Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 08/03/20 at 08:22pm, Andy Townsend wrote: On 08/03/2020 19:57, Andrew Hain wrote: Is there a resource I can point anyone who puts C numbers in the ref tag of roads at? Possibly the best place is previous discussions on this list, or links from there? It's perhaps also worth mentioning that C roads in Scotland in OSM are still mostly unsigned but retain ref tags - that was a decision of the local community there, if I remember correctly. Northern Ireland (normally discussed via talk-ie rather than here) also has quite a few. I don't think that we reached a decision in Scotland; just one particular mapper that particular likes them, I generally move them to highway_authority_ref if I see them. Cheers Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 08/03/2020 19:57, Andrew Hain wrote: Is there a resource I can point anyone who puts C numbers in the ref tag of roads at? Possibly the best place is previous discussions on this list, or links from there? It's perhaps also worth mentioning that C roads in Scotland in OSM are still mostly unsigned but retain ref tags - that was a decision of the local community there, if I remember correctly. Northern Ireland (normally discussed via talk-ie rather than here) also has quite a few. Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] C roads again
Is there a resource I can point anyone who puts C numbers in the ref tag of roads at? -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
Philip Barnes phil@... writes: I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796 Thanks Phil (trigpoint) References beginning with three or more letters or containing a semicolon: http://osm.org/way/28542839 official_ref=Caldecott FP 9 http://osm.org/way/154708809 official_ref=Copperas Hill http://osm.org/way/5073178 official_ref=Cuddington RB 25 http://osm.org/way/28402131 official_ref=Cuddington RB 25 http://osm.org/way/170956041 official_ref=UY2646; Marton RB 32 http://osm.org/way/29716611 official_ref=Cuddington FP 12 http://osm.org/way/27202827 official_ref=Cranage RB 9 http://osm.org/way/180892569 official_ref=Copperas Hill http://osm.org/way/154555351 official_ref=Claremount Road http://osm.org/way/180892571 official_ref=Copperas Hill -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] C roads again
References beginning with three or more letters or containing a semicolon: Hi Andrew, Any with FP or RB in them are public rights of way. We've been mapping those to the prow_ref= tag. Best, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
This sounds very sensible. Can/should it be extrapolated to cover other cases where the signposting (or lack of it) of a road number contradicts the official version? I am thinking specifically of B-roads which are still officially classified as such, and indeed frequently rendered as secondary (not just by OSM), where the road number was removed from the signs years ago (probably to discourage traffic)? Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.4083/0.2956 https://www.google.com/maps/@51.409452,0.298958,3a,75y,234.44h,78.06t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-0NCD5FN6g3rpCZLcqhXQA!2e0?hl=en Highcross Road and Whitehill Road are both shown as B255, because that is what they officially are. On-the-ground evidence is that they are more tertiary (Whitehill Road) and nasty windy country lane unclassified (Highcross Road) and there is no sign of B255 on any sign. Should we put B255 into official_ref here? --colin On 2014-08-13 00:58, Ed Loach wrote: After previous discussions I've already changed the C road references that I mapped (from roadworks signs) to official_ref, so your suggestion seems sensible. I feel ref should be reserved for (permanently?) signposted references. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1] Links: -- [1] 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] C roads again
On 13/08/14 01:22, Robert Norris wrote: However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only* change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary. Ditto. But it's a bit like the 'name' problem where a few roads have locally known names, but these are not displayed on signs :( Need recording but not necessarily displaying. On a slightly different tack, the tertiary road designation is more of a problem. While not advocating 'tag for routing', this is one that is making my own use of OSMAND almost impossible, and I can't believe others don't find the problem. It refuses to use the B4632 ( used to be the A46! ) going north from here, and I can't trace why. Roads south are a similar problem, but these a good quality 'C' roads. Should they be 'upgraded' to secondary or should the distinction be removed in OSMAND for UK roads? If I can't trust local routing why should I at a new destination and we are talking a several mile detour here which can add 30mins to the journey. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13/08/14 07:37, Lester Caine wrote: On a slightly different tack, the tertiary road designation is more of a problem. While not advocating 'tag for routing', this is one that is making my own use of OSMAND almost impossible, and I can't believe others don't find the problem. It refuses to use the B4632 ( used to be the A46! ) going north from here, and I can't trace why. Roads south are a similar problem, but these a good quality 'C' roads. Should they be 'upgraded' to secondary or should the distinction be removed in OSMAND for UK roads? If I can't trust local routing why should I at a new destination and we are talking a several mile detour here which can add 30mins to the journey. If you don't like the routing decisions an app makes then talk to it's author or use a different one - certainly don't try and hack the data to make it do what you want. Aside from anything else it might affect other apps routing decisions in entirely different ways. There is a well defined meaning to trunk/primary/secondary for UK roads so please use it. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13/08/14 08:20, Tom Hughes wrote: On 13/08/14 07:37, Lester Caine wrote: On a slightly different tack, the tertiary road designation is more of a problem. While not advocating 'tag for routing', this is one that is making my own use of OSMAND almost impossible, and I can't believe others don't find the problem. It refuses to use the B4632 ( used to be the A46! ) going north from here, and I can't trace why. Roads south are a similar problem, but these a good quality 'C' roads. Should they be 'upgraded' to secondary or should the distinction be removed in OSMAND for UK roads? If I can't trust local routing why should I at a new destination and we are talking a several mile detour here which can add 30mins to the journey. If you don't like the routing decisions an app makes then talk to it's author or use a different one - certainly don't try and hack the data to make it do what you want. Aside from anything else it might affect other apps routing decisions in entirely different ways. There is a well defined meaning to trunk/primary/secondary for UK roads so please use it. One can select different routers and they all give different results for much the same reason. The 'well defined meaning' is fine from a political point of view, but in rural areas it is failing when used as a means of identifying road quality for routing. I have a number of open posts on this which no one seems interested in discussing, but if you can provide an alternative to OSMAND which will work better I'd be more that willing to check it out. The old TomTom gets it right most of the time so this is just a matter of getting something right. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 01:22, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote: AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted but not that I'm aware of any explicitly. Whether any of these have ever been captured in OSM is hard to tell. Near where I used to live there's an explicit C-ref signposted. You can see it on Street View at https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.904271,-1.021604,3a,53.7y,41.45h,81.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdOSZUFI5BkWGJB-Pw4RU-A!2e0 I mapped the road as tertiary but haven't yet added the ref to the way. However, I am planning on doing so next time I'm in the area and can check the sign is still there. I think that this is a case where it is useful to have the ref recorded and shown on the map. Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 07:37 +0100, Lester Caine wrote: On 13/08/14 01:22, Robert Norris wrote: However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only* change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary. Ditto. But it's a bit like the 'name' problem where a few roads have locally known names, but these are not displayed on signs :( Need recording but not necessarily displaying. I think thats an important point, there are many such roads in Shropshire too. There needs to be a way of navigating to an address on these roads, but we do need a method of indicating to the end user that there is no sign, partly to tell routers to not say turn left into x road, but also to give confidence to someone that they really are in the right place when they haven't seen a sign. name:unmarked maybe an option. On a slightly different tack, the tertiary road designation is more of a problem. While not advocating 'tag for routing', this is one that is making my own use of OSMAND almost impossible, and I can't believe others don't find the problem. It refuses to use the B4632 ( used to be the A46! ) going north from here, and I can't trace why. Roads south are a similar problem, but these a good quality 'C' roads. Should they be 'upgraded' to secondary or should the distinction be removed in OSMAND for UK roads? If I can't trust local routing why should I at a new destination and we are talking a several mile detour here which can add 30mins to the journey. I do think this is a router problem, they really do overuse the highway type tag. Often I have found routing problems can be fixed by simply mapping the speed limits. Not tagging for the renderer/router, but ensuring it has more malformation to work to. The current fad of reducing speed limits on primary A roads will make this even more important. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13/08/14 10:02, Derick Rethans wrote: It's not only C roads. When looking at Nairn (because of a reported storm damage to a road) I noticed lots of U-references. Have a look at: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194703765 and surrounding area. I doubt those are on signs either, and should also go into official_ref. Slight aside again ... simply because I was checking the status of it ... Anybody know if these 'U' numbers marry up with something in the National Street Gazetteer? That has it's own unique ID - and just for the record, postcode is only a secondary element since there may be several postcodes for a single identified street. It's the NSG that is primary in defining road works locations these days. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 09:51 +0100, Matt Williams wrote: On 13 August 2014 01:22, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote: AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted but not that I'm aware of any explicitly. Whether any of these have ever been captured in OSM is hard to tell. Near where I used to live there's an explicit C-ref signposted. You can see it on Street View at https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.904271,-1.021604,3a,53.7y,41.45h,81.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdOSZUFI5BkWGJB-Pw4RU-A!2e0 I mapped the road as tertiary but haven't yet added the ref to the way. However, I am planning on doing so next time I'm in the area and can check the sign is still there. I think that this is a case where it is useful to have the ref recorded and shown on the map. Officially refs below B are not allowed on signs in the UK. But errors do happen. I remember on appearing in Leicestershire, but it disappeared very quickly. http://www.cbrd.co.uk/c-roads/signs.shtml Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 01:22 +0100, Robert Norris wrote: Ignoring the source information for now, but I suspect it is very similar to rights of way information in that it is probably derived from OS maps. The following overpass query highlights the issue, Norfolk standing out as especially bad. This is just tertiary roads, there are issues with unclassified too. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4xS AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted but not that I'm aware of any explicitly. Whether any of these have ever been captured in OSM is hard to tell. Unfortunately a brief cross check with Google Streetview, for the very few tertiary roads with 'source:ref=survey' don't seem to bare much scrutiny. The visible signposts don't have a 'C' in them. The 'source:ref' bit is only on a short section of an otherwise longer road anyway, so possibly a road split editing leftover. Obviously source=survey tags it too imprecise to tell whether a ref was surveyed. However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only* change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary. e.g. using something like this: has-kv k=ref regv=^C/ In the above query will prevent altering too many things. Possibly only change things without source tags or with source=[nN][pP][eE], as a first iteration too. I will try to avoid these, however if a B road it tagged as tertiary is this not an error needing an on the ground survey? Am I wrong in assuming that all B roads should be tagged as secondary? other than this famous exception that is. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41891313#map=15/54.5039/-2.6589 Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 12 August 2014 20:08, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data. I know we should not tag for the renderer, but I think its ok to give the renderer a clue as to which are displayed on signs and which aren't. I guess I'm going to be in the minority, but I have to object to this proposed change. I don't really get what the problem is with showing the numbers on the shields on the default map. People using the map will quickly realise that they're not typically signed on the ground. Neither are quite a few names for rural roads outside villages -- but I don't see anyone saying we should replace the name=* tag with official_name=* as a result. So perhaps someone could clarify why it is a problem for them to be shown? To the contrary I actually find being able to see the numbers on the map incredibly useful. Two particular use cases: 1/ Official government notices about developments, road closures and diversions typically use the C-numbers to refer to the roads. Having a map style that displays them makes it much easier for the public to interpret the notices. Without such a map it would be much more difficult. 2/ In OSM mapping work, official documents for street names and Public Rights of Way released under the Open Government Licence will often refer to the C road numbers. Again having a map that shown them makes life much easier. When it comes to U-numbers for unclassified roads, I can see that they usually add unnecessary clutter to the map. So while they may be useful to see at times, I'd be in favour of them not being displayed on the default style. But I think this is a renderer issue -- perhaps someone should submit a ticket to have ref=* not rendered on highway=unclassified if there is a name=* present. Or perhaps it's the reference numbers' use in routers that is the actual problem? I can understand this more, but I'd have thought that any decent routers will need to be aware of a lot of local conventions, so it's not too much to expect they should also de-prioritise UK C-road and U-road numbers in road descriptions. IMO, the ref=* tag should be used for the primary reference number of the object, regardless of whether or not it's indicated on the ground. Whether or not these numbers are displayed on the map as shields or used to name roads in routers is a matter for the render or router. If there's a need to state whether or not the reference number (or the official name for that matter) of a road is displayed on the ground (or indeed if something different is shown) then I'd prefer a