[Talk-GB] Newbie hello

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi all,

Just joined the mailing list.

I've been editing small bits of data here and there for a while, although I'm 
still a newbie at this. I work for traveline south east & anglia and, along 
with colleagues in some other traveline regions, we have just adopted OSM as 
our base mapping layer. I will undoubtedly be more active now as we look to add 
a number of bus lanes / bus gates where these aren't already in the data, and I 
will no doubt be trespassing on your time asking a number of dumb newbie-type 
questions (in the newbie mailing list, naturally!)

Cheers
Stuart

-------
Stuart Reynolds
traveline south east & anglia

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

Re: [Talk-GB] highway=trunk Roads and Cycle Navigation

[Stuart Reynolds]

I absolutely agree that this has to be down to the users of the data to sort 
out. Here at traveline south east, we have just started using OSM for our GIS 
data and we map bus routes and route pedestrians on the GIS. We have had to 
take on board all sorts of "quirks" - three different ways (so far) of how bus 
lanes against the flow of a one way street are mapped, what to do with large 
pedestrian "areas" that you can walk across in any direction, footpaths that 
are actually on the street but which are shown separately in the data...

None of these, I argue, are incorrectly described in the data. But we, as 
users, need to identify the differences that lead to errors in our outputs, and 
then code our routing algorithms (or, more precisely in our case, import 
routines) to handle them.

We get much of our feedback from users. In respect of the European routing 
system that you use, what did they say when you sent feedback to them?

Regards,
Stuart

-Original Message-
From: David Woolley [mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk] 
Sent: 28 July 2014 10:33 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] highway=trunk Roads and Cycle Navigation

On 27/07/14 22:26, ianmspen...@gmail.com wrote:
> So there should be a clear tagging that is distinct for the meaning of 
> "trunk (UK sense)" vs "trunk (International sense)

The logical conclusion of this would be that there would have to be a different 
tag for every jurisdiction.  In this context a jurisdiction could be a city, 
not just a country, as they all have the potential to change the rules 
independently of each other, at any time.  (Although I can't think of a good 
example for routing, at the moment, rules for highways differ from the rest of 
the county in London, e.g. there are more strict rules on pavement parking and 
blocking dropped kerbs.)

That would actually make life more difficult for routing software developers, 
as they would need to have a table listing all of the variants, even if most 
where the the same.

The current rules are set for the benefit of the many amateur mappers, not for 
the few professional software developers.

Even in areas where the rules require the use of a single international 
standard, namely phone numbers, the British amateur mappers regularly break the 
rule by giving national format numbers or even +44(0) format numbers, because 
that is how they are used to representing them, and because it is more 
difficult for part time mappers to learn and remember the rules than it should 
be for a professional software developer.

Of course commercial software development managers, when given something 
apparently free for cost, do tend not to budget for the cost of making it 
usable in their application.


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

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

[Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi,

This is a spin off from the recent thread about imports, because I wanted to 
specifically talk about NaPTAN imports.

Having briefly scanned the various wiki pages, I get the impression that the 
NaPTAN data was imported, once, in 2009. What I can't see, or haven't found, is 
any discussion about how & how often this data is updated. NaPTAN (and 
associated NPTG) is a live data set, and is changing continually as bus stops 
are brought into use (e.g. new developments) and taken out of service.

As I think I have mentioned, one of the reasons that I am now on this group is 
because of the adoption of OSM by a number of traveline regions, whose members 
are the very local authorities that create and maintain the NaPTAN data 
(including Nottingham/Nottinghamshire, since that was mentioned in the earlier 
thread). We therefore have an interest in making sure that the stop data on OSM 
is as up to date as the mapping.

Is there an appetite within the community to maintain and update this data? And 
if so, how would we go about it, and how often might it be updated? For the 
record, the data set is change dated, and deleted records are retained in the 
data for reference until (eventually) being archived (although even then the 
stops are still contained in a separate archive file). So I think that the 
process of updating can be made a) robust, and b) reversible.

Regards,
Stuart

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

[Stuart Reynolds]

Many thanks - some interesting viewpoints there.

I think it is safe to say that things will have improved from 2009, but also 
fair to admit that some data is not structured in the way that even I would 
like. Yorkshire is a particular problem for us. The good thing though is that 
NaPTAN is downloadable on an authority by authority basis and so we have scope 
for working through issues relatively local basis and perhaps later picking off 
authorities for individual "auto updates" once we've all agreed what that 
entails.

On specifics, it is never going to be the case that NaPTAN will come from OSM. 
However, I'm keen to identify mismatches - missing stops in Swanley might be 
TfL infrastructure for example, while "stop not present" might represent 
"custom and practice" stops or virtual points on a hail and ride route. Where 
we can, we can update data.

Looking to the future I am also keen to use OSM for those things that NaPTAN 
doesn't describe or which there is little will to populate. But that is a whole 
new discussion for another time.

Would anyone who has made edits like to volunteer an area for me to start with? 
I live in Southend, and have direct contact with SE authorities and indirect 
contact with SW, EM and EA.

Regards
Stuart


On 31 Jul 2014, at 17:02, "Nick Allen" 
mailto:nick.allen...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi,

I would not wish to see a mass import in my area, but I could see some merit in 
comparing data 'line by line'. I can remember that in the early days (2009?) 
there were bus stops on the data at the time that NaPTAN was imported. Some 
were sensibly merged, but some were deleted before the value of merging was 
realised (I was probably as ignorant of how to sort it out properly in those 
days, as anyone else, so I don't think a witch hunt will help).

Since then, I've made many cycle surveys in my area, and have updated NaPTAN 
stops to the extent that anything I have edited in the past is now in the right 
place & the tags will be correct. However, some of the imported data was so 
inaccurate, that it was difficult to tell whether it should be moved North, 
South East or West, to where the nearest actual stop was. As a result of this, 
it is quite possible that there are stops shown in the right place with the 
correct tags concerning shelters, benches, tactile paving, name of stop, 
timetables or bus route references displayed, etc, but added to a NaPTAN 
reference which new data would show to actually be elsewhere.

The only way of improving this would be a line by line comparison, with perhaps 
the transfer of a reference from new NaPTAN data, to the existing OSM data. If 
I appear in the history of the bus stop (Ctrl+h using JOSM), then there is a 
bus stop in that exact location. I suspect that this is true of many stops 
elsewhere, so some cautionary line by line merging is going to be needed.

I use the NOVAM - viewer from http://b3e.net/novam/ to check what needs doing, 
(Birmingham colour scheme suits my purpose). If you use this & zoom into 
Swanley, Kent (just off J3 of M25), you will find there are several stops which 
I have created, for which there is no NaPTAN data in the current database. It 
would obviously be sensible to add that data if you have it - just don't move 
the stop or change the other tags I've added please. You'll also see that I 
have marked some bus stops as 'not physically present'..

I think most mappers have worked from 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Surveying_and_Merging_NaPTAN_and_OSM_data
 (history shows this was last updated in 2011 with most of the updates from 
2009), but there are more recent articles at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_Transport, and I'm not sure of what 
the current position is as the 'goal posts kept moving!'

Some sensible consultation aiming towards a goal we can understand and achieve 
would be good, because I personally just reached the stage where I made sure 
the bus stops were in the correct place with the right tags, and left the 
routes part completed.

I can't offer to spend time importing on a line by line basis - I'm currently 
trying to get Ebola areas mapped in Africa! If I can help in other ways, let me 
know - it makes sense to me to present the data in a way it can actually be 
used by someone!

Regards

Nick (Tallguy)

On 31/07/14 15:47, Chris Hill wrote:
The NaPTAN data was imported for Hull and East Yorkshire at my request. I 
quickly realised that the data was of variable quality and resurveyed the ~1300 
bus stops in Hull. Having corrected a large percentage of the stops, I informed 
the Hull council team, at their request, who then ignored me. I would not want 
any NaPTAN data re-imported in this area unless I was sure the quality has very 
substantially improved. Some working relationship with the council team

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

[Stuart Reynolds]

OK. Clearly I’m going to have to think on this for a bit longer. I think 
looking at somewhere like Swanley is a good idea, and also at somewhere like 
Derbyshire if the stops data hasn’t been imported there.

In terms of bus routes, we also compute the most likely route between stops, 
and could use that to update the services on each link. But that is a whole 
different ball game - we have to make sure our data is good quality, and I will 
need to think what to do when a bus turns off halfway along a road that is 
mapped as one line, for example, - and I’m not about to get into that for now! 
Although I would like to, eventually!

Stuart

From: Marc Gemis [mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 August 2014 9:12 AM
To: Lester Caine
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

In Belgium Jo Simoens has done similar things for the public transport import 
of De Lijn (Flanders) and Tec (Wallonia).
He has python scripts to compare OSM data via an external reference of De Lijn 
to updates in a Postgis DB.
He also has scripts to compute the most likely route  between bus stops. This 
information was not in the DB of De Lijn.

regards

m

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Lester Caine 
mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk>> wrote:
On 01/08/14 01:36, Will Phillips wrote:
> I do not believe the stop areas should have been imported at all because
> they are not verifiable on the ground. Also, I am often unable to find
> much logic in the groupings other than the stops are relatively close
> together, so I don't think they are really useful.

This is where having a unique ID for ab object comes into it's own. That
is if the data source allows you to access that data using it. All that
needs to be in the OSM data is 'bus stop' and it's NaPTAN reference, and
anything else comes from a secondary read. Although names and the like
may be worth duplicating.

Where a source of a data import is readily accessible, then we don't
need to duplicate the 'non-mapping' data. It may be for some imports we
need a private copy of the data to make this work nicely, but that
should be a natural part of the import process anyway. A clean copy of
what was imported.

What is available and easily accessible is growing daily ... but it does
not need to be all imported into one database :)

--
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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

[Stuart Reynolds]

Oliver,

TNDS data (Traveline National Data Set, for other’s benefit - national set of 
bus & coach timetables) does not currently have the route detail - known in 
TransXChange as tracks. This is because up to now there have been issues of IPR 
with OSGR coordinates derived from OS and/or Navteq data.

Certainly from our point of view - and by “us” I mean the traveline regions of 
South East, London, East Anglia, South West, East Midlands and (shortly) West 
Midlands - we are all now on a merged system using OSM data so those problems 
have gone away. But I still won’t be exporting Tracks until TNDS asks me to.

Even then, it still has the issues of “is this right”. Most of the time it is, 
but we do get some routes which find a shorter path along a back street rather 
than down the main road.

Cheers
Stuart

From: Oliver Jowett [mailto:oliver.jow...@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 August 2014 1:51 PM
To: Stuart Reynolds
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

On 1 August 2014 11:17, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

In terms of bus routes, we also compute the most likely route between stops, 
and could use that to update the services on each link. But that is a whole 
different ball game - we have to make sure our data is good quality, and I will 
need to think what to do when a bus turns off halfway along a road that is 
mapped as one line, for example, - and I’m not about to get into that for now! 
Although I would like to, eventually!

Where does TNDS fit into this?

Oliver

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

[Stuart Reynolds]

The TNDS data isn't going to be based on what is already in OSM, if I've 
understood you correctly Oliver. Rather, in our bit, we import the GIS, route 
on it using proprietary (to our contractor) routing engines and manually adjust 
where appropriate, and then we can export the track coordinates as OSGR into 
the TNDS data.

I haven't looked at the service tags in any detail, so what I'm about to say 
may well be there already. But if we want to represent the complexity then we 
either have to capture the individual departures at a stop or, more likely, try 
and represent the frequency/regularity of a service on a link. Then renderers 
could show dotted/thin lines, or put the service number in different colours 
for infrequent services. Of course, there are plenty of issues around that as 
well!

Stuart

From: Shaun McDonald [mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk]
Sent: 01 August 2014 3:57 PM
To: Oliver Jowett
Cc: Stuart Reynolds; Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

I see it as being better to put the right hints into the OSM data and the 
routing algorithm so that they can be automatically chosen from the TNDS data, 
rather than having the data in OSM, which is hard to represent some 
complexities such as a few journeys go via a school, some are part route, etc

Shaun

On 1 Aug 2014, at 15:32, Oliver Jowett 
mailto:oliver.jow...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Right - I was just trying to understand which was the canonical source. One of 
the things I've been wanting to try (but never have the time) is repair the OSM 
bus route relations based on the TNDS schedule info - which sounds very much 
like your track-finding system. But that gets dangerous if TNDS is indirectly 
pulling data from OSM itself..

Oliver

On 1 August 2014 14:20, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Oliver,

TNDS data (Traveline National Data Set, for other's benefit - national set of 
bus & coach timetables) does not currently have the route detail - known in 
TransXChange as tracks. This is because up to now there have been issues of IPR 
with OSGR coordinates derived from OS and/or Navteq data.

Certainly from our point of view - and by "us" I mean the traveline regions of 
South East, London, East Anglia, South West, East Midlands and (shortly) West 
Midlands - we are all now on a merged system using OSM data so those problems 
have gone away. But I still won't be exporting Tracks until TNDS asks me to.

Even then, it still has the issues of "is this right". Most of the time it is, 
but we do get some routes which find a shorter path along a back street rather 
than down the main road.

Cheers
Stuart

From: Oliver Jowett 
[mailto:oliver.jow...@gmail.com<mailto:oliver.jow...@gmail.com>]
Sent: 01 August 2014 1:51 PM
To: Stuart Reynolds

Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import


On 1 August 2014 11:17, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

In terms of bus routes, we also compute the most likely route between stops, 
and could use that to update the services on each link. But that is a whole 
different ball game - we have to make sure our data is good quality, and I will 
need to think what to do when a bus turns off halfway along a road that is 
mapped as one line, for example, - and I'm not about to get into that for now! 
Although I would like to, eventually!

Where does TNDS fit into this?

Oliver


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

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

[Talk-GB] Where to cross boulevards, and how to map it

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi

Here in Southend I have a number of boulevards - dual carriageways with large 
central grassed/tree areas. In some cases there are quite clearly defined 
crossing points, and often there will be fences down the middle of the road 
(especially outside schools) to prevent people using anything other than the 
crossing. Here, for example: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.55374/0.66964

In other places (go west from here) there are no defined crossing points, and 
people can, and do, cross anywhere.

We use the data, among other things, to offer pedestrian routing. And it 
clearly makes no sense for a pedestrian to walk for ages up the road to find a 
crossing point and then to walk back again. But the voids in the carriageways 
are just that - voids. What might I fill them with? And would that in itself 
create routing opportunities, or do I need (indeed, am I even allowed) to add 
fictitious footpaths? How would I even do that in a nice way that would obscure 
them from renders?

Thanks
Stuart

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Imaginery footpaths added by user "Gavaasuren"

[Stuart Reynolds]

On 18/08/14 11:41, David Woolley wrote:

>Considering the longer term problems:
>
>1) There needs to be better guidance to routing software 
>developers on how to route when there are parallel 
>features accessible on foot;

Agreed. The things that give our routing engine problems are:

- dual carriageways. We are limited to "official" crossing points. Many dual 
carriageways don't even have areas between carriageways, just voids. It is then 
worse, because the crossing point is often the road "cut through", which is 
usually marked for foot, and actually less safe for the pedestrian than 
crossing onto the central verge (although I accept that you can do it right 
next to it).

- pedestrian areas. With an infinite number of crossing "routes", we 
pragmatically route around the edge of it. Not especially helpful or elegant in 
many cases, but at least we get a route.

- footpaths/cycleways separated from the road. I know why these are mapped this 
way, but from a routing perspective they are hardly helpful (we want people to 
transfer from the footpath that they have walked on to the bus that is standing 
on the adjacent, and unconnected, road). 


> 2) There needs to be a lot more mapping of barriers.

Yes, although until there is it makes it difficult to do (1). Some things - 
waterways - are obvious. Others less so.


> Ideally, the routing rule for foot needs to be something like that,
> subject to access and surface quality considerations, if there is 
> no barrier between adjacent features, you may cross at any point
> between them.  In this case, there has probably been pressure to
> make life easier for the router.

We do need to define what we mean as "adjacent" though. And that needs to be 
something that is understood by the wider community, not just us.


> I think this also came up recently with regard to central reservations on 
> non-motorways.

That was me. I decided again the suggestion of using this type of imaginary 
footpath, though, as I felt that there would be too many and, at the end of the 
day, unhelpful to the majority of routers/renderers

Regards,
Stuart

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names (Addendum and extra info)

[Stuart Reynolds]

FWIW, I have checked the TfL source data, and the 19 is indeed operated by 
London General and not Transdev. 

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Aug 2014, at 20:57, "Antje Ryberg"  wrote:
> 
> I should apologise for sending the message under the incorrect name. Also, 
> check Route 19 at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3969604: I don’t 
> remember it being operated by Transdev: more like London General.
> ___
> 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] Bus routes and names

[Stuart Reynolds]

That's a very London-centric view of life. Numbers are not necessarily unique 
locally once you get out into the sticks. 

Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 Aug 2014, at 14:58, "David Woolley"  wrote:
> 
>> On 23/08/14 14:50, Amaroussi-OSM wrote:
>> Maybe I could try “London Buses 38 → Victoria”?
> 
> I don't think you need the network.  The number should be locally unique 
> without that.  People don't qualify bus numbers by "London bus" in real life.
> 
>> 
>> I just wanted to reduce the time it takes to find and update
>> relationin JOSM, given that the much-needed modernisation
> > is a big thing.
> 
> It is precisely to aid finding them in JOSM that I prefer to have the number 
> first.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Prominent UK Government Sites using OSM

[Stuart Reynolds]

Derrick, hi

I don't know about a list, but the Traveline regions SE, SW, EM, EA and WM all 
now use OSM. Those are local government projects as the system is funded by 
local authorities. 

The same system then feeds DfT's Transport Direct service (for the rest of this 
month until it closes), so you can argue that at least part of a DfT service 
uses OSM. 

We (traveline) have been working with Transport Direct on accessible journey 
planning, although that is transport based and prompts me to ask our supplier 
about the usage of access info such as stairs in OSM. 

Regards
Stuart 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 3 Sep 2014, at 17:03, "Derick Rethans"  wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> My wife, who's working at DfT was asking me whether we have a list of 
> government (local, or other) and other prominent organisations using 
> OpenStreetMap. I couldn't find one, so if you know where to find it 
> please let me know.
> 
> If there *is* not such a list, I would like to make one. For that, I 
> would like to hear of which projects you're all aware. You can also tell 
> me of course if there is a list.
> 
> DfT seems quite keen on working on accessibility and f.e. have been 
> looking at wheelmap etc., to see how OSM can be used for accessibility 
> related issues.
> 
> cheers,
> Derick
> 
> ___
> 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 on Traveline website

[Stuart Reynolds]

Jerry,

Many thanks for your compliments - we’ve worked hard to integrate the OSM data 
into our routing algorithms. Some things are still causing us the odd problem, 
but on the whole we’ve been very pleased and it is a step change in quality 
from the old Navteq data.

I don’t know which website you have been using, but traveline is regional and 
not all of the regions are using the same GIS or system supplier. The regions 
currently using OSM are East & West Midlands, South West, East Anglia and South 
East. All use the same data set, which covers the whole of Great Britain, but 
with slightly differing interfaces.

I was going to send this just to you, but thought that others might like to see 
the reply re: the PDF maps. We know that they don’t look especially good at the 
moment, and that is an area that we have yet to fully re-configure. The 
colours/displays and what features are shown is not entirely as we want them to 
be. That’s one task that is down to me to do shortly!

