Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Open survey on participation biases in OSM

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Sorry, this was drawn to my attention.
I can vouch that Zoe Gardner is a researcher at Nottingham University 
Geospatial Institute. Her institutional webpage is here: Zoe Gardner - The 
University of Nottingham
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Zoe Gardner - The University of Nottingham
   |   |

  |

  |

 

Zoe took the time to come along to the Nottingham OSM July meeting, and I've 
bumped into her at a University facility on the Jubilee Campus site when I had 
a further discussion of her research (and probably caused her coffee to get a 
bit cool, in which case my apologies). I also believe, and I think it is stated 
in some of her emails, that she is collaborating with Dr Peter Mooney of 
Maynooth University in Ireland. He was a co-editor on a recent scholarly 
multi-author book on OSM, and has presented work at various SotM conferences.
I have no affiliation with Nottingham University nor with her research. I 
therefore cannot say why her institutional email address has not been used, 
although I would expect that for this type of activity a distinct email address 
is probably useful to avoid confusion with regular day-job communications.
I have not checked, but normally research of this kind, storing personal data, 
will need some approval via an ethics committee. Furthermore institutions in 
Britain and Europe need to adhere to current (and future) European data 
protection legislation.
Requiring researchers to seek approval for their research via OSMF, or local 
chapters (affiliated or otherwise), would, in my view, raise a rather high bar 
for academics, and one which may be perceived to be contra OSM's openness. On 
the other hand the it may be appropriate for OSMF to consider guidelines w.r.t. 
collection of personal data of mappers for academic research, particularly as 
the new European directive comes into force next year.
HTH,
Jerry CloughSK53



  From: Charlotte Wolter 
 To: Talk-US@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Monday, 4 September 2017, 19:25
 Subject: [Talk-us] Fwd: Open survey on participation biases in OSM
   
Follks,

  It wouldbe nice if we could get some confirmation that this is a real 
researchprojects being done by an actual researcher at Nottingham. If it 
islegit, why is the return email address from Gmail rather than theuniversity?
  Is theresome mechanism that we can set up to confirm that the 
research is forreal, such as running it through the US board first? I don't 
mindcontributing to a survey. I just want to be sure it is for real.

Charlotte




From: Zoe Gardner
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org ...snip... talk...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-us] Open survey on participation biases in OSM

 
 
Dear OSM talk subscriber
 
I am a Research Fellow in the Nottingham Geospatial Institute at theUniversity 
of Nottingham in the UK, interested in participation biases ingeospatial 
crowd-sourced projects such as OSM and other VolunteeredGeographical 
Information (VGI) projects. My current research project isconcerned with the 
way in which participation biases in OSM maypotentially affect the usability of 
the data that is collected andsubsequently what is available to location-based 
service providers thatuse OSM as their primary geospatial database.
The project is motivated by recent research that has found a strong malebias in 
OSM participation. This has led to assertions that variousgeospatial knowledge 
could be under represented or poorly recorded on themap. However, the actual 
consequences of this bias remain little exploredor reported. By collecting 
information about contributors to OSM, whichcan then be analyzed along with 
their editing patterns, the impacts ofthis bias might begin to be measured and 
therefore better understood. Ihave therefore published an online survey 
designed to collect informationdirectly from OSM editors and I would like to 
invite as many of you aspossible to participate. The survey is anonymous and 
takes a couple ofminutes to complete.
If you are an OSM contributor and are interested in or would like toparticipate 
in the study, please click on the link below, which will takeyou to the Bristol 
Online Survey website where you will find moreinformation and an opportunity to 
participate in the survey. As a smallincentive, at the close of the survey in a 
few weeks' time, 60respondents will be drawn at random to receive a £15 Amazon 
voucher.
To participate in the survey, click on the link below:
https://nottingham.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/osm-user-profiles
Please do think about participating. It is hoped that knowledge about theway 
participation biases impact on crowd-sourced maps will enable newstrategies to 
be developed to address any resulting voids in thegeospatial information 
provided by amateur mappers. In turn this couldstrengthen the role played by 
platforms such as OSM in urban planning andsustainability, and could raise the 
profile of the important 

Re: [Talk-us] Pittsburgh neighborhood boundaries mapped with admin level 9?

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Further to this thread, this fascinating article came up in my twitter 
timeline: The Legacies of Redlining in Pittsburgh
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
The Legacies of Redlining in Pittsburgh
 Devin Rutan reveals how Pittsburgh's current geography is still defined by 
historic housing discrimination. ...  |   |

  |

  |

 




  From: Peter Dobratz 
 To: Albert Pundt  
Cc: "talk-us@openstreetmap.org" 
 Sent: Thursday, 27 July 2017, 18:29
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Pittsburgh neighborhood boundaries mapped with admin 
level 9?
   
(Appologies as I was in the middle of writing my reply when inadvertantly 
hitting send.  Here's the whole message)
Boundaries below admin_level=8 are still being discussed.  There was some 
discussion on this list as well as the OSM wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap. org/wiki/Talk:United_States_ 
admin_level#Nine_state_ improvement

Having lived in Pittsburgh, I remember that the neighborhood boundaries are 
well defined and many of the street signs have the neighborhood names printed 
across the top of them (epecially on more major roads with bigger signs).
If you were to divide up Pittsburgh into smaller administrative units, how 
would you do it?
Pittsburgh resides within Allegheny County.  Allegheny County is divided into 
Wards and districts, some of which could be used to divide up 
Pittsburgh:http://apps.alleghenycounty.us/website/MuniPgh.asp

Pittsburgh city council is made up of 9 people who each represent a council 
district of the city.  It looks like each council district covers a group of 
neighborhoods (that might lend itself to making the council districts 
admin_level=9 and the neighborhoods admin_level=10).  For example, council 
district 5 contains the neighborhoods, Hazelwood, Glen Hazel, Greenfield, Hays, 
Lincoln Place, New Homestead, and Regeant 
Squarehttp://pittsburghpa.gov/district5/about

Pittsburgh is also divided up into 32 wards, each being divided further into a 
variable number of districts each.  These wards and districts are separate from 
the Allegheny County wards and districts.  I'm not sure how the cities wards 
relate to the neighborhood boundaries.
Peter


On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Peter Dobratz  wrote:

Boundaries below admin_level=8 are still being discussed.  There was some 
discussion on this list as well as the OSM wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap. org/wiki/Talk:United_States_ 
admin_level#Nine_state_ improvement

Having lived in Pittsburgh, I remember that the neighborhood boundaries are 
well defined and many of the street signs have the neighborhood names printed 
across the top of them (epecially on more major roads with bigger signs).
If you were to divide up Pittsburgh into smaller administrative units, how 
would you do it?
Pittsburgh reside within the Allegheny County


On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Albert Pundt  wrote:

I noticed that the neighborhoods in Pittsburgh are mapped as administrative 
boundaries with admin_level=9. Is this proper? The wiki page for U.S. admin 
levels doesn't list any use for admin level 9 in Pennsylvania, though this 
seems appropriate if Pittsburgh neighborhoods are true administrative 
divisions. It just needs to be documented, or perhaps used elsewhere in the 
state, like with the fairly distinct neighborhoods in Philadelphia.
__ _
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk-us





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


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

[Talk-us] Hillsborough, NC

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

 Someone on twitter has been asking if there is anyone who can make 
Hillsborough, NC look as good on OSM as Chapel Hill: Kevin Otte on Twitter
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Kevin Otte on Twitter
 “Do we have any map/GIS geeks at @HillsboroughGov? I'd love to have our town 
look as good on @openstreetmap ...  |   |

  |

  |

 

Any one care to get in touch (the brit in me, cant bring myself to write "reach 
out" here, it always feels too portentous). 
Jerry___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Municipal Tree Survey

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

  From: Frederik Ramm 
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Monday, 19 September 2016, 19:09
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Municipal Tree Survey
   
Hi,

On 09/19/2016 05:13 PM, Adam Old wrote:
> For the most part we would like to send people out using their mobile
> devices and an app like Go
> Map!! https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/go-map!!/id592990211?mt=8
>  or a
> paper survey form that we could then update OSM with. Hopefully this
> would introduce a good number of new people to OSM as mappers and/or
> users. 

Sounds like a win-win situation.