different tag is used for that. (For example the ref:signed=no suggested/used by Andy elsewhere in this thread.) But I guess this view isn't going to be popular. So, if there is a consensus to go ahead with the mechanical edit to move the numbers off the ref key, then moving them to official_ref would seem like the least-worst thing to do. (I would, however, like to see official_ref used in the highway shields when ref=* is absent on highway=tertiary and above, so that the useful C numbers can still be displayed on the main map) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13/08/14 11:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: When it comes to U-numbers for unclassified roads, I can see that they usually add unnecessary clutter to the map. So while they may be useful to see at times, I'd be in favour of them not being displayed on the default style. But I think this is a renderer issue -- perhaps someone should submit a ticket to have ref=* not rendered on highway=unclassified if there is a name=* present. You appear to be drawing some sort of distinction between C and U numbers here, and maybe that works for your authority, but I don't think it's in any way universal. As I understand it every authority has it's own numbering scheme for roads below B roads. Some just have one number space (C or U or whatever) and some have multiple levels like C, D and U. Personally I have no problems with the numbers being in the data but I don't think they should be included in everyday renderings - they are something that belong on specialist renderings for specialist uses of the sort you mentioned. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:01 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Lester Caine wrote: On 13/08/14 10:02, Derick Rethans wrote: It's not only C roads. When looking at Nairn (because of a reported storm damage to a road) I noticed lots of U-references. Have a look at: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194703765 and surrounding area. I doubt those are on signs either, and should also go into official_ref. Slight aside again ... simply because I was checking the status of it ... Anybody know if these 'U' numbers marry up with something in the National Street Gazetteer? That has it's own unique ID - and just for the record, postcode is only a secondary element since there may be several postcodes for a single identified street. It's the NSG that is primary in defining road works locations these days. From what I know, those U numbers map up with the list at http://www.highland.gov.uk/downloads/file/11641/list_of_adopted_roads_-_u_class The link mentioned for source:ref on the objects is now a 404. Try this, http://www.highland.gov.uk/info/20005/roads_and_pavements/99/roads_information Although no mention of copyright/permission to use in any of the documents. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 11:32, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Am I wrong in assuming that all B roads should be tagged as secondary? other than this famous exception that is. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41891313#map=15/54.5039/-2.6589 There's also https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4235365 near me - another B road (and a NSL dual carriageway, too) that leads to a motorway junction. Simon ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 12:19, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 13/08/14 11:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: When it comes to U-numbers for unclassified roads, I can see that they usually add unnecessary clutter to the map. So while they may be useful to see at times, I'd be in favour of them not being displayed on the default style. But I think this is a renderer issue -- perhaps someone should submit a ticket to have ref=* not rendered on highway=unclassified if there is a name=* present. You appear to be drawing some sort of distinction between C and U numbers here, and maybe that works for your authority, but I don't think it's in any way universal. Yes that probably is tainted by the Local Authorities I'm most familiar with. Perhaps a better way of thinking about it would be in terms of the OSM classification. Where I talked about U-numbers, it might be better to read it is any reference numbers on roads that are not tagged as highway=tertiary or higher. And similarly C-numbers would be any reference numbers present on highway=tertiary tagged roads. Regardless of how the numbers are tagged, I would still maintain that the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing them to cross-reference the map to official documents) outweighs the drawbacks (extra cluttering is minimal, and the fact that they're not signed on the ground in the UK should be easy to get used to). However, I think the extra drawback of increased cluttering tips the balance the other way on highway=unclassified, and others (residential, service, living_street, etc.). Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796 Thanks Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 12:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: I would still maintain that the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing them to cross-reference the map to official documents) outweighs the drawbacks (extra cluttering is minimal, and the fact that they're not signed on the ground in the UK should be easy to get used to). No, it really doesn't. The number times the average person needs to cross-reference the map to official documents in their lifetime tends to zero. On the other hand, the number of times people will look at an OSM map and get confused by road references not shown anywhere else that they will ever see - well, that's non-zero. Saying people will 'get used to' ignoring these official-use-only numbers is also doubly wrong - they shouldn't need to 'get used to' ignoring administrivial details, and in any case if OSM is full of unhelpful nonsense then they will more likely just stop using it entirely. Imagine an argument saying that we should show the Companies House registration numbers for all shops. Or the VOA Business rates reference numbers for shops. Or both. Now imagine yourself saying, with a straight face, 'oh, these are useful when you need to crossreference information with government sources. The fact that they aren't signed on the ground - and aren't otherwise useful to the general public - should be easy for you to get used to'. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:36:51 +0100 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? If you are changing ref = official_ref then you ought to change source:ref = source:official_ref as well. Other than that I didn't spot anything wrong from a cursory glance. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
Beware you should follow the mechanical edit policy for this. I would also change the wiki pages for this that currently state we should have the ref for c roads in ref. From: p...@trigpoint.me.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:36:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796 Thanks Phil (trigpoint) ___ 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] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 17:36, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796 Someone's already pointed out the need to change any source:ref tags at the same time, and that you need to follow the mechanical edit guidelines -- in particular, providing the documentation of the changes in the wiki. I think that the have precise details of the changes and the conditions under which they will be made should be reviewed on the mailing list before you go ahead. There are various questions to be answered such as which highway=* values are included, what happens to refs that aren't of the form [CDU][0-9]+, what happens if one of the target keys already exists, and is there any tagging in use to indicate that a C, D or U number is indeed signed on the ground that should be respected? More generally, I don't think less that 24 hours discussion before starting (even a test run for) such a significant country-wide change is really long enough to allow everyone who wants to comment to provide their thoughts. (Yes I know it's been discussed before, but those discussions didn't really come to any conclusion IIRC, and people could well be away on holiday at the moment.) In particular, I think it would be good look more closely at who has been adding these ref values, and contact any prolific mappers directly to get their thoughts. In particular, I think a lot of Norfolk was done by a single person (not me) who presumably thought the values were useful data to have. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 18:14, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 August 2014 12:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: I would still maintain that the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing them to cross-reference the map to official documents) outweighs the drawbacks (extra cluttering is minimal, and the fact that they're not signed on the ground in the UK should be easy to get used to). No, it really doesn't. The number times the average person needs to cross-reference the map to official documents in their lifetime tends to zero. On the other hand, the number of times people will look at an OSM map and get confused by road references not shown anywhere else that they will ever see - well, that's non-zero. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Certainly in my neck of the woods, there's been some major Highways Agency works going on, which have referred to an affected road only as the C616. Apart from OSM's main map, I'm not sure how else affected people would be able to find out which road it referred to. Imagine an argument saying that we should show the Companies House registration numbers for all shops. Or the VOA Business rates reference numbers for shops. Or both. Now imagine yourself saying, with a straight face, 'oh, these are useful when you need to crossreference information with government sources. The fact that they aren't signed on the ground - and aren't otherwise useful to the general public - should be easy for you to get used to'. Those are pretty poor examples I think, and not really equivalent at all -- in those cases any official sources would almost certainly include other information such as the business name and/or address as well as the reference number. Thus it wouldn't be necessary to have the number itself displayed to do any cross-referencing. In the case of C roads, often the number is the only name/reference given. Also any clutter from C roads is significantly less that what you'd get from additional references attached to shops. And I've already said that I think the clutter would tip the balance the other way for highway=unclassified, residential, etc. Out of interest, what would you advocate doing about minor road names that are officially assigned, but aren't signed anywhere on the ground? Should those be removed from the map to to avoid 'confusing' people too? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] C roads again