There are other aspects of your email that I wanted to comment on, but those I 
WILL email direct, as they are all to do with the system and timetable data, 
and nothing at all to do OSM.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
For traveline south east & anglia


From: SK53 [mailto:sk53@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 September 2014 3:00 PM
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] OSM on Traveline website

Over the weekend I made a fair bit of use of the traveline website for planning 
journeys in the Greater Manchester and Sheffield areas.
Something which was relatively new to me was OSM maps appearing under the local 
map button. These show pedestrian routes between various public transport 
modes, and can be saved as PDFs 
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/e0t9hvn9gkqajj3/uk_5416EC7B8.pdf?dl=0> (although I 
don't find the PDF's as readable as the on-line versions which use 
'traditional' Mapnik style with a very clear overlay of bus stops and routing 
info).
As one of my destinations was best reached by a number of different buses with 
very different routes, the provision of walking routes through parks & a nature 
reserve. In fact I wished I'd used this facility more as it would have meant 
I'd have caught an earlier bus in Sheffield: and I could have stored some of 
the PDF plans on the phone to double check exactly where the bus stops where 
situated. (I may have also been properly alerted that the tram network in 
Manchester was shut down on Saturday).
All-in-all its a very useful improvement to the Traveline site, and I felt a 
great deal of satisfaction that it was OSM data delivered through a 3rd party 
site. Although I've been aware of traveline's activity with OSM, I'd no idea 
that I'd find it so useful.
Many thanks,
Jerry
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors

[Stuart Reynolds]

This is digressing somewhat into a discussion about NaPTAN but before I get 
into that point, if I can just pick up on the comment about leaving things in 
because it shows a history of what the data looked like. Sorry, but OSM IS a 
dynamic data set and doesn't AFAIK have the facility to keep a history in that 
sense. Personally I would not want to see a road alignment that no longer 
existed- it would be clutter.

On NaPTAN, deleted stops are those that have been removed and should 
correspondingly be removed from OSM. However there is evidence that some 
authorities delete stops simply because no service calls there-but that is 
wrong. Suspended stops on the other hand should rightly remain in the data.

CUS stop types are the custom and practice ones that have no physical 
infrastructure. In the case where a stop says "stops both sides" then there 
should be one MKD (marked) stop and one C US in NaPTAN. Unfortunately it 
doesn't always happen like that.

If you find examples you consider to be erroneous then please DM me and I will 
try and pass it on to three people concerned and/or SeT who look after the 
standard. Just don't inundate me, ok :-)

Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2014, at 12:33, Ian Caldwell 
mailto:ian1caldwell+...@googlemail.com>> wrote:


On 5 October 2014 12:11, David Woolley 
mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk>> wrote:
Could I ask please the logic behind retaining references to a stop that
does not exist?

In rural area there are places that buses stop but no physical stop. And in 
Malvern there are examples of where this only a physical stop on one side of 
the road (it says both directions) but NaPTAN has two stops.



Ian
___
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] Deletions and newbie editors

[Stuart Reynolds]

That should have been DfT in my last sentence. Curse autocorrect!

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2014, at 18:00, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

This is digressing somewhat into a discussion about NaPTAN but before I get 
into that point, if I can just pick up on the comment about leaving things in 
because it shows a history of what the data looked like. Sorry, but OSM IS a 
dynamic data set and doesn't AFAIK have the facility to keep a history in that 
sense. Personally I would not want to see a road alignment that no longer 
existed- it would be clutter.

On NaPTAN, deleted stops are those that have been removed and should 
correspondingly be removed from OSM. However there is evidence that some 
authorities delete stops simply because no service calls there-but that is 
wrong. Suspended stops on the other hand should rightly remain in the data.

CUS stop types are the custom and practice ones that have no physical 
infrastructure. In the case where a stop says "stops both sides" then there 
should be one MKD (marked) stop and one C US in NaPTAN. Unfortunately it 
doesn't always happen like that.

If you find examples you consider to be erroneous then please DM me and I will 
try and pass it on to three people concerned and/or SeT who look after the 
standard. Just don't inundate me, ok :-)

Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2014, at 12:33, Ian Caldwell 
mailto:ian1caldwell+...@googlemail.com>> wrote:


On 5 October 2014 12:11, David Woolley 
mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk>> wrote:
Could I ask please the logic behind retaining references to a stop that
does not exist?

In rural area there are places that buses stop but no physical stop. And in 
Malvern there are examples of where this only a physical stop on one side of 
the road (it says both directions) but NaPTAN has two stops.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors

[Stuart Reynolds]

That's my view as someone who is closely involved with NaPTAN. I don't know 
what official OSM policy is-I'm just saying what it ought to be

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

> On 5 Oct 2014, at 18:20, David Woolley  wrote:
> 
>> On 05/10/14 17:58, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
>> 
>> On NaPTAN, deleted stops are those that have been removed and should
>> correspondingly be removed from OSM
> 
> If that is the new policy, you should change 
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Surveying_and_Merging_NaPTAN_and_OSM_data#physically_present>
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Talk-GB] Stansted - cartography vs routing, and levels

[Stuart Reynolds]

Can you help?

I have a problem with Stansted, and don't know how to go about sorting it. 
Fundamentally, it is drawn so that it looks nice cartographically, but there 
are no routeable connections between the rail station and the coach station, or 
up into the terminal building. So I need to add some in, but levels keep 
getting in the way.

The coach station is at ground level. Really ground level. Currently all the 
bays are shown, but behind the coach station there isn't a footpath, but there 
is a roof. Unsurprisingly, pedestrians cannot use roofs! I can put a footpath 
underneath that, though, so it isn't really a problem. The problem starts to 
come when you go into the terminal building, which you do just behind the coach 
station in a number of places (where the north-projecting bits of roof are).

For those of you who don't know Stansted, the terminal building sits atop a 
built up bank. So the entrance has all the appearance of being at ground level, 
as it is just like a mini hill, but is really at level 1, as can be seen if you 
view the terminal from the air side, with all of the baggage handling areas on 
the true ground floor. The entrances from the coach station go in at true 
ground, there are then footpaths/ramps/lifts/escalators down to the rail 
station at level -1, and up to the terminal building. The terminal building, 
though, is currently set to level 0 and I am loath to change it in case that 
makes it appear to be up in the air - and as I said, the air side of the 
terminal really does sit on the ground, and it is mapped as one building. The 
only part of the terminal that is currently mapped as level 1 is a passenger 
air bridge, which really is a walkway over a road. But it is a flat walk out of 
the level 0 terminal!

I don't want to break it, but I need to reflect the routing options, lifts, 
escalators, ramps, etc. But how should I enter these? As "visible" elements, or 
as hidden elements? And how should I show the tunnels from the ground level 
coach station under the terminal building as tunnels, and...

You can see why I am confused!

Many thanks
Stuart

-------
Stuart Reynolds
For traveline south east & anglia

email: stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk
mob: 07788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds


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

[Talk-GB] Confused over access...

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi

Very quickly, if I have a road that is for bus/psv use, and is tagged like this:

Access=no
Bus=yes
Psv=yes

does that mean that buses are, or aren't, allowed to use it? Currently the bus 
lane around Preston Bus Station is coded this way, but my contractor isn't 
treating it as a bus lane, and before I go and  hassle the contractor I thought 
I would check my understanding. I got the impression that access=no took 
everything out.

Thanks.

Stuart

-------
Stuart Reynolds
For traveline south east & anglia

email: stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk
mob: 07788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Confused over access...

[Stuart Reynolds]

Ed,

There isn't a foot=yes tag because that particular road isn't walkable. There 
are two at-grade zebras from the street outside, and a tunnel, that take you up 
into the bus station. Think of it like an airport - the bus road is like the 
airport tarmac and gates, and the bus station is like the terminal building, 
accessing the vehicles from inside.

Thanks to all.

Stuart

From: Ed Loach [mailto:edlo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 October 2014 5:19 PM
To: Stuart Reynolds; 'Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org'
Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Confused over access...

The more specific access tags take priority over the more general, so in your 
example access=no precludes all traffic, but bus=yes and psv=yes means buses 
and taxis are allowed.

See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions

I am surprised there is no foot=yes tag (or perhaps access=no should be 
motor_vehicle=no).

Ed

From: Stuart Reynolds [mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk]
Sent: 14 October 2014 17:02
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [Talk-GB] Confused over access...

Hi

Very quickly, if I have a road that is for bus/psv use, and is tagged like this:

Access=no
Bus=yes
Psv=yes

does that mean that buses are, or aren't, allowed to use it? Currently the bus 
lane around Preston Bus Station is coded this way, but my contractor isn't 
treating it as a bus lane, and before I go and  hassle the contractor I thought 
I would check my understanding. I got the impression that access=no took 
everything out.

Thanks.

Stuart

---
Stuart Reynolds
For traveline south east & anglia

email: stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>
mob: 07788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds


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

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC Mechanical edit: shop=betting to shop=bookmaker for selected names

[Stuart Reynolds]

Fine with me. OSM's tagging versatility is at times it's weakness so 
standardising can only be a good thing.

Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Oct 2014, at 23:06, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> For all objects tagged with shop=betting and name Betfred, Coral,
> Ladbrokes, Paddy Power or William Hill, I am planning to change the
> tag shop=betting into shop=bookmaker.
> 
> Please see 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Math1985/Betting
> for more information.
> 
> Please let me know if you have any comments. If there are no further
> comments, I will invite list members to vote on this automatic edit. I
> will not proceed without at least 8 votes with 2/3 approval.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Matthijs
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names

[Stuart Reynolds]

I have to say that this is all getting rather intense. We are talking about one 
chain of shops! And clearly we aren't going to get an agreement on 
standardisation.

To be honest I've never quite understood the obsession with mapping individual 
shops. Fine if it is done everywhere, but it isn't. Shops come and go, and if I 
was to do this in Southend High Street I'd have to walk up it on a weekly basis 
at present to capture all the changes. Frankly, I've got better things to do 
given many missing crossings, footpaths, cycle ways etc that would really 
enhance the data.

As I read about a million messages ago, the user of the data can find Brantano, 
or Coral, or whatever, in all its various forms by processing the data. I've 
found three different ways of mapping bus lanes so far, which to me is more 
important than one chain of shops. But we live with it, and code it up so that 
we account for it rather than proposing to change everything wholesale to 
identical schemas.

Any chance we can just move on from this?

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Nov 2014, at 07:21, Colin Smale 
mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:


I'm glad you say you agree Lester, but to me, the words "common default name" 
imply some level of consensus, not the subjective opinion of an individual 
mapper. I see issues here which we should not conflate; on the contrary, we 
should address them in order, as they form a hierarchy.

Firstly, should there be (as I contend) some objective consensus-based 
normalised value for "names"

Secondly, how does the community work out what that value should be

Thirdly, (how) do we backfit that value into existing data

Fourthly, (how) do we encourage the use consensus value in preference to what 
"Joe Mapper" might think

As compliance with "rule 4" cannot be ensured, we can apply "rule 3" 
periodically to tidy things up.

There are people who object to "rule 1", "rule 2" seems to be a war of 
attrition. The arguments about "rule 3" are polarised into "camps", and "rule 
4" is at the whim of tool developers who decide what "assistance" to offer 
based on their personal preferences and the feelings of the day.

We live in a free society, and OSM is possibly more free than most. But even in 
a free society, there need to be rules and limits to safeguard the good of the 
society as a whole. Let us not act out a certain novel which comes to mind, but 
have a shared idea of what "data quality" means and find the right balance of 
measures to work together towards that.

C.



On 2014-11-04 23:54, Lester Caine wrote:

On 04/11/14 22:04, Colin Smale wrote:

Hang on a minute... the name tag should contain the most common name, or, as 
the wiki puts it, the "common default name."

Totally Agree Colin ...
The name tag should not be subjected to a 'mechanical edit' to change
what has been entered by a local mapper, so please vote against this
proposal on principle.

The 'discussion' on Brantano Footwear is a particular element of that
edit which would change what IS on the local signs, "because the second
line is simple is description of the shop", which is what I'm objecting to.

No problem with the other 'documentary' tags, it's just the name tag
which is contentious here.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names

[Stuart Reynolds]

> Mapping small shops is probably of limited use, but I do try to remove
> the bias of what I do map and sometimes the only way is to map 
> everything. As a community dominated by male geeks we do tend to 
> add POIs in the order of pubs, take aways, food shops, petrol stations.

> That said pubs are a traditional landmark in the UK and have been used 
> to give directions since long before OSM. In the modern world 
> supermarkets are becoming equally important navigation points. It is 
> certainly important to add these, and they are useful to be able to search 
> when in a strange area. I am unlikely to want to find Brantano, but many
> a time I have needed to find Tesco/Asda when away from home.

Phil, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that people shouldn't many ANY shops, 
and clearly doing so adds a richness to the mapping layer so long as you can 
avoid map clutter. There are definitely categories of navigation milestones 
that people look for, and in addition to pubs & supermarkets that would also 
include Post Offices, petrol stations... I'm sure we can think of others. 
Rather, my point was more that people were getting hung up on (as I see it) 
minutiae when there are other things to address.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of checking.

[Stuart Reynolds]

Greetings, all.

Mentz (aka "mdv") is a German company that provides the journey planner used by 
a number of the traveline regions, as well as for Transport for London. As you 
may recall from my previous posts, a number traveline regions are now using OSM 
as the GIS. We found a problem (internally) with how railways were mapped, and 
mdv told us that they had found a way around it. It looks like that involved 
amending things in ways that are not appropriate.

Please pass the details back to me, and I will discuss it with them and also 
with the community if things need reverting.

Regards,
Stuart

-Original Message-
From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk] 
Sent: 12 November 2014 10:23 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from 
a bit of checking.

More info on this - it seems to be a bunch of people working for this
company:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/%C3%96V_Firma_Mentz_Datenverarbeitung_GmbH

I've had no reply from the mapper that I tried to contact (although they have 
fixed at least one of the problems that they created) so I've tried again via 
direct message, comment on the firm's OSM wiki page and an OSM message to the 
company's main OSM account.

What concerns me is that they're still editing (with various accounts).  
It's relatively easy to trace straight lines from Bing, but it needs experience 
and interpretation (and a local survey!) to see how everything on the ground 
relates to everything else.

Based on their error rate so far I'd definitely still suggest that local 
mappers check their edits.

Cheers,

Andy


On 08/11/2014 22:51, SomeoneElse wrote:
> An anonymous note adder (http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/267719) and 
> someone on IRC noticed some problematical railway edits near
> Sutton-in-Ashfield:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311380489#map=15/53.1247/-1.2346&laye
> rs=N
>
>
> It looks like an attempt to dual the Robin Hood line went a bit wrong 
> and ended up slicing through an industrial estate and some areas of 
> housing (though I'm sure it was "cock-up rather than conspiracy" as 
> Sir Bernard Ingham would have said).  Looking at some other edits in 
> the same changeset, there are some other, less obvious, issues too, 
> which I've added to the changeset discussion:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26590071
>
> The most obvious problem seems to be "tracing the railway in but not 
> joining properly to other features (such as crossings)".  Some 
> information (e.g. "cutting=yes") has also been lost.
>
> Another local changeset:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26587435
> has some similar issues.
>
> There have been a number of other edits, some with rather a lot of 
> deletions in them, including:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26613977
>
> All of these changesets could probably also benefit from a review from 
> local mappers to identify potential issues.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of checking.

[Stuart Reynolds]

OK. I agree that it is odd, but my ability to influence them will be restricted 
to UK edits that they will have done (theoretically) to resolve issues that we 
have raised with them. I'll take a look at some of the other edits referred to 
in the trail below.

Regards,
Stuart

-Original Message-
From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 12 November 2014 11:09 AM
To: Stuart Reynolds; 'SomeoneElse'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: project
Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from 
a bit of checking.

Here's just one example of an odd type of edit. Adding priority=yard to rail 
objects.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/96973880

I did not see anything on the schema page to suggest odd tags:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2F%25C3%2596V_Firma_Mentz_Datenverarbeitung_GmbH%2FModellierungsvorschl%25C3%25A4ge

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Stuart Reynolds [mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk]
Sent: 12 November 2014 10:59
To: SomeoneElse; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: project
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from 
a bit of checking.

Greetings, all.

Mentz (aka "mdv") is a German company that provides the journey planner used by 
a number of the traveline regions, as well as for Transport for London. As you 
may recall from my previous posts, a number traveline regions are now using OSM 
as the GIS. We found a problem (internally) with how railways were mapped, and 
mdv told us that they had found a way around it. It looks like that involved 
amending things in ways that are not appropriate.

Please pass the details back to me, and I will discuss it with them and also 
with the community if things need reverting.

Regards,
Stuart

-Original Message-
From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk]
Sent: 12 November 2014 10:23 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from 
a bit of checking.

More info on this - it seems to be a bunch of people working for this
company:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/%C3%96V_Firma_Mentz_Datenverarbeitung_GmbH

I've had no reply from the mapper that I tried to contact (although they have 
fixed at least one of the problems that they created) so I've tried again via 
direct message, comment on the firm's OSM wiki page and an OSM message to the 
company's main OSM account.

What concerns me is that they're still editing (with various accounts).  
It's relatively easy to trace straight lines from Bing, but it needs experience 
and interpretation (and a local survey!) to see how everything on the ground 
relates to everything else.

Based on their error rate so far I'd definitely still suggest that local 
mappers check their edits.

Cheers,

Andy


On 08/11/2014 22:51, SomeoneElse wrote:
> An anonymous note adder (http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/267719) and 
> someone on IRC noticed some problematical railway edits near
> Sutton-in-Ashfield:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311380489#map=15/53.1247/-1.2346&laye
> rs=N
>
>
> It looks like an attempt to dual the Robin Hood line went a bit wrong 
> and ended up slicing through an industrial estate and some areas of 
> housing (though I'm sure it was "cock-up rather than conspiracy" as 
> Sir Bernard Ingham would have said).  Looking at some other edits in 
> the same changeset, there are some other, less obvious, issues too, 
> which I've added to the changeset discussion:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26590071
>
> The most obvious problem seems to be "tracing the railway in but not 
> joining properly to other features (such as crossings)".  Some 
> information (e.g. "cutting=yes") has also been lost.
>
> Another local changeset:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26587435
> has some similar issues.
>
> There have been a number of other edits, some with rather a lot of 
> deletions in them, including:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26613977
>
> All of these changesets could probably also benefit from a review from 
> local mappers to identify potential issues.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of checking.

[Stuart Reynolds]

Mdv tell me that they have replied to "SomeoneElse" - presumably privately, as 
I didn't see it on the list - and have withdrawn the editor in question. They 
will also send a response to the list.

Regards,
Stuart

-Original Message-
From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 12 November 2014 1:31 PM
To: 'Tom Hughes'; Stuart Reynolds; 'SomeoneElse'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: project
Subject: RE: Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of 
checking.

taoxue is listed on:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/%C3%96V_Firma_Mentz_Datenverarbeitung_GmbH#Users_that_work_for_us

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Tom Hughes [mailto:t...@compton.nu] 
Sent: 12 November 2014 12:03
To: Andy Robinson; 'Stuart Reynolds'; 'SomeoneElse'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: 'project'
Subject: Re: Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of 
checking.

On 12/11/14 11:40, Andy Robinson wrote:

> According to http://hdyc.neis-one.org .The ÖV Firma Mentz Datenverarbeitung 
> GmbH users that have edited in the UK are:
>
> tklug
> thomas-oliver-berlin
> mjessen
> Gavaasuren
> haytigran
> rotkelch
> taoxue

I don't see anything to link that last one to mentzdv?

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] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits

[Stuart Reynolds]

Brian,

I'm curious. Where does it say in the sign up that there's this bunch of people 
on a mailing list and you'd better check with them before you do anything?

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, of course, but I genuinely don't believe 
that people are editing the map to make it worse, and they may be as close to 
the ground as any one of us, even if their views differ from either the 
majority, the "accepted way", or both.

That is precisely why the wikis are important - they are the "style guide" that 
most users see and try to follow.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 19 Nov 2014, at 21:23, Brian Prangle 
mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I'll defend Birmingham because I live here and I've contribruted to the data 
and I've discussed its structure with other mappers. It works for us. If we're 
not happy with it we'll change it ourselves. If anyone else is not happy with 
it ask us and we might just agree with you (or not) and do the necessary work. 
A little bit of courtesy to the mappers on the ground goes a long way.

Regards

Brian

On 19 November 2014 20:54, John Baker 
mailto:rovas...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

I understand the arguments against the wiki from the haters here. However it is 
used as a point of reference and should be more respected and anti-wiki 
comments are just insulting to those that actually take the effort to edit it. 
If the wiki is wrong change the wiki - the concept is not difficult.
Slowly there is more cohesion between the default renderer, wiki and the 
editors just stubborn old timers in OSM that will not change.

