
source added to the relevant way without mucking around with other 
relevant source tags.




 On 12-Aug-17 07:04 AM, Colin Smale wrote:


Mike,

not sure I would call it a real data quality issue, but it "could be 
better".


There are two coincident lines, which share some nodes but do not 
share the majority of nodes, despite the fact they are coincident.


One line represents the boundary of Great Britain, and the admin 
boundary of Highland.


The other line is the boundary of "Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura 
Marine Protected Area"


If the nodes are coincident by design, then they should be shared. If 
they are only coincident by accident, then not. In this case it is 
likely (but I don't know for sure) that the MPA boundary is 
effectively defined in this area as "the boundary of Highland Council" 
so the nodes could/should be shared.


Nodes contained in a way do not normally have, or need, tags. However, 
where a point feature occurs in the course of a way, then the "by 
accident/by design" distinction applies again. A pedestrian crossing 
is often a node in a highway: this is "by design" because the position 
of the crossing is irrevocably linked to the position of the highway. 
But sometimes nodes for things like monuments could be added without 
having zoomed in properly, with the editor choosing to re-use an 
existing node instead of creating a new one. So my reaction to your 
statements b and c is "it depends".


//colin

On 2017-08-11 22:07, Mike Parfitt wrote:

If I put Drimnin in the centre of my tablet's screen in an area of 
780m EW and 515m NS (landscape) the land/sea boundary is marked (not 
always accurately) by a number of coincident 
way/relation/multipolygon items all of which pass through 49 things 
that look like nodes.


There are actually 71 individual nodes (see caveat) of which :-
27 nodes are on all of the way/relation/multipolygon items
44 nodes are arranged in 22 coincident pairs, each on a subset of the 
way/relation/multipolygon items


At least one of the nodes in each coincident pair has a tag, but the 
27 nodes that are on all of the way/relation/multipolygon items do 
not have any tags.


CAVEAT : I haven't checked every one of the 49 things that look like 
nodes, so it is possible that some may be composed of more than 2 
coincident nodes.  Even if they are all just pairs of nodes, I don't 
know if the same subset of the way/relation/multipolygon items occurs 
throughout.


I am limited to contributing updates via an Android tablet - using 
Vespucci, as iD is unuseable on my touch screen.


I can easily move the 27 nodes that are on all of the 
way/relation/multipolygon items, but for the others, I have to select 
and move each of the coincident nodes individually - to the same 
location !


My opinion is that  :-

a) boundaries should have their properties defined at the 
way/relation/multipolygon level

b) individual nodes on such boundaries should not have any tags
c) coincident nodes on such boundaries should be combined into one

What does everyone else think ?
How should the right solution be implemented ?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Warin]

How different is the footprint of the new building?

I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old one - 
given the planing permissions.

So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone - 
that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.

Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?


On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:

(your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
of editing, I suggest)



2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black :

What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down and
rebuilt.
Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back and add
them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
I have added a note  #1077006

I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!

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


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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

[Warin]

On 11-Jul-17 03:03 AM, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 10/07/2017 14:26, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
I have also come across several styles of station tagging, even in my 
local (single line) area.


What'd be really useful, actually, would someone pointing at a good 
"example station" in an OSM diary entry or similar and explain how the 
various bits are tagged (without getting into the holy wars about 
public transport v1 and v2 route tagging, if possible). 


+1. Even a reasonable example where a 'good' example cannot be found.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

[Warin]

On 06-Jun-17 08:36 AM, Dave F wrote:


On 05/06/2017 22:55, Warin wrote:

Threads, like conversations, drift Dave.


And?


So my reply applies to the drifted topic .. refer to

/On 4 Jun 2017 4:44 p.m., "Matt Ellery" //wrote://
/
/Hi,//
//
/
/On a semi-related topic,//
/
and then to

/On 05-Jun-17 02:43 AM, Adam Snape wrote: //
//Yep, the name tag is only for //
/
And then my reply follows those/. /Thus it does not follow directly on 
from the original subject//but rather a new 'sub' tread.
Applying later responses directly to the original posting/subject does 
not necessarily follow the changes in topic/. //


//


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

[Warin]

Threads, like conversations, drift Dave.