Bye
Frederik

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

I'd agree with Frederik.
Only this morning I was looking at a site for volunteer tree wardens in Surrey, 
England; and at the weekend a friend in our party was visiting what are known 
as veteran trees in Kent.
  
|  
|   |  
STWN
   |  |

  |

 

We already have a fairly extensive set of tags for mapping trees and their 
attributes. In a few places well-attributed tree data has been imported to OSM: 
take a look at Vienna of the London Borough of Southwark as examples for a 
reasonably extended set of tags.
Basically I would look for a minimum of circumference (in UK this is usually 
Breast-height girth BHG or roughly circumference at 1.5 m above ground level), 
species (& if appropriate cultivar). Not strictly necessary but very useful are 
genus (especially if precise species is not known, or for things like flowering 
cherries), leaf_type & leaf_cycle (both make it easier for data consumers & 
editors). Date of planting is very useful but often not readily available.
Now to other things:
   
   - Height. Harder to survey if not specifically equipped for the purpose. 
Obviously useful.
   - Spread. Again a bit harder to survey, although finding the drip line on 
wet days makes it easier. This is less often added to tree data in OSM, but 
there was an interesting HOT project using tree spread to estimate fire risk. I 
have the details somewhere.
   - Condition. I think as long as volunteers are working from a protocol to 
assess tree condition there is no trouble in adding it. If you do have a given 
scale then it may be worth adding the information to the wiki, and then others 
can use it. It may also be useful to use a condition:description tag to add 
additional information (e.g., crown thinning, leaf spot, fungal growth etc).
   - Survey Date (actually should be tagged last_survey_date). Important for 
assessing things like height & condition, but also circumference. The 
professional arboriculturalists woring for my local council seem to get round 
the tree estate every 3 years: adding or updating tags at his frequency on OSM 
is unlikely to cause any issues.
   - Proposed Work. This is the only item raised which does not fit into OSM 
typical tagging approach, but I can see no harm in it.

Lastly & most important from a mapping/tagging perspective:

By all means use OSM but create & maintain your own unique identifiers for the 
trees. OSM identifiers are not guaranteed to be stable, and the nodes may 
accidentally be re-purposed. Current best practice is for trees to be labelled 
with a tag giving the identifier for the tree register ( (See this site for 
examples). Even if a register is only kept in a spreadsheet (which I wouldn't 
recommend as I've accidentally created duplicates when doing it myself) the 
identifiers can be added to OSM as ref tags. 

For actual mapping of trees either use an enhanced version of an existing OSM 
tool (e.g., Vespucci can read xml files designed for josm), or combine 
something more dedicated to capturing tree data with more accurate GPS readings 
(I use ObsMapp & add Garmin waypoint info when recording species detail). To 
date I've found using a mobile phone app GPS a little unreliable when mapping 
trees which are close together, the individual trees are often not positioned 
correctly in relation to adjacent trees. If you have good quality aerial 
imagery (or even better Lidar) then use this as the guide. A tape measure or 
digital measurer, and compass are still useful tools for getting correct 
relationships within a grove of trees.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that this data is useful for many purposes. As an 
enthusiastic amateur entomologist I often want to search out rarer trees to see 
if I can find particular insects. I've written about the possibilities for 
using city tree registers for education here: From Mapping Trees to Tree 
Trails: some thoughts
Best wishes with the project.
Jerry
Coda: I was vaguely aware of OpenTreeMap but they seem to be anything but open 
with a monthly charge of 80 bucks.
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
>From Mapping Trees to Tree Trails: some thoughts
 The other day I engaged in a twitter conversation with Oliver Pescott, a 
biologist at the Centre of Environment ...  |   |

  

[Talk-us] Survey Township Sections

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

A quick question: Are there any guidelines for tagging of public land survey 
township sections?  I found a clear description of mapping civil townships for 
Ohio on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ohio/Boundaries/Townships, 
but have failed to find anything on survey townships and their sections. Jerry___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Peculiar values for natural key in California

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

 I have just been looking through the long tail of natural values and 
natural=K2156 stuck out like a sore thumb. These seem all to be nodes imported 
around 2009 roughly around Salinas : http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/9hM.
I'd appreciate if someone more local could take a look at these and sort them 
out.
Jerry Clough___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode centroids

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

A couple of points:

* Admin. boundaries are not straightforward to verify, but there is 
plenty of 
suitable objective evidence : from Boundary Markers (e.g., 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/502944003), names on rubbish bins, or 
the bin lorries, asset identification numbers on street furniture, asking 
people 
in the street, out-of-copyright documentary evidence, style and appearance of 
street signs (and other street furniture), sticky labels saying report a 
problem, etc. Some areas even have local 'beating the bounds' events. ITO 
Analysis also show how useful boundaries are for analytical questions: not 
every 
interesting boundary will be available in a suitable data-set outwith OSM.
* Postcode centroids are completely artificial, nothing tangible about 
them at 
all. The centroids are copyright to Royal Mail, and require an additional 
attribution statement. As may the data derived from them

* Individually assigned postcodes (whether to a road, an address 
interpolation 
way or an individual house/flat) provide a much richer FREE dataset than that 
offered by the CodePoint Open set of centroids. The range of use cases for such 
a dataset is much larger, and not restricted to just enabling navigation to 
postcode in satnavs. An obvious application is 'PAFing' address lists: 
something 
which for charities and small businesses still costs significant sums of money.
* If you want postcodes in your Garmin it is trivial to build a 
separate 
transparent layer using mkgmap. There is no need to import them into OSM for 
this purpose.
* No one is asking you to add postcodes to 25,000 houses: they are just 
providing tools to assist you if that is what you want to do. Generally, adding 
postcodes is trivial compared with the leg work of collecting house numbers, 
adding buildings and verifying streetnames.
Jerry






From: Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com
To: Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu
Cc: Talk-GB Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Fri, 21 January, 2011 10:02:50
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode centroids

So I should delete the various admin boundaries in the db then as they cannot 
be 
viewed on the ground?

That's great for Nominatim but what if I want to find a postcode on my Garmin?

Kevin





On 21 January 2011 09:58, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:


Because postcode centroids are not real - they don't exist so fail the
ground truth rule.

As I understand things the new version of Nominatim that is coming up
will search the OpenData postcode data (and various other postcode
databases for other countries) directly anyway.

Tom

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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

There are also long sections of the Grantham Canal which are Nature  Reserves: 
there's a fantastic stretch in the Vale of Belvoir with masses  of interesting 
aquatic vegetation and in late May, early June a  remarkable range of 
dragonflies and damselflies. There are some  conflicts in tagging between this 
sort of disused canal and its current  use: although I haven't investigated 
them 
recently. I think the main one  was that a disused canal full of water is very 
different from one which  is dry: but from a naturalists perspective the fact 
that the water body  is a canal rather than catch-all natural=water is 
significant.

There  are several other stretches of disused/abandoned canal also around  
Nottingham, these include: the disused Derby Canal (very apparent at its  W end 
near Swarkestone,  less apparent at its E end near Sandiacre), stretches of the 
Nottingham  Canal (some of which is occupied by the culverted River Leen, and 
lock 6  (I think) is used by NCN 6 to pass under the ring-road), the Nutbush  
Canal, the E end of the Cromford Canal, and some very early canals  serving 
collieries which have completely disappeared. I don't propose to  map any of 
these in the near future, but there is plenty of remaining  infrastructure for 
the observant to find. 


Certainly the Grantham  Canal is a good place to clarify how to tag canals in 
various states of  disuse: potentially to satisfy differing wants of, inter 
alia,  the waterway map completists, waterway restoration types, cyclists,  
walkers, fishermen (not many in OSM I think) and naturalists.

I'd  also second TomH: there are lots of things showing as navigable which  
look 
odd: Cromford Canal from Cromford to Ambergate (now a nature  reserve, and  
possibly an SSSI), the Loddon S of Twyford. The Trent appears to be  
unnavigable 
between Nottingham and Newark. There are several fast  flowing rivers in 
Scotland deemed navigable, like the one to the W of  Loch Tulla. I presume that 
we have a consensus that boat=yes does not  included canoes, paper boats, pooh 
sticks, or even a small rowing boat  or dingy?

Anyway thanks to Chris for persistence in asking the  question, and Graham for 
the visualisation: no doubt a few things will  be fixed soon.

