Re: [Talk-GB] What has happened to Relation 2204 (ncn 4)?
I found two segments of the route in Maidenhead that had the French NCN4 relation (153521) I've now corrected them to the English NCN4 (2204). Mario ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Change Set Error: 3552319
If the whole changeset was removed it might erase some correct mapping that he did. Isn't the principle supposed to be: It's better to lave less known correct mapping, than lots of mapping some of which is complete rubbish. If there are very, and many, obvious errors, then it's better to revert the changeset immediately, than to leave it until someone else comes along and corrects it, or adds new and correct information, which then complicates any reversion of rubbish, and also means you have to have low confidence in anything else mapped in that changeset. No, far better to revert it, and if there were (in my opinion unlikely) some good mapping in there, then it can always be re-entered correctly afterwards. If he has to reenter the data then he, (like everyone) will learn from his mistakes, but let's ensure that only goof information is maintained. Mario ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] BBC News Report on Mapping Party in Atlanta
Might be of interest, the BBC is doing a news report on a mapping party in Atlanta http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8305924.stm Maybe someone doing a mapping party could get their local tv/radio interested in a follow-up/local version. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] liam123's latest
Peter Miller wrote: 'data protection', 'data monitoring' and 'data moderation' all seem to be good. 'data protection' might be confused with 'Data Protection Act', ie, legal data issues ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What's in a name
'name' should, where available, contain the official place name. If a common name like 'Hull' is in use, then that's what the 'alt_name' tag is for. One problem in using other names would be that you wouldn't be able to reliably correlate different geoname resources. The mkgmap mailing list only today had a thread about using online geoname resources to extract the most appropriate place name to label map tiles, that sort of application wouldn't be possible if names didn't follow the official designation. Another problem would be that some places have more than one alternative name, who would decide which one is 'the' name'? It would cause arguments (and edit wars?) over which 'name' should be the one to be used. There's no ambiguity if the official place name is always used, and alt_name used for the alternatives. Chris Hill wrote: I live near Hull, its proper name of course is Kingston upon Hull. It has the long name on the map, but everyone knows it as Hull. I think it would be better to use the shorter name and adding the long name as alt_name. Any comments? Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Cycle Map - without the cycleway?
I'd like to use the OSM Cycle Map rendering at different zoom levels as the base layer for a project I'm doing, but I want to overlay something else, and the emphasised cycleways in large red lines are both obliterating some of the detail I need. and would distract from my own overlay. If it wasn't for the cycleways the map would be perfect for what I need. Is it possible (and if so how?) to get a map rendered like the Cycle Map, but without the cycleways? Mario ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] waterway=construction
Hi James, I added that a while back when I first started using OSM, there were a few considerations I had then which I now realise aren't the 'OSM way'. I wanted to map the whole route of the canal which, as you are probably aware, is being restored, As the canal has been disused for 100 years, it's mostly tagged as 'Derelict' which does render appropriately. In some places it's very difficult to see, but the signs are there if you know what to look for, For example, leaving Abingdon to the west is a short derelict section next to a track that only the initiated would realise is an old canal and not a road-side ditch, in other places you can tell the route because the crops lying over are slightly different.. (The clay canal bed although buried, traps water and affects the overlying vegetation compared to the surroundings) As there are few instances of tags for abandoned canal in the process of being restored and if there were they usually don't render. I chose the disused=yes,tunnel =yes for the rendering, rather than the actuality, as there are few tags for canals that rendered at all. Now I have a bit more experience with tagging, I realise I shouldn't have tagged for the renderer, but for what is actually there. I'll go through that stretch of the canal and tag it more appropriately, removing the parts that are only proposed, and putting more appropriate tags on the bits that are visible. Mario James Davis wrote: There's a feature in my local area and I'm not sure it should be included - it's the proposed new cut of the Wilts Berks Canal, so that it can join the Thames at a new junction rather than the original junction which has been developed over. Whilst the actual junction has been completed, as far as I'm able to tell the new route is very much 'proposed' and subject to planning, and no firm route or timescale have been agreed on. I'm not sure that this makes the sort of feature that should be included yet. Are there any guidelines on features this early in their construction? (.. and I'm ignoring for now that the proposed cut is confusingly tagged tunnel=yes,disused=yes). James ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way
