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

[Mark Goodge]

On 03/09/2019 09:54, Colin Smale wrote:

For HGVs there is another issue in play. Specialised devices using 
specialised maps are required, to give routing appropriate to the 
vehicle, its mass, length, height, width etc. These devices can be a lot 
more expensive, and harder to find, than consumer devices which are only 
suitable for cars, motorcycles, cycles etc. If a truck driver is 
allowing himself to be directed by Google Maps on his phone for example, 
it will end in tears...


One of the big problems we have is truck drivers using car sat-navs, 
because they're cheaper. Or using older, cheaper truck sat-navs that 
haven't been updated for a while. A lot of older sat-navs, for example, 
will still direct trucks over the closed level crossing here:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.39148/0.26737

Mark



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

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

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-09-02 16:40, Mark Goodge wrote:

> One of the issues with relying on sat-nav is that the device data often isn't 
> updated very often. Unless the government can impose some kind of legally 
> binding SLA on the device manufacturers to ensure that all data updates are 
> performed within a specified period of time, then you can't rely on people 
> having current information. If a road is closed, then people need to know 
> it's closed from the moment it's closed - waiting for their navigation 
> software to update isn't good enough!

For HGVs there is another issue in play. Specialised devices using
specialised maps are required, to give routing appropriate to the
vehicle, its mass, length, height, width etc. These devices can be a lot
more expensive, and harder to find, than consumer devices which are only
suitable for cars, motorcycles, cycles etc. If a truck driver is
allowing himself to be directed by Google Maps on his phone for example,
it will end in tears... 

Now, if THIS device sends a truck along an unsuitable road, there is a
real problem to be fixed: 
https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/sat-nav/truck-sat-nav/___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Jez Nicholson]

Community input to the plan is important. Any points you would like to
discuss can be added to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, 07:02 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>
___
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 
 
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

[David Woolley]

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 
 
is the only reference I can find to that, online, in a quick search.


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.


___
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] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

Bullet point replies:

 * Under the PROW section why are the 'yes' values not 'designated'?
 * byway_open_to_all_traffic - Why is motor vehicle 'private/no'?
 * Clarify which tags are optional (ie horse for Footpaths)
 * Designated ways aren't limited to
   footway/bridleway/cycleway/track/path/service/steps. Many are on
   residential roads & above
 * Access rights unknown - Can NT inform OSM of the rights?
 * The use of 'discouraged' should be discouraged. It's far too subjective.

Plus Frederik's first two paragraphs.

What data is NT providing to aid the additions of these paths? Boundary 
& water features would be useful.


I note on this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Byways

The legalese 'vehicle' tag is incorrectly suggested to indicate the 
subjective ability:


"some byways may deteriorate and become no longer passable by any 
vehicle. If this is the case consider using vehicle=no"


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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

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"?
If anything, I believe resistance to sat-navs is on the increase, given 
the number of news stories of juggernauts stuck down country lanes.


DaveF

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

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

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/09/2019 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by one of the lines on the permissions grid on 
that page. There's a line for "Legal RoW but access discouraged", with 
a suggested tagging of "discouraged/private" for pedestrians (and 
similar tags for other users).


Quite apart from the fact that "private" is simply wrong for any 
public right of way, the use of "discouraged" for pedestrian users 
seems to me to also conflict with the wiki, which suggests that this 
is a functional tag (the wiki example is HGV traffic on narrow roads). 


I suspect that the issues that they're trying to deal with here are:

 * Rights of way such as byways open to all traffic that have traffic
   regulation orders on them because they are currently not navigable.
   I've certainly seen example where a PRoW was closed to foot, horse
   and vehicle traffic even though it likely wasn't the walkers doing
   the damage.

 * Paths in moorland (where here it _is_ the walkers doing the damage),
   perhaps in CROW act areas, that need to be closed temporarily to
   allow heather etc. to regrow.