I argument that things have been there a long time therefore they are right is 
foolish. Many times things are just left because so many fear of changing 
anything as they think someone else has done it "right".  Again discouraging 
new editors in the "long tail".
I cannot believe anyone here thinks all the changes are wrong in these edits. I 
await to see people defend the "Quarters" in Birmingham as they were.
If anyone is that passionate about their own personal "standards" here (which 
is less consensus than a wiki as it is only 1) over than that is in more 
established sources like the wiki then at least put a note in there explaining 
why. That is normal practice.

Reverting will just leave the status quo of leaving erroneous information in 
OSM. I am not saying all of them are right but some will be.

Personally I avoid highway=path. However what about the same situation is in 
reverse. Should I tell everyone not to change highway=path to highway=footway?! 
If that is not my place, is it your place to do the other. However it raises 
the bigger issue of if there is no consensus then we will just get a mixture 
throughout the UK.

Just because an area (suburb, etc) has shops in doesn't mean that should be 
classified as a village, town, etc. Just because something was a village, etc 
hundreds of years ago doesn't mean it is now.
And no-one has ever answered "I live in the village of Peckham" to the question 
of "What town/city/village do you live in?" and yes I lived there too.




From: t...@acrewoods.net
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:01:33 +
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits
To: ajrli...@gmail.com
CC: rovas...@hotmail.com; 
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org


Thanks for all the comments.

Could somebody revert the two London changesets? The move to the alternative 
hierarchy of suburb/quarter/etc can always be done later after some more 
considered thought. These existing hierarchy was a settled consensus of sorts 
resulting from years of tweaks. I myself spent quite a bit of time reviewing 
all the places in South East London some years ago.

To respond to John, discussions on the wiki have always involved a fairly small 
number of mappers, and the convention is that you shouldn't go around changing 
long-established data because some people on the wiki decided one logical 
approach was the best. As Richard Fairhurst said in the comments to the 
changeset, the fact that these place names have been there for a long time 
suggests there is a good reason for them to be so. We've not just overlooked 
this all those years. The same could be said of that awful tag "highway=path", 
which has been around for a long time but which I - and many others - refuse to 
use. It's fine if you want to use it, but please don't go changing 
highway=footpath and so on to highway=path because some wiki page says it's 
better.

Personally, I think it is important to recognise that Peckham, Lewisham, 
Brixton, Wimbledon and so on are town centres, they are not just suburbs. They 
are recognised as such in planning policy, they fulfil an important town centre 
function, and would be considered town centres by many people who live, work 
and shop there. This isn't tagging for the renderer, it's getting the

[Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Looking for some advice in Bletchley, specifically, but to answer a more 
general point about footpaths.

Please look at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.99530/-0.73751

Bletchley Rail Station sits in the middle, and to the west is the main road, 
which is Sherwood Drive. There is also a footpath shown coming from the station 
and along the eastern side of Sherwood Drive, but not on the western side.

This feels very wrong to me on a number of levels. For starters, the footpath 
doesn’t connect to Sherwood Drive except at the bottom, so it isn’t apparent 
that you can cross the road to go along Selwyn Grove, for example. Also, there 
is no footpath going north, nor is there a footpath on the western side of 
Sherwood Drive, despite it being quite clearly there on Streetview. In 
addition, Sherwood Drive already has the tag Sidewalk=both which rather makes 
the footpath redundant, doesn’t it?

My inclination would be to rip out the footpath and rely on the sidewalk tag, 
except that seems extreme and it isn’t wrong per se.

So what is the guidance here? Ought the road have a distinct footpath both 
sides? Or not footpath, and use the tags on the road, or just connecting spurs 
from the footpath to the road at key points (e.g. opposite Selwyn Grove), or 
what…?

Thanks
Stuart



Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Thanks all. For now I’ve taken the simple approach of adding a couple of small 
links from the footpath to the roads, as Rob suggests.
Stuart

On 1 Dec 2014, at 17:38, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I would map to the first dropped kerb and join back to the road. I would leave 
what's there but add a link to the road (perhaps at the exit road of the 
station).

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Discussion of Mechanical Edits

[Stuart Reynolds]

+1

Regards,
Stuart

> On 18 Dec 2014, at 13:36, Andy Allan  wrote:
> 
> On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53  wrote:
>> I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing.
> 
> I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming
> farcical. After setting up dozens of hoops for him to jump through,
> which he has done, and then because he managed that creating more and
> more, it's now in the position where people are proposing keeping
> demonstrably incorrect data in the database for no coherent reason.
> Moreover, despite all common sense showing that it never actually
> happens, we're expecting other people to spend their free time on
> meaningless, brainless drudge-work in order to fix simple typos by
> hand, in some kind of "well this sainsbury's might not actually have
> an apostrophe maybe it fell off the wall or something" nonsense. "Oh
> boy, I'm sure glad that all these typos are there for me to fix by
> hand! That's the /best/ use of my free time, it's /such/ fun."
> 
> This mailing list appears to be having some sort of immune-response
> over-reaction. We don't like mechanical edits in general. Fine.
> Therefore every mechanical edit must be fought against, to the bitter
> end. That's an over-reaction.
> 
>> No-one seems to dispute that we do not have a consensus, Can we leave it at
>> that "we agree to disagree". It is usual in such cases to keep the status
>> quo ante.
> 
> No, that can't work any more. If we're going to build a successful
> community here in the UK then we need to cope with thousands of people
> having their own opinion, not just "no consensus" among a few dozen
> people on this list. Having every sensible plan derailed by
> "noticeable opposition" is not a scalable policy either. This concept
> of regional "opt-outs" is also badly thought through, since nobody is
> "in charge" of a particular area (no matter how much they might strut
> around on the lists) and encouraging people to self-appoint as having
> area-based vetoes builds the opposite of the community that we're
> trying to build.
> 
> I'd like to encourage everyone to step back, and think of a better way
> to organize ourselves. This isn't it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andy
> 
> ___
> 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] GB postcodes

[Stuart Reynolds]

We certainly use postcodes for routing within traveline - they are unambiguous. 
Indeed, I was considering a task only yesterday to use postcode polygons as a 
means of assigning postcodes to bus stops.

Collection times are increasingly meaningless, thanks to the dear old Post 
Office replacing them with “there will be a collection here before 5pm” (rather 
than "at X pm") type of notices (at least around here, anyway, and I believe 
that it is generally true)

Regards,
Stuart



On 26 Mar 2015, at 09:57, 
jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote:

+1 on collection times and Postcodes for routing.

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

From: Pierre Riteau
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎09‎:‎08
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org

On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, at 09:22 PM, Pmailkeey . wrote:

What use are post box ref numbers ? Who is really bothered about collection 
times ? The nearest post box is useful info.

I can't imagine anyone using postcodes for routing. Postcodes, I guess are only 
of use to Royal Mail for the purpose of organising delivery rounds and 
abbreviating locations inaccurately.


I am one of the mappers interested in post box data. I find it very handy to 
know the collection times. Around my house there are post boxes collected at 
11:00, 11:30, or 12:00 on Saturdays. When I want to send a letter on a Saturday 
after 11:00, I check OSM for the closest uncollected post box.

The fact that the data is not useful to you doesn't mean is it not useful for 
other people!

As for routing via postcodes, as pointed out already it is ubiquitous on 
satnavs…

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

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

[Talk-GB] Any mappers in Colchester who can help map a road?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi,

Are there any mappers in Colchester who could survey the new Northern Approach 
Road phase 3 to the east and south of the old Severalls Hospital? The proposed 
alignment is shown on OSM, but Google has it differently at the western end, 
and also shows a set of roads south of Colchester Rugby Club (NW of Mill Road, 
opposite Brinkley Grove Road) that are not on OSM.

Essex County Council need me to route a bus along it, so a) I understand from 
them that it is open and no longer under construction and will annotate OSM 
accordingly, and b) I am going to go with the alignment shown for the time 
being as it seems to align to a route map that I have been sent.

But clearly surveyed data would be better if we can get it, please!

Regards,
Stuart

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Any mappers in Colchester who can help map a road?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Ed, hi

Thanks. For info, Essex County Council have told me that they “...can confirm 
that the NAR3 is still being worked on and is planned to be open before the P&R 
is open”. As you are aware, the P&R service is due to start 13th April, a week 
on Monday.

Given the short time before it is opening, does anyone object that I have 
marked the road as a standard tertiary highway? I need it to be available for 
routing in our system, as the P&R bus does NOT go along Boxted Road, but 
equally I don’t want to inconvenience anyone else by having “wrong” data in OSM.

Regards,
Stuart


On 2 Apr 2015, at 14:53, Ed Loach mailto:edlo...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

It isn’t open yet (at least when I last checked) – I’ve left the A12 where the 
park and ride is being built to the north of J28 and headed south to see if it 
was open. I’ve made a note where I amended the section to the south that was 
open (and still roadworks) when I last drove through:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/264728#map=15/51.9227/0.9052&layers=N

Still closed yesterday according to this story in our local paper
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/12693243.Roadworks_trigger_Park_and_Ride_changes/
and a temporary route will be used until the over-running roadworks is 
completed.

I subscribe to the local paper as well as follow them and a number of their 
reporters on Twitter, so when it does open I’ll go up there and get a GPS trace 
as I did the day J28 first opened (although anyone else local is welcome to try 
and get there first…)

Ed (Clacton-on-Sea)

From: Stuart Reynolds [mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk]
Sent: 02 April 2015 14:37
To: talk-gb OSM List E-mail
Subject: [Talk-GB] Any mappers in Colchester who can help map a road?

Hi,

Are there any mappers in Colchester who could survey the new Northern Approach 
Road phase 3 to the east and south of the old Severalls Hospital? The proposed 
alignment is shown on OSM, but Google has it differently at the western end, 
and also shows a set of roads south of Colchester Rugby Club (NW of Mill Road, 
opposite Brinkley Grove Road) that are not on OSM.

Essex County Council need me to route a bus along it, so a) I understand from 
them that it is open and no longer under construction and will annotate OSM 
accordingly, and b) I am going to go with the alignment shown for the time 
being as it seems to align to a route map that I have been sent.

But clearly surveyed data would be better if we can get it, please!

Regards,
Stuart

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Any mappers in Colchester who can help map a road?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Brilliant - thanks.
Stuart


On 9 Apr 2015, at 09:53, Ed Loach mailto:edlo...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

The “North Approach Road extension” opened yesterday according to today’s 
Gazette; I’ll be able to go get a GPS trace or two after work tomorrow. The bus 
lane by Colchester North station will reportedly be complete by the end of 
overnight roadworks at 5am on Monday (the first buses being at 7am).

Ed

From: Stuart Reynolds [mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk]
Sent: 02 April 2015 15:31
To: Ed Loach
Cc: talk-gb OSM List E-mail
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Any mappers in Colchester who can help map a road?

Ed, hi

Thanks. For info, Essex County Council have told me that they “...can confirm 
that the NAR3 is still being worked on and is planned to be open before the P&R 
is open”. As you are aware, the P&R service is due to start 13th April, a week 
on Monday.

Given the short time before it is opening, does anyone object that I have 
marked the road as a standard tertiary highway? I need it to be available for 
routing in our system, as the P&R bus does NOT go along Boxted Road, but 
equally I don’t want to inconvenience anyone else by having “wrong” data in OSM.

Regards,
Stuart

On 2 Apr 2015, at 14:53, Ed Loach mailto:edlo...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

It isn’t open yet (at least when I last checked) – I’ve left the A12 where the 
park and ride is being built to the north of J28 and headed south to see if it 
was open. I’ve made a note where I amended the section to the south that was 
open (and still roadworks) when I last drove through:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/264728#map=15/51.9227/0.9052&layers=N

Still closed yesterday according to this story in our local paper
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/12693243.Roadworks_trigger_Park_and_Ride_changes/
and a temporary route will be used until the over-running roadworks is 
completed.

I subscribe to the local paper as well as follow them and a number of their 
reporters on Twitter, so when it does open I’ll go up there and get a GPS trace 
as I did the day J28 first opened (although anyone else local is welcome to try 
and get there first…)

Ed (Clacton-on-Sea)

From: Stuart Reynolds [mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk]
Sent: 02 April 2015 14:37
To: talk-gb OSM List E-mail
Subject: [Talk-GB] Any mappers in Colchester who can help map a road?

Hi,

Are there any mappers in Colchester who could survey the new Northern Approach 
Road phase 3 to the east and south of the old Severalls Hospital? The proposed 
alignment is shown on OSM, but Google has it differently at the western end, 
and also shows a set of roads south of Colchester Rugby Club (NW of Mill Road, 
opposite Brinkley Grove Road) that are not on OSM.

Essex County Council need me to route a bus along it, so a) I understand from 
them that it is open and no longer under construction and will annotate OSM 
accordingly, and b) I am going to go with the alignment shown for the time 
being as it seems to align to a route map that I have been sent.

But clearly surveyed data would be better if we can get it, please!

Regards,
Stuart

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

[Talk-GB] Can anyone help with mapping in Stanford-le-Hope?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Greetings,

Is there a friendly mapper out there local to Stanford-le-Hope who wouldn’t 
mind surveying the new Sorrell’s Rounabout junction at The Manorway / 
Corringham Road? OSM at present has only part of the change and Google has 
slightly more (the top third of the new roundabout), but still not all of it. 
What is generally missing is the new Manorway alignment to the east of the 
roundabout. The net effect of the missing bits is that you cannot exit 
Corringham Road and head east on The Manorway.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29171779#map=16/51.5169/0.4458

also see 
http://www.volkerfitzpatrick.co.uk/dynamics/modules/SFIL0200/view.php?fil_Id=6373
 for a “proper” diagram of the new road, but without sufficient locational 
detail on it to allow it to be mapped precisely.

Thanks
Regards
Stuart


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

Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge

[Stuart Reynolds]

Without wanting to get into specific tags, or indeed into specific renderers, 
let’s step back and see if what we have got is what we want?
The answer is probably no, IMHO.

Take Newnham College 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.19959/0.10973&layers=H) which I know 
fairly well. It is one site - Newnham College - and is part of the university. 
But the individual buildings within it are just that - buildings. In fact, the 
distinction between the various buildings is really only of relevance to the 
people within it, given that you can walk between the extremities Strachey in 
the east to Peile in the west without every going outside, and the fact that 
much of it is student’s rooms.

So:

- we need to be able to identify the site as Newnham College
- we need to be able to identify Newnham College as part of the University of 
Cambridge
- we need to be able to name and identify the buildings on the site, and to 
have them linked to Newnham College. But we do NOT need to reference them as 
universities in their own right

So long as we use tagging and/or relationships which maintain those 
associations, we have clarity on the data and renderers can choose what to do 
with it.

Stuart

On 22 May 2015, at 14:22, Andy Allan 
mailto:gravityst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 22 May 2015 at 14:03, Christopher Baines 
mailto:m...@cbaines.net>> wrote:
On 21/05/15 22:39, Dan S wrote:
I don't relish bringing this up since it's a bit of a tangle, but I
noticed Cambridge has a lot more universities than I thought!
Apparently 1219, judging from the number of amenity=university tagged
objects. In real life I'm aware of two: Cambridge Uni, Anglia Ruskin
Uni.

I think that it is a poor assumption to make that there exists a one to
one mapping between objects (nodes, ways, relations) tagged with
amenity=university, and actual organisations.

Sure, but then you need to look at what is actually being tagged.
We've already heard that there are 1219 different universities in
Cambridge, so I was intrigued as to what they are. After all, I would
expect "amenity=university; name=University of Somewheresville" to be
a university. If there were two objects tagged as universities with
identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they
are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit.

But they are all different. There's a university named "Music Centre".
There's another university called "Pavillion D". There's a third
university called "Forbes Mellon Library" which is a surprising thing
to call a university. There's a bunch of little unamed universities.
And they all have different operator tags too.

I suspect these are the names of buildings, not universities. I
suspect they are operated by different sections of the one university,
but there's no easy way to tell from the operator tag without a
natural-language parser coupled with a wikipedia-based explanation of
the constituent college system.

Have a look at the data, and you'll see it's not as straightforward as
you think. Sure, there's no one-to-one mapping between the real world
and OSM features. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Thanks,
Andy

___
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] Data Model for Address

[Stuart Reynolds]

FWIW, Google and Bing don’t understand it either!

Friends of ours have an address of the format:

1 Cherry Cottages
Lime Avenue
Cranleigh

(not a real address, although the town is real enough!)

Bing gave me the equivalent of 1 Lime Avenue, which was at least in the right 
town, while Google gave me 1 Cherry Cottages (or thereabouts) but in a town 
over an hour away!

Cheers
Stuart


On 29 May 2015, at 15:26, Colin Smale 
mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:




If anyone is interested in the data model used by Royal Mail in UK addresses, 
this will tell you loads:

http://www.poweredbypaf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Latest-Programmers_guide_Edition-7-Version-6.pdf

Warning: you may find yourself uttering things in "rather unparliamentary 
language" when you read this.

Contrast this with the Dutch address model: Street, Housenumber (numeric), 
Housenumber Extension (alphanumeric), Postcode (XX) and Town. Probably much 
the same in Belgium and Germany too.

//colin

___
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] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

[Stuart Reynolds]

…and what does “support the development of OSM tools and apps” mean in this 
context? Support in the sense that we think its great and will promote / aid / 
assist, or support in the sense that we hand over a sum of money towards 
development? And in that case, where does it come from? The membership fees 
indicated in the second question? The minute you introduce a membership fee, 
you are no longer open to all.

Regards
Stuart

On 13 Jul 2015, at 12:39, Dave F. 
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com>> wrote:

You say there's no neutrality, but there's no option to disagree with the whole 
proposal.

On 11/07/2015 21:19, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Dear UK/GB OpenStreetMappers,

From time to time we talk about the potential of setting up a "UK/GB 
OpenStreetMap group" (name yet to be decided) but we never quite know what it 
should look like.

Survey time!! Please fill in the following 2 minute survey:

http://goo.gl/forms/Z797QhC27c

Your responses to page 1 will be shared when we close the survey (in a few 
weeks). If you respond to the optional page 2 questions (your details), your 
responses will be used for the purpose of administrating the group only (they 
will only be seen by myself and any designated administrator should a UK/GB 
group be set up).

So stop reading and go to the survey:

http://goo.gl/forms/Z797QhC27c

Best regards and happy mapping,
Rob




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





[Avast logo] 

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com


___
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] 'Romantic London' - reusing Horwood's 1790's map

[Stuart Reynolds]

For those of you interested in old maps generally, you may already be aware of 
the site http://www.mapco.net/ which has a wide selection of freely-viewable 
historical maps of London and other places. They are only images, and they are 
not digitised, however they are very useful for finding old places and tracking 
changes of street names. Note that they are copyrighted images so we can’t use 
them in OSM (as far as I can tell) - see http://www.mapco.net/terms.htm - but 
for people who are generally interested in maps you might find it of interest!

Cheers
Stuart


On 27 Oct 2015, at 13:30, Andy Mabbett 
mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>> wrote:

I witnessed a fascinating presentation, this morning, on a project
which has digitised the first map of London at building level, and
overlays it with data from other sources:

  http://www.romanticlondon.org/

The data sets are freely available, but the British Library claims
copyright over the map images - I'm sure some of you will have your
own views about this.