Most rural public footpath rights of way will be old routes that will be marked on the out-of-copyright (over 50 year old) OS maps, so there's no problem with using that as your prime data. Mario ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 3 more changesets from Liam123 for reversion
Banning the account is a no-go. Without any effective policing of account creation (which we probably don't want), all that banning would do is encourage spiteful edits with one or many new ids, which would be much more difficult to identify. At least with a single known userid it can be easily monitored and controlled. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Red Routes
Would it be better to use a generic parking_restriction= tag? Do we tag with the type of restriction? parking_restriction=red_route parking_restriction=bus_route parking_restriction=double_yellow parking_restriction=single_yellow parking_restriction=dashed_yellow Or the effect of it? parking_restriction=no_stopping parking_restriction=no_parking parking_restriction=no_waiting parking_restriction=no_loading (that's what the stripes up the kerb mean) The latter would be simpler, as there are many parking restriction schemes (in the UK, never mind internationally), but there's only a few different types of parking restrictions. Mario ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Mark Williams wrote: Jon Burgess wrote: The roundabout I really dislike is at Winnersh Triangle, UK: http://osm.org/go/eusmtxB_j- If you look on some satellite imagery you will see it really does have a dual carriage way going right through the middle of the roundabout. And a very odd-looking bit at 1 O'Clock on the slip road - looks like somebody missed linking the node to the way? Mark Why does it take two people to email about something that takes less time to correct when you're already on the webpage? I know you shouldn't generally fix mistakes where you don't know the roads in question, (eg side roads may be intentionally separated from a main road by just a kerb stone or just painted road markings not marked on the map) but in this instance the road configuration can't possibly have been anything else other then a connected dual carriageway north-south route and slip road. Did anyone notice that the node south of the roundabout where the dual carriageway merges to become a single road wasn't connected properly either? So why not correct it? then maybe routing applications will work properly and the whole map project will be more usable. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Nicholas Barnes wrote: Shaun McDonald wrote: I have seen many roundabouts split up so that the bridges can be added properly, so started doing it myself some time ago. Which begs the question what is the point of tagging as way as a bridge? Other than what the rendered map looks like (and I keep hearing that we're not meant to be tagging for the renderer), I can't see the point of messing up a perfectly formed roundabout with all parts set with the correct 'layer' tag when all you end up with is a roundabout which renders as badly as this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.46457lon=-1.70987zoom=15layers=0B00FFF Surely it's perfectly obvious that if a road goes underneath another road, there must be a bridge involved. Sorry for the rant, but I've just fixed two roundabouts where the layers were all set incorrectly at about the time somebody added those bus routes. Nick. It may be obvious sometimes, but even in your example, it's not obvious whether the two slip roads to the E and SE of that roundaboud go over or under the A446? Bridges are too important a landmark to omit. Mario ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Nicholas Barnes wrote: Please could somebody give me some ideas about what (if anything) is wrong with this whole roundabout/bus route/highway junction and what should be done to sort it all out. One major omission is 'oneway=yes' on many of the dual roads,the slip roads, and the service roads leading on and off the roundabouts, otherwise the routing won't work. Do make sure the direction for each way is correct when adding that tag. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Potlatch Integrity button.
Chris Andrew wrote: Hi, all. Some time ago, I realised from this list that it is possible to get an overlay on OSM of mapping errors, such as roads that don't join, bad tags etc. I can never remember how to turn this on. Would it be possible for Potlatch to have an on/off button for this feature? I think this could hugely improve mapping integrity for the project. This would also have the long-term benefit of improving routing for projects such as Navit and OpenSatNav. What does anyone think? Chris (chris_debian) Hi Chris, try using the keepright site, it does exactly that http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?lat=51.4336lon=-2.17892zoom=13layers=B0T Mario ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] printing from website
Mario Caves wrote: I agree with Jack on this one, I'm a long in the tooth IT pro and as choosing the browser print option is often a waste of paper, it took me months before I found out how well OSM formatted the browser print option, so a 'print this map' link/icon/tag/button would go a long way to helping 'ordinary' map users get more out of OSM. Jack Stringer wrote: Not all websites are not as well designed as OSM. Often when you click print you get 2 blank pages plus 3 with the adverts on them and 1 page of the map, cut right in half on the area you wanted to see. Jack Stringer ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] How do I tag ATM's.