On 05-Jun-17 09:35 PM, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

Yes, it's what I did regarding the original topic of this 
conversation. That's all sorted now.
I think Warin refers to Matt Ellery's additional query from yesterday 
regarding a different mapper who has been adding descriptions/details 
in brackets as part of the name tag.


Adam

On 5 June 2017 at 11:34, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com 
<mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:



On 04/06/2017 23:07, Warin wrote:

Why are people so reluctant to contact another mapper?


It was a question about tagging techniques. Asking on forums with
a larger user base than one seems appropriate.


Where I am not certain as to a 'best' method of doing
something .. then I contact the list as that gets more ideas
from a number of people.


Which is what he's done.

DaveF



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

[Warin]

On 05-Jun-17 02:43 AM, Adam Snape wrote:
Yep, the name tag is only for the name. Any other details should be  a 
tagged separately.
 It might be worth contacting the user as he is a prolific editor and 
continues to use the name tag for descriptions egs. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/498029973 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24597207




Why are people so reluctant to contact another mapper?

I would have thought that a contact through the changeset comments would 
have been a first way of raising the issue, rather than through this list?


My personal methods are to first contact the mapper and ask/suggest.
Where I am not certain as to a 'best' method of doing something .. then 
I contact the list as that gets more ideas from a number of people.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Open Litter Map now online

[Warin]

On 25-Apr-17 08:19 PM, David Woolley wrote:

On 25/04/17 10:44, Dave F wrote:

Unsure how you expect this site to reduce litter. It's not going to
prevent people dropping their waste & it's more productive to contact
your local authority to get fly-tipping debris removed.


+1


A Mayor of North Sydney NSW Australia found rubbish piled up beside the 
council bins, so he organised more pick ups.

The amount of rubbish beside the bins did not decrease!
So he doubled the number of bins.
The amount of rubbish increased!

He removed the bins. Quite a few locals were upset at this taking place.
There was vastly less rubbish at these places. People, including the 
locals, were much happier with this result.


I wish you luck with 'your' rubbish.

(His name was Ted Mack, refused the Mayor's 'free' car and driver 
preferring to drive his old car himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Mack_(politician))



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Layby restricted to abnormal loads

[Warin]

On 30-Mar-17 05:00 PM, David Woolley wrote:

On 29/03/17 21:32, ael wrote:

and, for good measure, hgv=permissive.


Permissive sounds wrong to me.  Permissive basically reflects the 
rights of the land owner, and for users is the same as yes.


___ 


And it has no banned other vehicles ...so

motor_vehicle=no
bicycle=no
hgv=yes

?



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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Postcode Checking

[Warin]

On 06-Mar-17 07:30 AM, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2017-03-05 21:16, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

People making mistakes on their websites with their own postcodes is 
more common than you might think.
What does OSM's "on the ground" rule make of this? Do we tag the 
correct postcode according to an authoritative source, or do we tag 
the incorrect postcode that the proprietor is using? (cf. 
spelling/punctuation differences in street names for example)


Try to tag the 'truth'. While mistakes are made (by all), the 'truth' 
should be the goal.


On the post code thing, as it is the Post Offices .. we should try to 
conform with what they would recognise as correct fro that location.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Warin]

On 13-Feb-17 09:07 AM, Dyserth wrote:

Hi all you happy people.


Hi.. and a warm welcome from me.



I am now subscribed to this mailing list (which I had not previously been
aware of) so I can more easily find myself being openly criticized by
certain "senior" individuals involved in Openstreetmap.org in future without
expecting prior private communications from them to try to address any
issues.


Unfortunately OSM has many communication mechanisms for different purposes .. 
some of these overlap.

I think I'm subscribed on 6 of them at the moment, perhaps more, most of the 
time I can ignore most of the conversations.