I shall notify the project's creator, Dr Matthew Sangster, about this
post, and invite him to join this list. He would be a good speaker for
a future OSM conference.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] New map style

[Stuart Reynolds]

I don't like it for the simple reason that I think it will fail to win over new 
Uk users. There are plenty of people who just want to use default tiles to show 
a location on - sports pitch, scout hall, whatever - and those people will 
inevitably go to Google. Sure, we understand the differences between a map and 
data, but we need to engage first and then draw them into making active 
improvements. And this won't do that because it is so contrary to people's 
experience.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Nov 2015, at 09:39, Lester Caine  wrote:
> 
> On 01/11/15 07:22, Ed Loach wrote:
>>> It very simple, the colours should match the road sign colours: Blue,
>> Green, Red!
>> 
>> Red?
> 
> Was waiting for someone to pick that one up, and yes it has been some
> time since red was dropped from the legal framework and therefore the
> highway code. But the Blue and Green are well documented and just what
> traffic is restricted from accessing a motorway drummed into people.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out if our French colleagues have any
> plans to switch their servers to the new style, but I expect they will
> be a lot more considerate! The default style they provide is actually a
> better one for the UK than the 'old' style was (wish I'd found it
> sooner!), but along with a few useful variations related to France BOTH
> are available. So I would anticipate that the new style will simply
> become an option there?
> 
> Back to the 'Red' question, and the simplification introduced between
> Primary and non-Primary routes. A quick search on google produces no
> easy answers, and Wikipedia has references to all the legislation, but
> many of the links to VIEW the facts no longer work. It's this disregard
> for maintaining history that annoys me most.
> 
> The bottom line is that 'non-primary' routes are any road used to link
> primary routes, and INCLUDES tertiary routes in many rural areas. Apart
> from the way the the style suddenly appeared rather than a proper roll
> out, my only complaint about the new style is that tertiary routes are
> not included in the 'non-primary' grouping. ADD that to the orange
> routes and it will fix that particular bug. As for the new style ... no
> I don't find it particularly useful at all.
> 
> The use of red, orange and yellow to rate the non-primary routes is
> really only a matter of following the OS conventions. It is one of the
> areas that I have actually adjusted in my own clone of the style and is
> a little different on the French version.
> 
> p.s. - Anybody still got signs with red backgrounds in their area?
> 
> -- 
> 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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Updating maps

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Adrian,

It rather depends on where they are getting their map tiles from, and how often 
those are updated. Users are really supposed to generate their own.

Here at traveline south east 
(www.travelinesoutheast.org.uk<http://www.travelinesoutheast.org.uk>), for 
example, we have two different sets of tiles, representing different zoom 
levels and delivered from different servers. At our default level you get 
presented with a map tile which is only updated annually. There is a very good 
argument to say that the default should be more often, but I digress. For 
Calverley Park Gardens, it shows the old road designation right now. The two 
levels of zoom below that are delivered from a tile server that is updated 
overnight and re-tiled on the fly. So if you zoom in then you see your edit.

Personally, I would rather re-tile it all. However, as you zoom out you get 
fewer tiles, but there is more data to crunch to produce them - and that can 
leave us not only taking a while to produce the tiles, but also the time to 
then transfer large batches of data to the servers. So we made a design 
decision to do it the way we have.

I’m sure that you will find that Kent Traffic has similar policies. But to know 
what they are, you would have to ask them.

Regards,
Stuart

----
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 4 Jan 2016, at 10:35, Adrian Berendt 
mailto:adrian.beren...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I made a change to openstreetmap.org<http://openstreetmap.org/> last month, to 
correct Calverley Park Gardens in Tunbridge Wells to be the B2249 (previously 
showing as the A264).  Whilst this appears on the map when I open it, when I 
look at other maps based  on openstreets, such as http://www.kenttraffic.info/, 
it's still showing the old information.

When will that map get changed?

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project: Map of changesets

[Stuart Reynolds]

That’s what I like to see - 3 different changeset notations! FWIW, since I have 
just this moment uploaded some changes, I used #OSMschools as that seemed to 
offer both the hashtag and also the designation of the “schools” project.

However, how do we to track this progress? Are we matching specific edits to 
specific schools out of Edubase, or are we just counting?

I looked at three schools in this changeset, across the whole of Southend. So 
visually it won’t be obvious what I’ve done, as there will just be a large 
rectangle across the town (although accept that the changeset lists all the 
individual ways I’ve amended). But I got my hand in by tweaking Southend High 
School for Boys (49655265) which was already well tagged and just needed some 
minor edits, I then added rough (armchair) building outlines and entrances to, 
and amended the name of, the existing (amenity=school) polygon of Barons Court 
Infant School (90523274), and finally added the until now non-existent (either 
in it’s old location or new 3-4 year old location) Hinguar Community Primary 
School (389616029). But in this latter case I had to guess, largely, as Mr 
Google shows it, but none of the mapping I can access in JOSM does. So it is of 
necessity approximate (and completely ignores the fact that it is on stilts as 
it was built on a flood plain) - but at least it is there.

Cheers
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 4 Jan 2016, at 22:16, Robert Norris 
mailto:rw_nor...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

___
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 18:15:13 +
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com<mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project: Map of changesets

Hi all,

Can you please add "OSMschools" to your changesets so that we can track
them. For now you can see any changest with "school" in the comment at
the following site but this isn't restricted to our UK project - hence
the request to use "OSMschools".

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-changesets?comment=school#5/54.965/-1.780

Rob


I was thinking about this earlier today, but not had a chance to post.

I was thinking about a slightly a more general id scheme such as "#GB2016QP1"

Hence with idea subsequent quarterly projects would be #GB2016QP2 and so on. Of 
course the comment/tag is less understandable in of it's own as they would be 
are more for analytics.

However I'm quite happy with 'OSMschools', although IIRC using a hash at the 
beginning of a semantic tag is the preferred form (#OSMschools).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

I’m thinking that while we are reviewing the schools, it would be a good idea 
to add the Edubase reference into a Ref tag for each school boundary polygon, 
to make it easier to track in future. Is that reference stable enough?
If we think that it is a good idea, perhaps we could make it part of an agreed 
“do minimum” for this project. For example:


  *   draw and tag the boundary polygon with a minimum of
 *   amenity=school
 *   name=*
 *   ref=*
  *   add entrances
 *   at least one entrance=main
 *   barrier=gate where appropriate - I would have thought most schools 
will have gates
 *   others entrances where appropriate
  *   then optionally, but preferably, draw the school buildings and tag 
building=school.

I know we don’t want to be prescriptive, but it would certainly help people 
(like myself) who haven't participated in projects before ’t there was a 
(readily achievable) level of expectation as to what involvement in the project 
meant.

Personally I have been adding in the buildings, but I haven’t been worrying 
(for now) about playing fields and the like - I’ll go back and revisit those if 
I have time. But there are a surprising number of missing schools so I have 
been looking to get those in first.

Cheers
Stuart



On 3 Jan 2016, at 21:54, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

Some great ideas and tools already shared and only January 3rd!

This made me think I should set up a wiki page but I have been beaten to it. 
I've expanded on the page to add links to all the resources being discussed 
here. Page at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects

Rob

p.s. Big thank you to our wiki system admins who have now added the 
VisualEditor to the wiki. This makes it much easier to edit the wiki so no 
excuses for not keeping the pages up to date :-)
___
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] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Jez,

I was pondering that myself as I added the Edubase numbers to the schools that 
I have added and/or modified. I had two thoughts: one, we could just write a 
piece of free text such as “UK Edubase” in front of the ref; two, which is more 
elegant although involving non-standard tags, is that we tag it as 
ref:uk_edubase=* (or similar).

Regards,
Stuart



On 6 Jan 2016, at 11:36, Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On the ref=*. Is there any convention for indicating that the ref is Edubase? 
I've tagged Brighton Montessori with ref=133348 ...but how would an interested 
party know that they would be able to find more details on Edubase 
http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=133348 ?

I agree that where an object is clearly 'owned' by an authority/company/etc. 
that it is *the* 'ref'. e.g. postbox numbers

Regards,
Jez

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 17:05 Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
I’m thinking that while we are reviewing the schools, it would be a good idea 
to add the Edubase reference into a Ref tag for each school boundary polygon, 
to make it easier to track in future. Is that reference stable enough?
If we think that it is a good idea, perhaps we could make it part of an agreed 
“do minimum” for this project. For example:


  *   draw and tag the boundary polygon with a minimum of
 *   amenity=school
 *   name=*
 *   ref=*
  *   add entrances
 *   at least one entrance=main
 *   barrier=gate where appropriate - I would have thought most schools 
will have gates
 *   others entrances where appropriate
  *   then optionally, but preferably, draw the school buildings and tag 
building=school.

I know we don’t want to be prescriptive, but it would certainly help people 
(like myself) who haven't participated in projects before ’t there was a 
(readily achievable) level of expectation as to what involvement in the project 
meant.

Personally I have been adding in the buildings, but I haven’t been worrying 
(for now) about playing fields and the like - I’ll go back and revisit those if 
I have time. But there are a surprising number of missing schools so I have 
been looking to get those in first.

Cheers
Stuart




On 3 Jan 2016, at 21:54, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

Some great ideas and tools already shared and only January 3rd!

This made me think I should set up a wiki page but I have been beaten to it. 
I've expanded on the page to add links to all the resources being discussed 
here. Page at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects

Rob

p.s. Big thank you to our wiki system admins who have now added the 
VisualEditor to the wiki. This makes it much easier to edit the wiki so no 
excuses for not keeping the pages up to date :-)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi John,

I don’t know if how I do it is “right”, but I have used access=destination, and 
foot=no where I have those types of things. I haven’t ever used 
amenity=parking_entrance, although that doesn’t mean I’m right as I’m still a  
relative newbie at this compared to many. Actually, I use access=destination on 
all of my school entrances, regardless, as they are rarely, if ever, public 
rights of way and can seem like “shortcuts” between roads which are otherwise 
unconnected.

Cheers
Stuart



On 6 Jan 2016, at 12:04, John Aldridge 
mailto:j...@cantab.net>> wrote:

On 05-Jan-16 17:03, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
 * draw and tag the boundary polygon with a minimum of
 o amenity=school
 o name=*
 o ref=*
 * add entrances
 o at least one entrance=main
 o barrier=gate where appropriate - I would have thought most
   schools will have gates
 o others entrances where appropriate
 * then optionally, but preferably, draw the school buildings and tag
   building=school.

I have a school car-park tagging question...


Suppose there's a vehicle entrance, distinct from the main/pedestrian entrance, 
leading (perhaps via some service road) to the school car-park. How should this 
best be tagged? Is

 amenity=parking_entrance

the appropriate tag (it's in the Wiki, but that page could be read as 
suggesting that this tag is an alternative to mapping an amenity=parking, not 
an addition to it). Or is

 entrance=parking

better? The Wiki doesn't mention 'parking' as a value for the 'entrance' tag, 
but maybe that doesn't matter.


Presumably an

 access=destination

tag will also usually be appropriate on the the school car-park?

--
Cheers,
John

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

My vote would go to a format of ref:. Looking at the wiki for ref, a 
great many of the “” there are not things that can be ascertained 
from a ground survey, but are internal IDs or reference numbers. What I am 
proposing is therefore consistent with the wiki.

I’m not at all hung up on what  should be, though. “edubase” ought 
to feature in there somewhere, and while I am minded to add “uk” as well, none 
of the entries tabulated on the wiki seem to bother with the country name. So 
would someone care to pick one, or choose one of these suggestions:


  *   ref:edubase
  *   ref:edubase_urn
  *   ref:uk_edubase
  *   ref:uk_edubase_urn
  *   ref:school:edubase
  *   ref:school:edubase_urn

I think that my favourite is the first - it has the benefit of simplicity, and 
it is something that people are likely to be able to remember and therefore 
use. And in case anyone really doesn’t know what it is, “edubase” is readily 
google-able.

I would like to start adding these in / amending the tags that I already have, 
so if we could reach some consensus then that would be great. Thanks.

Regards,
Stuart



On 6 Jan 2016, at 14:06, SK53 mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

Purely a personal preference, but I like to keep ref for thing which 
(generally) can be determined on a ground survey. I also like to keep separate 
genuine administrative references (such as the PRoW ones prow_ref, or minor 
roads admin_ref) separate from exposed system keys such as the edubase one.

For Food Hygiene (FHRS) data the equivalent internal identifier has converged 
on fhrs:id, but this was is in part because a number of other items of data 
from the Food Hygiene scheme have also been added within OSM. So I dont think 
this establishes any precedent for whether one has ref:supplier or supplier:ref 
or supplier_ref. Consistency would be nice but is not essential

If adding an edubase identifier, I'd also appreciate it if a FHRS one can be 
added too. These are certainly invariant, only changing when the premises 
change ownership. (I'm not sure what applies when school catering is 
outsourced, or if a school acquires academy status.

I must say I like the various suggestions for better micromapping of schools: 
this means that there is plenty to do even in well mapped areas. One thing I've 
always wanted to map, but have never noticed suitable tags, are the 
hard-surfaced school playgrounds. Clearly, using the existing 
leisure=playground is a poor idea as it changes the meaning of existing mapped 
objects; and also many primary schools will have a proper playground too.

Jerry

On 6 January 2016 at 12:42, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi Jez,

I was pondering that myself as I added the Edubase numbers to the schools that 
I have added and/or modified. I had two thoughts: one, we could just write a 
piece of free text such as “UK Edubase” in front of the ref; two, which is more 
elegant although involving non-standard tags, is that we tag it as 
ref:uk_edubase=* (or similar).

Regards,
Stuart



On 6 Jan 2016, at 11:36, Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On the ref=*. Is there any convention for indicating that the ref is Edubase? 
I've tagged Brighton Montessori with ref=133348 ...but how would an interested 
party know that they would be able to find more details on Edubase 
http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=133348 ?

I agree that where an object is clearly 'owned' by an authority/company/etc. 
that it is *the* 'ref'. e.g. postbox numbers

Regards,
    Jez

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 17:05 Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
I’m thinking that while we are reviewing the schools, it would be a good idea 
to add the Edubase reference into a Ref tag for each school boundary polygon, 
to make it easier to track in future. Is that reference stable enough?
If we think that it is a good idea, perhaps we could make it part of an agreed 
“do minimum” for this project. For example:


  *   draw and tag the boundary polygon with a minimum of
 *   amenity=school
 *   name=*
 *   ref=*
  *   add entrances
 *   at least one entrance=main
 *   barrier=gate where appropriate - I would have thought most schools 
will have gates
 *   others entrances where appropriate
  *   then optionally, but preferably, draw the school buildings and tag 
building=school.

I know we don’t want to be prescriptive, but it would certainly help people 
(like myself) who haven't participated in projects before ’t there was a 
(readily achievable) level of expectation as to what involvement in the project 
meant.

Personally I have been adding in the buildings, but I haven’t been worrying 
(for now) about playing fields and the like - I’ll go back and revisit those if 
I have time. But there are a surprising number of missing schools so I have 
been l

Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

Brilliant, thanks.

As per Rob's email of yesterday, should we also add ref:seedcode for Scotland? 

Cheers
Stuart


> On 7 Jan 2016, at 23:01, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
>> On 7 January 2016 at 20:48, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>> 
>> If no-one objects to ref:edubase can someone add it to the wiki?  We should
>> probably also add some other  stuff that's come up just in case there are
>> folk who are not on this mailing list who want to discover what the
>> consensus is in the UK for mapping schools.
> 
> Please see:
> 
>   
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects#Suggested_process_.26_tags
> 
> -- 
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

OK, I’ve now added the ref:edubase tag to the half dozen or so schools in 
Southend that I have edited so far. As some of these are mis-matched in Rob W’s 
table (for understandable reasons, and the table is an excellent resource, 
don’t get me wrong!), hopefully it won’t take Rob too long to update it to 
match on the edubase tags in the first instance.

Regards,
Stuart


On 8 Jan 2016, at 07:21, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

Brilliant, thanks.

As per Rob's email of yesterday, should we also add ref:seedcode for Scotland?

Cheers
Stuart


On 7 Jan 2016, at 23:01, Andy Mabbett 
mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>> wrote:

On 7 January 2016 at 20:48, Brian Prangle 
mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:

If no-one objects to ref:edubase can someone add it to the wiki?  We should
probably also add some other  stuff that's come up just in case there are
folk who are not on this mailing list who want to discover what the
consensus is in the UK for mapping schools.

Please see:

 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects#Suggested_process_.26_tags

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

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

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

[Talk-GB] More questions on Schools project

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

I have some questions about naming, and also the content of Edubase.

In Southend (SS postcode area) there are some schools which have “alternative” 
names by which they are more commonly known. One example is Leigh, where the 
school is always known locally as “Leigh North Street”. So should I adopt the 
Edubase name as the “name” or should I use the local name? If the former, what 
tag should I use to list the alternative?

Of course, tagging with the Edubase reference will help to match, regardless of 
name - I have also used “&” where Edubase has “and”, which currently leads to 
Rob’s table not finding a match. Likewise with e.g. Westcliff High School for 
Boys Academy, where the “Academy” part adds nothing, so I have left it off 
(especially as the three other grammars, including the girls school next door, 
manage without it).

Finally, on tagging, there appear to be some anomalies. The aforementioned 
Leigh is one - this used to be two schools, now merged to be Leigh Primary 
School. Edubase only has one entry, but names it Leigh Infant School. I assume 
that Edubase will catch up, eventually, but for now I will use the correct name 
for the school and tag it with the Infant School URN. The other one, which I am 
struggling with, is Thorpe Greenways. There is only one entry in Edubase - 
Thorpe Greenways Infant School. But according to their website 
(http://www.greenways.southend.sch.uk) the infant and junior schools are still 
two schools, but run as a federation called “The Federation of Greenways 
Schools”. Are they two schools? Or one? Given that they share leadership, 
governors, and budget I would assume one, as does Edubase, apparently. Any 
thoughts?

If someone could also suggest how to tag one school split across two sites, I 
would be very happy!

Many thanks
Regards,
Stuart

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

Re: [Talk-GB] More questions on Schools project

[Stuart Reynolds]

…and two schools, one site?

Cheers
Stuart



On 8 Jan 2016, at 13:27, SK53 mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

On 8 January 2016 at 12:22, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi All,

I have some questions about naming, and also the content of Edubase.

...

If someone could also suggest how to tag one school split across two sites, I 
would be very happy!

Many thanks
Regards,
Stuart



I'd also be interested in the one school / multiple sites issue.

These are becoming commoner as one school takes over another. The particular 
problem is that each site will have a name and the school itself will have a 
name. One example is the Nottingham Bluecoat School which has two sites, the 
original main site, and the Wollaton Park Campus 
site<http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16487967> (a 'failing' secondary school 
taken over by Bluecoat, but now various functions are partitioned between the 
sites). Perhaps something like campus_name might work for now: I find the 
concatenation Bluecoat School - Wollaton Park Campus unwieldy and it's not easy 
to identify these multi-campus institutions.

(A side note, this school also hosts churches at both sites: slightly 
diffiicult in terms of locating the actual hall used for services & debatable 
whether rented locations should be specifically marked as place of worship, 
although in these cases both are signed outside the school).

Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] More questions on Schools project

[Stuart Reynolds]

Sorry - should have added a bit more to that!

Where I had this before, I could separate the grounds into two polygons. 
However, this one I can’t. So I’m thinking that I tag the buildings as 
amenity=school, name=*, ref:edubase=* and then put a boundary polygon in which 
I tag … amenity=school? Should I also name it? The schools are Hamstel Junior 
School and Hamstel Infants School, together known as Hamstel Schools (which is 
what the single node currently has in OSM).

Cheers
Stuart


On 8 Jan 2016, at 15:21, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

…and two schools, one site?

Cheers
Stuart



On 8 Jan 2016, at 13:27, SK53 mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

On 8 January 2016 at 12:22, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi All,

I have some questions about naming, and also the content of Edubase.

...

If someone could also suggest how to tag one school split across two sites, I 
would be very happy!

Many thanks
Regards,
Stuart



I'd also be interested in the one school / multiple sites issue.

These are becoming commoner as one school takes over another. The particular 
problem is that each site will have a name and the school itself will have a 
name. One example is the Nottingham Bluecoat School which has two sites, the 
original main site, and the Wollaton Park Campus 
site<http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16487967> (a 'failing' secondary school 
taken over by Bluecoat, but now various functions are partitioned between the 
sites). Perhaps something like campus_name might work for now: I find the 
concatenation Bluecoat School - Wollaton Park Campus unwieldy and it's not easy 
to identify these multi-campus institutions.