Jerry







From: Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu
To: Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wed, 19 January, 2011 22:27:59
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)


The Grantham canal round here varies in quality from
Being in a pipe under the road for a big stretch
Looking like a normal canal but with all the locks missing/ damaged
Drained of water and full of weeds
Looking like a normal canal but full of algee and other stagnet strenches
Oh, and most paths/roads cross on the level with nothing more than a pipe 
underneath.
The tow paths are generally navigatable by foot, and from plunger ( I think) to 
the trent by bike in all weathers ( if you ignore the a46 Fosseway crossing 
which is closed to allow the construction of a dual carridgeway)
On 19 Jan 2011 21:29, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you all for your comments.


Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks 
altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just 
north 
of Carnforth near Lancaster).  I am not sure I have ever seen a 'disused' 
canal 
- does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable canal?   


I have also prevented locks being shown until you zoom in to zoom level 10. 
 Updated version now rendering at http://maps.webhop.net/canals, using the 
mapnik style http://maps.webhop.net/canals/canal2.xml..


Adding navigable rivers is a good idea, but will take more doing because my 
database does not include the 'boat=' tag - I will have to re-import the whole 
uk, which takes a few hours...


Are there any other waterway specific tags that should be included?


What points of interest should a waterways map highlight - I only have locks 
at 
the moment, because I remember these being the interesting part of canal 
boating, but I can add other things - especially if anyone would like to draw 
an 
icon for it - otherwise we will end up with another one of my dodgy drawings!


Graham.





On 19 January 2011 19:24, Chris Moss mosch...@googlemail.com wrote:

Thanks Graham and Malcolm,

Certainly I can see for the first time where the gaps are in the waterway 
coverage and it encourages me to explore mapnik and see how everything works.

Chris


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



-- 
Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK.

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




  ___
Talk-GB mailing list

Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I note on the Natural England condition statement that they use the  phrase 
Residual Waterway, so perhaps we can make use of something like  
canal=residual. 


Jonathan Briggs did a nice article on the  ecology of the Montgomery Canal in 
British Wildlife a few years ago (BW,  17:401-410, 2006 IIRC).




From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thu, 20 January, 2011 12:21:58
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)


Someoneelse wrote:
 I suspect that you could probably get a larger boat along the top 
 bit (just south of Ambergate) without too many issues, but I think 
 the bottom bit had signs suggesting not to disturb anything.

From WW's most recent article on the Cromford:


And indeed, since 2005 (WW January 2006), FCC do run occasional horse-drawn
boat trips there. (Unpowered boats obviously create less disturbance to
vegetation in the channel - similar reasoning is behind the 2mph limit on a
stretch of the Montgomery IIRC.)

So the correct way to tag the stretch from Ambergate to Cromford would be
something indicating horse-drawn boats yes, powered boats no. I'll leave it
to the wikifiddlers to decide what key/value pair works for that. :)

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943533.html

Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] invisible

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Written last night, so some of this goes over ground already covered. 

At one stage someone was doing a canal  waterway map, but I think those 
involved have other time commitments, like maintaining OSM editors and doing 
the 
default cartography.
Nick Whitelegg has Freemap which is aimed at walking. A number of maps cover 
Europe in the categories you mention, for instance Lonvia's hiking map, Hike 
and 
Bike map, OSMC Reitkarte (riding  hiking, germany  surroundings), OpenBusMap, 
and so on. There are postcode maps, POI overlay tools, etc. as well. Contours 
are not part of OSM for a range of reasons. So virtually all the things you 
would like to see exist, but each is done as a separate project by an 
individual 
or group with a particular interest. So invisible isn't really fair: but I 
would 
accept that these are not immediately obvious.

A lot of these projects share common problems: hosting (costs, access etc), 
maintaining up-to-date data, development work. OpenBusMap for instance has not 
updated for several months for these reasons. The ever increasing volume of 
data 
in OSM doesn't make life easier for people running these projects.

Not to forget that people have jobs, families, holidays, and like to go mapping 
too! Much of the leg-work that does happen tends to go into tools to help 
improve the quality of the data. So the most useful map renders tend to be one 
which help mappers to see things which have been missed, or errors in data 
entry. On the other hand, there is also a tendency for things that get rendered 
to get mapped.

There are also tools like Maperitive  Kosmos which allow rendering on the 
desktop of subsets of data, such as power, public transport etc: the rendering 
rules can be shared. Also the Cloudmade site allows customised rendering.

Of course it would be nice to have dedicated hardware for serving a range of 
UK-based maps, as some of the more tedious aspects of maintaining current data 
could be shared. However, we don't have a UK umbrella organisation for OSM, and 
the folk who might be able to maintain such a server already spend lots of 
their 
free time keeping the worldwide OSM platform going.

Jerry







From: Chris Moss mosch...@googlemail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Mon, 17 January, 2011 23:05:56
Subject: [Talk-GB] invisible

I'm interested in the GB waterways and it seems there's quite a bit of work 
done 
but it's totally invisible. Is anyone working on a layer like the cycle map, 
which leaps out from the overlays as the only minority interest yet developed?

It's not the only layer I'd like to see. What about walking paths, railways, 
contours,  points of interest, postcode areas, administrative boundaries, 
constituencies, bus routes, etc., etc.

Shouldn't maps allow you to concentrate on whatever you're interested in? Can 
someone please explain to me how or if this can be done with openstreetmap?

Chris

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



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

Re: [Talk-ht] Haiti AllInOne-Ht Garmin maps not available

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

They are here 
ftp://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/misc/openstreetmap/download.openstreetmap.de/aio/regions/haiti/


Direct reference from the All-in-One wikipage: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/All_in_one_Garmin_Map

Jerry Clough
SK53





From: Pierre Beland infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr
To: talk-ht@openstreetmap.org talk-ht@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wed, 10 November, 2010 19:59:23
Subject: [Talk-ht] Haiti AllInOne-Ht Garmin maps not available

 
 
I tried to download OSM  Garmin GPS files for Haiti (files listed below) and 
realized that they are not  available now.
The  hyperlinks are on Haiti Wiki page 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/All_in_one_Garmin_Map#Haiti.  Absents also 
from  
ftp://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/misc/openstreetmap/download.openstreetmap.de/aio/regions/haiti/
  .
 
* http://dev.openstreetmap.de/aio/regions/haiti/gmapsupp.img 
* 
http://dev.openstreetmap.de/aio/regions/haiti/OSM-AllInOne-HT-basemap.exe
* 
http://dev.openstreetmap.de/aio/regions/haiti/OSM-AllInOne-HT-damage.exe 
* 
http://dev.openstreetmap.de/aio/regions/haiti/OSM-AllInOne-HT-contourlines.exe
* http://dev.openstreetmap.de/aio/regions/haiti/contourlines.img.gz
 
Pierre


  ___
Talk-ht mailing list
Talk-ht@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ht

Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Derbyshire area unconnected

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I think the following thread might be of interest:

http://www.mail-archive.com/t...@openstreetmap.org/msg10077.html

Try pressing 'u' in Potlatch edit view : http://osm.org/go/eu2Tbe8i.







From: Ian Spencer ianmspen...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sat, 21 August, 2010 18:07:46
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Fw:  Derbyshire area unconnected

Dave F. wrote on 21/08/2010 13:29: 
 On 21/08/2010 07:42, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: 
Sorry not to list.



- Forwarded Message 
From: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk
To: Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk
Sent: Sat, 21 August, 2010 7:42:00
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Derbyshire area unconnected


http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=14lat=52.95432lon=-1.84354layers=B00Tdb=osm_EUch=0%2C50%2C231%2C232show_ign=1show_tmpign=1


seems to be one example
User darren39 appears to be responsible. Has anyone contacted him   before? 
Because as of this morning he appears to still be creating   unjoined ways:

http://osm.org/go/eu2C81oJu--

He's been mapping on OSM for almost two years so it's a bit   disappointing 
he's not learnt the correct way.

Cheers
Dave F.



I've done a friendly message to him, telling him why it is useful to me 
with 
my Garmin Satnav and also pointing him to the keepright site (with a 
relevant reference this time!).

Spenny



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

[Talk-GB] Fw: Derbyshire area unconnected

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Sorry not to list.