At times I do make comments ... sometimes light-hearted ... at other times 
angered.


With aggrieved regards,
Dyserth


Anger dissipates over time.

Most people make mistakes and most of the time the aggrieved can make some 
consideration to the errors of their fellow humans.

---
I certainly don't see myself as 'senior' in the OSM community ... just another 
contributor.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Warin]

On 11-Feb-17 07:42 AM, Brian Prangle wrote:
I've removed the offending tags from areas I know well,having walked 
them off and on for 30 years,i.e Snowdon massif, Glyders and Berwyns. 
I've left the poylgons suitably commented.


Regards

Brian

On 9 February 2017 at 10:10, SK53 > wrote:


Despite the problems of these edits (incorrect tagging, bad
polygons) more than anything they reflect that OSM as a project
lacks good tags for many of these boreo-temperate upland features,
and whilst that is true there will be always be someone abusing
existing tags. I think most mappers remember the initial thrill of
seeing changes come through on the main map style: for some people
it's probably still a primary motivator.

I therefore think Brian's suggestions of working collectively to
map these areas better together with a more in-depth consideration
of the relevant tagging is the way to go: and
landuse=unimproved_grassland at the very least has the advantage
of being correct.



Correct? Possibly in the present conceptual mess of OSM 'landuse' 
(amongst others).
To me, "landuse' should be the human use to which the land is put. And 
'unimproved_grassland' is not a use to me, 'wilderness' might be 
substitute for 'unused' or 'unusable'?


I think that the tag 'landcover' is far better to use for tagging the 
plants that cover the land.




I have compared several location in Wales with my own photographs
and the former CCW Phase 1 Habitat shape file, and acidic or
neutral unimproved grassland is the classification of the majority
of these locations. (I'm not sure of the status of this latter
data: my copy is for private use only, but if it was released as
Open Data it would be very useful. One word of caution the data
was compiled over a long period and in some places will be
out-of-date.)

I'm always reluctant to delete stuff from OSM, unless it can be
replaced by something better. Grassland tagging is a mess in OSM:
let's use this as an opportunity to improve it for OSM in the UK.

One last thing: I'm not very keen on calling people out on a
public mailing list. The nature of OSM is that one knows nothing
of many mappers (Frederik talked about this at SotM-14): there is
always a risk of doing more than hurting their feelings.



In soccer (football to some) the saying is "Play the ball, not the man."



Regards,

Jerry



On 8 February 2017 at 21:46, Brian Prangle > wrote:

I came across glucosamine during the farmyards quarterly
projectwhere she/he'd tagged place=farm to every group of
isolated buildings all over Herefordshire. I think he/she
means well just misinterprets tagging conventions and then
rolls on regardless.

Might we tackle this task under the general heading either of
"landuse fixes" or "uplands" as our next quarterly project?
That gives us some time to discuss approaches, conventions ,
progress tools etc so that we can hit the ground running so to
speak on day 1

Regards

Brian

On 8 February 2017 at 21:35, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:

Marco Boeringa wrote:
> There may be more... All of these "users" are prolific,
leave almost
> no changeset comments, and seem to be editing all day.
It seems
> to me these are editors working professionally for some OSM
> related company.

Thanks for the detective work and for persisting with this.

I think it's very unlikely, however, that these users are
editing OSM for a
company. Probably the majority of edits in the UK are done
by what you might
call "lone mappers". Generally this works well and people
plough their own
furrows successfully, happily modifying their practice if
particular issues
are pointed out to them. But occasionally we have people
who (perhaps
because of limited social skills) find it difficult to
follow established
practice and co-operate with other contributors. There
have been several
examples in the past and I'm sure many regulars here will
be aware of a few
of them.

That's what I think we have here. I have no knowledge as
to whether
Glucosamine, Dyserth and Sam888 are the same person or not
- it wouldn't
surprise me either way. But they/he very much fit the
"uncommunicative lone
mapper" model.

cheers
Richard





--
View this message