(A side note, this school also hosts churches at both sites: slightly 
diffiicult in terms of locating the actual hall used for services & debatable 
whether rented locations should be specifically marked as place of worship, 
although in these cases both are signed outside the school).

Jerry

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

I wouldn’t like to say that it is definitive, because I haven't added 
playgrounds, parking or recreation facilities, but try 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36439931 or 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49655265#map=18/51.55355/0.69659 both of which 
relate to Southend High School for Boys, which is one that I’ve recently 
tweaked.

There are other examples - just west of there, on the south side of Prittlewell 
Chase, lie two other schools Chase High School and Lancaster School.

They all have boundary polygons, gates, school buildings and edubase tags.

Regards,
Stuart



On 8 Jan 2016, at 17:27, Paul Berry 
mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I see the diagram and suggested process on the Wiki page but do we have an 
actual mapped example that could be used to further illustrate this. A link to 
a changeset containing this, or whatever's appropriate, would be useful.

If you've mapped one, now's the chance for a bit of glory in setting an example 
for the rest of us :)

I'm aiming to contribute schools in South and West Yorkshire (Sheffield and 
Leeds mostly) from an armchair POV...

Regards,
Paul Berry


On 7 January 2016 at 23:00, Andy Mabbett 
mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>> wrote:
On 7 January 2016 at 20:48, Brian Prangle 
mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> If no-one objects to ref:edubase can someone add it to the wiki?  We should
> probably also add some other  stuff that's come up just in case there are
> folk who are not on this mailing list who want to discover what the
> consensus is in the UK for mapping schools.

Please see:

   
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects#Suggested_process_.26_tags

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

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

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

[Talk-GB] Assistance fixing wonky bits of London?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi,

I’ve come across some errors in London, but I’m not too sure about how to fix 
them short of deleting them.

Node 469785651 is a bus stop 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/469785651<http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4697856515>)
 as indeed is its partner stop, node 469785652. However, rather than having the 
correct bus stop name it is called Epsom Station and has a relation which 
appears to define it as a platform of Epsom station. That is clearly wrong.

However, does this mean that something that should have been in Epsom has been 
moved? I don’t really understand relations fully yet, and I’m unwilling to just 
dive in and break something if the fix is to do something better or different.

Also, what is the relationship between name=* and naptan:CommonName=*? The 
latter I understand, but shouldn’t the two be the same?

Thanks
Stuart

----
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Assistance fixing wonky bits of London?

[Stuart Reynolds]

OK, thanks - I’ve just changed the names of the stop, stop_position and 
relation to Waterloo Road, then. The TfL stop data has longer names, but this 
is what is written on the bus stop flags.

Regards,
Stuart



Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 13 Jan 2016, at 13:52, Shaun McDonald 
mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk>> wrote:

Hi Stuart,

Looking at the history, it looks like the name was changed 8 months ago 
incorrectly and should be changed back, similarly for the relation. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/206072/history

It looks like the tags on the relation and linked node for the name need to be 
changed to the previous one. Nothing else in the changeset jumps out as being 
an issue, so could be some odd autocomplete issue.

Shaun

On 13 Jan 2016, at 13:32, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

Hi,

I’ve come across some errors in London, but I’m not too sure about how to fix 
them short of deleting them.

Node 469785651 is a bus stop 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/469785651<http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4697856515>)
 as indeed is its partner stop, node 469785652. However, rather than having the 
correct bus stop name it is called Epsom Station and has a relation which 
appears to define it as a platform of Epsom station. That is clearly wrong.

However, does this mean that something that should have been in Epsom has been 
moved? I don’t really understand relations fully yet, and I’m unwilling to just 
dive in and break something if the fix is to do something better or different.

Also, what is the relationship between name=* and naptan:CommonName=*? The 
latter I understand, but shouldn’t the two be the same?

Thanks
Stuart

--------
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools project - update

[Stuart Reynolds]

There ought to be, somewhere - they are all required to be Ofsted inspected, 
after all.

I searched Ofsted for Maids Moreton Pre-School, and it has a URN of EY476044. 
EY in this case would stand for “Early Years”. I’ll go hunting for a database, 
now!


Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



> On 13 Jan 2016, at 15:28, Dave F.  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Is there a similar national database for nurseries, or would that be 
> controlled by individual local authorities?
> 
> Further comments in-line
> 
> 
> On 12/01/2016 22:01, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> > Cross post to talk-ie (we are working on a quarterly project to map 
>> > schools - feel free to join (see item 3 below).
>> 
>> A few updates for the schools mapping project. As always there is also the 
>> page on the wiki for quick reference ( 
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects ).
>> 
>> 0. Changeset comments
>> Don't forget to add #OSMschools to your changeset comments. I will ask 
>> Pascal Neis for an updated "Who's contributing" dataset next week.
> 
> I've been adding this tag but will probably only retrieve the roughest of 
> data. I've often gone off on a tangent amending/adding adjacent objects, 
> realigning roads etc.
> 
>> 
>> 2. Robert's data by postcode.
>> Robert W has updated his comparison site to enable you to download the 
>> schools by postcode data as a geojson. Example download URL is:
>> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/B/data.js
>> 
>> Once downloaded, open the file, delete the first line ("var matched = ") and 
>> save.
> 
> I've already been using this data in P2 as part of it's 'Tasks' feature. No 
> laborious panning around!
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/28267
> 
> Do any other the other editors have a similar feature?
> 
> I found it easier if I separate Robert's files into 3 for each 
> FeatureCollection: Matched, Unmatched & Missing. I also wanted to do start 
> with my local county rather than by postcode so I've used Overpass Turbo to 
> retrieve the relevant data: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/dIG (change county 
> name>run>Export>geojson)
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Dave F,
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one site

[Stuart Reynolds]

Also nearby there are what used to be two separate single-sex schools which are 
now combined as a mixed school. Two sites about a mile apart.


You should use the site relation for this. I was doing this for a lower and 
upper school in Southend, until I realised that the lower school had closed at 
the end of the last school year and so removed it. The only issue is that I had 
tagged the site relation with the edubase number and the school name, and it 
isn’t picked up by the matching algorithm - but that isn’t to say that it isn’t 
right.

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 17 Jan 2016, at 13:46, Colin Spiller 
mailto:co...@thespillers.org.uk>> wrote:

Here in West Yorkshire, I have a newly-rebuilt Beckfoot School, sharing the 
site and facilities with Hazelbeck Special School. As far as I know, there 
isn't anything dividing the two. Robert has these entries for them (thanks 
Robert - great job!):

139975  BD16 
1EE<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.841255&mlon=-1.829101&zoom=16>   
Beckfoot School

139977  BD16 
1EE<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.841255&mlon=-1.829101&zoom=16>   
Hazelbeck Special School

They do have their own websites: http://www.beckfoot.org/ and 
http://www.hazelbeck.org/ !

Also nearby there are what used to be two separate single-sex schools which are 
now combined as a mixed school. Two sites about a mile apart.

Any recommendations as to how I should map these two extremes gratefully 
received!
Thanks
Colin, West Yorks


On 17/01/16 13:14, Lester Caine wrote:

On 17/01/16 12:40, Dave F. wrote:


Although I'm uncertain of a perfect solution as both the entrance and
recreation ground appears to be shared in Ed's example, I find there's
usually a defining boundary around schools that are adjacent to each
other. Especially infant schools where they don't want the little ones
wandering off. Looking at the site using a website that shall not be
mentioned, it appears to use a fence & the school building itself as the
barrier. On ground conformation will, of course, be required.


Situations where a school has a secure play area which is used by
Nursary and first school pupils at different times is not unusual,
especially now the 'Nursery' provision for younger children is being
added around the country. Ideally for us this would just extend the
range of an existing school, but there seems to be financial advantages
in creating a separate 'school'? Yes closer inspection may produce
different results, but to get the key data in now would be nice, and it
can be refined later?



As mapped ATM both the fhrs:id & ref:edubase tags aren't associated with
amenity=school which is not ideal for filtering data.


Proper quoting would have included this comment in with mine about
whether amenity=school was appropriate on the outer boundary when it is
difficult to separate multiple edubase refs inside the area. Just as
there are a number of ways off adding 'school' to an item, there may be
a case for 'landuse=school' where one is then going to add
'amenity=school' to the internal elements? Be that simple nodes for each
occupant of a high rise building, or the primary building of each where
several other buildings and play areas are shared during the day.

For filtering data I think that 'amenity=school' makes sense when linked
with all the primary data for each school, which ever country is looked
at, so some means of identifying the landuse for a multiple school area
is the logical follow through. I'm very tempted at the moment to simply
remove the Evesham boundary 'amenity=school' tag and replace it with on
on each primary building which will at least allow the current
verification to cross them off the list. What ever way things are
progressed, something needs to be changed.

( And in relation to mass adding wikidata tags to the CURRENT school
references, this is premature since in many cases the wrong area is tagged )





--
Colin Spiller
co...@thespillers.org.uk<mailto:co...@thespillers.org.uk>

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

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

[Talk-GB] Rendering of layers

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi,

I made a number of adjustments around the transport terminus at Gatwick Airport 
South Terminal yesterday. When this was first mapped, what is actually three 
buildings (the railway station, the covered travelators from the bus station & 
car parks, and the southern stairs from the railway platforms) were all mapped 
as one building, and the platforms were “inserts” into the gaps rather than 
being the continuous entities that they are. So I have separated those all out, 
and made the platforms a continuous block. I also added internal escalators and 
travelators, although that is immaterial to the question that I’m about to ask.

The buildings are all mapped as layer=1, and the platforms without any layer 
tag (which should default them to layer=0, AFAIK). So why are the platforms and 
rail tracks (which I haven’t touched) been rendered over the buildings, rather 
than under them?

See http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.15634/-0.16124

Thanks
Stuart


----
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of layers

[Stuart Reynolds]

Personally I think that Reading is cheating.

The outline that is called the railway station “building” includes the ticket 
halls, the bridge, and the platform surfaces to the extent that these stick out 
of the bridge area. I don’t agree with this - the last time I looked, a 
platform wasn’t a building; it is a platform. I would expect this to be a site 
relation - and in fact, Euston appears to be mapped that way, so it doesn’t 
look like I’m a million miles out with that thought.

Next, the individual “platforms" have been mapped as edges alongside the 
satellite-visible parts of the platform areas. The platforms in OSM don’t 
extend under the footbridge - when in reality they do. Again, at Euston the 
platforms are areas (split in half to allow tagging of each platform number). 
Yes the bridge at Reading is marked as a bridge, which it allows it to go over 
the tracks. But it really is a bridge at Reading. At Gatwick it is a whole 
building over the tracks.

So, to me, Reading looks like it has been mapped for the renderer, rather than 
representing what is physically on the ground.

Regards
Stuart



Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 21 Jan 2016, at 10:34, Richard Mann 
mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

Compare Reading - are you mapping a roof or a groundplan, or a pedestrian 
bridge?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi,

I made a number of adjustments around the transport terminus at Gatwick Airport 
South Terminal yesterday. When this was first mapped, what is actually three 
buildings (the railway station, the covered travelators from the bus station & 
car parks, and the southern stairs from the railway platforms) were all mapped 
as one building, and the platforms were “inserts” into the gaps rather than 
being the continuous entities that they are. So I have separated those all out, 
and made the platforms a continuous block. I also added internal escalators and 
travelators, although that is immaterial to the question that I’m about to ask.

The buildings are all mapped as layer=1, and the platforms without any layer 
tag (which should default them to layer=0, AFAIK). So why are the platforms and 
rail tracks (which I haven’t touched) been rendered over the buildings, rather 
than under them?

See http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.15634/-0.16124

Thanks
Stuart


----
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Next UK chapter concall

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Dudley,

Why?

If an organisation wants to be a member, why shouldn’t it have a say in how OSM 
UK is run, including being nominated for and electing members to committees. 
I’m quite comfortable with requiring an individual to be nominated, which we 
can consider not allowing to be delegated, and if you wanted to protect the 
rights of non-org members then you could have two groups and allocate 51% of 
the votes to the individuals and 49% of the votes to the orgs. It’s slightly 
more complicated than votes only to individuals, but you don’t disenfranchise 
anyone then.

At the end of the day, we want to promote editing. We want to encourage orgs to 
contribute their data. And we want to encourage orgs to use OSM in their 
systems and products. That is much less likely to happen if you remove voting 
rights from orgs.

Incidentally, you can also have a problem of definitions, too. I’m here because 
traveline south east & anglia uses OSM, and that’s the email address I use to 
post here. But I am a consultant to them, and I have a wider interest now 
beyond just traveline. So I’m an individual. But then again my consultancy is a 
company, with me as a director. Not unusual, there. So am I an organisation, or 
am I an individual? You could argue the former, but I’d be rather hacked off if 
you wilfully excluded me - I’d rather choose my level of participation myself 
between zero and full rather than have it decided for me!

Regards,
Stuart


On 26 Jan 2016, at 07:33, Dudley Ibbett 
mailto:dudleyibb...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Brian

I think we should have "ordinary" members with full voting rights.  Another 
class of membership should be for "organisations".  They should be required to 
nominate an individual to represent them.  Their voting rights should be 
limited so they cannot vote for committee membership or stand on the committee.

At this time I would also suggest we set a minimum age for any type of 
membership to 18. I believe this would simplify issues when it come to 
complying with child protection legislation.

Apart form the initial cost of setting up any organisation.  I would guess the 
main annual cost will be insurance and auditor fees for the accounts.  This 
assumes that we won't be paying the committee expenses!   I'm aware of a couple 
of organisations that seem to do this for an annual fee of £25-£35 for ordinary 
membership.  Any "organisation" type of membership would need to be excluded 
from the insurance unless we got down an affiliate model along the lines of 
mountaineering clubs that affiliate to the BMC for example.

Kind Regards

Dudley




Sent from my iPad

On 25 Jan 2016, at 18:36, Brian Prangle 
mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi everyone

Don't forget this is scheduled for 8pm Wed this week 27 January

0800 22 90 900  Pass code 33224

We'll pick up on Rob's summary email i.e objectives;legal stucture; constitution

If we can I'd like to start discussing:

Name (not what it will be - but a mechanism for choosing one)
Membership classes, rights and costs

On objectives:the ensuing silence since draft 2 I'm not sure to take as 
indifference or approval, but let's use the text as a starting point:

1.To increase the size, skills, toolsets and cohesion of the OpenStreetMap 
community in the UK.
2.To promote and facilitate the use of OpenStreetMap data by organisations in 
the UK.
3.To promote and facilitate the release by organisations in the UK of OpenData  
that is suitable for use in OpenStreetMap.

On legal structures, please read Rob's excellent summary before the concall. 
I've read it and my conclusion so far, and I'm still not clear on some things, 
is that we shouldn't go for unincorporated society (unlimited liablity for 
officers) or charity (we don't have a charitable purpose and the legal 
strictures are a bit more complex than we'd want). From the rest I think 
company limited by guarantee (that's what OSMF chose) suits us best. Not sure 
yet whether CIO or CIC, given that we'd be non-profit, are worth considering.

Look forward to "seeing" you Wed

Regards

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

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

[Talk-GB] The Park, Nottingham

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi all, and especially Nottingham mappers.

There is an area of Nottingham called The Park that is a private estate. At 
present, all of the roads on the estate are tagged as access=destination. 
However, my client at Nottingham City Council informs me that “there is 
definitely pedestrian access through The Park” [my italics], while another 
colleague tells me that “having lived for many years on a gated private road, 
my interpretation of the signs [viewable on Streetview] is that the road and 
vehicular access is private, but there is an unimpeded pedestrian right of way 
in this example in Notts (as there was where I lived in the past)”.

Based on this, I propose to remove the access=destination tag from the roads on 
the estate, and replace it with a vehicle=destination tag. That should allow 
walking, while still having the desired effect of only allowing vehicular 
access if you are actually going there.

This corresponds to the guidance at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access where it says that destination 
means

Only when travelling to this element/area, i.e. local traffic only. NOTE: This 
restriction often only applies to certain modes of transportation (e.g. only to 
vehicles). Take care to use the right transport mode restriction, e.g. 
vehicle<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:vehicle>=destination<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vehicle%3Ddestination>
 when only vehicle traffic is restricted.

Regards,
Stuart

----
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] The Park, Nottingham

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Jerry,

Many thanks for that view. I’m quite happy to add foot=permissive instead of 
doing my proposed changes - looking for better solutions was why I asked!

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 28 Jan 2016, at 16:00, SK53 mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

The access constraints on the park are quite complicated, although for vehicles 
they are clearly access=destination. The regulations of The Park are embodied 
in two private Acts of 
Parliament<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1990/14/pdfs/ukla_19900014_en.pdf>.
 It took a 5 day public 
enquiry<http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/openstreetmap-at-public-inquiry.html>
 to establish 
<http://www.nottinghampost.com/Park-Estate-t-block-hoi-polloi-Lenton/story-20306183-detail/story.html>
 that one pedestrian route is actually a right of way. As far as I know there 
are two other routes which may be PRoWs but this has not been established. In 
practice the precise legal position for routes other than the Lenton Road 
public footpath<http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12360834> has not been 
established, and the tagging for this is correct designation=public_footpath 
which implies foot=yes. (This does need a tweak on the roundabout with the 
intersection with Cavendish Drive.

I would much prefer that you add foot=permissive rather than remove the generic 
tag: this is how most things have been tagged in the area. For instance, 
although I suspect folk cycle through The Park I have no idea if they have the 
right to do so, whether it is permitted or tolerated. It may well be that 
passing through the area as a pedestrian is technically not allowed: certainly 
the provisions in the private acts were perceived to be in conflict with 
relevant public Acts of Parliament (specifically CRoW 2000).

In practice for routing to destinations which aren't in the Park, the existing 
footpath is by far-and-away the likeliest route. Descending through Derby Road 
to Castle Boulevard may be used by some, the reverse isn't very attractive as a 
short cut. Similarly for Park Steps. I'm not certain of the current status of 
the tunnel, which would avoid hills. I suspect Strava 
<http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#15/-1.16320/52.95091/blue/run> gives a 
misleading impression as the prominent route through The Park was the course 
for the 2015 Robin Hood Marathon.

Over the past 50 years The Park Estate has progressive increased how it 
enforces its powers with respect to traffic, from partial tolerance of rat 
runs, some closed entrances, through to entrances all having barriers: these 
should also affect vehicular routing. It is generally helpful for vehicle users 
that the roads in The Park Estate are rendered in such a way that they are 
obviously different from ordinary residential streets.

Paul Sladen is the person who is likeliest to know more as he played a much 
bigger role in the public enquiry. Robert Howard has also written extensively 
about some of the pedestrian 
issues<http://parkviews.blogspot.co.uk/p/park-footpath.html>.

Jerry

On 28 January 2016 at 13:34, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi all, and especially Nottingham mappers.

There is an area of Nottingham called The Park that is a private estate. At 
present, all of the roads on the estate are tagged as access=destination. 
However, my client at Nottingham City Council informs me that “there is 
definitely pedestrian access through The Park” [my italics], while another 
colleague tells me that “having lived for many years on a gated private road, 
my interpretation of the signs [viewable on Streetview] is that the road and 
vehicular access is private, but there is an unimpeded pedestrian right of way 
in this example in Notts (as there was where I lived in the past)”.

Based on this, I propose to remove the access=destination tag from the roads on 
the estate, and replace it with a vehicle=destination tag. That should allow 
walking, while still having the desired effect of only allowing vehicular 
access if you are actually going there.

This corresponds to the guidance at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access where it says that destination 
means

Only when travelling to this element/area, i.e. local traffic only. NOTE: This 
restriction often only applies to certain modes of transportation (e.g. only to 
vehicles). Take care to use the right transport mode restriction, e.g. 
vehicle<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:vehicle>=destination<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vehicle%3Ddestination>
 when only vehicle traffic is restricted.

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Additional Tagging Suggestions for Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

+1 for school=shared_site, or perhaps (to keep it within the amenity tag) 
amenity=campus or something like that. I’m not fussy about the actual tag value.