- Forwarded Message 
From: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk
To: Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk
Sent: Sat, 21 August, 2010 7:42:00
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Derbyshire area unconnected


http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=14lat=52.95432lon=-1.84354layers=B00Tdb=osm_EUch=0%2C50%2C231%2C232show_ign=1show_tmpign=1


seems to be one example





From: Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk
To: Ian Spencer ianmspen...@gmail.com
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sat, 21 August, 2010 1:05:07
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Derbyshire area unconnected

Hi,

I have come across a few mappers in the past who have put in a huge amount of 
effort to map their town, but were not aware of the connectivity or the  
importance of. When I have explained it to them and shown them some routing 
service that they hadn't come across before, they are generally happy to learn 
from their mistake, especially if you give some help with the editor and be 
very 
specific about how to make the adjustments. Maybe there is a specific tutorial 
or video that can now be linked to.

I think your link is to the wrong location.

Shaun


On 20 Aug 2010, at 23:57, Ian Spencer wrote:

I was checking why a bike route from near Derby to Alton Towers was really 
badly out and discovered that whoever has been mapping an area around 
Derbyshire has been cunningly disguising their ability to connect ways 
together. I've not come across such a consistently bad area before (naive I 
know).

http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=14lat=48.20808lon=16.37221

Might give you an idea of the scale of the issue. While normally a local 
survey would be suggested, there are no sources quoted on the ways 
typically, and a very high number of ways simply do not join although 
keepright spots that they are very close. 


Anyone fancy checking through the area using an appropriate resource (he 
says, reluctant to suggest Open Street View for those who are OSV 
sensitive!). I've made a start.

Spenny

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



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

[Talk-GB] Marine Conservation Zone Project: Interactive Map and OSM Boundaries

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Just followed a link from Mapperz to the MCZ Interactive Project and found this 
little snippet on the FAQ:

The OpenStreetMap background mapping used by the interactive map has some 
legal  
boundaries built in (pale purple lines). These have some small discrepancies 
compared  to the official boundary and 
shouldn't be used to locate yourself. We are trying 
 
to get the OpenStreetMap boundaries amended as soon as possible.

I wondered if anyone was aware of how this process is occurring? Given that MCZ 
has DEFRA, JNCC, and Natural England as stakeholders, does this presage 
official 
interest in having accurate boundaries in OSM?

Jerry



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

[Talk-GB] Fw: Tagging roadside verge SSSIs

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Sorry, not sent to list.



- Forwarded Message 
From: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk
To: Glenn Proctor gl...@docproc.com
Sent: Tue, 20 July, 2010 12:41:59
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging roadside verge SSSIs


Verge side nature reserves are not uncommon: 
http://www.lifeontheverge.org.uk/naturalarea.php

In most cases they protect flowers, usually orchids, which have been eliminated 
from adjoining fields by use of fertiliser or artificial drainage. I know of 
one 
in Nottinghamshire where the council received some 200+ complaints when it was 
mown before the Bee Orchids had set seed.

Jerry





From: Glenn Proctor gl...@docproc.com
To: Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk
Cc: OSM Talk-GB Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tue, 20 July, 2010 9:10:54
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging roadside verge SSSIs

It's definitely the verge - there are orchids (according to my wife)
growing there. The other side ofnthe hedge is just an arable field.
The SSSI sign specifically refers to the verge as well.

Glenn.

On Tuesday, July 20, 2010, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
 Dave F wrote:

 Are you sure it's referring just to the verge  not stretching
 further
 away from the road (into fields/woods ?)

 Near here we have verges between  pavement and adjacent landuse
 (often fields) which are overgrown with signs at either end (with
 arrows) and sometimes in the middle denoting them as nature reserves
 (the sceptic in me read this as cost saving no mowing area), so
 I'd think it quite possible that there is a verge that is denoted as
 SSSI if something of interest has been noted growing there.

 Ed



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] “Correcting” existing data wi th OS Opendata

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

This was me, but I know that Paul Sladen, Simon Halsey, and probably others, 
were also affected.

Has anyone has sent the offending user a message? 

He/she is a relative newcomer, and has edited in Trowbridge as well as 
Carlton/Gedling. They have also edited in Germany, but no indication of traces 
or on-the-ground surveys. Some of my GPS ways unfortunately also had 
fixme=location approximate, which was probably as a result of over use of 
copying tags from one way to another. This may have invited editing, but other 
'corrections' have been made so that now many streets are slightly misaligned 
from GPS traces.

I, and I would guess other active contributors around Nottingham, have been 
avoiding using StreetView and Locator other than to add names on stuff mapped 
from aerial images. In particular the Carlton/Gedling area is one which my 
personal preference was to leave the current status as is until ground 
surveys 
were done. Obviously other contributors have different preferences, 
time-scales, 
needs etc., so I recognise that this might not be possible. I would hope 
thought 
that some contact with active local mappers would be made before bulk in-fill 
with StreetView or similar sources, particularly as it cannot have escaped 
their 
attention that this was possible.

Last Summer I mapped a tiny part of Middlesbrough over 2.5 hours. When 
StreetView became available an area about 25 times larger was mapped in a 
similar timescale. The 'productivity' difference is so huge that a single 
armchair mapper can swamp contributions from people doing ground survey. On the 
other hand, places like Oldham, Rochdale, Darlington, Middlesbrough are now so 
much more usable in OSM. 


So we still have the trade-off between usability of the map data, contributor 
'happiness', mapping from an armchair versus on-the-ground. The use of 
StreetView exemplifies all these issues.

Jerry





From: Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sun, 18 July, 2010 13:54:30
Subject: [Talk-GB] “Correcting” existing data with OS Opendata

I just added a comment to the talk page about OS Opendata[1]:  It seems
that some people have been using OS Opendata to “correct” existing data,
moving ways to match OS Opendata, and in some cases removing attributes
(such as surface=paved).

Please, please, please, pretty please don’t just assume your data is
better than the existing data, especially if yours is derived from
another source and the existing data is from a ground survey.

[1]: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Modifying_Existing_Data


Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall



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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I like the idea for a project of the week using OS OpenData StreetView, but 
would suggest that before we  add lots of new roads we work hard to get roads 
which are already in OSM properly named. Firstly it is improving data which is 
already there, secondly it using a second, independent, data source. Not a 
patch on ground survey, but at least it means that editors of the data have to 
engage with the data sources and their discrepancies. I would not be happy at 
OSM becoming a largely a subset of Ordnance Survey data without more thought 
(but also see below).

As for the status of noname roads, I have named perhaps 2000 or so in West 
London and Merseyside in the past few weeks. There are still substantial parts 
of the South East and North West with many unnamed roads. I have not estimated 
the number, but its still in the thousands. Unfortunately the noname map layer 
on the website has not been updated (along with other Cloudmade maps), so I'd 
suggest using beta.letuffe.org which has a noname overlay (link is to Wigan 
area).

It is important not to forget that a mass import of the VectorMap District 
roads named from Locator will become possible within the next six months. I'm 
sure several people are looking at a) how to accurately name the VMD roads from 
Locator ; and b) how to find only those roads which are not already in OSM 
(e.g., by using the techniques of the French CORINE project). Once viable 
technical solutions to these issues are available we will be able to import ALL 
the missing roads SHOULD we wish to. Manual tracing of StreetView data should 
be considered in this context.

Personally, I don't think mass imports of VectorMap District road data should 
be 
contemplated, at least for 6 months or so, for all the usual reasons (Pottery, 
Imports and the Community). However, availability outwith the planet database 
of those roads in 
VectorMap District and not in OSM could be used to enhance downstream 
applications, such as Garmin extracts, and specific map renders. In other words 
we should be able to generate GB road-complete products without risking some of 
the known effects on community building of armchair mapping. 

I think there is plenty of scope to think of other 'added-value' projects with 
the StreetView data, these are some off the top of my head:

* Getting all schools in to coincide with publication of league tables 
(its another data source to cross-check)
* Mapping all professional football grounds (see for instance Blundell 
Park)
* Ditto for other sports (e.g., crags used for climbing, horse 
racecourses, ...).
* Mapping landuse=residential for areas without streets (shapes can be 
used as a guide to poorly mapped areas)
* Get all churches tagged with man_made=tower or man_made=spire if 
applicable so that we can do OSGB like renders 
* Get all bridges tagged and marked for major waterways. Bridges across 
large rivers are surprisingly poorly mapped. It ought to be possible to 
identify these and make our existing data better.
* Replace larger expanses of water mapped from NPE or Yahoo with OSSV 
or OS VDM.I hope these thoughts are not too controversial. I must add that I am 
not a zealot for the no import cause, but I do recognise that there is a 
reasonable case for it.