But public rights of way come in all shapes and sizes, from broad, 
well-maintained paths to barely visible routes across difficult 
terrain. If we want to tag their relative ease of use, then surely a 
more appropriate tag than "discouraged" should be used. If a right of 
way on foot exists, then it is, ultimately, up to the user whether 
they use it or not.


Indeed - but from reading what the NT have said I don't think they're 
opposed to tagging of surface, trail_visibility etc. to enable people to 
make their own mind up.


(as an aside https://map.atownsend.org.uk/ does look at various subtags 
on non-PRoWs and won't show some paths on that basis)




The reason why I'm uneasy with this here, is that it relates to 
similar concerns already expressed by Frederik Ramm. There's quite a 
lot of NT property which is crossed by public rights of way, but that 
the NT would prefer people not to use as they provide a route onto the 
property that bypasses the "official" entrance. I can understand why 
they'd want to do that, but I don't think it's appropriate to reflect 
that in how the paths are mapped in OSM.


Indeed, but I think we'd need an example where that was happening?  I've 
often found myself inside an NT property "by accident" via a PRoW that 
doesn't go through a main entrance, but can't remember ever remember 
being prevented from using it or even "persuaded not to".  The exception 
is where big for-pay events are held and PRoWs are temporarily closed - 
a non-NT example of that I can think of is Chatsworth Country Fair.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

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

[Mark Goodge]

On 02/09/2019 14:30, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Following on from their talk at the OSMUK AGM, the National Trust have 
now created an official 'organised edit' page for their footpath project 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths


I'm a little puzzled by one of the lines on the permissions grid on that 
page. There's a line for "Legal RoW but access discouraged", with a 
suggested tagging of "discouraged/private" for pedestrians (and similar 
tags for other users).


Quite apart from the fact that "private" is simply wrong for any public 
right of way, the use of "discouraged" for pedestrian users seems to me 
to also conflict with the wiki, which suggests that this is a functional 
tag (the wiki example is HGV traffic on narrow roads). But public rights 
of way come in all shapes and sizes, from broad, well-maintained paths 
to barely visible routes across difficult terrain. If we want to tag 
their relative ease of use, then surely a more appropriate tag than 
"discouraged" should be used. If a right of way on foot exists, then it 
is, ultimately, up to the user whether they use it or not.


The reason why I'm uneasy with this here, is that it relates to similar 
concerns already expressed by Frederik Ramm. There's quite a lot of NT 
property which is crossed by public rights of way, but that the NT would 
prefer people not to use as they provide a route onto the property that 
bypasses the "official" entrance. I can understand why they'd want to do 
that, but I don't think it's appropriate to reflect that in how the 
paths are mapped in OSM.


Mark

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

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

[Mark Goodge]

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:

On 02/09/2019 14:48, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Sometimes they want us to add a "vehicle=no" to a track that has
absolutely no signposts whatsoever locally, meaning that nobody can
verify that vehicles are forbidden and no local motorist would be turned
away


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.


That's certainly not a trend in the UK. At the moment, the problem is 
the opposite: how to ensure that people obey the signs rather than 
following sat-nav. For example:


https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/lorry-driver-sat-nav-nightmare-683052

One of the issues with relying on sat-nav is that the device data often 
isn't updated very often. Unless the government can impose some kind of 
legally binding SLA on the device manufacturers to ensure that all data 
updates are performed within a specified period of time, then you can't 
rely on people having current information. If a road is closed, then 
people need to know it's closed from the moment it's closed - waiting 
for their navigation software to update isn't good enough!


Whilst this probably doesn't currently apply to prohibitions, a logical 
extension, at some time in the near future, might be to make the 
electronic map definitive in all cases.


If we ever do get a situation where the electronic map is the definitive 
record of prohibitions and other relevant mapping data, then it will 
need to be available via an open licence (presumably OGL, here in the 
UK). So presumably we'd be able to import that directly into OSM via an 
API call or data dump. But it would probably need a set of specific tags 
that don't conflict with those used by people mapping from observation.


Mark

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

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

[Jez Nicholson]

Indeed, Frederik speaks wise words.