As a side issue, does your tool currently ignore disused:amenity=* tags? If 
not, can it please. Thanks.

Regards,
Stuart





Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

m: +44 7788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds



> On 12 Feb 2016, at 09:11, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
>  wrote:
> 
> A couple of areas where I think we could improve on our tagging to
> help data users:
> 
> * I think it would be useful if we had a machine-readable way to tag
> an amenity=school area that is actually a site shared between two or
> more individual schools. In this case, while the area will probably be
> tagged amenity=school, it doesn't actually correspond to an individual
> school, and data uses should expect additional amenity=school objects
> for the individual schools within it. Maybe something like
> school=shared_site. My tools could then ignore such objects for the
> purposes of matching to official data.
> 
> * I think it would be useful if we had a machine-readable way to tag a
> school site that isn't the main site for that particular school. This
> would let data-users know that the school object isn't a separate
> school, but is part of another school that they should expect to find
> another amenity=school object for. This would also help my tools as
> they could then check that there is only one main site for each
> official school and flag up errors where this is not the case. Any
> matching distance errors could also be downgraded on non-main sites.
> I'm not sure how best to tag this though. main_site=no,
> additional_site=yes, ... ?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Robert.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Whittaker
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Talk-GB] Size of download into JOSM

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi,

Does anyone know if the limits on download size have changed recently? I’ve 
been working on the schools project by downloading “Southend on Sea” via a 
place search and then choosing “boundary” from the list of 2 - that gives me 
the whole Borough in one go. But today (having upgraded to r9329) it is telling 
me that it is a bad request and that the area is too large. It’s a pain if I 
want to work on multiple schools to have to download bits of the town.

Thanks.

Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

m: +44 7788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Additional Tagging Suggestions for Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

…oh, and if the name matching could be tolerant to “&” and “and", that would be 
brilliant, too. It’s not a biggie, because I’m getting matched against the 
Edubase reference, but the names are otherwise the same and I’m using & for 
brevity.

Thanks.
Stuart

----
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

m: +44 7788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds



> On 12 Feb 2016, at 09:51, Stuart Reynolds  
> wrote:
> 
> +1 for school=shared_site, or perhaps (to keep it within the amenity tag) 
> amenity=campus or something like that. I’m not fussy about the actual tag 
> value.
> 
> As a side issue, does your tool currently ignore disused:amenity=* tags? If 
> not, can it please. Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> Stuart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
> 
> m: +44 7788 106165
> skype: stuartjreynolds
> 
> 
> 
>> On 12 Feb 2016, at 09:11, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> A couple of areas where I think we could improve on our tagging to
>> help data users:
>> 
>> * I think it would be useful if we had a machine-readable way to tag
>> an amenity=school area that is actually a site shared between two or
>> more individual schools. In this case, while the area will probably be
>> tagged amenity=school, it doesn't actually correspond to an individual
>> school, and data uses should expect additional amenity=school objects
>> for the individual schools within it. Maybe something like
>> school=shared_site. My tools could then ignore such objects for the
>> purposes of matching to official data.
>> 
>> * I think it would be useful if we had a machine-readable way to tag a
>> school site that isn't the main site for that particular school. This
>> would let data-users know that the school object isn't a separate
>> school, but is part of another school that they should expect to find
>> another amenity=school object for. This would also help my tools as
>> they could then check that there is only one main site for each
>> official school and flag up errors where this is not the case. Any
>> matching distance errors could also be downgraded on non-main sites.
>> I'm not sure how best to tag this though. main_site=no,
>> additional_site=yes, ... ?
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Robert.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Robert Whittaker
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Size of download into JOSM

[Stuart Reynolds]

Thanks. I discovered that I *can* actually get the whole Borough, if I dispense 
with about a mile and a half of sea to the south. As there aren’t many schools 
down the pier, I thought I could probably live with that :)

Will take your advice and save locally / update.

Cheers
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 12 Feb 2016, at 10:35, SK53 mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

It's a limitation in the API (quarter of a degree or 50k nodes IIRC), so 
Southend has crept over that limit.

There are a number of options:

  *   Perform multiple downloads & then keep a Southend file locally. You can 
then request that it be updated before editing (I do this for a couple of areas 
of London where I edit sporadically).
  *   It's easy to download just the schools in Overpass & do something similar 
in JOSM. I'm not sure how one might get all objects within multiple schools in 
Overpass but it might be possible.
  *   Download schools as centroids from Overpass, load into JOSM and use the 
todo plugin to work through them downloading small areas for each school. I'm 
doing something like this using FHRS data in Northern Ireland (although the 
postcode centroids used by FHRS are often 100s of metres away from the school).

Jerry

On 12 February 2016 at 09:54, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi,

Does anyone know if the limits on download size have changed recently? I’ve 
been working on the schools project by downloading “Southend on Sea” via a 
place search and then choosing “boundary” from the list of 2 - that gives me 
the whole Borough in one go. But today (having upgraded to r9329) it is telling 
me that it is a bad request and that the area is too large. It’s a pain if I 
want to work on multiple schools to have to download bits of the town.

Thanks.

Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

m: +44 7788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] place=village/town/city

[Stuart Reynolds]

Leigh-on-sea has a Town Council. And the residents of Leigh (myself included) 
like to give it an identity that is distinct from Southend-on-sea, which 
historically it was. But in practice you would be hard pushed to claim that 
Leigh was a separate town. Administratively, it has been part of the Borough 
(Town) of Southend-on-sea for many, many years and there are no hard and fast 
boundaries that show where it starts and ends on at least two sides. So just 
because it has a Town Council (but not, in this case, a mayor), it doesn’t mean 
that it _is_ a town.

Personally, I had always regarded Hamlet/Village/Town as being population-based 
designators.

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 12 Feb 2016, at 13:15, Colin Smale 
mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:


According to Wikipedia, it is country-dependent. As it is an English word, we 
should only discuss about its meaning in an English-speaking context. There is 
no such thing as a hamlet in Germany for example; they have different words 
with different semantics, which may or may not map onto English concepts.

The common theme indicated by the Wikipedia article is that a hamlet is in some 
way dependent or subordinate to a larger settlement. For example it may not 
have its own church. That in itself does not define an absolute cut-off point 
in terms of population; it is dependent on the settlement's context with 
respect to its surroundings.



In the UK of course it is a matter of status to be called a City, and there is 
an unambiguous list of cities. This list can only be changed by the Crown 
through parliament. The smallest city is St Davids in Wales, with a population 
of 1841 (2011 figure). Any attempt to retag it in OSM to place=village will 
probably be reverted within 0.1 nanoseconds

A smaller incorporated settlement (civil parish) can decide unilaterally to 
call itself a town. Changes don't happen very often of course, but it is a 
point of civic pride for the inhabitants as the council becomes a Town Council 
and they can have a Town Mayor. This is also independent of the population, but 
the status is carried by the council whose area may include a substantial rural 
element, which would also become part of the "town". If you ask an inhabitant 
of that area whether X is a town or a village, they will tell you, and it has 
nothing to do with population

In other countries a rule based on population may be appropriate, but in the UK 
it is definitely a question of status.

//colin

On 2016-02-12 13:39, Paul Berry wrote:

Hi Michael,

Going the other way, what's the cutoff between a hamlet and a village? 
Population 50? 100? I'd say that with these categories there's some fuzziness 
so go with what feels right. On the ground experience over armchair mapping 
wins out here I think (as it does for most things OSM). More complexity: a 
place that would be a hamlet or village near a town or city can find itself a 
neighbourhood or suburb over time. Again the distinction can be a fine one.

Also, and a more important point than all the above, welcome!

Regards,
Paul

On 12 February 2016 at 12:04, Tom Hughes 
mailto:t...@compton.nu>> wrote:
On 12/02/16 11:51, Ian Caldwell wrote:

On 11 February 2016 at 21:32, Michael Booth 
mailto:boot...@gmail.com>
<mailto:boot...@gmail.com<mailto:boot...@gmail.com>>> wrote:

So my question is, how are we defining villages, towns and cities?
Only by population, or do we also take into account their generally
accepted status (whilst trying to be consistent across the country)?


In England towns will normally have a town council. Villages
will normally have a parish council. Only really a name difference see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_council#England_and_Wales .

Normally is a very strong word... There are many, many towns and villages 
without any town or parish council.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu<mailto:t...@compton.nu>)
http://compton.nu/


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

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] amenity=schools vs amenity=kindergarten

[Stuart Reynolds]

I would stick with school. In Southend we have a number of primary schools with 
nursery units, called "XYZ Primary School & Nursery". Those would clearly be 
schools, and it makes no sense to have an artificial separation for others.

Regards 
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

> On 17 Feb 2016, at 21:11, Lester Caine  wrote:
> 
>> On 17/02/16 19:12, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>> Before anyone goes bulk changing these OSM objects to
>> amenity=kindergarten (which then won't be picked up by my tool when I
>> next update the OSM data -- as it currently only fetches
>> amenity=school and amenity=college objects) I thought it best to check
>> here whether my assumption about how these "LA Nursery Schools" should
>> be tagged is correct. If the consensus is otherwise, I'd be happy to
>> add the "LA Nursery School" category back into what I fetch from
>> Edubase.
> 
> Well coverage of 'Nursery' by edubase seems a little fragmented. Across
> Worcestershire and Herfordshire there is only one entry and I remember
> switching it to school by just as happy now it has all the tags to
> switching back, but I know of many other nurseries many of which are on
> OSM, but not 'yet?' covered by edubase. Since there are some 400 nursery
> entries it should be possible to tidy them up as a 'kindergarden'
> entries anyway?
> 
> -- 
> 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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Stuart Reynolds]

The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of nearby schools 
and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the same principle as for the 
schools - an outer “amenity=pub”  polygon and an inner “building=pub” for the 
actual building.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389684953

Personally, I think that this is fine. The fact that the pub icon sits in the 
garden is hardly the end of the world, and the garden _is_ part of the pub 
after all. And I bet if you turned up at the location you’d be able to spot 
where the pub was :)

My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that there is way too much inconsistency in 
the way that things get mapped in OSM which makes it difficult to understand 
the data. Country pubs, in particular, will often have car parks & gardens as 
well as the physical building, and using an enclosing polygon is surely the 
right way to make sure that they are all kept together - and using a style of 
data that then compares directly to other amenities like schools, hospitals, 
parks …

Cheers
Stuart


On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few points 
appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new OSM online editing 
programs.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews 
mailto:ndmatth...@plus.net>> wrote:
It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag that. I'd 
expect to put the name and address on the building too!

If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll adversely 
affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map look more complete.

However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house 
(emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of a long 
day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik renderings and 
OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially as that way I find 
other non-obvious issues.

Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the public 
-- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the perimeter -- as 
more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.

But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And pub for 
the whole area.

Cheers,
Neil


On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a comment 
about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the 
changeset.

The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). However what 
caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been applied to the entire 
area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings etc.). A quick query on IRC and 
Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely with as much detail 
as this particular one. The general alternative is to map pubs as areas on the 
building of the pub.

The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property are 
largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer gardens, 
children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready interpretation of things 
like access tags and resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub. This 
approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such as 
associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in Kent).

The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

  *   Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this way, 
although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM would find this 
the straightforwardly obvious approach.
  *   Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate to the 
building.
  *   Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may apply 
also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one would be opening_hours).
  *   Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if we 
fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how we can tell 
renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label node, but 
this implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or area tag with 
a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to deal with it? 
It seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for inexperienced 
mappers but also those of us who have been at it for a while. In the meantime 
the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in such cases.
  *   Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes over the 
pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to a building outline + 
(usually) building=pub. In particular the node & area centroid will tend to be 
very close. Thus the two different ways of mapping relate to each other in a 
clear way.

This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map schools, 
colleges, universities and hospitals as areas and p

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Projects

[Stuart Reynolds]

It might also be worth doing some kind of survey to see what motivated 
participants in teh Schools project, what they liked, what they didn't like, 
how we could improve, how they heard of the project (if indeed some of the 
single editors were even aware they were being counted as part of a project)

My interest lies primarily with points of interest data. As many of you may 
recall, I work for one of the traveline regions for public transport journey 
planning. We are most interested, therefore, in the places that people actually 
want to travel to. Hospitals and other medical facilities are obviously one of 
those, as are schools. Churches also seem to be a key destination, and I have 
had contact from organisations that are trying to create directories of Mosques 
and other places of worship.

At present we buy in our point of interest data. However, we would like to use 
OSM because it is free, and because we don’t have to worry about POI locations 
moving or being missing - we can just create them in the map ourselves, and 
have it in our next data release. On that basis, I participated in the schools 
project because I was slightly horrified at the number of schools that were 
missing in a relatively small area like Southend. I didn’t participate in the 
previous project (which, if I recall, was postboxes) because I frankly don’t 
care about such “micro" objects when large objects like schools are missing, 
and for a future project I would be interested in mapping larger objects that 
we can reasonably accurately fix in space and track. So hospitals / medical 
facilities are one, places of worship another, and probably also parks / woods 
/ nature reserves. These latter fall into the category of large areas which are 
not suited to points, but where there are defined access points and possibly 
central “information” points that could be considered “main entrances” or the 
focal point of the area.

Regards,
Stuart

--------
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 13 Mar 2016, at 17:31, Brian Prangle 
mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi everyone

Following the extraordinary success of the Schools project we need  to decide 
how to proceed with the next quarter's project.

There is a view we shoud rollover the project for another quarter so as to 
approach completion.

I favour rolling it into an ongoing UK national project (similar to the Irish 
Townlands project), keeping the existing tools in place to monitor progress. As 
a byproduct do a major revamp of the UK projects wiki page to bring it up to 
date.

As for the subject for next quarter's project if we move the Schools project to 
a national project and don't roll it over, a number of ideas have been put 
forward:

1. Water: add sewage works, rivers,streams and ponds from OSSV, improve lake 
outlines, improve alignments, separate natural and reservoir tags,improve 
coastlines, add bridges or tunnels where waterways cross highways and railways 
etc.
2. Healthcare: add hospitals, doctors, dentists, pharmacies. Or possibly just 
add doctors which is a smaller target. I think national single Open Data 
sources exist for all of these. It will need more surveying than Schools (not 
visible on OSSV or aerial imagery)
3. Highway Maxheights, maxwidths, maxweights: various data sources exist but I 
don't  think there's one national resource. Improving this data will make our 
data more usable for routing. There is the possibility to involve couriers, 
haulage companies etc either organisationally, or individual drivers
4.There's also a suggestion to group-mentor a GSoC (Google Summer of Code) 
project, which I believe doesn't fit well as a quarterly project, as it won't 
involve a wide swathe of the community. We could explore it as an additional 
project
5. And a light-hearted suggestion - map some monkey puzzle trees as part of 
this project<https://monkeypuzzletrees.wordpress.com/>

It might also be worth doing some kind of survey to see what motivated 
participants in teh Schools project, what they liked, what they didn't like, 
how we could improve, how they heard of the project (if indeed some of the 
single editors were even aware they were being counted as part of a project)

As ever: opinions and other suggestions welcome

Regards

Brian

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

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

[Talk-GB] Incorrect spelling of "cemetery"

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi all,

A user of our site alerted me to an incorrect spelling of “cemetery” in one 
location. I corrected it, and then readily found and corrected three more. 
However, after a very brief further search (using “cemetery uk”) I’ve easily 
found another 10. I could correct these manually, but I suspect that it is the 
tip of an iceberg.

Can I propose that someone who is more knowledgeable than me does a mechanical 
edit within the UK to correct “Cemetary” to “Cemetery”?

Regards, 
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

[Stuart Reynolds]

There are two huge advantages to OSM, even just looking at the UK.

The first is timeliness. OSM is almost always faster with new features than OS 
(although accepting you also need a friendly local mapper). Just as a case in 
point, we were looking at Wickhurst Green, near Horsham, only this morning. OSM 
has the estate, and has the A264 correctly moved to the new relief road. OS 
(looking at the online OS Maps tool) still has it on the Broadbridge Heath 
Bypass. Google also has the incorrect road designations, by the way.

And the second huge advantage follows directly on from the first - if it is 
wrong, I can edit it myself, and use it straight away.

You will never get that from OS.

Regards,
Stuart



On 29 Mar 2016, at 11:05, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Yeah I think that is a good benefit and will be an element end users consider. 
Mixing data by country is however easy to do from an OSM licence point of view. 
For example telenav use (or at least did use) OSM in the USA but something else 
in other countries quite easily for many months.

Thus, although this helps, it doesn't "solve" everything.

Rob

On 29 Mar 2016 10:58 p.m., "Marc Gemis" 
mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Isn't one of the main benefits to have the data for the whole world in
1 format ? Compare that to having to download open data files from
government sites from all over the world from sites in different
languages in different formats and having to combine those ...

m

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Rob Nickerson
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Oh come on I'm not here to bash the history of OSM. I think what we have
> done is incredible and I genuinely believe that the presence of OSM has
> pushed both the government (the OS) and Google to where we are now - strong
> competition and more open data.
>
> We have open data now - great. The question is how do we continue to push
> the boundaries of the geospatial industry in the UK? Steve has in the past
> said to focus on addresses. Perhaps if we did that then at some tipping
> point the government will release all addresses as open data - a big success
> and we move on to the next trigger...? But for how long can we continue to
> be a strong trigger unless we can keep up with the status quo? Is it OK to
> leave it to the data users to merge the open data with OSM or is that burden
> too large for them to bother (at which point the pressure of OSM in the UK
> reduces)?
>
> The reason I ask is because I don't have the answers. Hoping some of the
> data users on the list may be able to suggest a point where the burden would
> become too large.
>
> Please, don't get defensive as that gets us nowhere. Hopefully this is
> something we can pick up in the coming year :-)
>
> Best,
> Rob
>
>> On 29 Mar 2016 10:29 p.m., "Paul Sladen" 
>> mailto:o...@paul.sladen.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>>> > P.P.S. By which I'm asking: do you think that (unless we get loads of
>>> > new
>>> > mappers) more availability of open data possess a threat to OSM in the
>>> > UK
>>>
>>> A decade ago a person called Steve needed a map and couldn't get one…
>>>
>>> We are here to assemble and curate data for now and the future, not to
>>> chastise others following that lead and doing the same.
>>>
>>> -Paul
>>>
>>> ie. There is no 'threat' from having legitimately-usable open data: it
>>> is the very premise upon OpenStreetMap was founded.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>>>
>>> iD8DBQFW+kqWc444tukM+iQRAv6JAJ9tkje/oy3kI2dZS33Gc4vaWBTcpgCgxitl
>>> KdZlblnt33m57hNtNcfe4OQ=
>>> =hke9
>>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Talk-GB] OSGR & OSM

[Stuart Reynolds]

Is there a site or tool somewhere where I can click on a point on an OSM tile 
and get back the OSGR? I want the quality of OSM, but need OSGR unfortunately.

Thanks
Stuart



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

[Talk-GB] Leicester Haymarket new road layout

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

Are there any East Midlands mappers in the Leicester area who could update the 
road & buildings in the vicinity of the new Haymarket Bus Station?

Google appears to show the new layout 
(https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6383422,-1.1307455,319m/data=!3m1!1e3) and 
certainly has the building work ongoing on the satellite view, but OSM still 
shows the old layout 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10021976#map=18/52.63828/-1.13063).

If not, then I have asked contacts for maps/layout diagrams to do an armchair 
job, but would obviously be better with a ground survey.

Many thanks
Regards,
Stuart

----
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




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

[Talk-GB] How to mark something as closed

[Stuart Reynolds]

Action Park, near Basildon 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/51.5851/0.5568) has been closed 
since May 2015 as it contravened Green Belt planning regulations.

Should I a) just delete it, or b) do something else with it to mark it as 
historic and remove it from the map?