Regards,

Jerry Clough





From: Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sun, 6 June, 2010 12:07:33
Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

Hello everyone,

I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK 
for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so 
far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView.

Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be road 
complete by the end of the year, the UK is still a far distance off 
of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the 
order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM 
comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a 
small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be.

So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small 
random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from 
StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small 
village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad 
and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big 
step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to 
continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other 
commercial map provider.

(If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email)

I know that many people are opposed to armchair mapping or imports 
(and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing 
instead) and so I'd like to counter some 

Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I prefer the elephant contour line on a map of Ghana (in Gold Coast days), 
which I remember seeing at a British Library exhibition many years ago. I think 
it featured in QI at some stage, but cant find an image on the web.





From: Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk
To: SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Fri, 4 June, 2010 8:47:59
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

  
SomeoneElse wrote:
 
 The recent radio 4 map series mentioned that
BILL was drawn
 into the
 cliffs on the south of the Isle of Wight (it's
southeast of
 Blackgang
 Chine; due west of Niton if you're interested). 
It's been
 there a few
 years and is not particularly subtle.
 
Thanks for that:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=448572y=76655z=120searchp=ids.srfmapp=map.srf
 
Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg)

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Hi Tim,

Yes there is, at least with the version of GDAL I use. Chillly has written 
about this on his blog, and the changes needed (adding Helmert transformations 
- -sound fancy doesn't it) to the standard projection are noted in previous 
messages here in talk-gb.

I think the divergence is much greater on the E of the country: probably why 
Chilly and I worried most about it. Even with these the accuracy compared with 
the OSGB02 will be upto 5 metres out. See OS Coordinate Systems Guide.

Jerry

PS. StreetView and OSM seem to match up quite well for Nottingham. I've just 
rendered a set of tiles in OSGB36 of the same scale and boundaries as 
StreetView which at least removes some of the projection transformation 
artefacts.






From: Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org; Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net
Sent: Sun, 30 May, 2010 12:16:33
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with 
mapseg)


By the way, which method are people using to re-project the VectorDistrict 
data? I'm using the inbuilt datum in gdal - is anyone using the correct *.prj 
file, and is there a difference?

Tim

--- On Sun, 30/5/10, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:


From: Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with 
mapseg)
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Date: Sunday, 30 May, 2010, 11:53


I believe the StreetView tiles are offset south(ish) by a few metres in 
East Yorkshire too. Reprojected shape files line up well with surveyed 
data. I have traced a few buildings from StreetView but I've stopped 
until I had worked out what was
 wrong. Now given other people's comments 
I do think there may be some discrepancy.

Would a few carefully surveyed road junctions with many GPS traces to 
work from help to identify any discrepancy? Or is there a better way?

Cheers, Chris

Kevin Peat wrote:
 I'm in Devon and I see the same thing although whether it is just the 
 SW I don't know. 

 The Streetview tiles (as I see them in JOSM) are all offset to the SE 
 by 5-10 metres. I've converted some woods in my area from the 
 VectorDistrict data using this process,

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles

 and the converted data looks good to me compared to my previous 
 surveys but comes out different to the tiles, so I'm thinking that the 
 tiles are
 wrong.

 Kevin




 On 30 May 2010 09:08, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk 
 mailto:sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

  On a side note, has anybody noticed a consistent tendency
  for existing
  independently surveyed roads to be offset northwards (by
  around 5-10
  metres) from the OS data (vectormap and streetview)? I've
  seen various
  cases of existing roads being edited to be consistent with
  OS data,
 
 but I'm not convinced this is a good idea since the problem
  seems to
  be consistent in one direction.

 Glad I'm not the only one. Here in the SW I see the same offsets,
 although I find the VectorDistrict data to be more like the GPS
 surveyed data. This means that the StreetView tiles do not match
 up with the VectorDistrict either: I've been importing some rivers
 and reservoirs from the VectorDistrict data (namely the River Chew
 and Chew Valley Lake) and I've found that the polygons seem to be
 shifted compared to the equivalent positions in StreetView by
 about 10 metres.

 
I guess this is an expected artifact of the reprojection methods?

 Tim




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


 

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


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Potlatch's b option will place source=OS OpenData StreetView (note no 
underscores) if you have OS SV in the background. I use this as I prefer 1 
keystroke to 20 or so.





From: TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Fri, 28 May, 2010 10:57:25
Subject: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code

Ah yes, the recommended tag is good. I didn't notice one had been chosen 
(but it is a bit long for my taste). So use 
source=OS_OpenData_StreetView for verified buildings. And I will 
probably change to source=Auto_OS_OpenData_StreetView for automatic 
tracing in the code.

TimSC


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Ask Richard F!





From: Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org; Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Fri, 28 May, 2010 11:20:10
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code


...any reason why no underscores with Potlatch?

--- On Fri, 28/5/10, Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


From: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Date: Friday, 28 May, 2010, 11:15


Potlatch's b option will place source=OS OpenData StreetView (note no 
underscores) if you have OS SV in the background. I use this as I prefer 1 
keystroke to 20 or so.





From: TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Fri, 28 May, 2010 10:57:25
Subject: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code

Ah yes, the recommended tag is
 good. I didn't notice one had been chosen 
(but it is a bit long for my taste). So use 
source=OS_OpenData_StreetView for verified buildings. And I will 
probably change to source=Auto_OS_OpenData_StreetView for automatic 
tracing in the code.

TimSC


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


-Inline Attachment Follows-


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

An interesting set of points. I've been puzzling over three particular cases 
related to this. In each case I'm aware that the tagging is incomplete:

1. The Park Estate in Nottingham. This is emphatically a private estate, with, 
these days, electronically controlled bollards gates etc for motor access. The 
private maintenance extends to retaining gas lighting and it doesn't even 
appear in the OS meridian road dataset. However, there has never been any 
objection to people walking through the area. On the other hand it is not at 
all clear that there are any public rights of way, other than one which the 
council is currently in the process of designating. Although I am not sure that 
permissive is strictly accurate for walkers and cyclists, this is probably the 
best match, unless we have access=tolerated. 

2. Hospital, University campus area etc. Not at all sure about the status of 
roads and footpaths in these: other than I assume that they are owned and 
maintained by the hospital or university. Again motor access may be controlled 
or there may be gates giving this possibility, but foot and cycle traffic are 
generally universally tolerated.

3. Unadopted roads. I currently ignore these, but would like some means of 
recording them. Whereas if the road has a private sign I will usually set 
access=private. 

In the first two cases around Nottingham,  roads have been tagged 
highway=tertiary. This is, to my mind wrong, particularly as such roads are 
often heavily traffic calmed. 

I also probably tend to use access=private in a fairly English way, meaning 
that if you're told to leave you have to go, rather than access is impossible.

In conclusion I'd like to iron out some of the nuances of the access tags.

Cheers,

Jerry Clough
SK53








From: Ian Spencer ianmspen...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wed, 26 May, 2010 12:12:05
Subject: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are 
publicly accessible

Hi

I noticed that a local road which is private is designated as 
access::private on OSM. My reading of that tag is that it implies users 
need permission to use the road. However, in common with many private 
roads, it is in private maintenance, but it is public access - they have 
never tried to restrict public access, nor is the private sign 
anything other than a statement that the road is private, it does not 
say, for example :Private, no entry. As far as any user is concerned, 
they can treat it as a normal road.

I suppose the appropriate thing is to change access yes (or whatever the 
normal state is), and then add a note to ensure it is not re-instated. 
Does that sound right?

Spenny

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

The current issue with the Park Estate is about pedestrian access. The position 
with cars has always been clearly stated. Recently Nottingham City Council has 
started the process of designating public rights of way (the former County 
Boroughs had derogation from the original PRoW recording). It all looks pretty 
complicated, from the minutes of the Nottingham Local Access Forum:



The Nottingham Park Estate Ltd has served notice on Nottingham City Council 
under section 14(2)(a) of the Nottingham Park Estate Act 1990 to restrict 
public access along the footpath known as Park Road / Lenton Road between the 
hours of 23.00 hrs and 05.00hrs. This route is also subject to an opposed 
modification order published in January 2009 under the Wildlife and Countryside 
Act 1981. Nottingham City Council believes it is a right of way. Debate 
surrounds which Act of Parliament may take precedence; Nottingham Park Estate 
Act 1990 or the Highways Act 1980. Most likely this case will need to be 
resolved at the High Court following the initial decision on the opposed order 
by the Planning Inspectorate. Agreed that Forum should make formal objection.