The role of OSMUK has been to handhold, that is 'support or guide (someone)
during a learning process or a period of change'. We've been there to
encourage them to work with the community to identify how they might tag,
and for them to publish their plans.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:48 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 02.09.19 15:30, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> > Following on from their talk at the OSMUK AGM, the National Trust have
> > now created an official 'organised edit' page for their footpath
> > project
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths
>
> It sounds like a well thought out plan.
>
> From a DWG perspective there's one small warning light that I have in my
> head, triggered by terms like "standard" and "validated": It must be
> clear to everyone involved that ultimate authority over what gets mapped
> and how does not lie with the National Trust, and neither does OSMUK
> have a mandate to enter into agreements on behalf of the OSM community
> that would determine exactly which ways may be mapped, and what tags to
> use.
>
> As long as everyone in this project is clear that it is ultimately local
> mappers who get to say what goes in, and that they don't need agreement
> from the National Trust or from OSMUK, then I guess all is well.
>
> At DWG, we frequently have issues where organisations like the NT (or
> smaller, local woodland trusts and the like) would like OSM to delete
> outright a track that clearly exists in reality, because they say it
> "leads to misunderstandings" or "is not official" or "is dangerous" or
> something. To which of course the usual reply is "let us tag the correct
> situation in OSM, but a track that clearly exists cannot be deleted".
> Sometimes they want us to add a "vehicle=no" to a track that has
> absolutely no signposts whatsoever locally, meaning that nobody can
> verify that vehicles are forbidden and no local motorist would be turned
> away - this is also a case where we'd usually say "put up a sign, or put
> up with cars".
>
> Sometimes the goals of these conservation organisations are opposed to
> those we have in OSM - they often want to direct human activity in a
> certain desired way, whereas we want to depict reality as good as we can
> and let humans make their choice based on that.
>
> A cooperation like the one described here can be beneficial to all sides
> if one is aware of exactly where the parties have the same goals, and
> where the goals might differ, and establish clear rules for these cases.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> 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] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[David Woolley]

On 02/09/2019 14:48, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Sometimes they want us to add a "vehicle=no" to a track that has
absolutely no signposts whatsoever locally, meaning that nobody can
verify that vehicles are forbidden and no local motorist would be turned
away


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.


Whilst this probably doesn't currently apply to prohibitions, a logical 
extension, at some time in the near future, might be to make the 
electronic map definitive in all cases.


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

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 02.09.19 15:30, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Following on from their talk at the OSMUK AGM, the National Trust have
> now created an official 'organised edit' page for their footpath
> project 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

It sounds like a well thought out plan.

From a DWG perspective there's one small warning light that I have in my
head, triggered by terms like "standard" and "validated": It must be
clear to everyone involved that ultimate authority over what gets mapped
and how does not lie with the National Trust, and neither does OSMUK
have a mandate to enter into agreements on behalf of the OSM community
that would determine exactly which ways may be mapped, and what tags to use.

As long as everyone in this project is clear that it is ultimately local
mappers who get to say what goes in, and that they don't need agreement
from the National Trust or from OSMUK, then I guess all is well.

At DWG, we frequently have issues where organisations like the NT (or
smaller, local woodland trusts and the like) would like OSM to delete
outright a track that clearly exists in reality, because they say it
"leads to misunderstandings" or "is not official" or "is dangerous" or
something. To which of course the usual reply is "let us tag the correct
situation in OSM, but a track that clearly exists cannot be deleted".
Sometimes they want us to add a "vehicle=no" to a track that has
absolutely no signposts whatsoever locally, meaning that nobody can
verify that vehicles are forbidden and no local motorist would be turned
away - this is also a case where we'd usually say "put up a sign, or put
up with cars".

Sometimes the goals of these conservation organisations are opposed to
those we have in OSM - they often want to direct human activity in a
certain desired way, whereas we want to depict reality as good as we can
and let humans make their choice based on that.

A cooperation like the one described here can be beneficial to all sides
if one is aware of exactly where the parties have the same goals, and
where the goals might differ, and establish clear rules for these cases.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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