Cheers
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




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

[Talk-GB] Any mappers fancy visiting Luton Airport?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi,

Lots of changes going on at Luton Airport at the moment, and satellite imagery 
just isn’t keeping up. The new bus station is open, the new car park is largely 
complete (together with the walkway to the terminal). Lots of news and pics at 
http://transforminglla.com. The only thing I don’t have access to is mapping, 
so OSM is out of date! Does anyone heading out that way feel like surveying? 
Many thanks.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

[Talk-GB] Nottingham QMC Tram Station

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi to all the friendly Nottingham mappers out there! :)

Could someone please take a look at Nottingham QMC tram stop for me please. 
There are a small handful of things that I want to query:


  *   There is an entrance at the SW end of the platforms which is by stairs - 
there is a nice [square] spiral in OSM, but the levels look strange as they are 
all level 1, despite there being three turns around the spiral. Should these be 
half levels? As otherwise they look like they are all coincident.
  *   There is a footway connected to the lift at level 1 that links to the 
platform, but this footway also extends NW at level 1 and doesn’t appear to 
connect to anything
  *   There is nothing connecting the lift at ground level (level 0) meaning 
that I cannot route into it.
  *   And I had always assumed that a lift was a “lift” node - this one has 
been drawn as a building with tags building=lift and highway=elevator, and two 
entrance nodes. This seems strange to me. Yes, it is in accordance with the 
wiki, but the elevator goes up and down, not round in a square, so it feels 
counter-intuitive to have a highway as an elevator (instead of as a node).

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Nottingham QMC Tram Station

[Stuart Reynolds]

Great, thanks.
Stuart

On 5 Sep 2016, at 20:31, SK53 mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

I'll have a quick look in the morning & adjust the mapping accordingly (it's 
under 10 minutes walk away).

Cheers,

Jerry

On 5 September 2016 at 17:24, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi to all the friendly Nottingham mappers out there! :)

Could someone please take a look at Nottingham QMC tram stop for me please. 
There are a small handful of things that I want to query:


  *   There is an entrance at the SW end of the platforms which is by stairs - 
there is a nice [square] spiral in OSM, but the levels look strange as they are 
all level 1, despite there being three turns around the spiral. Should these be 
half levels? As otherwise they look like they are all coincident.
  *   There is a footway connected to the lift at level 1 that links to the 
platform, but this footway also extends NW at level 1 and doesn't appear to 
connect to anything
  *   There is nothing connecting the lift at ground level (level 0) meaning 
that I cannot route into it.
  *   And I had always assumed that a lift was a "lift" node - this one has 
been drawn as a building with tags building=lift and highway=elevator, and two 
entrance nodes. This seems strange to me. Yes, it is in accordance with the 
wiki, but the elevator goes up and down, not round in a square, so it feels 
counter-intuitive to have a highway as an elevator (instead of as a node).

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




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


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

[Talk-GB] Tagging redevelopment and closed roads

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

There are some major redevelopment works just starting in central Lincoln. The 
old bus station has closed, and a number of streets and car parks between it 
and the rail station are now shut for the construction of the new transport 
hub. In the meantime, there is a temporary bus station to the south of the 
station.

To reflect all of this, I need to tag the affected roads, car parks, and 
existing bus stops. I’m sure that the wrong thing to do would be to simply 
delete everything that is soon to depart - although if anything is most likely 
to want deleting it is the old bus stops - but what is the right way? Tagging 
the roads as access=no is simple enough, with a note, because I’m not sure 
(yet) of the end status. But is there a preferred way, and what about the car 
parks and the old bus station? How should that be dealt with.

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging redevelopment and closed roads

[Stuart Reynolds]

OK, thanks for your help on this. I’ve ended up with a combination that seemed 
most sensible:

 - the two car parks I have tagged with removed:amenity and removed:parking, 
because they are gone.
 - Norman Street (and the gyratory roads around the car parks) I have tagged 
with access=no, but not added any removed tags yet. The roads are only just 
shut, and I imagine that they won’t be “removed” for a while yet. I will add 
removed tags later. These roads are going, and never coming back.
 - Oxford Street I have added “motor_vehicle=no” because this is still open to 
pedestrians, and will be retained when the development has finished.

Thanks.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 20 Sep 2016, at 15:06, m...@chrisfleming.org<mailto:m...@chrisfleming.org> 
wrote:

On 20/09/16 at 11:28am, Donald wrote:
  If a building or road is removed, and nothing has replaced it, then i
  think it is good to have some sort of lifestyle prefix like
  demolished:building or removed:road, especially as they are usually still
  visible from aerial images.

  I have also used highway=no not:name= for the ITO analysis.

  Once the new development goes in these can and should probably be deleted.

Worth adding the main advantage of this, is if an armchair mapper comes
along tracing, then it *should* be obvious to them that those items no
longer exist and have been deliberatly removed.

Cheers
Chris


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

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

[Talk-GB] OSM and William Booth's Poor Map

[Stuart Reynolds]

Those of you who have an interest in genealogy as well as in mapping may be 
interested to know that LSE has a mobile-friendly version of William Booth’s 
Poor Map of London. The “desktop” website has a poor interface with modern 
streets being linked to a Bartholomew map. The mobile site, though, defaults to 
using OSM as the background mapping layer, which sits behind the Booth Map. No 
idea where they are serving the tiles from, but it looks nice!

http://phone.booth.lse.ac.uk if you want to check it out.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

[Talk-GB] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked with access:psv 
tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally expect to see simply psv=* on 
these roads - and more importantly (to me) so would my contractor who is 
importing the data. I’ve checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree 
with the contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I propose to change 
those (manually) in the areas that I am concerned about in the UK. This is just 
to let you know, in case anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am 
up to.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

Chris,

For sure! But there are an infinite number of tagging schemes that any 
individual mapper could choose to use. I can’t realistically be expected to get 
my contractor to implement a revised import every time someone dreams one up. 
That’s why I went back to the Wiki to see what it said there, as it is to some 
extent the tagging bible, and it is quite clear that it should be psv=*. That 
and the fact that there are only 275 worldwide rather suggests that it is not 
an accepted tagging scheme.

Regards,
Stuart




Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

m: +44 7788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds



On 13 Oct 2016, at 17:38, Chris Hill 
mailto:o...@raggedred.net>> wrote:

Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data consumer 
changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you edit tags and by 
doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster - mappers are our most 
precious resource.

Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard to do, 
you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the future.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked with access:psv 
tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally expect to see simply psv=* on 
these roads - and more importantly (to me) so would my contractor who is 
importing the data. I’ve checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree 
with the contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I propose to change 
those (manually) in the areas that I am concerned about in the UK. This is just 
to let you know, in case anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am 
up to.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia







Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only 127, two of which 
are one single instance of access:psv:bus, which surely ought to be just bus=*, 
and one single instance of access:psv:maxweight

Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging schemes if I feel that 
the tagging is correct and likely to be repeated elsewhere. But I don’t believe 
that this is. It is unexpected, and it is undocumented. I haven’t looked to see 
if it is one user, or 127 different users. But either way it is at most 127 out 
of the 40,000 contributors that we apparently had last month according to a 
different thread today. And the whole purpose of me asking was, anyway, to find 
out if people had a real need to tag in this unusual way before I changed it, 
rather than to be told that if you found me doing it, you’d insist [my italics] 
on it being reverted.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F 
mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:

Stuart
I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
Compared with 77857 for psv=*

Chris
If they're to signify different entries, what are those differences.
If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of access:psv. If there is 
none, they should be change as clearly more users are expecting psv=*

If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then there's no harm. With 
fewer tags, it makes it easier for a consumer to validate the data.

DaveF.


On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data consumer 
changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you edit tags and by 
doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster - mappers are our most 
precious resource.

Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard to do, 
you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the future.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds 
<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> 
wrote:
Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked with access:psv 
tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally expect to see simply psv=* on 
these roads - and more importantly (to me) so would my contractor who is 
importing the data. I’ve checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree 
with the contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I propose to change 
those (manually) in the areas that I am concerned about in the UK. This is just 
to let you know, in case anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am 
up to.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia






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




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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Rob,

I didn't manage to find that part of the Wiki! So thanks for bringing it to my 
attention. I will take a look later.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Stuart,

Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the 
Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy 
from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to 
the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the schematic of starting 
with the restriction-type which is required for all other restrictions.

However, due to legacy reasons, and as noted:

> In access tags that are limited to a specific transportation mode the 
> restriction-type access: is usually omitted.

The above is for info only. I make no comment and a will take no action based 
on what you end up doing.

It is clear however, that these tags are equivalent as set out on the wiki.

Best regards,
Rob
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

This has opened something of a can of worms.

I decided, on reviewing the wiki, to go back to the contractor and ask for 
equivalency between access:psv=* and psv=*. And I then decided to check other 
tagging equivalencies, such as foot=* and access:foot=*. There a larger number 
of access:foot tags in the data.

But I noticed that a number of those I clicked on had both tags - foot=* and 
also access:foot=*

Is that sensible, to use two different (and apparently equivalent) tagging 
schemes? If it is, then I could just add psv=* tags to all of the ways marked 
access:psv, but I didn’t suggest that because it seemed wrong to me

What’s the view?

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 14 Oct 2016, at 07:40, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

Hi Rob,

I didn't manage to find that part of the Wiki! So thanks for bringing it to my 
attention. I will take a look later.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Stuart,

Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the 
Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy 
from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to 
the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the schematic of starting 
with the restriction-type which is required for all other restrictions.

However, due to legacy reasons, and as noted:

> In access tags that are limited to a specific transportation mode the 
> restriction-type access: is usually omitted.

The above is for info only. I make no comment and a will take no action based 
on what you end up doing.

It is clear however, that these tags are equivalent as set out on the wiki.

Best regards,
Rob
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

>> AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person

Not entirely. At least one was added at Castleton Bus Station by a certain user 
SK53 ;) (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40426231).

But to the more substantive question, no - I had picked two at random, found 
them both to be edited by different people, and decided at that point to await 
any decision from this discussion before approaching individual users as I 
didn’t know how many there were. But if, as you say, kevjs1982 is responsible 
for the majority then I will approach him.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 14 Oct 2016, at 15:11, SK53 mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person. Has anyone actually 
talked to kevjs1982? He may be perfectly happy for the tags to be changed. By 
discussing things with him you may also a) learn why he used the tag; b) 
persuade him to use psv=yes.

The dual use of foot=yes & access;foot=yes probably has its origins in 
disagreements about tagging PRoW in Hampshire a while back: 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41053/prow-tagging-england-wales.

Jerry


On 14 October 2016 at 14:23, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

This is the downside of the free tagging system!

It makes no sense having both tags - indeed this should be thrown as an error 
in the editors (what happens if the value differs between these tags?!).

But as you found out, as soon as you propose a (relatively simple) edit then 
one individual can block it.

A compromise is to adjust the code to accept both and have validation on cases 
where both tags are present.

I understand this to be "easy" for data consumers but in reality it is not 
"easy" because it's taken you years to discover this edge case (consumers 
shouldn't have to spend hours digging around the intricacies of such basic 
data).

Rob

On 14 Oct 2016 2:01 p.m., "Stuart Reynolds" 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
This has opened something of a can of worms.

I decided, on reviewing the wiki, to go back to the contractor and ask for 
equivalency between access:psv=* and psv=*. And I then decided to check other 
tagging equivalencies, such as foot=* and access:foot=*. There a larger number 
of access:foot tags in the data.

But I noticed that a number of those I clicked on had both tags - foot=* and 
also access:foot=*

Is that sensible, to use two different (and apparently equivalent) tagging 
schemes? If it is, then I could just add psv=* tags to all of the ways marked 
access:psv, but I didn’t suggest that because it seemed wrong to me

What’s the view?

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 14 Oct 2016, at 07:40, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

Hi Rob,

I didn't manage to find that part of the Wiki! So thanks for bringing it to my 
attention. I will take a look later.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Stuart,

Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the 
Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy 
from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to 
the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the schematic of starting 
with the restriction-type which is required for all other restrictions.

However, due to legacy reasons, and as noted:

> In access tags that are limited to a specific transportation mode the 
> restriction-type access: is usually omitted.

The above is for info only. I make no comment and a will take no action based 
on what you end up doing.

It is clear however, that these tags are equivalent as set out on the wiki.

Best regards,
Rob
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

That was my understanding, yes. PSV is a wider-ranging mode than just bus.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 14 Oct 2016, at 16:43, Colin Smale 
mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:


Isn't bus just a hyponym of PSV anyway? PSV also includes taxis, just like 
motor_vehicle includes car.




On 2016-10-14 17:33, SK53 wrote:

That's a long time ago.  This is not really something I map very much at all, 
so I would tend to have to look for a convenient example. I assume that's what 
happened in this case & of course I would look somewhere I know like Nottingham.

You are very free to change that to psv!

On that note I see that bus is actually used more than psv according to 
taginfo, so 2 values have to be dealt with anyway.

Jerry

On 14 October 2016 at 15:49, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
>> AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person

Not entirely. At least one was added at Castleton Bus Station by a certain user 
SK53 ;) (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40426231).

But to the more substantive question, no - I had picked two at random, found 
them both to be edited by different people, and decided at that point to await 
any decision from this discussion before approaching individual users as I 
didn't know how many there were. But if, as you say, kevjs1982 is responsible 
for the majority then I will approach him.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia


On 14 Oct 2016, at 15:11, SK53 mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person. Has anyone actually 
talked to kevjs1982? He may be perfectly happy for the tags to be changed. By 
discussing things with him you may also a) learn why he used the tag; b) 
persuade him to use psv=yes.

The dual use of foot=yes & access;foot=yes probably has its origins in 
disagreements about tagging PRoW in Hampshire a while back: 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41053/prow-tagging-england-wales.

Jerry

On 14 October 2016 at 14:23, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

This is the downside of the free tagging system!

It makes no sense having both tags - indeed this should be thrown as an error 
in the editors (what happens if the value differs between these tags?!).

But as you found out, as soon as you propose a (relatively simple) edit then 
one individual can block it.

A compromise is to adjust the code to accept both and have validation on cases 
where both tags are present.

I understand this to be "easy" for data consumers but in reality it is not 
"easy" because it's taken you years to discover this edge case (consumers 
shouldn't have to spend hours digging around the intricacies of such basic 
data).

Rob

On 14 Oct 2016 2:01 p.m., "Stuart Reynolds" 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
This has opened something of a can of worms.

I decided, on reviewing the wiki, to go back to the contractor and ask for 
equivalency between access:psv=* and psv=*. And I then decided to check other 
tagging equivalencies, such as foot=* and access:foot=*. There a larger number 
of access:foot tags in the data.

But I noticed that a number of those I clicked on had both tags - foot=* and 
also access:foot=*

Is that sensible, to use two different (and apparently equivalent) tagging 
schemes? If it is, then I could just add psv=* tags to all of the ways marked 
access:psv, but I didn't suggest that because it seemed wrong to me

What's the view?

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia


On 14 Oct 2016, at 07:40, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

Hi Rob,

I didn't manage to find that part of the Wiki! So thanks for bringing it to my 
attention. I will take a look later.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Stuart,

Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the 
Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy 
from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to 
the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the schematic of starting 
with the restriction-type which is required for all other restrictions.

However, due to legacy reasons, and as noted:

> In access tags that are limited to a specific transportation mode the 
> restriction-type access: is usually omitted.

The above is for info only. I make no comment and a will take no action based 
on what you end up doing.

It is clear however, that these tags are equivalent as set out on the wiki.

Best regards,
Rob
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
___
Talk-GB mailing l

[Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[Stuart Reynolds]

Greetings

At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also 
available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance at satellite 
mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will also highlight 
that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the roundabout (and 
likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly dangerous. You have to 
cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort, either 
from the A1 or from the side roads.

What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it reflects what 
is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This isn’t an idle question 
- a user of my website has stated that it is dangerous to use, and has asked me 
to remove it. My conclusion was to leave it in, but as it cuts to what it is 
that is being produced here - an accurate cartographic representation of the 
world, regardless, or something a little different - I thought I would ask for 
views.

Regards,
Stuart



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Dave

Don’t disagree - just wanted to see what the community thought.

Are you Traveline?

Yes, sorry - just took out my normal footer for some reason.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 5 Dec 2016, at 16:31, Dave F 
mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:

It needs to remain. As it's clearly signed as a shared use path it's has 
authoritative standing.

'Dangerous' is purely subjective. Many people do 'dangerous' things such as 
drive too fast, take drugs or jump out of aeroplanes. OSM is not the place to 
quantify. Adding a 'falling rocks' sign to OSM is fine. Telling someone they 
can't go there because of those rocks is wrong. Your user has decided, based on 
experience, that he doesn't want to use it, which is fine, but he shouldn't 
dictate that others can't.

What would benefit OSM is if the path was detailed more accurately.

Are you Traveline?

Cheers
Dave F.

On 05/12/2016 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
Greetings

At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also 
available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance at satellite 
mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will also highlight 
that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the roundabout (and 
likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly dangerous. You have to 
cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort, either 
from the A1 or from the side roads.

What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it reflects what 
is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This isn’t an idle question 
- a user of my website has stated that it is dangerous to use, and has asked me 
to remove it. My conclusion was to leave it in, but as it cuts to what it is 
that is being produced here - an accurate cartographic representation of the 
world, regardless, or something a little different - I thought I would ask for 
views.

Regards,
Stuart






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





[Avast logo] 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS

[Stuart Reynolds]

My favourite bugbear for tidal waters is Ryde on the Isle of Wight. This is 
similar to the third example from David’s earlier post, but my bone of 
contention is that the sand is shown all the way out to the end of the pier. 
I’m sure that the tide does go all the way out at times, but both Bing and 
Google have a much more realistic “tide in” representation of the coastline!

Shoeburyness in Essex is a lot better, but you can clearly see the admin 
boundaries at the edge of the sandbanks way out into the sea.

Regards,
Stuart

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 12 Dec 2016, at 08:33, Colin Smale 
mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:


Hi Jason,

Hmm, I see what you mean around Looe, it does look a bit suspicious. I am going 
to poke around in the OS OpenMap Local data to see if that data is better. I 
can see there are "Tidal Boundary", "Tidal Water" and "Foreshore" shapefiles 
included which might be useful.

//colin




On 2016-12-12 08:40, Jason Woollacott wrote:

Colin,



I've been doing some coastline updates around the South West, and have been 
basing my coastline on the OS_StreetView map layer which also shows MHW.  
however the GPX file does not seem to match this.   In Cornwall, which has a 
very jagged coast, you can never rely on Bing as the angles are quite often 
wrong,  but on flatter ground, say around, Looe, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.35216/-4.44840

The GPX around the pier goes well into the sea (about 6m), compared to the OS 
SV layer which links fairly close to the bing image at that point.



Agreed that the coastline extract is much better than the PGS, which is a still 
straight lines in some places.  however, one other area that the GPX extract 
doesn't seem to cover is the islet and rocks which are above sea level even at 
high water level.  (See the Looe link again)



Jason (Unieagle)








From: David Groom mailto:revi...@pacific-rim.net>>
Sent: 12 December 2016 00:51
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS

Colin

I was more talking about the actual shape of the MHW rather than its position; 
if that makes sense.

some examples of problems in the Isle of Wight

1)  There's a section here  
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.66636/-1.48566, where the Bing imagery 
seems reasonably aligned to the gps tracks of the main road, but the gpx file 
for MHW seems to be too far to the north on the cliff area, and too far to the 
south on the area to the east.  this beach shelves relatively steeply so there 
is unlikely to be much difference between MHWS & MHWN

2) Even clearer is an area 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.69439/-1.09414, OSM is much more 
accurate here than the OS Boundary Line

3)  The car park and ice rink here 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.73237/-1.15736  were built sometime 
around 1990, but Boundary line  MHW would show these as flooded

4)  More inaccuracies here   
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.76650/-1.30029

David




-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>>
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 11/12/2016 22:17:44
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS


Hi David,

Looking at the spot you indicate on Bing imagery does indeed look like MHW 
should be above the salt-marsh areas. Looking at Google[1] it is however 
possible that the grass doesn't quite get submerged, even at the highest tides, 
so it might also be possible that it is strictly correct.

