Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

2020-12-20 Thread ndrw 

On 20/12/2020 18:44, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:
What you do is give the outline way "buildong=terrace" and 
"name=" and all the houses with 
"building:part=house". The software can then tell that all those 
houses are part of the terrace called 


This is a good solution. I usually resort to simply not terracing the 
building and adding addresses as points and/or an addr:interpolation line.


In either case, if the name of the building is a part of the address 
("dependent thoroughfare") there is currently no suitable OSM tag for 
it. I've seen cases of addr:place, addr:substreet or addr:parentstreet 
but there is no established consensus yet.


ndrw6



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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

2020-12-20 Thread ndrw 

On 20/12/2020 16:09, Chris Hill wrote
Using the two separate towns is not correct. The house (or whatever) 
is not in Largertown,it is in Smalltown.


By convention addr:* tags are for addressing, not for mapping 
administrative boundaries. For the latter we can use is_in tags, 
although explicit admin boundaries are preferable.


Postal towns are in invention of Royal Mail. Correct addressing of any 
location are set by Local Authorities, not Royal Mail. There are no 
postal towns in LA addresses.


It is unfortunate Royal Mail is setting address information in such an 
arbitrary manner and that the resulting database is largely proprietary. 
But this is still the only addressing system we can use.


In the original example the 'Smalltown' (or indeed village or even 
hamlet) translates into addr:city in OSM. I know this may look 
confusing as a small villiage is not a city, but that is, IMHO, the 
correct way tobuild an OSM UK address.


Adding postal towns is not only redundant, but is misleading. It looks 
as though the way to find Smalltown would be first to go to 
Largertown, when that is very rarely the case. OSM addresses are 
hierarchical, RM addressing is not as postal town is usually a 
separate place.


It is common to have country specific addr:* tags but where possible we 
should strive to follow OSM tagging conventions, and addr:city is 
defined a town/village associated with the postcode.


I should have added that postcodes are a useful addition and my 
postcode overlays can help to workout what the correct postcode is for 
a given building. You can see more at https://codepoint.raggedred.net/


Yes, I am well aware of your overlays and have used them extensively in 
the past to map postcodes in East Anglia and several other areas. Thank 
you for providing and maintaining them.


A couple of years ago I've proposed a semi-automatic way of importing 
Code-Point Open postcodes to buildings, where building outlines are 
already available. As it is an imperfect solution the proposal has 
turned out rather unpopular. I still think having postcodes in the 
database far outweighs any inaccuracies that could arise, which in 
almost all cases are caused by buildings with multiple postcodes.


ndrw6



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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

2020-12-20 Thread ndrw 

On 20/12/2020 12:45, Dave Abbott wrote:
There is a page at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping 
which mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is 
in use. If correct I would be tagging as -


addr:housenumber=99
addr:street=Postal Street
addr:town=Smalltown
addr:city=Largertown

This is correct, although there is no consensus wrt to the tag used for 
Smalltown. I'm using one of addr:villlage|suburb|town myself. There was 
a proposal to switch to addr:locality only, which I argued against in 
the past, but it would indeed match RM addressing better and often 
classification of the locality is unclear.


This is not the only problem with RM<->OSM address tagging. RM defines 
following address structure:


Dependent thoroughfare
addr:place (?)
Thoroughfare
addr:street
Double dependent locality
addr:hamlet|district (?)
Dependent locality
addr:town|village|suburb|locality (?)
Post Town
addr:city
Postcode
addr:postcode


This often becomes an issue when mapping business parks, 
hospital/university campuses etc.


ndrw6



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

2020-11-22 Thread ndrw 

JOSM preset is:

highway=path

bicycle=designated

foot=designated

segregated=no

I quite like it as it doesn't imply one use is preferred to another.


On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:
Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but 
designated foot and cycles shared?


Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974

There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it 
doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's 
the best tag nonetheless?


Thanks.



___
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] OSM UK's first tile layer

2020-10-17 Thread ndrw 

Hi Rob,

Good stuff, it's definitely worthwhile. Thinner lines could work better 
(for me 1px would be perfect), especially that the max zoom stops at 17. 
You could perhaps consider increasing the max zoom a notch as well.


Are the numbers in wms tiles UPRNs? If so, you could consider displaying 
them as well.


Best regards,

ndrw6

On 17/10/2020 00:20, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

Just in time for the AGM, I have just published OSM UK's first tile 
layer. No don't get too excited it is not a full map render. Instead I 
have produced a very simple tiling of the Land Registry polygon data 
now that this is under the OGL Open Data Licence. My view is that this 
is a good layer to align our mapping too - i.e. when tracing from 
imagery we should first align the imagery to the Land Registry polygon 
layer before tracing from the imagery.


The tile URL for JOSM is:
tms[13,17]:http://tiles.osmuk.org/LRpolygons/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png

And for now this is _York only_ as an example.

Feedback that I would appreciate:

  * Is this worthwhile?
  * Do you agree that it makes sense for us to all try to align our
mapping to this (i.e. apply imagery offsets to align imagery to
this before tracing)?
  * The style is very simple with just a 4 pixel red line. Is this
sufficient? What changes can be made?
  * Any tips on how to keep the PNG file sizes as small as possible?
For now I am using the Mapnik rule "png8:c=2:t=1:m=o". Is there
anything that can yield smaller file sizes?
  * What max zoom is worthwhile? Currently it goes to 17, is this enough?

Our plan would be to pre-render all the tiles and host them on our 
site. The data doesn't change much so we would only re-render on 
request or once a year. My estimate is that we'd need 35GB for tiles 
to zoom level 17, and 133 GB to get everything to zoom 18. Our current 
server is on the small side with just 512MB memory and a 100GB disk 
allowance. It is unsuitable for on the fly rendering and we'd need 
more disk space to get the level 18 zoom. A beefier server is of 
course possible but any bump in specs comes with an equal bump in 
costs so worth checking this is worthwhile before proceeding.


P.S. The Land Registry themselves host this data on a WMS service 
rather than a TMS (tile) service. This makes it possible to zoom much 
further in. If you want to have a look at that detail you can use 
their website or (temporarily) use the following URL in JOSM. Please 
don't use this for mapping as we don't have permission to use their 
WMS service


wms:http://inspire.landregistry.gov.uk/inspire/ows?SERVICE=WMS=image%2Fpng=inspire%3ACP.CadastralParcel=image%2Fpng=true=1.1.1=GetMap=_FORMAT=application%2Fvnd.ogc.gml=XML&_OLSALT=0.789927776902914={proj}={bbox}={width}={height}

Best regards,
*Rob*

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

2020-09-28 Thread ndrw 

On 27/09/2020 16:28, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:

Hi all,

First of all, I would like to introduce myself on this email list and 
to thank you all for your contributions to OSM. Great work!


After some time using OSM as a user, I decided to make my first step 
as a contributor, hence this email and the proposal inside.


Please bear in mind that this is my first attempt to contribute with a 
proposal and, although I have done my best reading the community 
conventions and best practices, I am sure I have made some mistakes on 
the way. Be merciful! :P


To the point now.

I am importing a subset of nodes from UK (those tagged with 
amenity:pub) for a pet project.


When analysing the data I realised that some of these nodes contain a 
website: tag that does not contain an appropriate URL schema (http/https).


Ie: www.mypub.com <http://www.mypub.com> rather than 
http://www.mypub.com or https://www.mypub.com


This goes in contradiction with the Wiki documentation for website. 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website>



The proposed procedure looks good and since the scale is so small (127 
records) it's not very different from performing it by hand. IMHO it's a 
good mini project for starting your journey with osm.



I would go a step further though:

"If no valid scheme is found, do nothing" - that's OK, but as the next 
step please could you *manually* verify these links and either fix them 
or add a fixme tag.


Ndrw



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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

2020-07-06 Thread ndrw 

On 02/07/2020 17:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

I'm not completely sure if/how we can best make use of the new OS
OpenData (UPRNs, USRNs and related links) in OpenStreetMap, but as a
first step I've set up a quick slippy map with the UPRN locations
shown:

https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ (zoom in to level 16 to show the data)


I've been reading about the geopackage file format used for encoding 
UPRN and USRN data and played with the databases a bit. Below is a 
summary of what I've learned.


Geopackage files are really sqlite databases with a gpgk extension. The 
extension can be downloaded from 
https://bitbucket.org/luciad/libgpkg/src/default/ and compiled. The 
extension is needed for accessing geometry values (blobs), a similar 
concept to the one used by the mod_spatialite extension but not 
compatible with it.


The gpgk_contents table serves as a main entry point specifying the name 
of the table containing data, last change date, spatial extents along 
with a spatial reference system (here EPSG27700/OSGB1936).


Gpgk_geometry_columns specifies names of the table+column holding 
geometric data, their types, their spatial reference system, z 
(elevation) and m (measure) values. The latter two are not used in these 
files.


Gpkg_spatial_ref_sys provides definitions of WGS84 and OSGB1936 
reference systems, only the latter is used by the data tables.


Gpkg_tile_matrix and gpkg_tile_matrix_set tables are empty, no 
pre-generated tiles.


Tables with names starting with rtree_ are spatial indices for geometric 
data. This is defined by an extension to GeoPackage 
(http://www.geopackage.org/spec120/#extension_rtree) - I haven't tried 
using this feature yet.


1. UPRN file

This file contains UPRNs and their locations (Point) in the 
osopenuprn_address table. In addition to the GEOM field containing point 
coordinates it duplicates the coordinates in separate fields in both 
OSGB1936 and WGS84 formats. So, if necessary, this file can be used 
without the pgkg extension. Unfortunately, despite fancy packaging it is 
still "a proprietary number+coordinates" data format, so, unless there 
are additional open data available specifying the meaning of each UPRN, 
UPRNs are (IMHO) only useful as a reference.


Script for accessing contents of the geopackage file:

#!/bin/sh
sqlite3 -batch -echo osopenuprn_202006.gpkg