More information on Robert Howard's blog.

Seems I'm not the only one confused by access status here. ;-)





From: Ian Spencer ianmspen...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wed, 26 May, 2010 17:43:50
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are 
publicly accessible

Jerry Clough - OSM wrote on 26/05/2010 16:21:
 An interesting set of points. I've been puzzling over three particular 
 cases related to this. In each case I'm aware that the tagging is 
 incomplete:

lots snipped


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator / OSM correspondence list generation

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Further playing around with the first set of data (PostGIS learning improving):

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SK53/Missing_Names_by_District
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SK53/Missing_Nottingham_Names (big, but 
using PostGIS allocated to cake slices)

Jerry





From: Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thu, 13 May, 2010 21:53:40
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator / OSM correspondence list generation

On Thursday 13 May 2010, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
 Thanks very much for this Robert. 
 
 I'd made a start trying to do this myself, but had a steep learning curve 
 with PostGIS. My main suggestions (which will make the file bigger) are: a) 
 retain the original centroid values (these are near as dammit a primary key);

Mmm - I think line numbers are fine for now - the issue comes when (if) OS 
release the next OS Locator and we need to track differences. In this 
situation, tiny changes in the centroid would change the primary key anyway.

 and b) keep one or more of the district authority columns. In particular the 
 latter will make it very much easier to filter for people interested in a 
 particular district, rather than having to fiddle with bounding boxes. 

I was intending this to be used alongside the original OS Locator file - in 
fact I was going to just put the two id columns and an ldist column and let 
people do the join themselves.

I've got another file baking at the moment with a newer planet and slightly 
stricter normalization.


robert.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ward Boundaries

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

AFAIK ward boundaries have been done in two places:

Ipswich by Peter Miller pre OS data availability (e.g., 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/164654)
Broxtowe by will in the last few weeks importing OS Boundary Line data. In 
the latter case data were imported and merged with existing OSM ways. I dont 
know how this was done, but I imagine it was a manual process. (e.g., 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/545299)

Both started with ways tagged as boundary=administrative admin_level=10, but I 
changed at least some of the Broxtowe ones to boundary=political as I know of 
at least some ward boundaries which are NOT contiguous with Civil Parish 
boundaries.

I would strongly advise using relations enabling ways which make up boundaries 
to be shared. This also obviates the old tag:left, tag:right procedure. Where 
ward boundaries make use of roads etc, we should replace any OS sourced way 
with the relevant way(s) from OSM. Having access to textual descriptions of the 
boundaries is of course really helpful. Equally many ward boundaries will need 
to make use of existing OSM boundary ways (Civil Parish, District etc), some of 
which may be of poor quality having been based on NPE as the best available 
non-copyright data source.

I would think a district is about the right size unit of work, any larger and 
merging with existing ways will be tedious, any smaller and the work will 
increase hugely with each additional boundary added. The 3000 US counties have 
not been sorted out at all yet, and I think there are more than 14000 civil 
parishes and easily 3000+ ward boundaries for GB. EdLoach (mainly), myself and 
others spent a lot of time sorting out some 200 odd boundaries in Haiti where a 
crude import was necessary to assist with geolocation of places in the 
countryside: it did teach us that starting with boundaries as individual 
polygons (whether drawn or imported) just makes for more work.

Advice from someone in the know as to how wards are regarded within councils 
may help in deciding the appropriate tagging.

Hope these notes are of some use.

Cheers,

Jerry





From: James Rutter jrrut...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tue, 4 May, 2010 17:34:46
Subject: [Talk-GB] Ward Boundaries

...been tidying up the Surrey Heath district boundary now that we can do what 
we want with Boundaryline. Anyone got any advice for ward boundaries...can't 
find much at all on the wiki? What's the admin_level for ward or has it not 
been defined yet? What's the deal with the left and right tags I'm 
seeing...does this mean linework is 'handed' and if so how do we know which way 
round the lines aredoes a tag like left:ward=Chobham do anything...will it 
render??

James


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey County Air Survey

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Apologies, again, for top-posting.

I'd echo Wilf's comments. There is a huge amount of detail which can be added 
without worrying over much about the precision of the alignment. It's possible 
to identify pedestrian crossings, traffic lit junctions, one-way signs on roads 
( in car parks) etc., etc. I was even able to check that the road I used to 
live on does indeed now have a paved surface: the Yahoo images just weren't 
clear enough.

My one plea is for more assiduous use of the source tag. Surrey now has some of 
the densest mapping created over several OSM eras, and now has probably the 
richest source of imagery (Yahoo, this, OS StreetView, NPE, some Provisional 
edition maps...) anywhere. Its hard to make even minor changes when detective 
work is required to know the derivation of existing map elements.

Jerry





From: Graeme Wilford gwilf...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sun, 2 May, 2010 16:27:39
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey County Air Survey


On 1 May 2010 17:47, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: 

[...]
 
The imagery is fantastic. I've already been able to draw some complex
road junctions far better than I could with traces alone. You and all
the other people who have made this available have done an amazing job,
and it will put OSM data in Surrey level with, and in some places ahead
of Ordnance Survey. Let's just not pretend that it's impossible for
there to be positional errors in it.

This does look a good source and I've been using it to tidy up and add detail 
to many of my previous edits.  Anyone know it's vintage? Looks to me like it's 
a couple years old; sometime mid 2008?

Cheers,
Wilf.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes to Shapefile

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

GRASS seems to have some kind of Voronoi algorithm, but I find its interface 
very non-intuitive, so have not found it to try it out. This may be worth 
pursuing as an alternative route.

As an aside: I notice that virtually all postcode boundaries are obviously 
created in this way. For instance the Philips Street Atlas shows totally 
implausible boundaries along the River Trent in S. Notts. Given that postcode 
boundaries are ultimately determined by logistically sensible walks for 
postmen, in this case it's pretty safe to assume that the boundary is actually 
the river. What this means is that by applying a bit of local knowledge and the 
existing points it is possible to create better delineating zones in OSM than 
appear in current mapping. Whether this is a good thing to do, or not, I leave 
for others to decide.





From: Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu
To: OSM - Talk GB talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Mon, 26 April, 2010 12:24:26
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes to Shapefile


On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote:

I am currently trying to create a series of shapefiles from postcodes (using 
OS Open Geo Data) using the code from Random Junk 
(http://random.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodes/#) running on Ubuntu 9.10 but I 
can't get it working.

lots of blah blah about what I did...


Think i've sussed most of it...

I zapped my pyshapelib folder and downloaded both it and shapelib again

With the shapelib and pyshapelib tar gzs inside my osm folder I then 
issued the following commands

tar -xvzf shapelib-1.2.10.tar.gz
mv shapelib-1.2.10 shapelib
tar -xvzf pyshapelib-0.3.tar.gz
mv pyshapelib-0.3 shapelib/pyshapelib/
cd shapelib
make
cd pyshapelib
python setup.py build
sudo python setup.py install
cd ../../
# The next line is really important if you want python to think this folder has 
python scripts
touch shapelib/__init__.py
cp shapelib/pyshapelib/* shapelib/

This seamed to get over the original problem

Then you need to ensure you input file has no trailing lines

And now to work out why I'm getting

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File makeShapeColoured.py, line 349, in module
result = voronoi.computeVoronoiDiagram(pts)
  File /home/kev/osm/voronoi.py, line 746, in computeVoronoiDiagram
voronoi(siteList,context)
  File /home/kev/osm/voronoi.py, line 206, in voronoi
edge = Edge.bisect(bot,newsite)
  File /home/kev/osm/voronoi.py, line 404, in bisect
newedge.a = dx/dy
ZeroDivisionError: float division 


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Boundaries

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Apologies for top posting.

I've been experimenting with the
Civil Parish boundaries with QGIS and ogr2osm.py (modified to keep ways
below 500 nodes). QGIS seems rather temperamental about reprojecting
shape files: there are a huge number of settings which seem to affect
the base projection. However, I have managed to use QGIS to select
sub-sets of civil parishes and save them using the same projection as
the source data. These smaller data sets are much easier to use for
testing. 