We have discussed this subject a couple of times and have, I think, concluded that displaying the ref (generally only known to local government people) on roads that are unsigned is not helpful to the end user. Some, but I suspect not all, of the thread starts are below. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-May/011632.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-March/014555.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-April/014788.html Ignoring the source information for now, but I suspect it is very similar to rights of way information in that it is probably derived from OS maps. The following overpass query highlights the issue, Norfolk standing out as especially bad. This is just tertiary roads, there are issues with unclassified too. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4xS I am going to use the horrible word, mechanical edit, but I feel it needs sorting out. I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data. I know we should not tag for the renderer, but I think its ok to give the renderer a clue as to which are displayed on signs and which aren't. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
Philip Barnes phil@... writes: I am going to use the horrible word, mechanical edit, but I feel it needs sorting out. I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data. I agree with this proposal. Go ahead. -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
After previous discussions I've already changed the C road references that I mapped (from roadworks signs) to official_ref, so your suggestion seems sensible. I feel ref should be reserved for (permanently?) signposted references. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
This is a widespread problem and I wouldn't oppose a mechanical edit in this case. The one concern I have is the rare cases where C road references really do appear on signs, but perhaps even then official_ref is appropriate. Similarly, some rights of way references appear on signs: I recall this is common on the Isle of Wight. Should this influence whether ref or prow_ref is used? Cheers, Will ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
Ignoring the source information for now, but I suspect it is very similar to rights of way information in that it is probably derived from OS maps. The following overpass query highlights the issue, Norfolk standing out as especially bad. This is just tertiary roads, there are issues with unclassified too. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4xS AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted but not that I'm aware of any explicitly. Whether any of these have ever been captured in OSM is hard to tell. Unfortunately a brief cross check with Google Streetview, for the very few tertiary roads with 'source:ref=survey' don't seem to bare much scrutiny. The visible signposts don't have a 'C' in them. The 'source:ref' bit is only on a short section of an otherwise longer road anyway, so possibly a road split editing leftover. Obviously source=survey tags it too imprecise to tell whether a ref was surveyed. However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only* change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary. e.g. using something like this: has-kv k=ref regv=^C/ In the above query will prevent altering too many things. Possibly only change things without source tags or with source=[nN][pP][eE], as a first iteration too. I am going to use the horrible word, mechanical edit, but I feel it needs sorting out. I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data. I know we should not tag for the renderer, but I think its ok to give the renderer a clue as to which are displayed on signs and which aren't. Phil (trigpoint) ___ 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] C roads
Sometimes though the reference is in general use even if it isn't signposted. In this case having it on the renderers might be useful. For example: we have a C road near us. On the ground the road looks like a single road, but in reality it is made up of series of roads with around 6 individual names. For simplicity therefore lots of local publications (magazines, political flyers, local websites) just use the C reference. Having the reference on renderers is therfore useful. That said I've seen a mapdust error that the reference wasn't signposted. On 18/05/2011 11:03, Richard Fairhurst wrote: I note an increasing number of roads tagged with ref=Cnumber: http://osm.org/go/euF7qf93- http://osm.org/go/eu6CM0IS- etc. Leaving aside for now the question of sourcing, I feel a little uneasy about these being rendered on the map. Anyone using the map as, well, a navigational aid will think turn left onto the C94... oh... hang on... what C94?. So if we are to have such arcana in the database, and experience suggests you can't actually stop people adding arcana to OSM (I guess that's one of our strengths ;) ), it would be helpful to have some way of tagging this ref is not actually signed. That way, renderers and routers could choose not to show refs which aren't helpful for their audience. Something like ref:signed=no would work. Any thoughts? cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: My idea at the moment is that the existing ref tag be unambiguously defined to be a kind of primary key and to have alternative tagging for its apparent value. I expect this may also be the case with road names, and possibly other attributes as well where there is an opportunity for the official version to deviate from the apparent/published version. How about this for a hypothetical link road from the M1 to the M2: ref=M1 signed_as:ref=M2 [...] General purpose renderers (including mkgmap) would give precedence to the signed_as values for ref and name if they exist. This is completely back-to-front. Whatever reference the mapper sees and the consumer wants to see should be in the ref tag surely? Why would the one that is important 99.99% of the time be bumped to a secondary tag and the main tag taken over for stuff that's honestly not useful? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: My idea at the moment is that the existing ref tag be unambiguously defined to be a kind of primary key and to have alternative tagging for its apparent value. I expect this may also be the case with road names, and possibly other attributes as well where there is an opportunity for the official version to deviate from the apparent/published version. How about this for a hypothetical link road from the M1 to the M2: ref=M1 signed_as:ref=M2 [...] General purpose renderers (including mkgmap) would give precedence to the signed_as values for ref and name if they exist. This is completely back-to-front. Whatever reference the mapper sees and the consumer wants to see should be in the ref tag surely? Why would the one that is important 99.99% of the time be bumped to a secondary tag and the main tag taken over for stuff that's honestly not useful? Cheers, Andy +1 Of the various ideas, using loc_ref or alt_ref seems the best bet: you should be able to use major tags like ref/name without worrying about local details. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] C roads
I note an increasing number of roads tagged with ref=Cnumber: http://osm.org/go/euF7qf93- http://osm.org/go/eu6CM0IS- etc. Leaving aside for now the question of sourcing, I feel a little uneasy about these being rendered on the map. Anyone using the map as, well, a navigational aid will think turn left onto the C94... oh... hang on... what C94?. So if we are to have such arcana in the database, and experience suggests you can't actually stop people adding arcana to OSM (I guess that's one of our strengths ;) ), it would be helpful to have some way of tagging this ref is not actually signed. That way, renderers and routers could choose not to show refs which aren't helpful for their audience. Something like ref:signed=no would work. Any thoughts? cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
On 18/05/11 11:13, Nick Whitelegg wrote: As an aside, C roads are really eccentrically designated, at least if their osm tagging is correct. e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.9256lon=-1.3605zoom=14layers=M Those numbers are just internal identifiers used by the local highway authority so yes, they probably do appear eccentric to people outside that authority. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: That way, renderers and routers could choose not to show refs which aren't helpful for their audience. Something like ref:signed=no would work. Any thoughts? Personally, if it's not signed, known, called or otherwise indicated in any way to have that reference, whether in atlases, satnavs, online maps, streetsigns or anywhere else, I'd rather we didn't use the ref tag for it. If there's a special super-secret special reference only used by highways authorities and nobody else, then it should go in a (super-secret) special tag. Otherwise we're back to the this road has reference X, oh no it doesn't school of tagging, which we've agreed in the past isn't helpful. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Those numbers are just internal identifiers used by the local highway authority so yes, they probably do appear eccentric to people outside that authority. In my experience, highways officers know the names of every obscure cul-de-sac on their patch, so they generally use the road names. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
On 18/05/2011 11:13, Nick Whitelegg wrote: As an aside, C roads are really eccentrically designated, at least if their osm tagging is correct. e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.9256lon=-1.3605zoom=14layers=M Re. the C351 WTF? It's not really 'the' C351, as there will be C351s all over the country. In Kent it's Borough Green High Street. -- Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
Some C (and U) roads are signed apparently - see http://www.cbrd.co.uk/c-roads/ (And not all A roads are signed on the ground either) Kev On 18 May 2011 11:05, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I note an increasing number of roads tagged with ref=Cnumber: http://osm.org/go/euF7qf93- http://osm.org/go/eu6CM0IS- etc. Leaving aside for now the question of sourcing, I feel a little uneasy about these being rendered on the map. Anyone using the map as, well, a navigational aid will think turn left onto the C94... oh... hang on... what C94?. So if we are to have such arcana in the database, and experience suggests you can't actually stop people adding arcana to OSM (I guess that's one of our strengths ;) ), it would be helpful to have some way of tagging this ref is not actually signed. That way, renderers and routers could choose not to show refs which aren't helpful for their audience. Something like ref:signed=no would work. Any thoughts? cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
Kev js1982 wrote: Some C (and U) roads are signed apparently - see http://www.cbrd.co.uk/c-roads/ Indeed - a tiny number, and of the list at http://www.cbrd.co.uk/c-roads/signs.shtml, quite a few seem to be temporary or works signs (i.e. more for local council edification than for general consumption). But yes, a few are. (And not all A roads are signed on the ground either) That was the unspoken second half of my question. ;) At, say, http://osm.org/go/eu2jYNcA-- , there's the A5189. Routing software that says turn right here for the A5189 will confuse the user, because it's not signposted as such anywhere. (I think it's mostly (A444) or (A38) or somesuch.) So unsigned tagging could be useful in this case, too. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
On 18/05/2011 11:03, Richard Fairhurst wrote: I note an increasing number of roads tagged with ref=Cnumber: http://osm.org/go/euF7qf93- http://osm.org/go/eu6CM0IS- etc. Leaving aside for now the question of sourcing, I feel a little uneasy about these being rendered on the map. Anyone using the map as, well, a navigational aid will think turn left onto the C94... oh... hang on... what C94?. So if we are to have such arcana in the database, and experience suggests you can't actually stop people adding arcana to OSM (I guess that's one of our strengths ;) ), it would be helpful to have some way of tagging this ref is not actually signed. That way, renderers and routers could choose not to show refs which aren't helpful for their audience. Something like ref:signed=no would work. I expressed similar concerns back in March 2010: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-March/008852.html. I didn't get any particular support for my point of view, and I've since become an enthusiastic tagger of C-roads. -- Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
On 18/05/2011 12:44, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Kev js1982 wrote: (And not all A roads are signed on the ground either) That was the unspoken second half of my question. ;) At, say, http://osm.org/go/eu2jYNcA-- , there's the A5189. Routing software that says turn right here for the A5189 will confuse the user, because it's not signposted as such anywhere. (I think it's mostly (A444) or (A38) or somesuch.) So unsigned tagging could be useful in this case, too. Yes, I agree that it would be very useful to tag whether a ref (or name) is signed on the ground or not. I have tagged a few refs for C or U roads from diversion signs, but they are not (usually) signposted as such. Also there's a lot of streetnames which may not be signed, but are known from local knowledge or OS OpenData etc. There is a proposed unsigned=yes tag on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Noname But that is not very helpful, as it doesn't specify whether it is the ref or the name (or something else) that is unsigned. Something like unsigned:name=yes or unsigned:ref=yes would be better. And it could be used for other language names or alt_name, eg unsigned:name:gd=yes etc. Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
Steve Doerr doerr.stephen@... writes: e.g.http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.9256lon=-1.3605zoom=14layers=M It's not really 'the' C351, as there will be C351s all over the country. In that case local_ref would be a more appropriate tag than ref. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
In general it would be good to distinguish between what is signed and what is known to be true, though it may not be signed. Ultimately, road signs and street nameplates could be mapped as separate objects, though that might be going a bit far. In country areas there are many road names known to locals but not signed at all. A navigation app might not bother to say 'turn left down Lewsley Lane' if it knows that there is no marker on the ground to help a driver find it. But then, it would still be useful to show the name in local maps or tourist guides. In cities, if a street has no name sign anywhere I will tag unsigned=yes. In the countryside, having no sign is the common case so I don't usually add the tag. Similarly there are old hotels which still have the name carved in stone above the doorway but are nowadays used for something else. Nobody would put that into the name tag but it might possibly be useful for 'name_sign' or 'signed:name' or various increasingly complex tag schemes. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
Craig Wallace craigw84@... writes: There is a proposed unsigned=yes tag on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Noname But that is not very helpful, as it doesn't specify whether it is the ref or the name (or something else) that is unsigned. Something like unsigned:name=yes or unsigned:ref=yes would be better. I think this is a good idea, with plain unsigned=yes taken to mean that neither the name nor the ref or any other unique identification is signed. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
Steve Doerr doerr.stephen@... writes: But sooner or later someone will tag something as unsigned=no. Double negatives seem faintly ridiculous to me. Why not replace unsigned=yes with signed=no? Seems more logical to me. Perhaps, but unsigned=yes already has some momentum and it's not worth changing. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