Chris, just use a node tagged amenity=atm, name=AnyBank amenity=bank could go on the same node if appropriate Tip: put 'atm' (or 'bank' or whatever) into the search box here, and you'll find documentation for the appropriate tag http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amenity Editing
By putting the Postcode in we are supply OSM with the postcode to be able to give that street a post code, same goes for streets. Rather than having the postcode in a separate addr:postcode tag for each building on the street, I would think it would be better to tag the street itself with the postcode and then somehow link the buildings with the street (relations?) Postcodes are organised in hierarchical areas, so should really be mapped with enclosed areas, like administrative boundaries, rather than on nodes or ways. eg: SN contains SN1, SN2, SN3 SN1 contains SN13, SN14, SN15 SN13 contains SN13_1AB, SN13_2PQ A lowest level postcode (SN13_2PQ) is not unique for a node, as multiple dwellings will have the same postcode, so this leads to having multiple tags for what is essentially a single data item, a postcoded area of land. Marking postcodes on a way could be problematic, as there can be different postcodes on opposite sides of a road. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amenity Editing
to be precise, there are three levels in the postcode are hierarchy, Area = SN District = SN13 Postcode = SN13_2PQ ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_codes_in_the_United_Kingdom#Format ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amenity Editing
(that'll teach me to not proof-read a post...) there are FOUR levels in the UK postcode area hierarchy, Area = SN District = SN13 Sector = SN13_2 Postcode = SN13_2PQ Of course, any system should cope with international variations of postcode format ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK-specific tagging for rural feature names?
Whether you use landuse=moor or natural=moor to describe the area, you should use name=Ilkley Moor'for the actual name. There are variations of name you can use for the local or historic names http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name Also in the areas around Yorkshire cities, areas can often be semi-built up but still keep the name such and such moor. That's no different to having a small industrial area in a large residential town, just tag the greater area as the moor and landuse=residential or building=yes for the built-up bits. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tank=yes?
I'd suggest hazard=tanks (plural). While we're on the subject, there's an official warning sign on the way into Portishead, Somerset that has the exclamation mark and text plate underneath which says Low flying owls. It must be the only one in the country so I must remember to fix it's position when I'm down that way. They do badgers too... http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackspics/131581511/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc
I propose that we adopt a new key: maxspeed_mph It would be - simpler for UK, USA and other imperial countries to enter the speed. - less prone to error - users may not be used to kph speeds. - un-ambiguous. (what does '50' mean?) - maxspeed keeps consistently metric units (kph) - exact - being in the local units, no rounding necessary (no decimal places). - value will usually only be an integer in a multiple of 10 or 5. - easy to validate. - both maxspeed and maxspeed_mph keys could be entered - no ambiguity again - applications can easily convert between maxspeed and maxspeed_mph where only one is entered - in transition, having a separate key would make it simple for validators (people and computers) or a batch process, to convert existing maxspeed keys in the UK and USA from the various existing maxspeed variations to the expected multiples of 10 in maxspeed_mph Mario (WessexMario) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc
you only need 5dp to get an exact mph-kph conversion anyway :-) I think that's the big issue. People won't be able to agree on whether we should enter 0, 2,3 or 5 decimal places, if anyone can remember or look them up correctly. And it's completely unintuitive thinking of speed limits with non factor 10 vaules with decimal places. The accuracy for practical non-scientific use of the value is almost irrelevant, Journey times will vary more because of road conditions, speed cameras are set to a few mph above the limits, the legal requirement is for car speed to be measured to 10% accuracy. The problem is someone is always going to enter the wrong values if it's done in kph, and we'll keep on having umpteen different values for what should be and exact figure, eg 30 mph. The answer must be to have a solution that prefers 30,40,50,60,70 values in mph rather than (rounded or 5dp accurate) kph numbers,. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc
Very helpful. And to be clear is says their should be a space between the number and the unit, ie '50 mph' not '50mph'. I wouldn't get too concerned about the space, computers can handle that well, so an optional whitespace should be allowable. So. are we reaching a point where we should do some clean-up work on the current tagging? Would that be appropriate? Should we add a space where required and convert the various km interpretations to either fit the proper km conversion from the table, or convert to mph. Definitely do a tidy up. It would be so much easier for all UK speeds to be in mph, both for data entry and validation. Let computers do the conversions to metric if they need to. Is this something that Potlatch can do reasonably efficiently? Apparently there's a bot doing something reasonably efficiently somewhere. Is it helping or hindering? Mario ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc
Robert Naylor wrote: On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:13:28 +0100, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: I also came across someone tagging maxpeed=NSL yesterday. If it gives someone happiness, fine, but I don't really think it should be necessary to tag the default situation, only when there is an exception to the general rule This page seems to confirm this: http://www.abd.org.uk/know_your_speed_limits.htm There is a major problem with using maxspeed=NSL. Dual Carriageways. How will the applications know that a way is part of a dual carriageway or is just one oneway way that happens to be near another oneway way? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