The standard projection information for the OSGB shape files is contained in 
.prj and is in Well-known Text format. However, it lacks the Helmert data 
transformation parameters recommended by the OS at 
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/gps/information/coordinatesystemsinfo/guidecontents/guide6.html.
Editing the .prj file to add these (see the example on the wikipedia
link, but the parameters given there are incorrect), makes a big
difference to the .OSM output. Note these parameters still only give an
accuracy in the order of 5m, but they do seem to allow GDAL-based
utilities to be used.

Here's the format used, the addition being the TOWGS84 section:

PROJCS[British
National Grid (ORD SURV GB), GEOGCS[unnamed, DATUM[D_OSGB_1936,
SPHEROID[Airy - 1848,6377563,299.319997677743],
TOWGS84[446.448,-125.157,542.060,0.1502,0.2470,0.8421,-20.4894]],
PRIMEM[Greenwich,0],UNIT[degree,0.0174532925199433]],
PROJECTION[Transverse_Mercator], PARAMETER[latitude_of_origin,49], 
PARAMETER[central_meridian,-2],
PARAMETER[scale_factor,0.9996012717], 
PARAMETER[false_easting,40], PARAMETER[false_northing,-10],
UNIT[METER,1]]

Jerry





From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tue, 20 April, 2010 10:33:51
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Boundaries

Andrew Chadwick wrote:

 I've had a degree of success with
 http://search.cpan.org/~toby/Geo-Coordinates-OSGB-2.04/ - I've used  
 these packages in the past for rectification of OOC OS stuff and  
 conversion of many-figure OS grid refs with a good degree of success.

Chris knows this already (because we talked about it on IRC last  
night) but Matthew Somerville's proviso at  
http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=182cpage=1#comment-971 is worth  
taking into account.

cheers
Richard


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Garmin maps no larger than 24MB

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I have an etrex Summit HC (i.e., with no external card, and (in practice 22Mb 
internal storage). I load relevant tiles from the set of .IMG tiles hosted by 
the SMC (http://www.smc.org.uk/ContourMaps.php). I use MapSource for selecting 
and loading relevant tiles.

There are several pre-built sets of tiles small enough for the 24 Mb limit, 
although the compressed MapSource distribution of Computerteddy seems to be 
stuck at April 2009. See the wiki page on 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Download. for what is 
available. Tiles in the range of 1-3 Mb offer the best flexibility, larger tile 
sizes always seem to leave one on the edge of the map!

At any one time I usually have 4 SMC contour tiles, a reasonable area of OSM 
mapping around where I'm located, and several transparent overlays of OSM 
features which I am surveying (e.g., NaPTAN bus stops, noname streets) loaded 
on the Garmin.

HTH,

Jerry Clough
SK53
.






From: Russ Phillips r...@phillipsuk.org
To: OSM Talk-GB Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wed, 30 December, 2009 13:51:04
Subject: [Talk-GB] Garmin maps no larger than 24MB

My father-in-law has a Garmin eTrex Legend C, and we'd like to put some
OSM maps on it for use when walking up hills in Scotland and the Lake
District. As he's a hillwalker, contours are important, but it only has
24MB of storage.

All the UK maps with contours are far too big to fit. Does anyone know
of anywhere that I can get maps of regions, that would be small enough
to fit?

Russ



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



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

[Talk-transit] Hail-and-ride sections in NaPTAN

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

It was recently pointed out on the IRC channel by gravitystorm that there were 
large numbers of clustered bus stops on Chartfield Avenue, Putney, here. A 
quick inspection of a TfL area map of Putney shows these to be hail-and-ride 
sections on route 424, but there is nothing in the stop data to make this clear.

Jerry



  ___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN case study

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I will not be adding route_ref tags, all route information is going on 
relations.

One aspect of NaPTAN which I have not investigated in any detail are Stop 
Place. I was hoping that we would have visualisation of the relations in 
OePNV-Karte but it does not parse the NaPTAN data. My impression is that many 
of these are peculiar in Nottingham: for instance the Nottingham Road / Vernon 
Road stop place includes two tram stops 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/258878); and Nottingham Road / 
Haydn Road extends for around  1500 metres 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/258691), with one stop in the 
group being a kilometre away from where I (as a bus user) would assume the stop 
place to be (i.e., by The Potters House church).

Jerry





From: Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk
To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics 
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, 22 October, 2009 15:38:27
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN case study

 I forgot to add: I agree with Peter, please drop the route_ref
 tag as a
 requirement for completed stops.  Most of the stops in Hull
 have no
 route info on the stop signs.

And in Clacton some signs do (in which case I add the tag) and some
don't. Those that do might not have kept up with changing routes
however so may be wrong. Adding routes is something I'll be doing at
some point, but won't be relying on the route numbers on the signs.
I did drive along behind the 137 one morning until it took a bus
only road...

Ed



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit



  ___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN case study

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I'd completely forgotten that tram stops were imported, because they were 
stored as bus stops in NaPTAN: this is a significant data issue with Nottingham 
data (3% of data).

I think I've failed to make clear that these examples were of defined stop 
places which appear to me to be far too diffuse to have any coherence either 
for transport planners or transport users. However, I don't know enough about 
NaPTAN rules to be sure of this. I also don't know if anyone else has looked at 
stop places in the data which has been imported.

Jerry





From: Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com
To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics 
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, 22 October, 2009 17:23:08
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN case study

The tram stops should not have been imported as bus stops, this
appears to be an error in the Nottingham data - they're identifying
them as bus stops for some unknown reason. But, I think we've covered
it in the past.

Stop places will eventually be expanded to include inter-modal groups,
I've not yet worked with the applicable datasets though.

2009/10/22 Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk:
 I will not be adding route_ref tags, all route information is going on
 relations.

 One aspect of NaPTAN which I have not investigated in any detail are Stop
 Place. I was hoping that we would have visualisation of the relations in
 OePNV-Karte but it does not parse the NaPTAN data. My impression is that
 many of these are peculiar in Nottingham: for instance the Nottingham Road /
 Vernon Road stop place includes two tram stops
 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/258878); and Nottingham Road /
 Haydn Road extends for around  1500 metres
 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/258691), with one stop in the
 group being a kilometre away from where I (as a bus user) would assume the
 stop place to be (i.e., by The Potters House church).

 Jerry

 
 From: Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk
 To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
 talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
 Sent: Thursday, 22 October, 2009 15:38:27
 Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN case study

 I forgot to add: I agree with Peter, please drop the route_ref
 tag as a
 requirement for completed stops.  Most of the stops in Hull
 have no
 route info on the stop signs.

 And in Clacton some signs do (in which case I add the tag) and some
 don't. Those that do might not have kept up with changing routes
 however so may be wrong. Adding routes is something I'll be doing at
 some point, but won't be relying on the route numbers on the signs.
 I did drive along behind the 137 one morning until it took a bus
 only road...

 Ed



 ___
 Talk-transit mailing list
 Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit


 ___
 Talk-transit mailing list
 Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit





-- 
Regards,
Thomas Wood
(Edgemaster)

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit



  ___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-GB] OS 7th series, accuracy update, request for calibration help

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I wouldn't be surprised if Kintyre other than NR71  NR72 (Campbeltown) is 
derived from much earlier mapping. Those two octads are the only ones published 
for Kintyre in the 25k provisional/first series. Certainly for other parts of 
highland Scotland serious errors existed until the 50k 2nd series (one reason 
why this appeared for the Highlands first). If I'm right there may also be 
errors on Arran, which also only had 2 10km squares published. On the other 
hand, Arran may have been much better surveyed in the 19th century because of 
its geological interest.

Jerry Clough
SK53





From: TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, 18 October, 2009 16:11:08
Subject: [Talk-GB] OS 7th series, accuracy update, request for calibration help

Hi all,

I have updated the 7th series layer with improved accuracy. It seems as 
if the Helmert approximation of the OS grid reference to WGS84 was not 
accurate enough; I was getting transform errors of approximately 20m. 
Also, to my surprise the next biggest error seems to be surveying 
errors. For example, see around the Mull of Kintyre where the survey 
errors are around 40m (near NR730100).