The Bing imagery is of course just a snapshot, and we don't know the state of 
the tide at the moment the photo was taken, so it can also be misleading. Even 
a personal visit is not really enough as MHW is apparently calculated over a 
19-year cycle (not sure if OS use this though) and things could change a lot in 
that time. As MHW is an average, many tides will of course be higher.

The OS data looks a definite improvement for steeper coastlines, where 
combining OS admin boundaries with PGS coastlines produces many anomalies 
(admin boundary=MLW inland of coastline=MHW). I would definitely suggest 
applying the OS MHW data to address this kind of issue. But I agree, use of the 
OS data would need case-by-case judgements. However I still think the OS data 
is probably a better base to work from than (unimproved) PGS for reasons I 
mentioned earlier.

Could you give a couple of examples of problems you saw in the IoW?

//colin



[1] 
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5386032,0.6292606,3a,24.7y,277.12h,84.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMl8cwBlLLuOVtPES_DfkOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

On 2016-12-11 22:30, David Groom wrote:

I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged "source=PGS" is has 
been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that 

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Projects: further suggestions

[Stuart Reynolds]

I like the rail and bus station mapping. Even where information on National 
Rail Stations Made Easy exists, it is often out of date and is also not a 'data 
set' in the way we understand data.

Take a look at Victoria Underground station in OSM to see what can be achieved 
with levels and all the different transfer 'means' eg lifts, ramps, escalators 
etc

Regards
Stuart
For traveline south east and anglia

On 19 Dec 2016, at 12:58, SK53 mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

Dear All,

A few additional suggestions, largely concerned with accessibility issues:

  *   Step Counts. Partly inspired by Richard 
Fairhurst, but also by 
my own needs. For many of us (parents, people with COPD (e.g., me, but I know 
other OSM contributors too) , older people, etc., etc.) steps are OK in small 
quantities, but beyond a certain number .which will vary with the person (and 
what they are carrying). it may well be desirable to avoid them.

Current numbers of steps by region are as follows:

East Midlands:  593 with steps 3429 without
West Midlands: 51 with steps 1400 without
Wales: 145 with steps 1672 without
Scotland: 662 with steps 5373 without
Northern Ireland: 9 with steps 263 without
East of England: 1132 with steps 2741 without
South-East England: 553 with steps 5072 without
South-West England: 319 with steps 4730 without
North-West England: 107 with steps 3191 without
North-East England: 211 with steps 1287 without
Yorkshire and the Humber: 262 with steps 2680 without
Greater London: 252 with 4286 without

I'm pretty sure we are missing masses of steps: we have mapped over 1000 in 
Nottingham City alone. However, finding them is another matter. So adding info 
to those already done is easier. Like many objects just a visit may elicit 
other things to map. This brings me to the next suggestion.

  *   Railway & Bus stations. There are now excellent precedents for mapping 
public transport interchanges in a lot of detail (e.g., work done by the 
OpenRailwayMap team in Germany & the 
Transilien.
 In general the focus should be in adding information which helps with access. 
Adding this type of detail may provide opportunities to engage with facility 
owners & promoting open data strategies for improving information about access 
for people with restricted mobility. Additionally these provide a special 
domain for mappers to learn about Simple 3D buildings & indoor tagging.

  *   Disabled Parking Spaces. I find the current method 
(amenity=parking_space,
 disabled=yes) not entirely satisfactory, but this is what currently exists. 
Also capacity tags can be used, but don't show where disabled spaces are 
located in larger facilities. There may be some open data on this for some 
cities (e.g., 
Nottingham. Most 
spaces will be in town/city centres and public & customer car parks.

Of course these could be lumped together as a general "access for restricted 
mobility" quarterly project, but I think the area is so large that it's better 
to focus on smaller targets.

Regards,

Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Propose automated edit to update NAPTAN data in the west mids

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Brian,

If you are updating the data in OSM from NaPTAN, then I agree that this is long 
overdue.

For the benefit of others, can I just mention some specific stop point types 
that are in NaPTAN that editors may be unfamiliar with (and which I think have 
caused some confusion in the past):


  *   CUS are Custom and Practice stops. Typically ends of farm roads, lay-bys, 
etc where there is no physical marked stop. Given a need to have stopping 
points on the right side of the road, these are also used for the “other side 
of the road” stop where there is a pole marked “buses stop both sides”
  *   HAR are virtual stops denoting a nominal point in a hail and ride 
section. Hail and Ride is a bit cumbersome, but there is a virtual stop and it 
is linked to a start coordinate for the hail and ride section and an end 
coordinate. These aren’t supposed to be long. Typically there will need to be 
one in each direction (as the start and end points are reversed).

Also, there is often some confusion about what name goes into which fields - 
people will insist on compounding names, for example, because that’s what their 
consuming system wants, rather than getting the consumer to read the data 
properly. But that’s too much to go into here, and if reviewing the names is in 
scope then I would be happy to offer to help. One of my other “hats" is as the 
Public Transport Data Standards Advisor / Expert for DfT, which includes 
advising on NAPTAN.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 3 Feb 2017, at 17:52, Brian Prangle 
mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi everyone

We have an opportunity to work with the regional transport authority TfWM to 
update this data which is 8 years old and partially edited by OSM users. They 
have assigned 2 developers to work on this and I'm spending a half day each 
week working with them.

We've agreed and discussed this in our mappa mercia group and also contacted a 
prolific local public transport OSM editor who's not part of  our group.

In line with the automated edits policy there's a 
wikipage<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edit_West_Midlands_NAPTAN_data>
 with full details

Comments welcome as this exercise might be useful elswhere as the state of 
NAPTAN data will be in a similar state

regards

Brian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Propose automated edit to update NAPTAN data in the west mids

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Matthijs,

Wherever possible the names in NaPTAN should match what is on the flag or 
shelter. There are however some instances where this is not possible or 
desirable.

For instance, the stop might carry a historic name such as for a long closed 
pub which has been updated in data but not on the ground. Or perhaps the name 
is a compound name (often of the "Main Street / Side Road" variety) where this 
is better held as two separate fields in NaPTAN.

But in general any discrepancies should be queried with the data owner who is 
normally the County or Unitary council. In West Midlands it is the old Centro / 
new TfWM. I have contacts there, as obviously does Brian, but I ought to check 
that they are happy for me to post their email address on the list for all to 
use.

Regards
Stuart


On 5 Feb 2017, at 19:35, Matthijs Melissen 
mailto:i...@matthijsmelissen.nl>> wrote:

On 3 February 2017 at 19:29, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Also, there is often some confusion about what name goes into which fields - 
people will insist on compounding names, for example, because that's what their 
consuming system wants, rather than getting the consumer to read the data 
properly. But that's too much to go into here, and if reviewing the names is in 
scope then I would be happy to offer to help. One of my other "hats" is as the 
Public Transport Data Standards Advisor / Expert for DfT, which includes 
advising on NAPTAN.

Hi Stuart,

Great to have your support. I noticed that there are a few stops in the West 
Midlands where the name in Naptan doesn't match the name on the flag 
(unfortunately I don't remember by heart which ones). This means the visual 
announcement in the announcement in the bus (and the information in online 
timetables) is different from the name on the flag, so from a usability 
perspective it would make sense to fix this. Is there any process of reporting 
situations like that?

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

[Talk-GB] Church architecture tagging

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

On OS maps there is a distinction between churches with towers, churches with 
steeples, and “other” places of worship. These are all readily surveyable (so 
that we are not taking data from OS). But as far as I can determine, there is 
no tagging scheme that would allow towers or steeples to be added, nor to have 
(for example) the height of tower, numbers of steps, flagpoles, bells, etc 
added (which could be useful).

Am I right, or have I missed something? If right, do we need to agree a tagging 
scheme that would allow us to enter that info?

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

[Talk-GB] Church Towers and Steeples

[Stuart Reynolds]

I didn’t like the “man-made” part of the tower tag, TBH, nor what I took to be 
the implication that it was a stand-alone element, which it generally isn’t.

The tower tag on its own does have a number of useful attributes, though, which 
could be extended.

So if we ignore the man-made tag, we could have

church:tower= yes | no
church:steeple= yes | no (which could assume the steeple on top of the tower, 
if both present)

followed by the tower:tag=value sets as appropriate.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 10 Feb 2017, at 10:53, Dan S 
mailto:danstowell+...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Stuart,

Ah, the Ordance Survey view of the world: you're either a tower or a steeple ;)

Towers and steeples are just one of many building parts, which can be
mapped the same way as other 3D aspects of buildings:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
Heights are readily added using the generic height tags that are used
for so many things.

But then also, this page tells me that "tower:type=bell_tower" is
"Widely used for steeples and bell towers":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dtower
Flagpole is easy
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dflagpole
The only thing I don't have a ready answer for is "number of steps",
and "bells" as distinct from their enclosures.

So I'm left suspecting that maybe you're aware of these things but
there's an itch they don't scratch...?

Best
Dan


2017-02-10 10:27 GMT+00:00 Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>>:
Hi All,

On OS maps there is a distinction between churches with towers, churches
with steeples, and “other” places of worship. These are all readily
surveyable (so that we are not taking data from OS). But as far as I can
determine, there is no tagging scheme that would allow towers or steeples to
be added, nor to have (for example) the height of tower, numbers of steps,
flagpoles, bells, etc added (which could be useful).

Am I right, or have I missed something? If right, do we need to agree a
tagging scheme that would allow us to enter that info?

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




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


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

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

[Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

[Stuart Reynolds]

What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways? 
Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near Barham 
in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge (and indeed 
very little in the way of verge at some points). It is technically legal to 
walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but it is most certainly not 
advisable and you would be taking your life into your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods. 
Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in the 
crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add it in.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26237116#map=18/51.21188/1.16626

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hmm. Had forgotten that I had asked that.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 8 Mar 2017, at 11:34, Dan S 
mailto:danstowell+...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi

foot=no would definitely be inappropriate! It would mean not permitted.

This is basically the same as the "Mapping dangerous - but valid -
routes" question that you asked in December, and the responses to that
are relevant here.

Best
Dan


2017-03-08 11:27 GMT+00:00 Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>>:
What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways?
Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near
Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge
(and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is
technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but
it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into
your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods.
Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in
the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add
it in.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26237116#map=18/51.21188/1.16626

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




___
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] [Talk-gb-london] New OSM London Meetup - Invite

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

For reference, virtually all of the entrances are contained within the London 
NaPTAN data (https://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan) which is the data that begins 
with the prefix 4900. The tube entrances all begin 4909ZZLU followed by a three 
letter code for the station plus a digit to distinguish between different 
entrances. For example, 4909ZZLUBNK0 would be an entrance to Bank, while 
4900ZZLUTWH0 would be Tower Hill.

While these do not give you accessibility information, they are all maintained 
by TfL and should give you accurate positional information.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPad

On 8 May 2017, at 21:02, Derick Rethans 
mailto:o...@derickrethans.nl>> wrote:

Hi,

I think this is a good idea. We have something UK wide, but doing it a
local way makes a lot of sense (and easier to complete). Happy to do
this "fix the tube network" thing over a few weekends (After the General
Election that is).

cheers,
Derick

On Thu, 4 May 2017, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Dear Grant, dear all,

thanks for putting on the meeting, and thanks for the sponsored pizza! Good
meeting last night, and god to have met you all.

Following up on the "Missing Maps London" idea, I thought we could may do
some "map challenges" that look at specific things that need work. It might
be a nice community building activity, and provide some continuity between
meetings?

As an experiment, I've formulated one such challenges here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London_public_transport_tagging_scheme/Map_Challenges
and added images / interactive maps / help for new mappers.

See what you think and let me know whether there's interest. Results could
be announced at the next meeting?

All the best,
Bjoern


On 30 April 2017 at 17:30, Grant Slater 
mailto:openstreet...@firefishy.com>> wrote:

Hi All,

We trying a new format OpenStreetMap evening meetup in London this
Wednesday 3rd May 2017... We'd love for you to come along:

https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Q-A-Meetup/events/239366249/

New to OpenStreetMap and want to learn more or need some help getting
started? Already mapping or using OSM and have any Questions or
Challenges or want to see what others are up to? This is the event for
you.

We already have 3 great speakers lined up for the evening:

* Andy Allan - OpenCycleMap / Thunderforest
* Astrid Thorseth - Missing Maps
* Derick Rethans - London Mapper

We have a great venue (bias, I work there), there will be pizza and
soft drinks provided.

I'd love to hear any suggestions on how we could improve the event or
what works elsewhere.

Kind regards,
Grant

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



--
https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: https://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug

___
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] [Talk-gb-london] New OSM London Meetup - Invite

[Stuart Reynolds]

Yes.

For info, stations are regarded as “national” and so have their own 910 prefix. 
So 9100LHONSEA is Leigh-on-sea (OK, it’s not in London but that’s the one I 
know). The alpha code on the end is a match to the rail industry TIPLOC codes, 
which throws up some oddities (such as London Victoria and London Bridge having 
two TIPLOCs each, and Clapham Junction having four).

Metro stations are also regarded as national, and so have 940 prefixes. In the 
cases I mentioned before, 9400ZZLUBNK is Bank, and 9400ZZLUTWH is Tower Hill. 
In both rail and metro cases, these codes represent the entire station.

Then, each rail station or metro station has one or more entrances. These, for 
historical reasons, are always defined locally and have local codes. So they 
have the local prefix (490 for London) instead of the national prefix, but use 
the same identifier for the station. There is then a numbered suffix to 
distinguish between different entrances, although Bank has so many that it 
needs alpha as well.

So:

  *   4900ZZLUBNK7 is Bank Station, Entrance 9, on the corner of Threadneedle 
Street (there isn’t necessarily any direct correlation between the suffix and 
the entrance number)
  *   4900ZZLUOXC7 is Oxford Circus, Entrance 7, on Argyll Street
  *   etc

The final oddity is that there is a hierarchy. So rail stations can contain 
metro stations, but not the other way around. But each different entity is 
expected to have its own entrances. So at Blackfriars, for example, the rail 
station has two entrances, north and south, and the nominal “entrance” to the 
underground is actually set on the gateline inside the station building.

So there are some things to be aware of, but positionally the entrances are all 
in the right places (more or less) and you can get a “big bang” from the NaPTAN 
data even if you later on wish to refine the entrances by survey.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 9 May 2017, at 07:14, Andrew Hain 
mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk>> wrote:

Does it include stations belonging to Network Rail?

--
Andrew
____
From: Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>>
Sent: 08 May 2017 23:44:56
To: Derick Rethans
Cc: Bjoern Hassler; 
talk-gb-lon...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb-lon...@openstreetmap.org>; 
osm-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-london] New OSM London Meetup - Invite

Hi All,

For reference, virtually all of the entrances are contained within the London 
NaPTAN data (https://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan) which is the data that begins 
with the prefix 4900. The tube entrances all begin 4909ZZLU followed by a three 
letter code for the station plus a digit to distinguish between different 
entrances. For example, 4909ZZLUBNK0 would be an entrance to Bank, while 
4900ZZLUTWH0 would be Tower Hill.

While these do not give you accessibility information, they are all maintained 
by TfL and should give you accurate positional information.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPad

On 8 May 2017, at 21:02, Derick Rethans 
mailto:o...@derickrethans.nl>> wrote:

Hi,

I think this is a good idea. We have something UK wide, but doing it a
local way makes a lot of sense (and easier to complete). Happy to do
this "fix the tube network" thing over a few weekends (After the General
Election that is).

cheers,
Derick

On Thu, 4 May 2017, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Dear Grant, dear all,

thanks for putting on the meeting, and thanks for the sponsored pizza! Good
meeting last night, and god to have met you all.

Following up on the "Missing Maps London" idea, I thought we could may do
some "map challenges" that look at specific things that need work. It might
be a nice community building activity, and provide some continuity between
meetings?

As an experiment, I've formulated one such challenges here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London_public_transport_tagging_scheme/Map_Challenges
and added images / interactive maps / help for new mappers.

See what you think and let me know whether there's interest. Results could
be announced at the next meeting?

All the best,
Bjoern


On 30 April 2017 at 17:30, Grant Slater 
mailto:openstreet...@firefishy.com>> wrote:

Hi All,

We trying a new format OpenStreetMap evening meetup in London this
Wednesday 3rd May 2017... We'd love for you to come along:

https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Q-A-Meetup/events/239366249/

New to OpenStreetMap and want to learn more or need some help getting
started? Already mapping or using OSM and have any Questions or
Challenges or want to see what others are up to? This is the event for
you.

We already have 3 great speakers lined up for the evening:

* Andy Allan - OpenCycleMap / Thunderforest
* Astrid Thorseth - Missing Maps
* Derick Rethans - London Mapper

We have a great venue (bias, I work there), there will be pizza and
soft drinks provided.

I'd love to h

Re: [Talk-GB] Museums in Berwick-upon-Tweed

[Stuart Reynolds]

Use  DEFRA’s “Magic” map, which allows you to stick coordinates in in a wide 
variety of formats, and more importantly provides tools for seeing where a 
place is in a wide variety of different referencing systems.

You can find it here: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx

Specifically, entering “NU000525” (OS six figure refs, so lose a little 
precision) gives the museums at Fisher’s Fort in Berwick 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1792339349)

and for the adjacent NT999525 refers to 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/71319888

Regards,
Stuart
for traveline south east & anglia



On 28 May 2017, at 11:28, Andrew Hain 
mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk>> wrote:

What is the easiest way to locate national grid references on the map? We could 
then put notes on the map if there is no-one to check.

--
Andrew

From: Frederik Ramm mailto:frede...@remote.org>>
Sent: 28 May 2017 10:24:19
To: OSM GB mailing list
Subject: [Talk-GB] Museums in Berwick-upon-Tweed

Hi,

   someone from Berwick-upon-Tweed has written to the OSMF board, mainly
to ask if it is ok to use our map in a local history book, but along the
side pointed out two issues with the map:

"The two Museum symbols at NU 00023 52563 and NT 99988 52538 are no
longer relevant as the museums closed several years ago and the area is
now private housing."

I'll leave it to you to figure out what these coordinates mean and which
museums may need to be checked ;)

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

[Stuart Reynolds]

Can we also have some guidance, please, on how to tag station entrances. The 
wiki (at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway_stations) seems to suggest 
that we should use railway=subway_entrance, but this upsets me on so many 
levels (pun intended) because the vast majority of UK station entrances just 
have door entries at ground level, no hint of a subway. Of course, they often 
have internal subways between platforms, but that is something else entirely!

I have also come across several styles of station tagging, even in my local 
(single line) area. For example:


  *   Thorpe Bay station 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=51.53756&lon=0.76162) has two labelled 
nodes, although I think that one of these is actually the southern building 
(area rather than node). Tagging the buildings this way leads to a plethora of 
naming labels everywhere. (There’s also a missing footbridge, but I will fi 
that)
  *   Southend Central 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=51.53756&lon=0.76162#map=19/51.53743/0.71221)
 appears to have three nodes.
  *   Westcliff 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=51.53756&lon=0.76162#map=19/51.53717/0.69194)
 only has a single node, but this appears to be on the building rather than 
where the wiki seems to suggest it should be, out over the tracks as a “nominal 
point"

Thanks


On a separate note, I said that I would provide what data I have. In the first 
instance I can provide railway and subway entrance data from NaPTAN (the 
entrances are all in the local data sets) - that’s quite straightforward. I 
will also supply bus track (relation) data from our data sets (EM, EA, SE), 
although I need to do a little work to make this useable.

What is the preferred format - geoJSON? And who is able to do something with 
it, presentationally, for e.g. side by side comparisons with OSM if I do 
provide it?

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 10 Jul 2017, at 13:48, Paul Berry 
mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

You have a volunteer in me.

Do you want to start a page under 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Project and I'll take it from 
there?

Regards,
Paul

On 10 July 2017 at 12:51, Brian Prangle 
mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi everyone

This will be to improve bus route relations and station entrances, by popular 
vote on OSMUK Loomio channel.

Bus route relations can be tricky for the uninitiated ( and even for the 
initiated ) so perhaps this quarterly project could do with its own wiki page, 
pointing to existing tutorials or developing some new ones. Any volunteers?

Regards

Brian


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


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

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