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=55.3339lon=-5.5737zoom=14layers=B000FTF

..snip

Tim


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


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-transit] NaPTAN in Nottingham Notts: early use of the data

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I've now had a few days to contemplate the Nottingham  Notts NaPTAN data, so I 
thought I'd write 
quick summary of what I've been doing. Feedback and suggestions all most 
welcome.

* Use the data to name noname roads. I managed to resolve quite a 
number of unnamed road issues thanks to the detail in the data. Using ITO's OSM 
Mapper I've saved an image of the changes made based on this information: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Nottingham_NaPTAN_derived_road_names.jpg
* Add major missing roads. Alignment of bus-stops have also allowed a 
much smaller number of roads to be added. Being able to add these roads, which 
of course will all need surveying, makes planning future surveys using only OSM 
sourced data much easier. I use main roads for survey area boundaries, but they 
are also very useful for estimating survey complexity (which even OSGB 1:25000 
aren't much use).
* I've merged very few bus stops as yet, just a few which I've happened 
to pass. Overall impression is that the stops in the city of Nottingham are 
accurately located. Some of the differences may be between boarding point and 
the flag location (I always try and take this). All stops which I encounter 
which are not already on OSM, where my GPS reading is close will just be tagged 
as verified, and source=naptan_import;survey. 

* Details like indicator  shelter will not always be available 
immediately a bus stop is verified. Today I passed a whole slew which I 
waypointed, but I'd run out of convenient bits of paper and space on the 
dictaphone. I'd rather revisit these than try and guess which had 
shelters/indicators.
* Quite a few stops don't have indicators, but the infrastructure is 
being installed. I propose to tag these electronic_indicator=installation.
* One stop does not appear to exist on the ground: Charlbury Road ( 
http://osm.org/go/eu8ZC@@J9-- ). A bus does seem to run along this road, but I 
suspect it is a hail-and-ride sector.
* Trams. I have been re-tagging tram stops to railway=tram_stop and 
changing name to reflect signage at the stop (usually this means removing Tram 
Stop) from the name. As there is a stop for each direction, incorporating the 
NaPTAN stuff for the NET-1 (Nottingham Tram) will take quite a lot of work. 
Most of this needs to be done: the single node on the track did not allow 
adequate representation of pedestrian access, particularly to island platforms. 
I am proceeding to rework tram stops in Basford which are not on a road. I am 
just creating two ways adjacent to the tram stop. One tram stop, Cinderhill, 
has two stop points, but it has a single platform for up and down direction 
trams, and a single track. This seems wrong, but I am open to correction: 
particularly if the data model enforces such a difference.

* Stop Points. Many stops belong to multiple stop points (presumably 
part of a hierarchical arrangement), but some of these seem to have little 
utility. For instance, stops BA82 and BA05 located at the junction of Vernon 
and Nottingham Roads, belong to stop areas 339GBA09, 339GBA10 and 339GBA24. The 
latter seems far too far away and is probably an error, but there seem to be 
large numbers of overlapping stop areas, which to me as a passenger do not seem 
logical. I'll look into this more once OPNV has rendered the data.Thanks to all 
who made this possible.

Jerry Clough



  ___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Bus stop map

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I've been working on a set of GroundTruth rules to do something similar, but at 
the moment I only have 3 classes (OSM, NAPTAN and merged). If I can find rules 
which work I'll extend this according to Chris's colour scheme. At the moment I 
have it as a transparent overlay, but my icons are too small, and its too 
difficult to pick them out on the display of my Garmin: so I think I'll add the 
road system with the minimum of fancy display. 

Also my initial attempt was too ambitious the XAPI download of bus stops for 
the UK is now rather large!

Any one interested I can post my provisional GroundTruth rules on the wiki.

Jerry Clough



  ___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] One last question (for now)

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Don't be too hasty (although 5 years seems long enough): there are two stops on 
Castle Boulevard, Nottingham named MFI, which must be 2 years 'out-of-date'. 
Many locals will remember the presence of MFI long after the chain closed and 
the site is used for something else. There is a location on Nottingham 
ring-road known as The Futurist, after a cinema which closed in the '60s. 

This is very similar to bus stops (or even locations) named after pubs. I'm 
sure the A40 still has a Target roundabout on the road between Yeading and 
Greenford, although I remember the pub becoming a Macdonalds in the 1980s! 
There are quite a few bus stops in Nottingham which have pub names which seem 
to be changing to a non pub-based name. So The Crown at Beeston has become 
Police Station, two or three stops along The Hop-Pole has become something 
completely unmemorable (a street name). The two operators of routes along this 
road use different names, and not all the bus signs have been updated. I don't 
know if this is a policy based on the current ephemeral nature of pubs (today I 
mapped lots of boarded up ones, and even the ones which appeared to be open, 
often have lease this ... signs outside), or perhaps influenced by 
multi-cultural considerations. Unfortunately they also seem to have changed my 
favorite in-bus announcment : Halls of
 Residences.

All in all, this shows that multiple names need to be supported, for all sorts 
of reasons. We're not yet at a point where we can collect and support local 
names on a large scale: but, it would be interesting to do so, and bus stops 
represent a decent sub-set of localities. Perhaps we should ask the EPNS!







From: Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk
To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics 
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, 8 September, 2009 15:02:17
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] One last question (for now)

I asked:

 Is it worth questioning the stop names? The ones named BQ in
 Clacton for example are outside their old site (now The
 Range), as BQ moved to new premises about 5 years ago. I've
 not yet been to the BQ stops to see if they have the name on
 (some stops around here do, some don't - and these are two I've
 not yet checked).

I drove past them yesterday, I think. Neither seem to have any post
(let alone a named post), although one has a BUS STOP labelled
pull in. So names in this case aren't particularly relevant. When I
do a proper verify of them I'll remove the OSM name field if it
exists but there is no name there.

Ed



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit



  ___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Weird stations in the UK (as shown on Google maps)

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Various comments on these:

1. Reading. If Heathrow Rail-air is shown, shouldn't the Reading end be shown?
2. St. Pancras is indeed two stations. Midland Main Line services depart from 
platforms at 
the far-end of the main train shed, has separate ticketing etc.. The 
'interchange' between this 
and the Underground is quite a decent walk, although nothing like as bad as it 
was before 
the International station opened. There is a set of platforms under the 
main-line station 
(used to be Thameslink), but as I've never used them don't know their status, 
other than 
for the traveller they're quite distinct.
3. I thought the extra Kings-X might be the local line to Royston and 
Cambridge, which 
used to be pretty disjunct from the rest of Kings-X, but on the map it looks 
like the 
underground station has been rewarded with the old British Rail symbol to 
signify 
an interchange, but this isn't true of some of the dubious interchange stations 
(e.g., Euston Square).
4. I think RailAir is a typical exception which one has to live with. There are 
plenty of railways where 
some services are operated by buses which depart from a separate location. 
However, ticketing etc is 
entirely in the hands of the railway operator. For instance the line to 
Skegness has Mablethorpe on the 
timetable described as a rail-replacement bus (although I think the railway 
line has been disused for
40-odd years). 

Hope this adds grist to the mill!



  ___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

[Talk-transit] NAPTAN Import: Plus-bus Zones

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I've had a quick look at a couple of the PlusBusZones (once inadvertently, as 
the name is rendering 
inappropriately on the Mapnik map): Nottingham and Maidenhead. In both cases 
boundaries are only 
approximate, and appear to be delimited by bus stops rather than routes (e.g., 
service 6 in Maidenhead travels 
along A308, and through the Pinkneys Green area, but AFAIK does not stop). The 
Nottingham one is of particular 
interest to me as the available literature shows an extremely fuzzy map with no 
indications of the precise limits of 
the zone. 

On the routes where I know the limit of the city-wide tickets (CityRider, 
Kangaroo) the edges of the zone are from 
100-200 metres out. I wonder how we can improve this mapping in OSM. For 
instance I could ensure that the 
PlusBus zone polygon shared nodes with the bus stops at the Blue Bell, 
Attenborough, and the 
Sherwin Arms, Bramcote. There is one other issue: the Nottingham Tram (NET) 
extends to Hucknall, 
and I think the relevant tram stops are included in the PlusBus scheme, but 
buses are not. The Kangaroo
 includes the tram and also train services between Hucknall, Attenborough, 
Carlton and Nottingham.

Jerry
SK53

PS. First posting to list, so formatting might be an issue.



  ___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit