Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[SK53]

Personally, I think this is still a sort of kludge, although no worse than
the ones I discussed in my blog pos
<http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2020/06/housing-terraces-in-wales-minor.html>
t.

I'm aware of a number of terraces which are discontinuous, demonstrating
that individual houses in a terrace are not building:part. A typical
example would be a terrace bombed in the war where the bombed out houses
were not replaced. There is a "terrace" in Richings Park, Iver which looks
just as if such a scenario had occurred, however, the owner of the end
house explained that the developer ran out of money and never completed the
terrace (the end houses were planned to be fancier).

At one stage I terraced buildings and left the outline of the terrace as
well as the individual houses which was a similar solution, but that will
now lead to lots of error messages. For S3DB (simple 3D buildings)
describing the entire terrace in terms of roof shape etc is often far
easier than doing it for individual houses, so there are other advantages.
My main objection is that it is not semantically accurate.

The use of building=terrace both for entire terraces and individual houses
in the terrace also is something I would like to disambiguate. For instance
use building=terrace for the entire terrace & building=terraced_house for
individual houses in a terrace (this latter value may also work with
building:part in ways that give data consumers flexibility with the data).
Generic building=house is preferably avoided for something more precise
(detached, semidetached_house etc). I'd like to mark bungalows separately
as, at least in Britain, they tend to be a very distinct housing type which
building:levels=1 does not guarantee, but in various places, notably
Southend, there are masses of semidetached bungalows.

On the topic of the OP, I'm broadly with Chris on this, pretty much as I
set out
<http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2013/08/pfafing-about-opening-uk-address-data.html>7
years ago! I also think it's important that, for me at least, we're not
adding addresses in OSM just to create an open replica of PAF. There are
numerous other important uses of addresses over and above this and routing.
At the Open Addresses meeting
<http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2014/09/openstreetmap-at-uk-open-addresses.html>
back in 2014 I participated in a discussion on this very point, and a
number of people from large well-known organisations provided a good number
of significant examples. I can't be more explicit because the meeting was
held under Chatham House rules. If we do need to add postal towns, which I
suspect we don't, then I would advocate for a specific tag addr:postal_town
or even addr:rm_postal_town. In practice I would think postal towns can be
deduced from post codes (i.e. externally to OSM): wikipedia certainly have
lists for many postcode areas.

Jerry

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 19:23, ndrw  wrote:

> On 20/12/2020 18:44, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:
> > What you do is give the outline way "buildong=terrace" and
> > "name=" and all the houses with
> > "building:part=house". The software can then tell that all those
> > houses are part of the terrace called 
>
> This is a good solution. I usually resort to simply not terracing the
> building and adding addresses as points and/or an addr:interpolation line.
>
> In either case, if the name of the building is a part of the address
> ("dependent thoroughfare") there is currently no suitable OSM tag for
> it. I've seen cases of addr:place, addr:substreet or addr:parentstreet
> but there is no established consensus yet.
>
> ndrw6
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of historic 'stink pipes'

[SK53]

I've always been intrigued by this
, and wonder if it falls into
this category.

I dont think I've mapped it, largely for want of a suitable tag.

Jerry

On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 11:49, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 18/12/2020 08:39, Edward Bainton wrote:
> > Morning all
> >
> > My local civic society is collecting the location of 'stink pipes',
> > Victorian sewer ventilation shafts in cast iron. Pics here:
> > https://twitter.com/TobyWoody/status/1339679166371926017/photo/1
> > 
> >
> > I've suggested they use OpenStreetMap and suggested a node with tag
> > historic=ventilation_shaft. Does that seem the right tag?
> >
> >
> That isn't a tag that anyone else has used -
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11jU finds only the one that you've added
> recently.  Having said that, when I looked at "historic" usage in the UK
> I didn't see anything that looked a better option.
>
> When I looked at vent shaft mapping in the UK a while back I came up
> with this list:
>
>
> https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L3875
>
> These are physically very different features (though sharing some of the
> same function) as your stink pipes.  If you're going to use
> "ventilation_shaft" I'd definitely also add
> "ventilation_shaft=stink_pipe" or similar to make it clear that you're
> talking about:
>
> https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3590/3390912112_b70a3fb156_z.jpg
>
> not:
>
> https://www.picturesofengland.com/img/L/1106616.jpg
>
> Best Regards,
>
> 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] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[SK53]

NCN 6 has a particularly awkward example
 (sorry
no picture to hand) which is suitably tagged, and definitely signed. The
ramp is (was?) not much more than a half-pipe.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 18:53, Chris Hodges  wrote:

> NCR45 in Stroud goes down a rather steep flight of steps to cross
> Dudbridge Road. I can confirm that is what the signs say, having been
> there yesterday.  Also the Sustrans/OS map shows it taking the line of
> the steps https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.73875,-2.23631,18
>
> There is a narrow ramp, so you can wheel a (conventional) bike up/down.
> It's about as accessible as it sounds, but the north end of the path
> isn't much better.
>
> On OSM the steps are shown (with a note about the bike route)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.73895/-2.23568 but the
> cycle path appears to break
>
> Mapillary shows the sign at the bottom:
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.738716181265865=-2.236989543797598=17=map=true=7X9gKmoDzGaATOILuDGRuA=0.14213485370109913=0.4081370298673949=3
>
>
> It's not unique - I know another example where the Bristol-Bath railway
> path accesses the pub car park in Saltford
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.40521/-2.45026, and I've
> seen similar on canal towpaths - in the latter case in particular it can
> be crucial for route-planning even manually, as the next access can be a
> long way away.
>
> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does
> go down the steps?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> ___
> 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] Newbie damage alert in West Midlands and London

[SK53]

DWG have reverted this changeset and set a user block
.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 20:27, Steve Brook via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> This user has just deleted Broadcasting House.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95699320
> Can someone block him and revert all his work.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TL5100/history
> Most if not all of it is vandalism.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russ Garrett [mailto:r...@garrett.co.uk]
> Sent: 09 December 2020 19:53
> To: Colin Smale
> Cc: Talk-GB
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Newbie damage alert in West Midlands
>
> Ah I ran into his work this afternoon by pure chance and reverted one
> of these changesets (95506246) and left a comment - no reply as yet.
> It looked like vandalism to me.
>
>
> Russ
>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 19:51, Colin Smale  wrote:
> >
> > A new user, TL5100, is causing a bit of damage in the Midlands, deleting
> loads of things for no obvious reason. A couple of their changesets have
> comments to this effect already. Could someone have a word?
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TL5100/history#map=11/52.0822/-2.4818
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> --
> Russ Garrett
> r...@garrett.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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Newbie damage alert in West Midlands and London

[SK53]

In this sort of case it's best to report the user to DWG (there is a button
on the user page on osm.org).

Jerry

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 20:27, Steve Brook via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> This user has just deleted Broadcasting House.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95699320
> Can someone block him and revert all his work.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TL5100/history
> Most if not all of it is vandalism.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russ Garrett [mailto:r...@garrett.co.uk]
> Sent: 09 December 2020 19:53
> To: Colin Smale
> Cc: Talk-GB
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Newbie damage alert in West Midlands
>
> Ah I ran into his work this afternoon by pure chance and reverted one
> of these changesets (95506246) and left a comment - no reply as yet.
> It looked like vandalism to me.
>
>
> Russ
>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 19:51, Colin Smale  wrote:
> >
> > A new user, TL5100, is causing a bit of damage in the Midlands, deleting
> loads of things for no obvious reason. A couple of their changesets have
> comments to this effect already. Could someone have a word?
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TL5100/history#map=11/52.0822/-2.4818
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> --
> Russ Garrett
> r...@garrett.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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Another milestone in solar panel mapping: over 300k OSM elements

[SK53]

We passed over 300k individual OSM elements mapped as solar panels
yesterday.

Since I last reported back in early October there have been some other
highlights:

   - Dan, Jack & Cos publication of the dataset already announced here.
   - Russ's tool for adding module counts, also mentioned on this list.


   - Orkney nearly at 60%, and lots added in Highland & Outer Hebrides
   (Russ)
   - Warwick first West Midlands district to reach 80% plus (Brian)
   - Jeremy Harris has made massive inroads in a short time along the Colne
   Valley (Chiltern (50%), Watford (120%) , Dacorum (50%) & Three Rivers
   (130%)), which provides another nucleus of well-mapped districts contiguous
   with Greater London. I've recently pushed both Hillingdon & Ealing to the
   90%+ mark to complement this (largely as a result of inadvertently seeing
   lots of solar in Northolt when looking for something else). In these areas
   the discrepancy between FIT installations & potential number of panels to
   be mapped is obviously higher than elsewhere, which I expect to be true
   across Greater London & better-off areas of the South-East.
   - It's also become noticeable that a line of better mapped districts is
   emerging from Peterborough towards Ipswich.
   - Doubling of districts with over 90% mapped (Watford, Three Rivers,
   South Northamptonshire, Bolsover, Amber Valley, Erewash, Ashfield,
   Mansfield, Bassetlaw, Knowsley & others). This now looks to be achievable
   anywhere with the newer imagery.
   - Now module count & direction are both around 55k elements (over 18% of
   total). This is a significant improvement & very much the focus of my own
   efforts. I'm finding measurement tools in Josm, Vespucci & iD can be very
   useful in determining module counts.

Dan can chip in with suggestions of areas to focus on, but I think Cornwall
remains a target as does conversion of nodes to areas on larger buildings &
ensuring these are actually on buildings. Otherwise it's pretty much carry
on as we are.

One thing I find I'm catching fairly frequently are rebuilt school, and to
a lesser extent, hospital sites. These may merit being revisited more
systematically in a future quarterly project.

Best wishes,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Re: House number ranges that are only odd or even

[SK53]

addr:interpolation used on single buildings has certainly been our standard
practice in the East Midlands for 9 or 10 years now. It's now often used in
conjunction with addr:flats or addr:unit, but also with addr:housenumber,
which I think was the first usage. It was obvious early on that multiple
addresses in one building needed to be distinguished from buildings with a
single address formed from multiple housenumbers (17-21 Xxxx Road).
addr:interpolation not only fuflils that role, but also allows the actual
number of addresses to be notated.

Extensive parts of St Anns, an inner city suburb of Nottingham redeveloped
in the late 1970s are precisely like this, with blocks containing flats
usually 6-7 units of 3 flats (one on the ground floor & 2 spanning 2 floors
above). This works fine, is understandable by mappers and relatively easy
to parse for data consumers. It's use arose from the circumstances of
mapping every address in a reasonably wide area. I think it's still true to
say that only a few places in Britain have extensive address mapping (& not
hugely different from this map
 I created back in
2014).

Addressing elsewhere in Europe is likely to be different from the UK, and I
see little value in asking people unfamiliar with the nitty gritty of
capturing UK addresses for their opinions on the best approach. The
current wiki
page 
states that there is no consensus on the matter. In the same manner I will
leave it to Spaniards to worry about how to map floor and door (common
address components there, although surprisingly widely used
 on OSM) and
inhabitants of former parts of the Austro-Hungarian empire to worry
about conscription
numbers 
(context from German wikipedia
).
However, I would regard the Dutch
 & Polish
communities approach of adding individual nodes for each address in the
building irrespective of the actual address position outline as incorrect
mapping in the UK. In both cases, and probably also in Denmark
, this is
most likely because addresses have been imported from a national database
and this allows incremental updates from the same source. The problem with
this is that it prevents classic OSM iterative refinement, such as accurate
mapping for indoor usage, for instance to enable guidance for blind people.

tl;dr: addr:interpolation on single buildings works fine, has been in use
in the UK for about 10 year; there's significant variation in address
mapping between communities.

Jerry

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 19:15, Dan S  wrote:

> That JOSM rendering is just a limitation in JOSM's rendering - I'd
> imagine it was unplanned.
>
> I'd be happy to see that second solution (i.e. make clear the
> interpretation of the tag, for closed ways). I don't necessarily think
> it needs a proposal/vote but I'd be happy to see it happen!
>
> Best
> Dan
>
>
> Op do 10 dec. 2020 om 18:37 schreef ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB
> :
> >
> >
> > Date: 10 Dec 2020, 18:34
> > From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com
> > To: mattatt...@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] House number ranges that are only odd or even
> >
> > This issue also came to my mind. addr:interpolation on a building
> doesn't seem appropriate. JOSM, for example, renders it as a dotted line
> around the edge of the building (as if that is the addr:interpolation
> way).  Clearly then, addr:interpolation isn't meant for buildings.
> >
> > Currently, I do 1;3;5;7;9 (here is an example of this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222193468/history [old versions of this
> building have that tagging scheme])
> >
> > Probably, a proposal needs to be created to either create a new tag or
> change addr:interpolation so that its meaning is different on closed and
> open ways.
> >
> > I think the latter solution is better, as people probably already tag
> buildings with an addr:interpolation.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > IpswichMapper
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > 10 Dec 2020, 15:37 by mattatt...@gmail.com:
> >
> > Is there a way when specifying a range for addr:housenumber to indicate
> it's only for even or odd numbers?
> >
> > When walking around my local area I have come across some blocks that
> will have a sign indicating for example house numbers 1 to 21 odd only.
> Similarly when there is just one building drawn for a whole street of
> terrace houses the number range will only be or odd even depending on the
> side of the road.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> 

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar panels on Alvares House in Homerton

[SK53]

Hi Mat,

They do indeed look like solar panels, although the images arent as clear
as one would like.

You can just add a single node as a solar panel (preferably with
location=roof & a direction tag) or try & map the lot as an area. The
number of modules is a difficult to discern. Using the measurement tool in
iD (or Vespucci or Josm) indicates values of about 6.4, 7.9 and 12.9 m with
width of around 1.9 for some of the groups of modules. I can't really
decide if these are rows of single modules with long axis roughly E-W or
pairs of angled modules with long axis pointing S. One group measuring 6.4
m looks to have 7 modules in the former configuration, which might suggest
a slightly smaller module width of 90 cm. (I'm using this measurement
approach to determine module counts for installations where this is not
directly obvious from imagery: as most modules are roughly 1.6 by 1 m and
laid out in rectangles the typical case is straightforward : unlike here.)

There are plenty more unmapped installations on adjacent buildings
including the apartment blocks to the E.

As aerial imagery quality improves we'll likely revisit many mapped solar
power installations to either improve or check module counts.

Jerry

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 15:09, Mat Attlee  wrote:

> In surveying and adding Alvares House in Homerton in London, I noticed
> that the Bing aerial photos seem to indicate solar panels on the roof
> though I can't find any details on them
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882360871
>
> Cheers
> ___
> 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] Bridleway across field

[SK53]

Yes, these are not infrequent. We may have discussed some specific examples
before, but one which comes to mind is one crossing
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29348659#map=17/52.98971/-1.48033> the
River Derwent at Duffield. This is marked on the definitive map and the
name of a track "Save Penny Lane" suggests the purpose of the ford. Dave
Venables went & did a couple of surveys to find if anything existed but
drew a blank. Not long afterwards I had the good fortune to meet someone
concerned with the Millenium Meadow to the S of the site of the crossing
and apparently the ford was washed out long ago (if memory serves me right
late 1800s).

It's always worth looking at other sources of information. For instance,
the first OS 7th series with overprinted PRoW data appeared in the late
1960s, and these maps are now out of copyright so maybe usable (as Robert
says it may be a little more complex as the PRoW data copyrights may rest
with the Highway Authority & I dont know if local government copyright
follows the same rules as for central government). Even some 1st edition
Landranger issued in 1974 may be usable as most were photo-enlarged
versions of the 7th series. Looking at existing allowable sources (NLS maps
within editors) I find it interesting that there is no sign of a path or
track here on OS 7th series, NLS 1:10,560 and 1st edition 1:25k. It is
marked on the GSGS 1:25k which will have been compiled from older 6 inch
mapping. This suggests that the bridleway ceased to be used before around
1940. One possibility is that it has been added to the definitive map
fairly recently as part of a lost paths initiative.

Personally I do not generally map PRoWs which have no on-the-ground traces
(particularly after my experience
<http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/07/footpaths-in-carmarthenshire-whats-point.html>
in Carmathenshire in 2011), although I do allow a wide latitude of sources
to identify traces of PRoWs (overgrown stiles, rotting footpath signs,
etc.) when it might be useful to do so. Keeping such things invisible from
the regular user of OSM has advantages in that a non-existent path
blighting a walk is less likely. Of course if you report it as obstructed
to the HA and get a suitable reply then you have substantial personal
knowledge about the PRoW.

Jerry

PS. As an aside does anyone know if there is an article in the Charles
Close Society journal about how PRoW data were added to the 7th series?

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:15, ael via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
> have
> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
> can't
> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
>
>  I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to
>  walk or ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was
>  presumably once a ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there
>  were large trees blocking access on the river bank, and absolutely
>  no sign of a ford in the river itself. Crossing there looked potentially
>  dangerous. These had been added by armchair mappers from a definitive
>  map.
>
>  OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
>  As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river
>  and added a note.
>
>  ael
>
>
> ___
> 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] British Waterways

[SK53]

Coincidentally, or not, Owen Boswarva blogged
 about the EA Reservoir
register open data only yesterday. I was surprised to see Moorgreen
Reservoir still in the hands of the CRT, which Richard has confirmed.

This has a number of other values which it might be worth adding if
updating reservoirs, notably capacity in cubic metres, but other operators
too. Legally there seem to be differences between impounding and
non-impounding reservoirs, but also service reservoirs (possibly always
covered). I'd thought of using designation but the two properties seem to
be disjunct.

The dataset is probably more concerned with volumes of water held behind
dams which might fail. There are a number of ornamental lakes such as Groby
Pool & Wollaton Park Lake. This does highlight that the relevant dams have
not been mapped which may be worthwhile. I used it to find the reservoir
for the Hall water extraction point on the Trent near Newton-on-Trent which
I'd failed to find a couple of months ago.

Jerry




On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 10:18, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> I just updated a local canal feeder reservoir, which was tagged in OSM
> as operator=British Waterways.
>
> The value should of course now be "Canal & River Trust".
>
> Should we have an automated edit to update all instances of "British
> Waterways"?
>
> --
> 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] Inland Border Facilities

[SK53]

I was wondering if there were any equivalents elsewhere.

Closest I can think of is this location
 between
Feldkirch & Bludenz, which although described as a goods vehicle checkpoint
from my personal experience is also operated as in internal custom
checkpoint (and therefore amenity=police might be wrong too). As a group
travelling from Zurich to Soelden many of us were stopped for a
passport/car check. A friend who worked in marketing for BAT was driving a
company van, and was hugely amused at the idea that smuggling cigarettes
from Switzerland to Austria might be a way of making money.

Close to the Poland/Belarus borders there are Border Guard
 stations, such as this
one . I think these are mainly
concerned with immigration rather customs. Certainly if travelling in a car
with non-local numberplates one can be expected to stopped & documents
checked (first time was stressful as unexpected & about 5:30 in the
morning).

In Argentinian Patagonia, and probably elsewhere in the country, police
checkpoints exist as one exits more populated areas. These seem to mainly
involve checking of identity documents, but may involve other things. These
seem to be mapped as police stations, e.g., on the edge of Ushuaia
.

Only the first may bear any resemblance to the UK Inland Border sites, and
the existing mapping is little help. Even traditional land borders with
heavy duty border controls don't seem to be tagged in an obvious way:
Poland/Belarus

outside Brest Litovsk; San Sebastian
 (AR side), San
Sebastian  (CL
side). The tag barrier=border_control may be fine for light weight ones
such as the skilifts in Ischgl
 or the US/Canadian
border  at
Aldergrove, but I suspect we could do with a tag for the whole area
(amenity=customs is potentially only part of it).

Jerry

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 11:36, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> I've just mapped the one at Birmingham Airport- construction site only so
> far. There are several on the go . Is
> anyone up to date on mapping the others? What should they be tagged as when
> they are operational?
>
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] River Lugg

[SK53]

I suggest mapping the parish of Kingsland in detail from aerial imagery.
This will facilitate locating the re-profiled area from features visible in
photos and videos appearing in the news. For instance at least part of the
damaged bank is on the right bank extending downstream from a bridge with a
minor power line in the fields. There are also some distinctive farm
buildings in other photos.

Unfortunately, there doesnt seem to be any data on EA Stewardship payments
for the relevant area (from Anna Powell-Smith's map
). The SSSI is Natural England Open Data,
but as it covers more or less all of the Lugg might not be useful. However,
there are a couple of more extensive areas of SSSI which might be part of
the damaged area. LR Inspire land parcels may help delineate specific
farms. I presume this is a single farmer whose land abuts the river.

Jerry

On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 16:46, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> Terrible news from Herefordshire:
>
>
> https://www.ledburyreporter.co.uk/news/18920990.environment-agency-launch-probe-river-lugg-destruction/
>
>
> https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/horror-destruction-nationally-important-uk-river
>
> about illegal reprofiling of a mile-long stretch of the Lugg. But we
> probably still need to map the changes.
>
> Do we have anyone local?
>
> --
> 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] Help wanted to update Flamingo Land

[SK53]

Just a quick bounce of a message from the forum
. A newish
contributor  wants to update
the Flamingo Land theme park in Ryedale, but would like some help and
advice.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

[SK53]

I must admit to being surprised that we dont have a distinct value:
recycling points are much commoner throughout Europe than they are in the
UK (probably because more people live in flats). Windsor & Maidenhead
withdrew at least some of their points when recycling bins were introduced.
In Nottingham single containers are relatively common (usually things like
the red BHF ones, rather than council ones), and single containers with
multiple ports exist on the University site, as do combined rubbish bins,
recycling bins.

In Spain and Switzerland something like a recycling point with multiple
containers will be located within a short distance of most properties (e.g.
this one
 I
added which has at least 4 distinct containers). At least in the past in
some Swiss communes, these were also co-located with a communal location
for household rubbish (the one above doesn't appear to have that facility
now). I presume Poland is similar, but Mateusz can confirm.

It does appear that an additional tag value would be appropriate.

Jerry

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 09:42, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> Agreed, "point" sucks as a value, I won't use itmy fundamental reason
> for it not being a 'centre' was size, but a Recycling Point _could_ be seen
> as a mini Recycling Centre that only accepts recyclable waste. You can see
> a perimeter boundary by the concrete area it is set on. I could go with a
> site relation but you can't physically carry out other activities between
> the constituent objects (unlike a wind farm).
>
> I will try with 'centre' and including 'Recycling Point' in the name.
>
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, 08:58 Dan S,  wrote:
>
>> Op do 26 nov. 2020 om 19:21 schreef Jez Nicholson <
>> jez.nichol...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Okay, bear with. I know that this is detailed mapping, but I enquired a
>>> while ago on the amenity:recycling talk page and a single recycling
>>> container == a single node. A group of containers == a group of nodes.
>>>
>>> Here is an image of the highly attractive Golf Drive Recycling Point
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golf_Drive_Recycling_Point.jpg
>>> featuring 6 * "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling_type"="container" which
>>> accept different items including
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379145 glass,
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379151 cans, cardboard, paper,
>>> plastic bottles, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379142 a
>>> clothes bank.
>>>
>>> The area they are contained in is called "Golf Drive Recycling Point".
>>> There's a sign that says so. I've added a polygon
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/877940580 as "amenity"="recycling" +
>>> "recycling_type"="point"
>>>
>>> I can only really see containers or centres in
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/recycling_type#values but
>>> this place is neither.
>>>
>>> Are you offended by "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling_type"="point"? It
>>> seems like the UK term for it.
>>>
>>>
>> Honestly, "point" seems dangerously prone to misunderstanding, when used
>> as a value here in OSM. I know we tend to say "recycling point", but that
>> doesn't mean that we say "point". "I'll just go to the point".
>>
>> I wish I could suggest a good alternative word, e.g. a word we already
>> use for some other type of feature.
>>
>> What is the fundamental reason this is not a recycling_type=centre? Is it
>> the size? (If so, no problem - use "centre" on a suitable polygon.) Is it
>> the fact that it's unstaffed? (Could use self_service=only or
>> supervised=no.) Is it that there's no perimeter boundary?
>>
>> Best
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 4:25 PM Jeremy Harris  wrote:
>>>
 On 26/11/2020 11:16, Jez Nicholson wrote:
 > Am I missing something, or is there no concept of a Recycling Point
 in OSM?
 > Have you seen/used anything else?

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:recycling_type>

 --
 Cheers,
Jeremy

 ___
 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] featdesc & featcode

[SK53]

Hi Dave,

The wood/forest and water ones I've seen are entirely useless in OSM as the
relevant natural tags represent exactly the same information.

For some external sources imported to OSM retaining the original codes is
useful when there is not a precise 1:1 correspondence to tags, but that is
not the case here.

Not only can they be removed safely, but there may be merit in adding them
to the tags automatically deleted when something is edited (such as the
editor tag). There are one or two rareish codes in the data according to
taginfo which I dont recognise (
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=FEATCODE).

Regards,

Jerry

On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 19:09, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> Thanks for that.
>
> I'm struggling to see the benefit of this in OSM, & given only one
> contributor has added them I presume I'm not alone.
> The codes appear to be another company's database reference system, of
> which OSM has its own.
> OSM should not become a dump for external databases. Anyone with valid
> reasons for not removing these tags?
>
> DaveF
>
> On 19/11/2020 16:49, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > On 19/11/2020 16:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> > >
> > > Anybody know what featdesc & featcode refer to? Local authority
> > > references?
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > Sorry about poor formatting, copied from:
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/os-vectormap-district-product-guide.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > OS VectorMap District technical specification feature codes  v1.8 –
> > 09/2016   © Crown copyright   Page 51 of 56
> >
> >   Feature Codes
> >
> >
> > Feature Codes represented in the vector product
> >
> > FeatureType  classification   featureCode
> > Building25014
> > Glasshouse25016
> > Road  Motorway  25710
> >   Primary Road  25723
> >   A Road  25729
> >   B Road  25743
> >   Minor Road  25750
> >   Local Street  25760
> >   Private Road Publicly Accessible  25780
> >   Pedestrianised Street  25790
> >   Motorway, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25719
> >   Primary Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25735
> >   A Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25739
> >   B Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25749
> >   Minor Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25759
> > RoadTunnel25792
> > MotorwayJunction25796
> > Roundabout  Primary Road  25703
> >   A Road  25704
> >   B Road  25705
> >   Minor Road  25706
> >   Local Street  25707
> >   Private Road Publicly Accessible  25708
> > SurfaceWater_Line25600
> > SurfaceWater_Area25609
> > TidalWater  High Water Mark  25608
> > TidalBoundary  High Water Mark Low Water Mark  25604
> >   Low Water Mark  25605
> > Foreshore25612
> > AdministrativeBoundary  National  25204
> >   Parish Or Community  25200
> >   District Or London Borough  25201
> >   County Or Region Or Island  25202
> > RailwayTrack  Multi Track  25300
> >   Single Track  25301
> >   Narrow Gauge  25302
> > RailwayTunnel25303
> > RailwayStation  Light Rapid Transit Station  25420
> >   Railway Station  25422
> >   London Underground Station  25423
> >   Railway Station And London Underground Station  25424
> > OS VectorMap District technical specification feature codes  v1.8 –
> > 09/2016   © Crown copyright   Page 52 of 56
> >   Light Rapid Transit Station And Railway Station  25425
> >   Light Rapid Transit Station And London Underground Station 25426
> > FunctionalSite  Education Facility - School  25250
> >   Police Station  25251
> >   Medical Care  25252
> >   Place Of Worship  25253
> >   Leisure Or Sports Centre  25254
> >   Air Transport  25255
> >   Education Facility - Higher  25256
> >   Water Transport  25257
> >   Road Transport  25258
> >   Road Services  25259
> > Woodland25999
> > Ornament25550
> > ElectricityTransmissionLine25102
> > NamedPlace  Populated Place  25801
> >   Landform  25802
> >   Woodland Or Forest  25803
> >   Hydrography  25804
> >   Landcover  25805
> > SpotHeight25810
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] man_made=survey_point

[SK53]

This approach has been advocated in other European countries, and the
Spanish community imported all the points of the national geodesic network
(e.g., for Extremadura
).
They more or less violate the idea of OSM as something which is community
contributed (IIRC each point has "DO NOT MOVE") and often interfere with
objects which do need mapping (churches are a particular point). It's not
clear that this import has assisted improved accuracy of mapping in Spain.

Many trig pillars are now way out of alignment and mainly of interest as an
artefact. Even benchmarks might not have much relevance as OS surveying
mainly uses differential GPS with reference to their own base network (OS
Net
).
(From the OS website "Ordnance Survey (OS) benchmarks and their heights
haven't been regularly maintained for over 40 years.").

OS Net is effectively proprietary, there are a limited number of open base
stations for differential GPS in the UK. I do believe differential GPS
(RTK) has a role to play in OSM surveying, although for specific purposes
rather than generic improvement of feature alignment.

Regards,

Jerry

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 10:05, Nick  wrote:

> I have been looking at what is recorded under this tag in my area. I see
> that there aren't that many and those that are on OSM refer to trig
> points (see also http://trigpointing.uk/). My thinking is that if these
> are accurate and precisely marked on OSM then perhaps they could be used
> for resolving issue such as aerial imagery offsets.
>
> I therefore wondered if it was worth using other data under this tag -
> specifically benchmarks (https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/benchmarks/)
> as there are huge numbers in the UK. If these were marked on OSM and
> their accuracy and precision verified (OS open data is to the nearest
> 10m square and transforming that adds errors), they could be helpful in
> local surveys where they are less than accurate but also for ensuring
> that moving all nodes in an area is valid (not just to match aerial
> imagery). A possible linked organisation with data is
> https://www.bench-marks.org.uk/
>
> Incidentally, the benchmarks can be helpful if you need to align
> historical maps which have benchmarks shown.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> ___
> 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 Bing Imagery

[SK53]

This isn't necessarily true. If you open any OS Open Data product in QGIS
one is now confronted by a bewildering array of ways of converting from the
OSGB national grid co-ordinates to WGS84.

The optimum one currently uses the 2015 file of detailed offset corrections
to the basic projection transformation. There was an earlier set of similar
data released in 2002. If one doesn't download this correction data then it
falls back on the basic transform using OSGB36 which can be anywhere
between 1 and 5 m off-true. In addition there has always been the slightly
obscure behaviour of OSGB projections specified in proj4 or WKT formats
with respect to the Helmert Transformation parameters (in early days of
Open Data Chris Hill & I found these were essential). At least part of the
problem is that EPSG:27700 appears to relate to several very slightly
diverging projections, whereas, for instance, Irish Grid changes are
handled by EPSG:29001 through EPSG:29003, and Swiss Grid CH1903 is
EPSG:4149, CH1903+ is EPSG:4150 and the newest CH1903+/LV95 is EPSG:2096.

I don't know what transformation JOSM uses when reading EPSG:27700 so
unless one is very cautious it is not possible to be certain that one is
anywhere near the RMS 25 cm accuracy of OS data (especially as products,
including Boundary Line, may be partially generalised.

Like Jass I've been looking at various data sets which can be pulled into
editors to help with alignment. I initially used OS Open Roads, but this is
just too generalised to be usable in many areas. Larger buildings from OS
Open Local, although generalised, will often have corners in the right
place. Perhaps what we need is an equivalent of TIGER Line as a GB specific
overlay layer showing selected alignment friendly features from either OS
Local or Vector Map. If we could borrow styling from either TIGER Line or
the US Forest roads it might be feasible to make such a layer.

Jerry

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 13:58, Colin Smale  wrote:

> On 2020-08-19 12:17, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> On 19/08/2020 10:11, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> And now I can see Amazon mappers using an iD variant
> that doesn't have the offset and moving all the roads as a result:
>
> https://osmcha.org/changesets/89549551?aoi=758c7f2b-faca-44e5-acd2-0cb8c33034bd
>   https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89549551
> If that's happening at all, please comment on the changeset explaining the
> problem.  In English urban areas OS OpenData StreetView is a pretty good
> guide for alignment and if people (especially people doing a lot of
> editing) are not taking into account different imagery offsets then that's
> just wrong.
>
> Possibly even better that StreetView imagery is data that has been
> imported directly from OS, such as OS Boundary-Line for the admin
> boundaries. This is probably the closest we can get to cm-level accuracy -
> even though they don't give us the full resolution, the base points such as
> tripoints where boundaries meet are likely to be pretty damn accurate. I
> would recommend using these as a kind of calibration point to sanity-check
> imagery alignment and other data based on less accurate GPS positioning
> (e.g. from any consumer-grade GPS kit).
>
> ___
> 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] Street-name toids

[SK53]

These toids are for the name rather than the physical street - I'm not
interested in toids in general. It is their potential utility in
disambiguating streets which I'm interested in (although as the Derby Road
case I cited is one I'm particularly interested in - it splits multiple
times, has dual carriageway sections, residential service roads, and even
has a residential service road with a different name
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6638464#map=17/52.94433/-1.19583> but
addresses belong to the main road - is not split on historical boundaries
not quite as useful as I hoped). Where there is contiguity of the road
segments they can be merged on name alone, but where they are splits - not
just roundabouts - it can be harder to automatically merge the correct
elements. Other examples might be Denman Street in Radford
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.9575/-1.1740> & Alfred Street in St
Ann's <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.96216/-1.14852> both split
into many sections by 1970s re-development. House numbers continue to
reflect that these were once a single street even if the individual
sections have extension names (I presume the street name toids are
different in these cases).

Wrt to UPRNs not referring to streets. This location
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.96216/-1.14852> on Robert's site
shows several UPRNs on streets:

   - 10009154384 on Averton Square
   - 10009156248 at start of Longore Square
   - 10009156248 at E end of Fairham Drive

The other non-building UPRNs are the substation in Orston Spinney (verified
as also present in the Asset Register open data) and the secret allotments
(possibly disused or sold as no-longer in the Asset Register) behind
Averton Square.

The land was in medieval times part of the open field system of Sutton
Passeys, a village deserted by the 16th century. It was emparked by the
Willoughby family around 1580 when Wollaton Hall was built, and enclosed by
a wall by Lord Middleton early in the 19th century (part of his defences
against Luddites & others). The land was acquired by Nottingham Council in
the early 1920s
<https://www.lentontimes.co.uk/back_issues/issue_1/issue_01_01.htm> when
they built the current housing estate. There is an Elizabethan mining adit
or sough built to drain the Willoughby collieries
<http://www.healeyhero.co.uk/rescue/individual/Bob_Bradley/Bk-1/1500.html>
at Wollaton running somewhere in the vicinity, but other than that no
historical properties in the lifetime of the Ordnance Survey.

I therefore think these UPRNs must refer to the roads.

Jerry



On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 11:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 16:56, SK53  wrote:
> > OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the toid
> for the street name. I wonder if we should include these alongside usrn &
> uprn. They may be more useful than either for gathering complex roads which
> share a name.
>
> I'd tend to see the TOIDs are just an internal ID used in OS MasterMap
> and not something that there's much value in adding to OSM. I'd have
> thought that that USRN should be a sufficient unique reference number
> for highways. (Everything in OS MasterMap has a TOID, and actually I
> think streets have two -- one for the centreline geometry, and one for
> the bounding polygon. If we start adding TOIDs for streets, where
> would we stop?)
>
> However, from a practical point of view, if you want to check OSM for
> completeness against OS Open Roads, then having the TOID in OSM would
> be useful. But perhaps a better solution would be to persuade OS that
> they should be including the USRNs in OS Open Roads -- as these are
> now the promoted 'gold standard' open unique identifiers for streets.
>
> 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] Street-name toids

[SK53]

That was me too, I would have added the USRN if I'd had it immediately
accessible. My understanding is that UPRNs do apply to roads, but have much
to learn about them. I've added them to a couple of others at Cinderhill
which is housing built on open fields so no historical properties there.

Jerry

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 20:37, Mark Goodge  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/08/2020 16:54, SK53 wrote:
> > OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the toid
> > for the street name. I wonder if we should include these alongside usrn
> > & uprn. They may be more useful than either for gathering complex roads
> > which share a name.
> >
> > Experimentally I have added this
> > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/836343813> toid to a street in
> Glossop.
>
> I think adding toids is worth it, if we can unambiguously link them.
>
> However, I'm a little concerned that someone has added a UPRN to that
> way. UPRNs are not, generally, applied to streets, and looking at the
> ESRI satellite view I suspect that that's actually a legacy UPRN which
> applied to the property before it was redeveloped for housing.
>
> The street does have a USRN, which is 17326392. If you compare this:
>
> https://uprn.uk/usrn/17326392
>
> which is Foundry Close, with this:
>
> https://uprn.uk/usrn/17301086
>
> which is Surrey Street (that Foundry Close connects to), you'll see on
> the latter a single UPRN on top of Foundry Close. But switch to the
> satellite view on that page and you'll see that it's appears to be the
> UPRN of what was, at the time the image was taken, some empty land that
> had been cleared for redevelopment.
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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] Street-name toids

[SK53]

OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the toid for
the street name. I wonder if we should include these alongside usrn & uprn.
They may be more useful than either for gathering complex roads which share
a name.

Experimentally I have added this
 toid to a street in Glossop.

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

[Talk-GB] Rooftop Solar & UPRNs

[SK53]

When I wrote to this list at the end of June I little suspected that we'd
achieve 25% completion of solar panels by the end of July. Obviously,
access to greatly improved imagery has made a big difference.

The places mentioned by Dan : LAs around Exeter & the Midlands now have
good coverage. The Devon LAs are all over 60% and other LAs in the county
are also progressing. In the Midlands it's easier to list places with low
coverage: N. Staffordhsire, most of Shropshire, East Lincs and
Northamptonshire.

One of my concerns mentioned last time was missing installations in rural
areas. Even with 60% coverage it is noticeable that rural LSOAs are less
well populated. I've recently been experimenting to see if this can now be
addressed and have good results.

Initially I used areas where OSM has most buildings mapped (Derbyshire
Dales near Bakewell & in South Hams between Kingsbridge & Dartmouth). I
pull buildings down into JOSM with an Overpass query, and add existing
solar mapping. Buildings are selected and added to the to do list (a
plugin) & then I step through each building. This was effective, but the
bbox of individual LSOAs resulted in very large numbers of buildings
(~8000), which is really too many for a single task.

I then turned to UPRNs. It is relatively easy to filter UPRNs by LSOA
(e.g., in QGIS) and numbers are more manageable (say 1,500-2,000). Again
stepping through these resulted in finding virtually all the solar
installations expected from the FIT numbers (tested on East Devon 0009A -
Branscombe & Derbyshire Dales 0008C - Tissington & Parwich). However the
number of items is still too high even when divided into batches, and
requires quite some time to work through.

One problem is the sheer number of UPRNs which are not related to
buildings. Numerous minor tracks, possibly some footpaths, farm ponds,
mobile phone masts, old quarries etc. These may make up as much as 40% of
all UPRNs.

An obvious solution would be to use only UPRNs which pertain to buildings,
but I didnt have an OS Local building layer available and even then the
total number of search locations is still too high.

Instead I've used clustering of UPRNs which seems to give reasonable
results. A simple clustering based on distance yields around 100 clusters
which can be searched visually. The non-building UPRNs tend to move the
centroid away from groups of buildings, but not so far as to be unworkable.

I've used QGIS so I thought I'd document that approach in case anyone
fancies using it in there own area (obviously it can be used for things
other than solar):

* *Filter *UPRNs by LSOA. I use a clipping operation in QGIS. A shapefile
of LSOAs is available from the ONS site, but there is also a file

of UPRN=>Administrative Geographies which may enable this to be done on a
Unix command line.
* *Cluster*. Search for clustering on the Toolbox option of the Processing
Menu. A number of clustering techniques are available. The one I used is
DBSCAN. Open this can apply settings of minimum cluster size of 1 and
maximum distance of 0.0025 (approximating 250 m in WGS assuming 100 km /
degree). Run the tool and results appear as a new layer. This appears
identical to the original UPRNs, but each is now assigned a cluster id.
* *Group Clusters*. From the Vector menu apply Collect Geomtetries from the
Geometry Tools menu. This returns a MULTIPOINT layer rather than the
original POINT layer.
* *Located Centroi*d. The centroid of each cluster can be found by applying
Centroid from the Geometry Tools Menu. This latter layer can be saved as a
geojson file for use in JOSM (or iD or Potlatch).

In JOSM:

* Open the geojson of clustered UPRNs.
* Download existing solar data using an overpass query within the viewport
of the LSOA data. Make sure this is a new layer as this is the layer used
for editing.
* Select all items in the UPRN layer and add them to the to do list.
* Activate the solar data layer.
* Step through each item in the todo list searching for buildings within a
few hundred metres of where JOSM zooms too. Add any rooftop or ground solar
panels missing. Using nodes minimises likely conflicts as not all OSM data
is loaded.

In practice I'm very conservative with the first 10 or so items in the todo
list  and search in a bigger area, but as one steps through the items one
can have greater confidence in the localisation of each cluster.

I'm finding over 80% of installations predicted from FIT in very rural
LSOAs with this approach. It still needs a bit of refinement, but I think
30 minutes / LSOA is readily achievable. Taken together with the new
imagery this bodes much better for coverage of parts of Britain with
dispersed rural settlements.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Wildlife Sites

[SK53]

Yes, am reasonably familiar with ones in Notts & Derbys. A friend led the
initial survey work (Phase 1 habitat) back in the 1970s, other friends were
surveyors.

Some LAs do have these as data on their GIS systems (Nottingham &
Nottinghamshire for instance), others have lists (RBWM). I understand that
in some cases they are reluctant to publish because doing so would alert
less-sympathetic landowners who may then destroy the sites. I have always
imagined that the data could be obtainable under EIR, but as I'm aware of
these sensitivities I havent tried. Some Wildlife Trusts have enough
resources to get round the LWS in their area every few years.

They are a statutory designation, but confer no protections. A significant
proportion of remaining true meadows are LWS rather than SSSI (largely
because Natural England have not had resources to perform designation).
They vary between protected verges, local nature reserves and private land.
I suspect the only tag which is truly viable on OSM is designation. We
certainly should not map them in such a way that implies they are nature
reserves.

Jerry

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 15:53, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience with
> https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/local-wildlife-sites ?
>
> I've had an inquiry about including Brighton & Hove LWSes on OSM.
>
> - Jez
> ___
> 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] Scheduled Monument

[SK53]

It looks that for listed gardens we've used a combination of listed_status
& listed_status_register (so each type belongs in a separate
register): see Bagthorpe
Gardens
.

Mapping listed sties was a particular interest when Will & Richard Phillips
created Evesham Mapped
,
so buildings and gardens are covered at least.

Jerry

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 11:17, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> I use listed_status =Scheduled Monument
>
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 10:19 Tony OSM,  wrote:
>
>> Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled
>> Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage
>> Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number.
>>
>> Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I,
>> II*, II) and a list entry number.
>>
>> I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not for Scheduled
>> Monument or for any of the other Heritage Categories (Protected Wreck Site,
>> Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of
>> Immunity, Building Preservation Notice)
>>
>> Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines?
>>
>> I have looked at:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:HE_ref
>>
>> For a building or similar I presently use
>> HE_ref=1072653 heritage=2 heritage:operator= Historic England historic=
>> heritage listed_status=Grade II name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park
>> barrier=gate
>> start_date= mid C19 website=
>> https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653
>>
>> Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions?
>>
>>
>> Tony Shield -  TonyS999
>> ___
>> 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] Farmworkers Seasonal Accomodation

[SK53]

The recent outbreak of covid-19 in Herefordshire prompts me to wonder how
we map the groups of (usually) caravans provided on farm sites to
accommodate seasonal workers. I remember we (Andy, Tom & I) passed one east
of Gringley-on-the-Hill 5 years ago which Andy (SomeoneElse) mapped
 as landuse=residential. (It
looks to have increased in size since then)

I've added  the area which I
presume is the similarly dedicated area on Rook Row Farm, Mathon: the covid
outbreak site. This one is more readily confusable with a touring caravan
site, at least on Bing imagery, than the one at Gringley. I've also added a
residential=seasonal_farm_workers as a subtag for now.

Does anyone have any other suggestions for how to tag these? it was the
first thing I that came to mind.

We may wish to map these more explicitly as this outbreak may not be the
last in this type of setting. (I've also done a few of the meat packing
factories, but not sure I've fully tagged them. They are often both
abattoirs and a production facility)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] UPRNs & INSPIRE Polys

[SK53]

Many of you may have seen a tweet
 from Owen
Boswarva last night. It's prompted me to do what I planned to do anyway.

Owen looked at West Bridgford, a suburb/town within Greater Nottingham, and
found 77% of INSPIRE polygons could be directly associated with a single
UPRN. West Bridgford is a wealthy area and predominantly owner-occupied
houses, although there are some blocks of flats.

I've repeated this for Nottingham which has much more social housing. There
are in total 102.5k polygons for Nottingham, of which 77k contain only a
single UPRN. I then linked those to UPRNs I'd already linked to OSM
buildings and joined the two datasets. I retained 26.5k polygons, or about
a third of the candidates. I tweeted
 some images.

I've only used addresses on building polygons: a significant proportion of
addresses are still mapped, or will continue to be mapped, as nodes.
Extending the matching to use these would, I anticipate increase the
matched proportion to 50% or slightly better.

In some areas improving alignment of OSM data would also make a difference.
One of the main things I notice is that it highlights fairly simple
improvements one can make in OSM data.

Polygon coverage is very high: the things which I've noticed missing are :
churches, some public open space, allotments (of great antiquity), some
schools, almshouses, railway land, and Army Reserve Centres. At least one
set of allotments has separate INSPIRE polygons for each plot. Large
polygons in residential areas tend to be leasehold or social housing
landlords.

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

[Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery

[SK53]

Quite recently new very high quality imagery has appeared in a few places
on Bing:

   - South Lakeland extending over the fells at Scafell & Bowfell includes
   Askham-in-Furness, Grange-over-Sands, Arnside, Kendal
   - a swathe extending from Wigan, N of Rochdale and across to
   Huddersfield, full extent not known

Good imagery of similar quality  for Gosport has been available for a while.

It's probably worth looking for other similar updates.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Maps on BBC Radio 4

[SK53]

Radio 4 have certainly covered OSM in the past. Kat Arney attended a hack
day in London back in 2013 iirc and interviewed a few participants: Robert
Scott was the one who made it to the on-air programme.

Something like a segment on Countryfile about footpath mapping might work,
but having seen this happen it requires a great deal of legwork beforehand.

Jerry

On Sun, 5 Jul 2020, 11:52 BD,  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> BBC Radio 4
> Seriously…  - Mapping the
> Future
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08jpmk7
>
> I meant to come back to this last week but didn't have a chance. Now after
> listening I wonder, did I hear about OSM in this program? Is BBC actually
> aware of OSM at all?!
>
>
> ___
> 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] UPRN Locations Map

[SK53]

I've tried to match UPRNs to buildings 1:1 in Nottingham and therefore
provide an address lookup. Here's the first stab of 35 k objects:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/SK53/osm_uprn/master/ng_osm_uprn_lu.csv

Jerry

On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 12:28, Mark Goodge  wrote:

>
>
> On 04/07/2020 12:16, Stephen Knox wrote:
> > I don't think there is value in bringing in the points themselves but
> > I think there definitely is value in tagging existing buildings /
> > locations with the UPRN where it is incontrovertible - e.g. a single
> > unit house. This is the vast majority of the buildings in the UK, if
> > not the addresses. There are difficulties to overcome with multiple
> > unit buildings, that probably needs a lot of further thought and
> > possibly further open data releases to do properly, which may appear
> > eventually. How historical values are managed is also a consideration
> > to deal with.
>
> I agree. I think we have to bear in mind that UPRNs will become
> increasingly important to map users, and having them in the tag data
> will be useful. If it's a known fact about a building, then it does no
> harm, and will be potentially beneficial, to tag the building with the
> UPRN.
>
> But we do need to be wary of historic data and overlapping UPRNs. Unless
> we have incontrovertible local knowledge from a compatible source, then
> we shouldn't add a UPRN tag if the open data is in any way ambiguous.
>
> The same applies to USRNs. Where we can unambiguously match a road or
> street on OSM to a USRN, then we should add the tag. But only if we can
> be certain.
>
> > Arguably of more use for OSM for the here and now is the change to
> > the licence of the UK Land Registry INSPIRE polygons to OGL, which I
> > haven't seen much or any discussion of on this list. This means that
> > we now have an authoritative reference for boundaries and can use
> > that to alter and check geometries of things like semi-detached house
> > boundaries, gardens, hedges
> > etc.https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inspire-index-polygons-spatial-data.
>
> I agree with that, too.
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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] UPRN Locations Map

[SK53]

The new Leicester Coronavirus Regulations

provide some interesting test data, ostensibly under a Open Government
Licence, of 24 pages of postcodes and what are obviously individual
properties where postcodes are split by the boundary captured by querying
UPRNs (telephone & post boxes are a useful clue). For instance Welford Road
in Wigston (on p. 34) corresponds to this area
 on Robert's
site. Postcode LE18 3TE seems to extend from the junction of Welford Road
with Guthlaxton Lane down to the Navigation at Kilby Bridge. I've just
added the telephone (from this Mapillary
 image) which is
presumably UPRN 10025590850.

Given this looks to have been created by querying for objects via MasterMap
or similar I imagine the actual data is in practice covered by GeoPlace &
OSGB restrictions.

Nonetheless there are a few intriguing things mentioned which I cant locate
on OSM, including Lime Delph Road (which is probably the frontage road on
the new housing estate with unnamed road on the E). Nor is the nursery
obvious.

Jerry

On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 09:48, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> From Wikidata, https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P8399 if you query
> the UK Flood service with the UPRN you can see more detail on the property
>
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2020, 08:52 Stephen Colebourne, 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced this data should be pulled into OSM. It would add a lot
>> of clutter that users would be tempted to move around or delete. In areas
>> like mine where I've added thousands of buildings and addresses from
>> surveys, it would be making matters worse not better. It would be a
>> disincentive to adding more buildings with addresses as the additional
>> nodes would get in the way of editing, and because they represent a semi
>> random set of things. Because the dataset is fixed I would think it should
>> be a layer used alongside OSM by those tools that think it adds value.
>> Ideally, OSM itself should support layers, but AFAIK it doesn't.
>> Stephen
>> PS. Thanks for the slippy map!
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:38 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), <
>> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not completely sure if/how we can best make use of the new OS
>>> OpenData (UPRNs, USRNs and related links) in OpenStreetMap, but as a
>>> first step I've set up a quick slippy map with the UPRN locations
>>> shown:
>>>
>>> https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ (zoom in to level 16 to show
>>> the data)
>>>
>>> The UPRN dataset literally just contains the UPRN number and its
>>> coordinates (both OS National Grid and WGS lat/lon). There are some
>>> additional linking datasets that link these ids to other ids (e.g.
>>> USRNs, TOIDs). But no address information is available directly. (You
>>> may be able to get street names by matching to OS Open Roads via TOIDs
>>> though. Coupled with Code-Point Open, you might be able to assign
>>> quite a few postcodes in cases where there's only one unit for a whole
>>> street.)
>>>
>>> The UPRN data has already helped me find a mapping error I made
>>> locally though -- it looks like I'd accidentally missed drawing a
>>> house outline from aerial imagery, and also classified a large garage
>>> a few doors down as a house. The two errors cancelled out when the
>>> houses were numbered sequentially, so I didn't notice until now. Today
>>> though I spotted a UPRN marker over some blank space on the map, and
>>> no marker over the mapped house that's probably a garage.
>>>
>>> Now a few initial thoughts on the data that I've explored so far:
>>>
>>> I believe that the UPRNs are assigned by local authorities, so
>>> conventions may vary from place to place. I don't know who actually
>>> assigns the coordinates (authority or OS). Looking at those for rows
>>> of houses around me, they don't seem to have been automatically given
>>> coordinates from the house footprint, it looks more like someone
>>> manually clicking on a map.
>>>
>>> The UPRN dataset should include all addressable properties. It is also
>>> ahead of reality in some places, as it includes locations for houses
>>> on a new development near me that have yet to be built yet. For blocks
>>> of apartments/flats, the UPRN nodes may all have the same coordinates
>>> or may be displaced from each other, possibly in an artificial manner.
>>>
>>> Other objects also appear to have UPRNs. Likely things I've noticed so
>>> far include: car parks, post boxes, telephone boxes (even after
>>> they've been removed), electricity sub-stations, roads and recorded
>>> footpaths (the UPRN locations seem to be at one end of the street, so
>>> usually lie at a junction), recreation grounds / play areas,
>>> floodlight poles (around sports pitches), and allotments. There's no
>>> information about the object type in the UPRN data unfortunately.
>>>
>>> Anyway, 

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[SK53]

I've also had a quick look, and your hints are quite useful.

One thing I've noticed is UPRNs which I suspect are for building shells. So
there's a house which has recently been converted into student housing with
a hair transplant surgery on the ground floor. This has 3 UPRNs. The next
property down is a small parade of 4 shops with 3 office units above and
this has a total of 10 UPRNs. The next parade of 6 shops has 7 UPRNs. At
least one is the shell, or possibly the land parcel on which the property
sits.

One of the university buildings has a number of self-contained flats, but
there are no UPRNs for these (presumably postal mail goes to the tenants
through the internal mail).

Post boxes, substations, patches of grass (I presume), and bus stops are
things I've spotted. The oddity is a great forest of UPRNs over a hospital
building .
Student residences ('villages') seem to have one UPRN per flat/studio + 1
for the building itself. What is interesting is that quite a few shops (on
university premises) which pay business rates do not seem to appear, and
conversely ATMs which are ratable do not appear at all. Street lights, man
hole covers, street cabinets, gullies etc do not appear, and I think are
not captured for MasterMap. It does not resolve a local mapping conundrum,
which is what happened to the rifle range underneath a former canal bridge.

Jerry

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 17:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not completely sure if/how we can best make use of the new OS
> OpenData (UPRNs, USRNs and related links) in OpenStreetMap, but as a
> first step I've set up a quick slippy map with the UPRN locations
> shown:
>
> https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ (zoom in to level 16 to show the
> data)
>
> The UPRN dataset literally just contains the UPRN number and its
> coordinates (both OS National Grid and WGS lat/lon). There are some
> additional linking datasets that link these ids to other ids (e.g.
> USRNs, TOIDs). But no address information is available directly. (You
> may be able to get street names by matching to OS Open Roads via TOIDs
> though. Coupled with Code-Point Open, you might be able to assign
> quite a few postcodes in cases where there's only one unit for a whole
> street.)
>
> The UPRN data has already helped me find a mapping error I made
> locally though -- it looks like I'd accidentally missed drawing a
> house outline from aerial imagery, and also classified a large garage
> a few doors down as a house. The two errors cancelled out when the
> houses were numbered sequentially, so I didn't notice until now. Today
> though I spotted a UPRN marker over some blank space on the map, and
> no marker over the mapped house that's probably a garage.
>
> Now a few initial thoughts on the data that I've explored so far:
>
> I believe that the UPRNs are assigned by local authorities, so
> conventions may vary from place to place. I don't know who actually
> assigns the coordinates (authority or OS). Looking at those for rows
> of houses around me, they don't seem to have been automatically given
> coordinates from the house footprint, it looks more like someone
> manually clicking on a map.
>
> The UPRN dataset should include all addressable properties. It is also
> ahead of reality in some places, as it includes locations for houses
> on a new development near me that have yet to be built yet. For blocks
> of apartments/flats, the UPRN nodes may all have the same coordinates
> or may be displaced from each other, possibly in an artificial manner.
>
> Other objects also appear to have UPRNs. Likely things I've noticed so
> far include: car parks, post boxes, telephone boxes (even after
> they've been removed), electricity sub-stations, roads and recorded
> footpaths (the UPRN locations seem to be at one end of the street, so
> usually lie at a junction), recreation grounds / play areas,
> floodlight poles (around sports pitches), and allotments. There's no
> information about the object type in the UPRN data unfortunately.
>
> Anyway, I hope some of this is useful / interesting. I hope to be on
> the OSMUK call on Saturday to discuss things further. Best wishes,
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
> https://osm.mathmos.net/
>
> ___
> 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] Solar Power mapping update Q2 2020

[SK53]

We passed a couple of milestones a few days ago:

   - 20% of FIT totals
   - 170k individual panels mapped (excluding those in solar farms)

In terms of coverage there are now well over 50 LAs (all in England &
Wales) with more than 50% of solar installations mapped, with around 10
exceeding 80%. Areas with good coverage are:

   - Scottish Central Belt: helped no doubt by more atomic data much of the
   Central Belt is around 20% mapped.
   - North-East (former Tyne & Wear): Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland and
   North & South Tyne.
   - North Wales: Conwy, Flint, Denbigh & Wrexham. Most panels in the first
   three are in the coastal resort towns, but reasonable rural coverage.
   - North West: recent activity has been around Preston, Blackburn Wigan
   and Chorley.
   - East Midlands: mainly Leics & Notts. Improved & recent imagery for
   Leicester made a huge difference.
   - West Midlands: Warwickshire, Worcestershire & Herefordshire are
   roughly in the 20-30% zone. ALso extending into the South Wales valleys.
   brianboru's detailed mapping in the latter is another good index of rural
   coverage.
   - South Coast: Bournemouth area & Southampton, all at over 50%

More rural areas continue to be challenging: older imagery which is often
difficult to interpret doesn't help. I've experimented in places where
every building is already mapped by stepping through each building, but
still one may only find 20% of the number in FIT.

London and immediately adjacent areas also have relatively little mapped.
Imagery can be a problem, but also finding panels in older and/or larger
housing with more complex roof shapes is hard.

One thing I'm continually amazed at is how many places have buildings
mapped, which is very helpful for this task. However in a couple of places:
Ribble Valley & Leicester - it is clear that better imagery would allow
existing building outlines to be improved, but also that plenty of
buildings have been extended, demolished or replaced. This type of activity
lends itself to combined work using tools such as Tasking Manager or
MapRoulette and might be worth considering in the future for a quarterly
project.

There's still no shortage of places where a lot of panels can be mapped
quickly, although more systematic mapping of a single LA often requires a
couple of passes over imagery.

Looking forward to achieving the next milestones of 200k & 25%.

Jerry

Personally, I'm concentrating on areas adjacent to the existing well-mapped
(50%+) areas with the aim of extending these areas.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Farmfoods clean up

[SK53]

As the original author of "Retail Chains...", I'm not sure that there was
much usage of shop=frozen_food when I compiled it. However there seems
better acceptance of the tag now & I presume its being applied to Iceland
(and Heron?) too. People, often in poorer areas, do use such places for
weekly shops (I should ask my niece, she worked in Farmfoods during her gap
year).

I suspect the page would be better split across several pages. Ideally the
numbers could come from a taginfo query, but this would probably need a
special template & may be too complex because if name variants. The
disadvantage of automatically updating the numbers is that has resulted in
it being harder to have detailed narrative as well. If any one has  ideas
to enable both together do chime in.

Jerry

On Wed, 27 May 2020, 08:32 Cj Malone, 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 06:35 +, Ed Loach wrote:
> > If you can't copy the opening hours data, are you sure you can copy
> > the store reference?
>
> That's a good point. I guess I was thinking because it's in the url
> it's usable, but I don't know enough about copyright. I'll leave it
> out, unless anyone knows more.
>
> > I've already checked and I used shop=supermarket for their local
> > store, probably based on
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom
>
> I think that page could do with some restructuring, I started updating
> the numbers but it's a lot to deal with. I'd be happy to go with
> either, but I do think shop=frozen_food is a better fit.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfrozen_food
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] INSPIRE Polygons spatial data

[SK53]

It's always been useless to us. However the terms have changed since the
original release (basically IIRC to make the restrictions more explicit).

Jerry

On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 19:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Is
> "Although the data is released under the OGL, there is an
> important caveat: third party rights the Information Provider is not
> authorised to license"
> is still applicable what makes it basically useless for us?
>
> May 16, 2020, 16:47 by christian.lederm...@gmail.com:
>
> Reading through the inspire land registry data, it seems they have
> adjusted their licence:
> What would that mean for use in OSM?
>
>
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inspire-index-polygons-spatial-data#conditions-of-use
>
> Conditions of use
>
> Your use of the INSPIRE Index Polygons service is governed by conditions.
>
> The INSPIRE Index Polygons and attributes provided in this service are
> available for use and reuse under the Open Government Licence (OGL)
> .
> This licence enables public bodies to make their data available free of
> charge for reuse.
>
> Use under the OGL is free. If you fail to comply with any of the
> conditions of the OGL then the rights granted to you under the licence
> will end automatically.
>
> Under the OGL, when reusing the data you must acknowledge the source of
> the data and include the following attribution statement:
>
> This information is subject to Crown copyright and is reproduced with the
> permission of HM Land Registry.
>
> If you are reusing the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely
> x, y co-ordinates), you must also display the following Ordnance Survey
> copyright/database right notice:
>
> © Crown copyright and database rights [year of supply or date of
> publication] Ordnance Survey 100026316.
>
> You must provide a link to these conditions, where possible.
>
> Under the OGL, HM Land Registry permits you to use the data for
> commercial or non-commercial purposes. However, as the licence says, OGL does
> not cover the use of third party rights which we are not authorised to
> license. HM Land Registry uses Ordnance Survey data in the preparation of
> the polygons and you will need to comply with Ordnance Survey licensing
> terms for use of the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely
> x,y co-ordinates).
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Christian Ledermann
>
> Newark-on-Trent - UK
> Mobile : +44 7474997517
>
> https://uk.linkedin.com/in/christianledermann
> https://github.com/cleder/
>
>
> <*)))>{
>
> If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left,
> you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If
> you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.
>
> 1) Don’t drive species to extinction
>
> 2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on.
>
> 3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above.
>
> }<(((*>
>
>
> ___
> 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] INSPIRE Polygons spatial data

[SK53]

INSPIRE polygons have never been suitable for use in OSM.

Both Chris Hill and I wrote blog posts at the time:


   -
   
https://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2013/10/not-very-inspired-land-registry-open.html
   -
   http://chris-osm.blogspot.com/2013/10/land-registry-inspire-polygons.html

Jerry





On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 15:49, Christian Ledermann <
christian.lederm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Reading through the inspire land registry data, it seems they have
> adjusted their licence:
> What would that mean for use in OSM?
>
>
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inspire-index-polygons-spatial-data#conditions-of-use
>
> Conditions of use
>
> Your use of the INSPIRE Index Polygons service is governed by conditions.
>
> The INSPIRE Index Polygons and attributes provided in this service are
> available for use and reuse under the Open Government Licence (OGL)
> <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/>.
> This licence enables public bodies to make their data available free of
> charge for reuse.
>
> Use under the OGL is free. If you fail to comply with any of the
> conditions of the OGL then the rights granted to you under the licence
> will end automatically.
>
> Under the OGL, when reusing the data you must acknowledge the source of
> the data and include the following attribution statement:
>
> This information is subject to Crown copyright and is reproduced with the
> permission of HM Land Registry.
>
> If you are reusing the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely
> x, y co-ordinates), you must also display the following Ordnance Survey
> copyright/database right notice:
>
> © Crown copyright and database rights [year of supply or date of
> publication] Ordnance Survey 100026316.
>
> You must provide a link to these conditions, where possible.
>
> Under the OGL, HM Land Registry permits you to use the data for
> commercial or non-commercial purposes. However, as the licence says, OGL does
> not cover the use of third party rights which we are not authorised to
> license. HM Land Registry uses Ordnance Survey data in the preparation of
> the polygons and you will need to comply with Ordnance Survey licensing
> terms for use of the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely
> x,y co-ordinates).
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Christian Ledermann
>
> Newark-on-Trent - UK
> Mobile : +44 7474997517
>
> https://uk.linkedin.com/in/christianledermann
> https://github.com/cleder/
>
>
> <*)))>{
>
> If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left,
> you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If
> you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.
>
> 1) Don’t drive species to extinction
>
> 2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on.
>
> 3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above.
>
> }<(((*>
> ___
> 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] Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to OSM (perhaps!)

[SK53]

It's worth pointing out that the same can be done with the following
editors: iD, Potlatch2, and Vespucci. The actual formats (gpx, kml, shape,
geojson) vary a bit, but all have the capability.

For some years I've loaded KMLs onto Maps.Me so I can actually check the
line in the field (I've made Garmin files too, but this is easier &
quicker).

Jerry

On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:26, Tony OSM  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I had the Lancashire KML file handy (as you do),  looked up JOSM import
> and found the OpenData plug in. Dropped the KML file onto the plug in and
> it created a lancashire.kml layer with all of the ways on the layer and the
> kml fields as tags.
>
> When combined with OSM data and ESRI imagery it provides a really useful
> view of the footpaths. I have a paint style which picks out some PROW types
> which allows me to see what is in osm and what isn't. So I can do some
> manual editing.
>
> From the kml layer I have all the data to determine the Parish, Type &
> PROW ref - that is manual tag editing.
>
>
> This view does allow me to see existing paths and PROW's and manually
> determine what mapping I can do.
>
>
> Overlaying kml onto the imagery has already helped me to see a path I was
> confused about - where it actually went. I'll be able to go out and survey
> soon.
>
> JOSM in the Edit dropdown has a Merge layer capability - I think this
> should be avoided at all costs as that would constitute an unmanaged data
> import of the whole of the KML file - an OSM disaster.
>
>
> Adding a GPS layer will make this an awesome toolkit.
>
>
> Tony
>
>
> On 14/05/2020 11:45, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
> Hello Tony and Gareth,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> My main thought was a specialised JOSM plugin - I did take a look at OSM's
> main GPX trace facility but it appears not to preserve tags in the uploaded
> trace. Some versions of the MapThePaths app (the first version, and the
> current version on Gitlab) allow GPX upload to OSM but the tags are removed.
>
> So I'm thinking that my own storage (I have quite a bit of available
> storage) and a custom JOSM plugin, which, for example, creates colour-coded
> and clickable traces showing the ROW designation, surface and highway tags
> might be the way to go.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
> --
> *From:* Gareth L  
> *Sent:* 14 May 2020 09:56
> *To:* Tony OSM  
> *Cc:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way mapping - making it easy for
> newcomers to OSM (perhaps!)
>
> I wonder if it would be possible to use the GPS trace feature on OSM for
> this? Maybe format the name in a way to make it easier to retrieve?
>
> Takes care of the storage of the traces.
>
>
> On 14 May 2020, at 09:22, Tony OSM 
>  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Hi Nick
>
> I like the two stage approach - surveying then mapping. It would work well
> - some of my friends like walking but can't map to save their life, whereas
> I can't walk far but love mapping - Win Win for us all.
>
>
> May I suggest that a layer be created for JOSM with all the paths and
> their details as provided for MapThePaths. Personally I find it easier to
> work with JOSM and I have learnt to create a style to highlight PROW's, but
> I don't know how to create a JOSM layer.
>
> Separate layers would allow us to manually transfer from PROW layer to MAP
> layer thus avoiding the mechanical import rules, and would allow us to
> manually conflate where a path is already mapped but PROW data is absent.
>
> A layer containing the surveyed GPS data so that all the sources we need
> are available would be awesome.
>
>
> I may be asking for a workflow that is close to existing, if that is the
> case I am able to test and document the workflow for the UK wiki if that
> would be helpful.
>
>
> Tony Shield
>
> TonyS999
>
>
> On 13/05/2020 18:11, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
>
> Oops... sorry one or two editing errors in the last paragraph.
>
> I meant to say:
>
> "They [the non-expert user] select ROW type and path surface via a nice
> interface, and then a tagged GPX trace is generated, *with trksegs tagged
> with ROW designation and surface* (which was done by the first version of
> the app anyway). This is then uploaded to the MapThePaths server, and
> volunteer expert users *are alerted*. Said expert user then downloads the
> GPX trace and, *using the tags in the trksegs of the GPX* then edits in
> JOSM, perhaps via a JOSM plugin - or even directly in the MapThePaths web
> app. (I am possibly thinking of adding way creation into the MapThePaths
> web app anyway, time depending)."
>
> Nick
>
> --
> *From:* Nick Whitelegg
> *Sent:* 13 May 2020 18:08
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
> 
> *Subject:* Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to OSM
> (perhaps!)
>
> Hi,
>
> Just to continue with the theme of rights of way mapping, I've been
> noticing that there are still large tracts of England and Wales away from
> the 'honeypot' areas with little or now ROW 

[Talk-GB] Solar panels 150k up

[SK53]

Just would like to point out that we passed the 150,000 mark of solar
panels mapped in the UK. Dan & Jez are best informed about solar farms, so
the rest of this update is on small domestic rooftop installations.

A number of us continue to spend time mapping rooftop panels, and, although
progress is not at the heady rate of last Summer, this has resulted in
improved coverage of a number of local authorities. These are the
activities of which I'm aware, there are no doubt others I've missed:

   - I mainly aim to push reasonably well-mapped LAs over various
   thresholds (50%, 60% & 80% are the ones I find most useful), and to try &
   create a contiguous band of well-mapped (>50%) across England & Wales.
   Recently I've worked on Flintshire, Hinckley & Bosworth and Vale Royal.
   - gurglypipe continues to spread out beyond Lancaster into South Lakes
   to the N & Ribbledale and to the S
   - brianboru continues to pick up a significant number of installations
   across Herefordshire & the Welsh Valleys as part of general mapping work
   - Gregory Williams continues to focus on hotspot unmapped LSOAs
   - MapRoulette users make a steady contribution by converting panels
   mapped as nodes to areas

Gregory has recently updated the FIT data to March which added perhaps
20,000 additional installations. To deal with these he had to change the LA
boundaries used to incorporate unitary authorities (affecting Cheshire,
Cornwall, Wiltshire, Shropshire, Northumberland & perhaps others). One
consequence is that some well-mapped districts dropped below thresholds, so
I've been working over the last few days to restore them if possible
(Ashford, Hart & Rugby still to be hauled back over 50%). Very kindly, he
agreed to retain the original district boundaries on a distinct web page,
because I found working with the old districts of large rural counties more
useful than the new boundaries.

As well as adding new panels here's still plenty to do with the ones
already mapped: adding buildings under mapped panels, adjusting position,
adding number of panels and orientation.

Thanks to all who have contributed.

Regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 164, Issue 16

[SK53]

Its quite possible that this just cannot be done. I believe Leicestershire,
and consequently Rutland as well, does not use any reference to tehe parish
in the identifiers used in official documents. Instead all paths consist if
a letter followed by a number. I once tried to extract parishes from this
but I dont think the identifiers colocate with parish boundaries. Phil
Barnes will know more.

On the whole I also prefer the use of names in identifiers stored on OSM. I
suspect some of the completely numeric ones represent system specific keys.

Jerry

On Mon, 11 May 2020, 20:48 Mike Baggaley,  wrote:

> In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message
> (preferably parish name, type and number) and not confusing potential
> mappers by having different formats in different counties. We have enough
> trouble already with path references variously being put in name, ref or
> local_ref instead of prow_ref, so need a simple unambiguous standard.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> >Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish
> name,
> >type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish
> >Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will
> >continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change
> >something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist only in
> >an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the
> >line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM would
> >then be meaningless.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] City centre landuse tagging

[SK53]

I've always been of the view
<https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/23994/tagging-landuse-in-downtown-areas>
that one should map the primary landuse at ground level, so for a typical
UK city or town centre retail would generally apply. Most usually have some
obvious ancillary commercial areas of mainly offices. We don't have a
specific landuse for entertainment dominated areas, although that might be
useful. I'd reserve landuse=mixed for areas where retail, office and
residential are really heavily interspersed at the street level (unusual in
the UK except perhaps where retail is in retreat). An alternative is to use
a broad brush landuse=commercial. My general experience of consuming these
tags is that broad-brush tags are actually much less useful than apparently
more restrictive ones. Basically, its far more useful to know that
somewhere is a shopping area than that it's not residential.

For suburban shopping parades I think landuse=retail is fairly standard,
although most will have flats above (these are often quite hard to use as
security for mortgages, apparently fast food outlets have quite a high risk
of fire).

Although one could add a secondary_landuse tag, in general I think it's
better to just subtag the type of retail area and this can be used to
inform likely secondary uses (a parade likely has residential use, a retail
park no other secondary uses, a town centre both commericial &
residential).

Specific problems currently arising are the conversion of former office
blocks or offices in a mixed-use retail/office block to flats (mainly
student flats). It's difficult to be precise but my impression is that city
centre offices are declining fast in favour of student flat conversions.
Some of this, at least, is driven by parking restrictions favouring some
office businesses to relocate out-of-town. One could do more detailed
microtagging of building use or of operator. I think identifying student
flats is something of general interest as it is quite a significant change
in many places.

Elsewhere with less restrictive planning categories (and associated
potential rental income) it can be very hard to categorise. As far as I
could see most places in Buenos Aires were completely mixed landuse.

Last point is that it is possible to programmatically identify some of
these areas, providing that shops and other POIs are mapped in detail. See
my old blog posts
<https://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2013/04/segmentation-of-retail-landuse-why-do.html>
and Stefan Keller's presentation
<https://2018.stateofthemap.org/2018/A30-Areas-of-Interest_for_OpenStreetMap_with_Big_Spatial_Data_Analytics_/>
at SotM18 on Areas of Interest.

Jerry

On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 12:23, Nick Whitelegg 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Meant to include this in my other post, but...I'm noticing that several
> cities in the UK (Bristol, Bath and Chester are good examples) don't seem
> to tag the city centre area with an appropriate landuse tag (presumably
> retail, commercial or residential).
>
> This is something I've missed over the years... but what is the common
> practice for tagging city centre areas? Presumably the above three landuses
> are not used because city centres are typically a mixrure of all three.
>
> What I'm trying to achieve is a 'built-up-area' rendering which covers the
> whole of the built up area of a town or city. Not looking for
> administrative boundaries - but the actual physically built-up area.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>
> ___
> 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] CWGC: worldwide, war graves

[SK53]

Hi Daniel,

Chris Hill

attempted starting a discussion getting on for 10 years ago. I would
imagine open data might be more on people's wavelength now, so it may be
worth another shot.

Jerry

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 18:22, Daniel Pocock  wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> We were discussing[1] this on talk-au recently as today is Anzac Day
>
> I sent a request to CWGC asking if they will make their list of
> cemeteries available under either the ODbL or UK Open Government License
> (OGL v3.0)
>
> Has anybody else had any discussion with CWGC or looked at ways to use
> their data?
>
> They provide an easy way to download all 20,000 cemeteries as a CSV
> file.  I've put more details on https://anzacathon.com
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
>
> 1.
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2020-April/013791.html
>
> ___
> 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] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

[SK53]

My local two Boots are:

a) a dedicated pharmacy (with limited OTC pharmaceutical products)
associated with the GP practice (which is huge, 40k registered patients)
and b) a chemist selling mainly beauty/personal grooming products and
sandwiches.

In the middle of town there is a very large Boots which at one time was
like a small department store, and a smaller more typicsl high street
outlet.

Moral: there is no one size fits all. However, amenity=pharmacy is nearly
always a more important piece of information than shop =chemist (most
people around the world map pharmacies as POIs very early on. I think using
pharmacy=yes in this case does not fit with how things have been mapped for
at least 15 years. By all means use both tags or create a separate node for
the pharmacy counter, but dont change things in such a way as to surprise
people.

Most pharmacies in supermarkets or heslth centres should be mapped
separately anyway.

Jerry


On Sun, 12 Apr 2020, 18:09 Peter Neale via Talk-GB, <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> As Boots' stores don't ALL have a pharmacy counter, IMHO they should be
> tagged as "shop=chemist".  Those that DO have a pharmacy (dispensing
> prescriptions) should be additionally tagged, either with "pharmacy=yes",
> or with a separate node for the pharmacy.  I think that would fit with the
> checking that you describe for your tool.
>
> As regards "pharmacy type", does your data identify what I would call
> "wholesale pharmacies", who have no public access, but supply medicines to
> hospitals, care homes and individual customers in their homes?  I know of 2
> in my area.  In one case, I changed the name to "Jardines (on line)" (Node:
> 6409354480) and in the other to "Mediva Private Pharmacy" (Node:
> 6443190532), in an attempt to make it clear that there is no public
> access.
> Could these be excluded in future?
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
>
> On Sunday, 12 April 2020, 14:41:01 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 18:39, Dave Love  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 12:08 +0100, SK53 wrote:
> >> > Robert Whittaker has a Pharmacy QA <https://osm.mathmos.net/pharmacy/
> >> > > site
> >>
> >> That shows a Boots missing which I tagged as the brand from the
> >> correction iD wanted (brand=Boots shop=chemist).  How should Boots be
> >> tagged, and does iD need a fix?  (I assume all Boots have pharmacies,
> >> but maybe not.)
> >
> >As far as my tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/pharmacy/progress/ is
> >concerned, pharmacies are recognised as OSM objects tagged with either
> >amenity=pharmacy or pharmacy=yes*. (The latter can be used on things
> >like supermarkets and doctors surgeries, when things aren't mapped in
> >enough detail to have a separate amenity=pharmacy node.)
> >
> >As for whether all Boots stores have pharmacies, I think most do, but
> >some don't:
> https://www.boots-uk.com/about-boots-uk/about-boots/boots-in-numbers/
> >says there are 2,465 Boots stores, but in the General Pharmaceutical
> >Council register of Pharmacies, there are only 2304 premises
> >registered to 'Boots UK Limited'.
> >
> >Robert
> >
> >PS: I've just noticed that the data I'm using for my tool now contains
> >a "Pharmacy Type" field. This means I can exclude internet only
> >pharmacies, temporary locations (e.g. for events) and internal
> >hospital and prisons pharmacies. This will hopefully make the
> >comparison shown by the tool must more useful.
> >
> >* Because of the change to exclude hospital and prison pharmacies from
> >the GPhC data, OSM objects with pharmacy=yes will only be picked up in
> >my tool if they do not also have amenity=hospital or amenity=prison
> >too.
>
>
> --
> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

[SK53]

Robert Whittaker has a Pharmacy QA  site
(usefulness is somewhat limited because of on-line pharmacies & in hospital
ones). Most ordinary pharmacies appear in FHRS data as well.

All CQC data (including dentists & care homes) is available on Will
Phillips OSM-Nottingham site. Just move the map to the area of interest and
search for a term using open data sources (this can be restricted to CQC).
Data are usually located at the post code centroid (this example

is all CQC entries for DE1 postcode district).

Jerry

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 22:55, Gareth L  wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> The UK quarterly project for Q2 2020 has been selected as GP Surgeries and
> health sites. The wiki page is
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q2_Project:_GP_Surgeries_and_Healthsites
>
>
>
> A couple interesting sources of data, the Care Quality Commission appears
> to provide a data set similar to the food hygiene rating system so should
> be good for addresses, but they only cover England. Does anyone know of
> Wales/Scotland/N. Ireland equivalents?
>
> https://healthsites.io is a global project which has a lot of overlap.
>
>
>
> It would be good to have a source for pharmacies. A potential source is
> https://inspections.pharmacyregulation.org/ however it is not immediately
> clear if they share their data, let alone under what license. Has this been
> pursued before?
>
>
>
> Warm regards
>
> Gareth
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Town Greens

[SK53]

In the past the term urban commons was widely used in the ecological
literature for all sorts of (mainly) grassy spaces in towns. If one wanted
a catch-all designation this might be suitable, although I think it would
be perhaps better used to replace the usages of landuse=grass &
leisure=common in urban situations.

Jerry

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:36, Russ Garrett  wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
>  wrote:
> > What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the
> > physical and usage characteristics. First I would tag the legal
> > status, using the designation=* tag (which was set up for such
> > purposes) i.e. designation=town_green. Once that's done you can add
> > whatever other tags you think best describe the actual land and the
> > way it is used. That might be leisure=park, landuse=recreation_ground,
> > or whatever, depending on the nature of the Town Green in question. By
> > using two (or more tags) you can correctly capture the UK legal
> > status, while also ensuring the area renders in an appropriate way
> > based on it's on-the-ground characteristics.
>
> I was just about to suggest this. The legal status should be tagged
> separately from the landuse.
>
> We created designation=common for common land. However it looks like
> town greens and village greens are legally identical under the Commons
> Act. Maybe designation=green might be best, although it looks a little
> weird.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation=common
>
> --
> Russ Garrett
> r...@garrett.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] Anyone in South-West London?

[SK53]

The update of the former Wickes to Lidl in Fulwell (next to the bus garage)
looks OK. Stadium Village is, of course, complete nonsense (I lived in the
immediate area for 7 years, worked in it for an additional 4).

Jerry

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 18:59, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> I've sent another "message to be read before continuing to edit"
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3592 .
>
> It'd be good if everyone could have a look at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82834995 and comment there if
> there are further problems (I've added the first obvious question).  I've
> explicitly said at the current block that they should answer questions that
> have been asked before any more editing.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
> On 30/03/2020 18:35, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> He's back, and he's unimpressed...
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82834995
>
> "Reverted edits as many of mine were falsely removed"
>
>
>
> On 2020-03-25 21:54, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> On 25/03/2020 16:02, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> Heh, none of the references on the Wikipedia page link to anything
> mentioning that it exists. I call bullsh/t
>
> Indeed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tfondie does not look
> promising.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 2:34 PM Andrew Hain 
> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if Tfondie who created the Wikipedia page may be the same person.
>>
> I've "sent them a message that they have to read before continuing to
> edit" at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3585 .
>
> We'll see what happens next; if there's no reply after a week or so I'll
> revert their remaining edits that haven't since been edited by other users;
> most have been reverted already but some (such as
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783299940 ) remain and look somewhat
> implausible.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy (from the DWG)
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Suspension of Nottingham/East Midlands pub meetings until further notice

[SK53]

Dear All,

I'm finally finding a little bit of time to catch up on things.

Firstly, thanks to those of you who responded to me personally when I
cancelled this months meeting. It meant a lot.

I'm now housebound (as a 'shielding' 'extremely vulnerable' person) for a
minimum of the next 12 weeks, so I'm no longer in a position to co-ordinate
OSM pub meetings in the East Midlands area.

I am therefore cancelling (i.e., removing from the OSM calendar) all
meetings for the rest of the year. (I anticipate the 12 week isolation will
be extended for a considerable time beyond late June). I'll revisit this in
late June.

In the meantime if anyone fancies a virtual drinking at home meet sometime
via one of the video chat packages drop me a line.

Best wishes,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

[SK53]

Dear All,

Coming late to this as I have little time for any email at present.

I would suggest in the current circumstances that this activity should be
halted:


   1.  As others have said the vast majority of public roads in Great
   Britain (and most likely Northern Ireland too) are already mapped.
   2.  The latest release of OS OpenData Roads has good quality geometries
   and it is relatively simple to find missing roads with it (see below).
   3.  Missing roads available from the Facebook project via the special ID
   editors have such a high rate of false positives (I haven't found the time
   to precisely quantify it but I would estimate 90-95% for the Rushcliffe
   District in Nottinghamshire). This in itself ought to be sufficient reason
   to halt/delay on its own.
   4.  Imagery used for the identifications may well be less up-to-date
   than OS OpenData
   5.  Classification of roads often requires good local knowledge. The
   ability to improve a very small number of areas in comparison is not
   outweighed by the potential to introduce many incorrect routes across rural
   areas which, in particular, may impact some logistics planning.
   6.  Active OSM contributors have much less time to check any data added
   and flag up issues. Accordingly incorrect data may stay on OSM for a
   considerable period of time.

In order to identify and add missing urban roads I suggest one or more of
the following:


   -  Use CodePoint Open to identify postcodes more than a certain distance
   from the OSM road network. Probably needs OSM road network (e.g., for a
   Local Authority or larger area) and CPO either in a PostGIS database or as
   layers in QGIS. The relevant query is st_shortestline(cpo_point, osm_road)
   > n metres. It needs optimisation to get good performance, but is probably
   fine for a single LA.
   - Download a OpenRoads. I think it comes packaged as 100 km sq tiles
   (e.g., SK). This is a reasonable volume of data to work with in QGIS. It
   can be clipped to a given LA, although you may need two or more squares for
   some. Download OSM highways (minus tracks, bridleways, steps, footways &
   cycleways, or filter them out after download), either using Overpass (best)
   or a full pbf file from Geofabrik. Re-project to OSGB 27700, buffer by
   anywhere between 10 and 20 metres and then use the Vector difference tool
   in QGIS to find all roads in the OpenRoad dataset which are not overlaid by
   the buffered OSM data (this latter step is not absolutely necessary because
   overlaying the buffered OSM roads allows a quick visualisation of the
   missing data. OpenRoads data can be read by JOSM directly using the
   OpenData plugin which will perform a correct reprojection for OSM purposes.
   Roads to be added can be selected and added to a new layer. The default
   fields, other than name and ref, from OpenRoads are largely not useful for
   OSM, nor do they map cleanly onto OSM tags, so tags need to be added,
   original fields deleted etc., before data is added to OSM. (The OpenRoads
   data is also very good for missing road names).

Regards,

Jerry

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 12:18, Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> Jothirnadh Guthula wrote:
> > With a team of mappers @Amazon we are planning to improve
> > missing roads in UK using Facebook detections as a source. Please
> > let us know if you have any ongoing projects using this data source.
> > While adding missing roads, we will be adding all the associated
> > access tags as per available on-ground resources.
>
> I'd urge extreme caution on this, particularly in rural areas, for two
> reasons.
>
> Firstly, as Martin says, there are virtually no public roads unmapped in
> the
> UK. New construction aside, I think in the last five years, I've spotted
> two, both in Powys.
>
> Secondly, UK access rights are unique and complex, and can only be
> discerned
> either by survey or by consulting Definitive Statements where these exist.
> You should not be adding access tags, nor adding highway types that imply
> access rights (for example, highway=unclassified implies general public
> access to all vehicle types), unless you've surveyed the location or
> consulted a Definitive Statement.
>
> For an example of the issues, please see this changeset discussion:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71668172
>
> In this case an Amazon Logistics mapper added motor_vehicle=yes which was
> inaccurate. In this particular case I was lucky to find an openly licensed
> photo to demonstrate the real access rights on that way.
>
> If you're exclusively mapping new housing estates in urban areas, though,
> go
> for it. :)
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list

[Talk-GB] Cancellation of Nottingham pub meetup scheduled for 17th March

[SK53]

Dear All,

The Nottingham pub meetup scheduled for next Tuesday 17th March will now
not take place.

This is in the light of recent developments of the coronavirus epidemic,
including a personal need, as someone with a pre-existing condition,  to
self-isolate (and to encourage my father to do the same).

I will review whether the April and May meetings will take place closer to
the time.

Best wishes,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Private and restricted access post boxes

[SK53]

The actual locations of many of these are still very useful. As sub-post
offices get relocated to shops there are likely to be more of them. In the
past I would certainly have appreciated knowing the locations of ones on
the departure side of airports. To my regret I forgot to ascertain the
location of the one in the RAC Club on Pall Mall when I called in there a
few years ago.

There are other issues with amenity=post_box elsewhere in the world. The
tag is used in the US (and possibly elsewhere) for banks of external letter
boxes outside apartment building, and also for other non-universal delivery
providers (FedEx etc).

Jerry

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 07:54, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> I'm inclined to think that it is the areas that are restricted and not the
> postboxes, and hence map them as normal.
>
> I've had a similar issue with clothes recycling boxes on school premises.
>
> On Sun, 1 Mar 2020, 15:56 Dan Glover,  wrote:
>
>> So it’s March, the sun is shining here and it’s time to go back out in
>> pursuit of post boxes and other OSM things.
>>
>>
>>
>> While working through the CT postal area three things have come up which
>> maybe need further thought:
>>
>>
>>
>> -  Some boxes are located within MOD or other restricted access
>> sites.  To those inside the fence they are normal facilities but perhaps
>> they’re not an “amenity” in the sense of being available to the general
>> public.  This also tends to inhibit surveying.
>>
>>
>>
>> -  Royal Mail data from 2013 in some cases includes “private
>> boxes”, one local example is in the reception area of an hotel.  There is a
>> mail collection from the building but there’s a conventional pillar box
>> within 200 m.  These probably aren’t an “amenity” in general terms.  The RM
>> data treats them inconsistently, they’re not all listed.
>>
>>
>>
>> -  There are boxes inside some supermarkets. They are also on
>> private property however the public is encouraged to visit the premises.
>> Those in Tesco and Asda, maybe others, tend to be tall GRP boxes of this
>> style (a variation with clear back is used at airports and other places
>> where security might be a concern)
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post_box_at_ASDA,_Smithdown_Road.jpg.
>> These are owned and operated by RM in the normal fashion.  In the past
>> Sainsbury’s had boxes carrying advertising and often labelled MIDI POST or
>> similar, in this style
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post_box_CH49_15_in_Sainsbury,_Upton.jpg
>> I understand these were “private” in RM terms and the third party which
>> managed them went into administration, following which most were removed.
>> However due to RM’s inconsistent data some appear in the 2013 FOI release.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there an appropriate way to handle the first two cases?  Should they
>> be in OSM at all, or shown with a tag to indicate restricted access?
>>
>>
>>
>> As for the Sainsbury’s boxes it may be the best thing is to treat all of
>> them as requiring a check to confirm whether the facility still exists.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Tagging showgrounds

[SK53]

I asked similar questions about 6 months ago:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-September/023452.html
,
and there are other discussions going back some 10 years:
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=search_page=5167127=showground=5167127

Jerry

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 09:58, Mark Goodge  wrote:

> Morning all,
>
> Someone has commented on a change I made to the Three Counties
> showground last year when I changed the tagging to landuse=grass rather
> than landuse=commercial. Their suggestion is that it really ought to be
> landuse=recreation_ground, with a secondary tag of surface=grass.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74103491#map=16/52.0834/-2.3235
>
> I've responded to that comment on the changeset, but I thought it would
> be worth throwing out here as well.
>
> I do think that tagging showgrounds as landuse=commercial is generally
> incorrect; it doesn't match the description of 'commercial' in the wiki
> and doesn't reflect the typical uses of showgrounds both when a show is
> on and when one isn't.
>
> The reason I tagged the Three Counties showground as grass is because,
> most of the year, that's precisely what it is - an open area of
> grassland. Unless there is an event on (which only happens for a
> minority of days in a year) it is just an open space.
>
> Looking at a few other showgrounds across the country, we don't seem to
> have any consistency.
>
> The East of England Showground is tagged as landuse=recreation_ground:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.5456/-0.3170
>
> The Suffolk Showground is tagged as a park:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0330/1.2277
>
> So is the Staffordshire County Showgound:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.8255/-2.0643
>
> The former Royal Showground at Stoneleigh is tagged as commercial, but
> in that case that's probably now correct as it's no longer used as a
> showground and is gradually being redeveloped as a business park:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3435/-1.5220
>
> The Great Yorkshire Showground isn't tagged as an area at all, just a
> network of roads and individual features:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.9830/-1.5065
>
> Similarly with the Norfolk Showground
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.6490/1.1793
>
> And the Bath and West Showground:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.1552/-2.5265
>
> So, what do people think? Personally, I think that showgrounds ought to
> be tagged as an area, because they do, typically, have clear boundaries
> and are distinct from their surrounding context. But I'm less sure what
> the area should be tagged as. I think commercial is usually wrong, for
> the reasons I've already given, but I can see an argument for either
> grass, recreation_ground or even park.
>
> Thoughts, anyone?
>
> Mark
>
>
> ___
> 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] Derby meeting tonight

[SK53]

Dear All,

A reminder that there is a pub meeting in Derby at the Brunswick by the
station 19:30 tonight:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup.

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

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

[SK53]

Funnily enough this long-standing issue came up at our pub meeting last
month. Although my reaction has always been to let sleeping dogs lie, this
was clearly not the consensus.

I've sent a message to University of Cambridge Information Services who run
the map.cam.ac.uk site which consumes the OSM data, to warn them that a
change is impending. It's probably worth holding off for a week or so to
allow them to assess any impact on their map. Incidentally, knowing a
specific contact point would help as university IT departments can be big
beasts these days. It does show that having a good contact point is always
a good idea for directed edits when data is in use.

As others have said there is a lot of inconsistency: particular with former
houses taken into University or College ownership which sometimes get
building=house/semi and other times building=university. There are other
college buildings of this type which are not hit by amenity=university at
all.

Other general points I noticed relating to  inconsistency/issues (largely
arising because Cambridge got mapped earlier than many places or it just
has a lot of things which are otherwise rare):

   - Theological Colleges are loosely associated with the university, and
   are equally loosely amenity=university in their own right. I don't know if
   we have a regular way of tagging non-degree awarding religious training
   centres. These are something of an Oxbridge speciality. I see the London
   Institute of Theology is tagged
    as a college. Years ago I
   mapped Coleg Trefecca as a conference centre, but used old_ tags to
   indicate it's historical role as a college training people for the
   ministry. Fortunately some of the odder places
    of former
   times have similarly changed their roles.
   - Sports facilities (especially isolated playing fields and boathouses)
   are just tagged with a ref and operator. Pavilions are often tagged
   building=university, as is the sports centre.
   - Cambridge colleges are independent corporations in their own right, so
   probably should have separate amenity=university relations (although the
   world is unlikely to end if not). They mostly form discrete campuses.
   Isolated parts are named separately so just replacing these with a relation
   doesn't work. North Court, Emma is one such example. There are similarly
   very well known parts of the university with their own widely used names:
   Downing Site, New Museums, West Cambridge etc. This is true of most
   universities now that many are multi-campus. I don't think we have a good
   approach to these: roles in relations, campus_name … are all possibilities.
   (This also applies to schools now that one academy can take over another).
   - There's plenty of (non-public accessible) student accommodation which
   is not mapped as such. I presume this is intentional. Examples the Trinity
   staircase above the bike shop on Jesus Lane, most of Lower Park St (Jesus),
   and Portugal Place,
   -  Multiple buildings mapped as one
   . There are probably
   others, but this one I know. The larger part of the building is the
former Cambridgeshire
   County Hall
   
,
   built around 1910 and Grade II listed, the S part is a 17th century house
   

   (formerly 'X' staircase), also Grade II. The two buildings form a single
   unit of student accommodation which presumably reflects the mapping.

Cheers,

Jerry




On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 15:15, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
> > what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
> > building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?
>
> That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query
> into JOSM:
> [bbox:{{bbox}}];
> nwr[amenity=university][building=university];
> out meta geom;
>
> plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.
>
> > (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
> > if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
> > relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)
>
> There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH
>
> These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be
> rectified at a later date..
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
> > Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
> > :
> >> Hi
> >> There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html
> >>
> >> Many amenity=university 

Re: [Talk-GB] Soild fuel

[SK53]

There's one  fairly
close to me (or at least their sign is still there, I've not recently
verified that they still exist). We used shop=coal (but see below), which
is not far off the more generic shop=fuel.

It's over 20 years ago since I bought coal. I ordered it and was delivered,
perhaps 1 cwt which lasted the winter. I think that's how most solid fuel
will be sold, so most are not really shops but coal merchants yards. I have
no idea how these should be tagged, but shop is probably not particularly
correct. Similar things will be true for suppliers of LPG or Oil for
heating systems in rural areas. In Spain people used to buy butane for
cooking (probably still do) largely through Butano SA which became a Repsol
subsidiary. I ought to know how this worked as a relative worked for them,
but don't. I suspect it's possible to get regular deliveries (just like the
old Corona  vans -
fizzy pop I hasten to add).

Jerry

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 21:28, Andy Robinson  wrote:

> Solid fuel; as in a coal merchants. Yes, still a few of those around,
> probably many of them in some countries.
>
> amenity=fuel / fuel=solid perhaps but that will receive a petrol pump on
> the map for your efforts.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7171642306
>
>
>
> 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] Nottingham pub meeting TONIGHT

[SK53]

Just noticed a typo in the date on the OSM Calendar.

The date for January Nottingham pub meeting is today, 21st:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup

Just correcting on the wiki.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Various pedestrian crossing mapping issues

[SK53]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for some great suggestions to get the ball rolling. I can certainly
get photos of many of the crossings I've mentioned (if I don't have
multiple examples already).

Cheers,

Jerry

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 14:02, Paul Berry  wrote:

> Hi Jerry,
>
> All valid points and thanks for raising them. I really do think we should
> try and find the different types of crossings on the ground (including
> variations), photograph them, and put them on the relevant page on the Wiki
> with tagging guidelines. I know there is a page already (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing) but it's far too busy.
> If necessary, branch out to a UK-specific page. That would help steer us
> towards a consensus for the UK at least. I'm pretty sure the defaults in
> iD, for example, keep changing every time I map a classic zebra crossing.
> We could then find crossings that don't appear to fit the categories and
> flag them for resurveying, or even make it (part of) a future Quarterly
> Project.
>
> To get back to your primary concerns here, we could easily flag up where
> crossings of any stripe(!) don't have a kerb tag. The vibration mode can be
> determined by the presence of a small knurled wheel underneath the yellow
> WAIT box; not sure what the tagging consensus is for that presently.
>
> I've mapped island crossings as both island (if white light present) and
> unmarked (if not) but that's just me.
>
> I could do a detailed micromap of a few locations near me, with photos,
> and we could start from there? If others already have, I'm sure they'll
> speak up.
>
> Regards,
> *Paul*
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 10:31, SK53  wrote:
>
>> My father is now in his late '80s and not as nimble as he used to be. As
>> a consequence I'm aware of certain things about various aspects of
>> pedestrian crossings which either I'm not sure about mapping or have no
>> idea. Most of these are definitely micromapping topics, but I think they
>> are relevant in mapping for mobility.
>>
>> One of the more significant issues we've come across are sets of traffic
>> lights at junctions with turning traffic. These nearly always have
>> crossings marked in the sense that there are dropped kerbs & tactile
>> paving, but because there is no pedestrian phase on the lights (and no
>> pedestrian indicators) can be quite hazardous. Dad is now adopting routes
>> which avoid these altogether.
>>
>> Presumably these are just crossing=traffic_lights with kerb=lowered and
>> tactile_paving=yes. If so it becomes really important to add crossing_ref
>> for pelican/puffin/toucan/pegasus crossings with Ampelmännchen
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampelmännchen> (little green men).
>> However I suspect we should move towards the presence of lights being
>> marked explicitly. I'm not sure if a tag exists.
>>
>> Secondly, even existing Pelican crossings seem to have shorter and
>> shorter crossing times, to the extent that if my father doesn't set out as
>> soon as the lights turn (for the traffic) he risks being marooned at the
>> island half-way. We trying to talk to the council about this, but I presume
>> it's an aspect of car-centric traffic planning. Presumably one could time
>> the 'green man' phase which I could do for the ones we use most frequently,
>> but it would get tedious to do lots. Perhaps an FOI request might yield
>> some information.
>>
>> On a related note there are quite a lot of crossings in London with a
>> countdown timer indicating seconds left for pedestrians. I first
>> encountered these in Caceres in 2006, but have never known the appropriate
>> tag.
>>
>> Thirdly, island crossings marked by a white non-flashing beacon with a
>> mid-carriageway refuge, dropped kerbs and (possibly tactile paving) are
>> common in parts of the country. Once again I'm not sure exactly how to map
>> these as distinct from other crossing=island (e.g., with the island just
>> marked with bollards).
>>
>> Fourthly, I think we often tag zebra-style crossings with crossing_ref
>> even when these are technically not zebra crossings (no Belisha beacons, no
>> zigzag no stopping zones either side, etc). Typically these will be on
>> service roads in car parks or campuses (school, university, hospital etc).
>> Any suggestions as to whether we should remove crossing_ref or use a
>> different value.
>>
>> If I'm going to map some of these details I'd also like some guidance as
>> to how to determine if a crossing has a vibration mode for blind/partially
>> sighted people. The RNIB show a picture
>> <https://www.rnib.org.uk/campaignin

[Talk-GB] Various pedestrian crossing mapping issues

[SK53]

My father is now in his late '80s and not as nimble as he used to be. As a
consequence I'm aware of certain things about various aspects of pedestrian
crossings which either I'm not sure about mapping or have no idea. Most of
these are definitely micromapping topics, but I think they are relevant in
mapping for mobility.

One of the more significant issues we've come across are sets of traffic
lights at junctions with turning traffic. These nearly always have
crossings marked in the sense that there are dropped kerbs & tactile
paving, but because there is no pedestrian phase on the lights (and no
pedestrian indicators) can be quite hazardous. Dad is now adopting routes
which avoid these altogether.

Presumably these are just crossing=traffic_lights with kerb=lowered and
tactile_paving=yes. If so it becomes really important to add crossing_ref
for pelican/puffin/toucan/pegasus crossings with Ampelmännchen
 (little green men). However I
suspect we should move towards the presence of lights being marked
explicitly. I'm not sure if a tag exists.

Secondly, even existing Pelican crossings seem to have shorter and shorter
crossing times, to the extent that if my father doesn't set out as soon as
the lights turn (for the traffic) he risks being marooned at the island
half-way. We trying to talk to the council about this, but I presume it's
an aspect of car-centric traffic planning. Presumably one could time the
'green man' phase which I could do for the ones we use most frequently, but
it would get tedious to do lots. Perhaps an FOI request might yield some
information.

On a related note there are quite a lot of crossings in London with a
countdown timer indicating seconds left for pedestrians. I first
encountered these in Caceres in 2006, but have never known the appropriate
tag.

Thirdly, island crossings marked by a white non-flashing beacon with a
mid-carriageway refuge, dropped kerbs and (possibly tactile paving) are
common in parts of the country. Once again I'm not sure exactly how to map
these as distinct from other crossing=island (e.g., with the island just
marked with bollards).

Fourthly, I think we often tag zebra-style crossings with crossing_ref even
when these are technically not zebra crossings (no Belisha beacons, no
zigzag no stopping zones either side, etc). Typically these will be on
service roads in car parks or campuses (school, university, hospital etc).
Any suggestions as to whether we should remove crossing_ref or use a
different value.

If I'm going to map some of these details I'd also like some guidance as to
how to determine if a crossing has a vibration mode for blind/partially
sighted people. The RNIB show a picture

of a man feeling underneath the indicator, but I don't know any more than
that.

Another thing I've noticed is that many islands on pedestrian crossings are
rather narrow for the larger kind of mobility scooter or wheelchair. Again
no idea of how to approach this.

Has mapped any of the detailed things? Should we be more precise with
crossing_ref?

Regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Map with AI comes to the UK

[SK53]

I was wondering if it was worth creating a wiki page to provide more of
these examples. Clearly the value of the data and types of false positives
vary across the country.

Jerry

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 15:12, Russ Garrett  wrote:

> Given the obvious flaws in the data, I'm actually quite surprised how
> good it is at spotting unmapped service roads in London - including
> those which pass beneath buildings. Most of them probably deserve a
> survey though.
>
> Russ
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 15:04, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Jerry.
> >
> > I'd also subsequently discovered the data dump but had not yet got
> around to looking at it. What are you using here to view and work with the
> data? Is QGIS and 6GB RAM sufficient?
> >
> > I would be interested in Warwickshire if you can extract that.
> >
> > And yes, we probably are not expecting much for the UK given how well we
> already have most roads mapped. It's a shame it only shows missing roads as
> I suspect it has better geometry of some rural roads in poorly mapped areas
> than us - I still find jagged roads with source=npe.
> >
> > Nevertheless, the AI stuff is an interesting one to keep an eye on. If
> improvements can be made and additional datasets incorporated, it could
> become a significant aid in the future. For example I wonder if it could be
> good at building detections when combined with other data such as LiDAR
> height data. There is also the prospect of using AI to help find solar
> panels.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 14:07, SK53  wrote:
> >>
> >> Perhaps more useful is that one can download the UK data as a
> geopackage from
> https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries.
> It's 147Mb zipped in a tar which unpacked is around 400Mb.
> >>
> >> I've had a very quick look and notice quite a few concentrations of
> features which are obviously tractor lines in farmland. See this area
> around Colston Bassett
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Colston_basset_fb_rapid.png.
> Apparently such false positives can be marked as such in the editor which
> ought to improve detections next time round. My suspicion is that things
> which are actually roads are mainly driveways to outlying houses & farms or
> farm tracks. Using OS OpenRoads is more likely to help find significant
> missing adopted roads.
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >>
> >> I can potentially provide extracts for individual LAs if people want
> them, send me an email. I personally found it easier to look at the data as
> a whole rather than scanning around in the editor.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 22:09, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I just spotted that Facebook have pushed an update to their map with
> AI project:
> >>>
> >>> "For our final release of 2019, we have released 84 new countries for
> our AI road data with new coverage in the remainder of Europe, Asia, and
> Oceania! AI roads are now available nearly globally."
> >>> Source:
> https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/blob/master/WHATSNEW.md
> >>>
> >>> For those who don't know what MapWithAI is check out
> https://mapwith.ai
> >>>
> >>> And to try it out in their RapID version of the iD editor:
> https://mapwith.ai/rapid#background=Bing_features=boundaries=18.60/53.40625/-2.13801
> >>>
> >>> Just roads at the moment and not that easy to find a suggestion that
> is worth adding (at least near me where roads are well mapped) but this
> does demonstrate what is possible. Let us know if you have a good or bad
> experience with this.
> >>>
> >>> Would be great to see this extended to buildings but we may have to
> wait for Microsoft for that.
> >>>
> >>> P.S. A happy new year to all!
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> Rob
> >>> ___
> >>> Talk-GB mailing list
> >>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> --
> Russ Garrett
> r...@garrett.co.uk
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Map with AI comes to the UK

[SK53]

I'm using QGiS 3.4 on a laptop with 8 Gb, but I'm sure much less will work
fine. Will send data separately.

I'm not sure Facebook have corrected for offsets in imagery so whereas the
topology may be better positioning may be worse. One of the simple quick
wins from using ML on imagery could be better alignment of multiple imagery
layers (provided one can extract the same types of features from them &
ones which are algorithmically easy to align - there's a huge literature on
this, colleagues were working on
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0262885689900012>
matching stereo SPOT images in the '80s).

Using OS Open Roads (which looks to be slightly generalised so some slight
curves are straight lines) and the buffer clipping technique (e.g. as I
used for Northern Ireland townlands) is probably the best way to realign
NPE roads. I currently don't have the disk space to do this easily,
otherwise I would have done).

Jerry

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 15:03, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:

> Thanks Jerry.
>
> I'd also subsequently discovered the data dump but had not yet got around
> to looking at it. What are you using here to view and work with the data?
> Is QGIS and 6GB RAM sufficient?
>
> I would be interested in Warwickshire if you can extract that.
>
> And yes, we probably are not expecting much for the UK given how well we
> already have most roads mapped. It's a shame it only shows missing roads as
> I suspect it has better geometry of some rural roads in poorly mapped areas
> than us - I still find jagged roads with source=npe.
>
> Nevertheless, the AI stuff is an interesting one to keep an eye on. If
> improvements can be made and additional datasets incorporated, it could
> become a significant aid in the future. For example I wonder if it could be
> good at building detections when combined with other data such as LiDAR
> height data. There is also the prospect of using AI to help find solar
> panels.
>
> Best regards,
> *Rob*
>
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 14:07, SK53  wrote:
>
>> Perhaps more useful is that one can download the UK data as a geopackage
>> from
>> https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries.
>> It's 147Mb zipped in a tar which unpacked is around 400Mb.
>>
>> I've had a very quick look and notice quite a few concentrations of
>> features which are obviously tractor lines in farmland. See this area
>> around Colston Bassett
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Colston_basset_fb_rapid.png.
>> Apparently such false positives can be marked as such in the editor which
>> ought to improve detections next time round. My suspicion is that things
>> which are actually roads are mainly driveways to outlying houses & farms or
>> farm tracks. Using OS OpenRoads is more likely to help find significant
>> missing adopted roads.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> I can potentially provide extracts for individual LAs if people want
>> them, send me an email. I personally found it easier to look at the data as
>> a whole rather than scanning around in the editor.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 22:09, Rob Nickerson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I just spotted that Facebook have pushed an update to their map with AI
>>> project:
>>>
>>> "For our final release of 2019, we have released 84 new countries for
>>> our AI road data with new coverage in the remainder of Europe, Asia, and
>>> Oceania! AI roads are now available nearly globally."
>>> Source:
>>> https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/blob/master/WHATSNEW.md
>>>
>>> For those who don't know what MapWithAI is check out https://mapwith.ai
>>>
>>> And to try it out in their RapID version of the iD editor:
>>> https://mapwith.ai/rapid#background=Bing_features=boundaries=18.60/53.40625/-2.13801
>>>
>>> Just roads at the moment and not that easy to find a suggestion that is
>>> worth adding (at least near me where roads are well mapped) but this does
>>> demonstrate what is possible. Let us know if you have a good or bad
>>> experience with this.
>>>
>>> Would be great to see this extended to buildings but we may have to wait
>>> for Microsoft for that.
>>>
>>> P.S. A happy new year to all!
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> *Rob*
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Map with AI comes to the UK

[SK53]

Perhaps more useful is that one can download the UK data as a geopackage
from
https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries.
It's 147Mb zipped in a tar which unpacked is around 400Mb.

I've had a very quick look and notice quite a few concentrations of
features which are obviously tractor lines in farmland. See this area
around Colston Bassett
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Colston_basset_fb_rapid.png.
Apparently such false positives can be marked as such in the editor which
ought to improve detections next time round. My suspicion is that things
which are actually roads are mainly driveways to outlying houses & farms or
farm tracks. Using OS OpenRoads is more likely to help find significant
missing adopted roads.

Jerry

I can potentially provide extracts for individual LAs if people want them,
send me an email. I personally found it easier to look at the data as a
whole rather than scanning around in the editor.


On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 22:09, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I just spotted that Facebook have pushed an update to their map with AI
> project:
>
> "For our final release of 2019, we have released 84 new countries for our
> AI road data with new coverage in the remainder of Europe, Asia, and
> Oceania! AI roads are now available nearly globally."
> Source:
> https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/blob/master/WHATSNEW.md
>
> For those who don't know what MapWithAI is check out https://mapwith.ai
>
> And to try it out in their RapID version of the iD editor:
> https://mapwith.ai/rapid#background=Bing_features=boundaries=18.60/53.40625/-2.13801
>
> Just roads at the moment and not that easy to find a suggestion that is
> worth adding (at least near me where roads are well mapped) but this does
> demonstrate what is possible. Let us know if you have a good or bad
> experience with this.
>
> Would be great to see this extended to buildings but we may have to wait
> for Microsoft for that.
>
> P.S. A happy new year to all!
>
> Thank you,
> *Rob*
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Firmware update for older Garmin etrex devices

[SK53]

I don't think so, because it recorded tracks with the right dates in
November, so apparently somewhere between 20th November last year and 1st
Jan this year.

Jerry

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 14:05, Gareth L  wrote:

> A victim of the gps week roll over in April last year maybe? If so, you
> should be good until November 2038 (although there’s plenty of other epochs
> that will break stuff before then I reckon)
> Gareth
>
> On 3 Jan 2020, at 13:38, SK53  wrote:
>
> 
> I was using an older Garmin etrex Legend HC as a backup track recorder
> over the New Year, and failed to find my tracks. It turns out that the date
> is incorrect and instead of 1st Jan 2020 the device was registering 17 May
> 2000.
>
> Anyone who still uses these may be interested that a firmware patch is
> available: (https://support.garmin.com/en-GB/?faq=qpVUfZBKI28PqnPd6HuXa6.
>
> I've run this from Windows 10 successfully for my GPS.
>
> Happy New Year,
>
> 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

[Talk-GB] Firmware update for older Garmin etrex devices

[SK53]

I was using an older Garmin etrex Legend HC as a backup track recorder over
the New Year, and failed to find my tracks. It turns out that the date is
incorrect and instead of 1st Jan 2020 the device was registering 17 May
2000.

Anyone who still uses these may be interested that a firmware patch is
available: (https://support.garmin.com/en-GB/?faq=qpVUfZBKI28PqnPd6HuXa6.

I've run this from Windows 10 successfully for my GPS.

Happy New Year,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[SK53]

There is a surprisingly heavily used landuse=highway

for highway corridors, by analogy with landuse=railway. I would think it is
mainly used for motorway corridors which can be considerably wider than the
carriageways, and even then other landuse/natural tags may be used for
parts of the area. See around Colwyn Bay .

However, in this case I think the primary landuse is agriculture, which
works more easily if areas larger than a field are mapped at a time. I see
little reason to add a landuse here: most use cases requiring tessellated
landuse can either process highway by type perfectly adequately, or fill
holes by use of buffering operations. I used some simple defaults for
highway width back in 2011 which produced results very similar to data
which had been explicitly mapped as areas.

Jerry

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 16:39, Martin Wynne  wrote:

> Here is a track/public bridleway:
>
>   http://85a.uk/coffin_way_960x520.jpg
>
> which I can easily map as such.
>
> But that is just a *centre-line*. If I add the fences, what is the
> correct landuse tag for the area between them? I can't find any tag
> which seems to apply.
>
> Everywhere I look on OSM such areas are left blank. But it can represent
> a significant area, sometimes 20 feet wide -- much larger than other
> areas on OSM which are mapped in great detail. If it was a canal for
> example, its banks could be separately mapped and the area between them
> mapped as water. Tracks and fences/hedgerows don't seem to have anything
> comparable.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> 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] East Midlands New Year Footpath Mapping Social 2020

[SK53]

I was planning to close the poll tomorrow, but as it is clear that Friday
this week (27th Dec) is the best date for everyone I thought I'd close it
now to enable planning for the day.

I will update the wiki in detail this evening, but I have reserved a table
at The Horseshoes for 12:30 on Friday. If anyone else fancies joining us on
the day, you are more than welcome. The area is not well-served by public
transport at the best of times, so if someone fancies coming along but does
not use a car, do get in touch, one of us may be able to arrange a pick-up
somewhere more convenient for you. For drivers from most directions the
best way is to turn off the A52 either just before Kirk Langley or at Kirk
Langley and then follow Long Lane to the village of the same name. Long
Lane follows the course of the former Roman Road between Rocester & Little
Chester. From the A50, the junction at Hilton provides access to the area.

I hope I'll have time to prepare more detailed missing maps paths, but
MapthePaths is a good start
<http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/?lat=52.936159959792405=-1.6423543575482044=0=0>
.

Now that a date is fixed, I think it's reasonable to start adding detail
from aerial imagery. One thing we can do is have a good look at the various
types of farmland and do some of the sub-tagging recently discussed.

Jerry







On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 12:55, SK53  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Provisional details for a planned mapping event around the new year are
> now on the wiki:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Mapping_Meetup/New_Year_2020
> .
>
> There's masses to be done in the area just to the West of where we visited
> last year. Similar type of terrain. Once a date is firmed up then there's
> ample scope for some arm-chair mapping which can be refined by the ground
> survey.
>
> A Doodle poll to select a date most convenient for as many as possible
> (unfortunately New Year Plant Hunt dates rule out 1st-4th Jan for me):
> https://doodle.com/poll/2edmmyvi9yeeip3q
>
> I'm anticipating the 11th or 18th Jan are likely to be most convenient.
>
> Hope people might be able to make it,
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jerry
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Laura Ashley - looking for tagging consensus

[SK53]

Hi,

I actually went and scouted out one of my local stores
 after the last post. It's
called "Laura Ashley Home" and does furniture, fabrics etc. I never checked
usage of shop=furnishings. In days gone by there were concessions selling
similar wares (probably more fabrics) in Homebase.

I would expect that high street shops major in clothes, retail park shops
either furniture or a mix of the two. If "Laura Ashley Home"  is a widely
used name then that will help.

I note that there are a couple of Laura Ashley branded hotels and some tea
rooms mentioned on the website
.

Jerry

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 00:52, Silent Spike  wrote:

> I'm a UK based maintainer of the name suggestion index
>  and would
> like to get this brand added. Unfortunately it's not so obvious how it
> should be tagged and I'm not comfortable making a tagging judgement call
> alone without consulting the UK community.
>
> My last thread of this nature for The Range didn't attract many responses,
> but some input is always better than none and it allowed me to get that
> brand into the index knowing that if consensus changes then the tagging can
> easily be updated in OSM.
>
> Here's the Laura Ashley website and Wikipedia page for those unaware of
> this chain:
> https://www.lauraashley.com/en-gb
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ashley_plc
>
> It looks like currently there are:
>
>- 44 shop=clothes
>- 20 shop=furniture
>- 15 shop=interior_decoration
>- 4 shop=houseware
>- 1 shop=home_furnishing
>- 1 shop=fabric
>- 1 shop=fashion
>
> This makes sense as it seems that furniture and clothing are the main
> items sold. The tagging alone seems to suggest `shop=clothing` is favoured
> more - does this seem reasonable or do you think another tagging is more
> suitable?
> ___
> 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] No Through Road Ahead

[SK53]

I would model this with some kind of restriction: presumably maxlength on
the sharp bend.

Jerry

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 14:07, Martin Wynne  wrote:

> How to tag this road?
>
>   https://goo.gl/maps/B4kUxoR83ej9JXWQ8
>
> There is no actual barrier, just a very sharp corner.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> 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] East Midlands New Year Footpath Mapping Social 2020

[SK53]

Dear All,

Provisional details for a planned mapping event around the new year are now
on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Mapping_Meetup/New_Year_2020.

There's masses to be done in the area just to the West of where we visited
last year. Similar type of terrain. Once a date is firmed up then there's
ample scope for some arm-chair mapping which can be refined by the ground
survey.

A Doodle poll to select a date most convenient for as many as possible
(unfortunately New Year Plant Hunt dates rule out 1st-4th Jan for me):
https://doodle.com/poll/2edmmyvi9yeeip3q

I'm anticipating the 11th or 18th Jan are likely to be most convenient.

Hope people might be able to make it,

Best wishes,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[SK53]

I tend to map to field boundaries: it's all farmland in my view, just not
necessarily productive. In particular strips of grass around arable may be
a short-term consequence of various subsidy schemes, or game cover crops.
Many ditches are there to improve the drainage of the fields so I'd see
them as an integral part of farmland. Similarly hedges, although now
protected, were an essential means of stock control in the days when many
farms were mixed (as they were in my childhood) and fields may have
regularly rotated between pasture & arable.

One type of vegetation on unproductive farmland which is quite common is
"tall herb". These might be the very unwelcome swathe of nettles in a field
corner where the plough cant reach, or thistles & Great Willowherb along a
slope down to a stream (these are classes C3.1 & C3.2 in the Phase 1
habitat classification, see wiki
),
but also stands of Japanese Knotweed or Rosebay Willowherb. They are
distinct from scrub because they die down in winter, although dead stems
may remain.

Jerry

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 12:34, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 16/12/2019 11:59, Gareth L wrote:
>
> I’m all for using a polygon per field, but am unsure what to do at the 
> boundaries. Do I make 2 field polygons meet? Or leave a gap as there’s a 
> track/hedge/fence/small coppice/ ditch/drain ? I’m probably not going to be 
> able to map the boundary particularly accurately in a first pass, so would 
> rather omit than put in inaccurate barriers
>
>
> If it helps, here's what I tend to do:
>
>- Firstly, I only tend to add farmland etc. after I've added fences,
>walls, ditches, gates, bits of woodland etc. (it's just easier that way
>around).
>- If the crop extends right up to the hedge, I'd tend to have the
>hedge sharing nodes with both fields.
>- If there's a ditch, track or other separating feature I'd try and
>draw the hedges either side (if they exist) and have the farmland not
>sharing nodes with the ditch but with the hedge (if it exists).  Similarly
>I wouldn't attach farmland to roads.
>- If there's an uncultivated strip around the edge of the field I
>wouldn't tend to include that in the "field".  Similarly if an area is left
>as scrub (perhaps to wet for crops), I'd map as scrub.
>
> None of this is definitive - people have different approaches.  If you
> want examples of the above, have a look in my changeset history from > 3
> months ago in the East Riding of Yorkshire for example
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/75049826 etc.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> 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] What is farmland?

[SK53]

One thing for me is that if walking in the winter knowing that a particular
field which a footpath crosses is arable can be very useful. If have COPD
(around 40% lung capacity) and walking across a recently ploughed field can
push me past the level where my breathing can cope. Obviously I therefore
like to avoid such places if I can or plan for them in calculating route
time (probably a factor of 4 or 5 over what one might expect from actual
distance).

I think there are over 1 million people with COPD in Britain, so I'm
probably not alone. I suspect many just avoid exposing themselves to such
situations:

There are other reasons which others have alluded too.

Jerry

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 10:09, David Groom  wrote:

> -- Original Message --
> From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: 14/12/2019 15:54:13
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
>
> On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:
>
>
> Is this "farmland"?
>
>  http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg
>
>
> I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
>
> I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially
> when joined to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few
> mappers were keen to fill in the gaps rather than map accurately.
> Personally I think there should be one polygon per field, but I admit that
> makes for a lot more work.
>
> I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons tagged
> as farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland. Could you explain why you
> think this is best?
>
> David
>
>
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
> ___
> 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] Last Nottingham pub meeting of the year

[SK53]

Dear All,

We're meeting at the Lincolnshire Poacher on Mansfield Road on Tuesday 17th
from 19:30 onwards. Details on the wiki
.

This is primarily a social event for East Midland mappers, but anyone who
wishes to come & ask any kind of detailed question about OpenStreetMap is
very welcome. We have a good range of experienced contributors who can
usually give guidance on a wide range of OSM topics, from mapping to
setting up a server. Typically we discuss a range of mapping issues in the
first hour of the meeting.

The Poacher has two front bars, a snug and two areas at the rear. We try &
meet in the snug, but if that is busy then prefer one of the larger tables
in the front bar. If I remember there will be an OSM logo to help find us.

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish East Midland mappers & the
broader OSM UK community a Merry Christmas.

Cheers,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[SK53]

Like Dave I have come to the view that mapping individual fields as
farmland is a good way to do it.

I use farmland=arable & farmland=pasture. This still does not cover cases
of permanent grassland which are not used for pasture. I can see the value
of farmland=livestock for things like pig rearing which I have never tried
to map (largely because I think they move around).

The advantage of doing it field by field is that one can use real local
knowledge from surveys, can discriminate between fields which are
apparently similar on aerial imagery, can add more detailed tagging (for
instance I have used some plant community tagging in one or two areas, or
one can mark pastures with ridge and furrow). The absence of large polygons
is of course a significant benefit.

Meadow as a synonym for any old bit or rural grassland creates huge
problems if we ever want to identify real meadows which are one of the
scarcest habitats in Britain now. Such usage also covers a range of quite
different things. It is well established that people no longer know what a
true meadow looks like, but I'd hope we can be more sophisticated. Most
meadows will be available in various classes of Natural England habitat
open data. CRW have similar datasets, as do SNH. Unfortunately nothing is
available for Northern Ireland, although I've been informed by a former
head of the NIEA that Perennial Ryegrass is now the national plant : in
other words most agricultural grassland is heavily improved whether as
pasture or as leys for silage crops.

W.r.t. Mark's point, there are open data

from RPA for the past few years on agricultural usage, so it is possible to
use a bit more than guesswork. Note also much aerial imagery in the
countryside may be significantly out-of-date. I've both walked through
areas which look like arable on aerials with sheep on them and areas of
pasture have subsequently been ploughed (notably on what was formerly part
of Muston Meadows NNR). The RPA data at least allows a more up-to-date
picture. It's a hexgrid derived from remote sensing, but in most cases can
be interpreted.

Regards,

Jerry

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 16:24, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Some mappers use meadow for permanent pasture, on the basis that this is a
> fundamentally different use of land to putting it under the plough.
>
> Others believe that meadow should be reserved for "real" meadow, and that
> permanent pasture should be distinguished from cropland by some combination
> of sub tags.
>
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019, 16:09 Martin Wynne,  wrote:
>
>> > I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
>>
>> Thanks Dave.
>>
>> But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two?
>>
>> It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous
>> detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts of
>> land which visually look very different are classed as one and the same?
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Martin.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] HS2 camden updates

[SK53]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 14:12, Andy Allan  wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 14:21, Andy Robinson  wrote:
> >
> > For those keeping an eye on the HS2 Phase 1 preparatory works changes to
> the
> > landscape here is the link to the latest Camden district 12 month look
> ahead
> > which covers Euston and its approaches.
> >
> > http://tiny.cc/r9skhz
>
> For the trivia fans, the document mentions demolishing "Wolfson
> House". This was the location of one of the main OSMF datacentres from
> 2014 to 2016.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


... and for even more dedicated trivia fans, the building where I did the
bulk of my PhD. In those days the basement held a lecture theatre, a series
of cold rooms and some other equipment, such as a scintillation counter.
Such a shame, it's one of the few buildings I successfully modelled using
S3DB. It was pretty rubbish as a lab though.

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

[Talk-GB] Parcel Post-boxes (again): national roll-out?

[SK53]

In August 2018 we had a brief discussion about Royal Mail trialling parcel
post-boxes, see thread
.

Yesterday I noticed that one of the metered pillar boxes on Wheeler Gate in
Nottingham has been converted to this form
, so I presume they are being
rolled out nationally.

Relevant changes:

   - The reference is now suffiixed with a 'P' NG1 33P instead of NG1 33.
   - "Parcel Postbox" painted on two sides
   - Instructions about pre-paying parcel post under aperture and on two
   adjacent sides

I've never been entirely happy with post_box:type which generally describes
form also describing function as in post_box:type=meter, and this change
sort of highlights the problems. Should we use post_box:type=meter;parcel
or post_box:type=parcel or a different tag altogether.

At least some of the earlier ones have been updated.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] ITO! World Tools

[SK53]

The Ordnance Survey (OSGB) is the national mapping agency, the Open Roads
data set is produced from data which are created as part of their main
mission, so there should be no 3rd party rights. Furthermore, the recent
77m judgement changes this landscape a little from the OSMF statement, in
that explicit statement of which 3rd party has rights and over which parts
of the data is to be expected. In other words if the licence suggests to a
reasonable person that they can use the data, then they can. I might ask
the LWG to update the text.

AFAIK the only OS dataset which may contain third-party data are the
postcodes, and the licence conditions for this were liberalised from their
original form.

OSMF, in the person of Mike Collinson, had extensive discussions with the
Ordnance Survey about licence conditions prior to the ODbL change.
Subsequent OSGB data has tended to be released under pure OGL rather than
the OSGB-specific version which removed some of the problems.

In general, OSM, and specifically the UK community have reasonable links
with OSGB. Their innovation centre hosted a hack weekend
 in 2015
and we variously meet at events like OpenDataCamp, GISrUK, Geomob etc. I
certainly have informal discussions with OS staff which often relate to
what kind of data both organisations collect.

In addition, I'm very familiar with openaddress.co.uk and the reasons why
it didn't carry on. The 3rd party data issue was only part of the story.

Equally, the UK community have always been relatively conservative in using
OSGB and other open data. When the open data were first released roughly
1-2% of street names had errors ranging from being completely wrong to
minor spelling issues: this was one reason why not:name was so important.
If I add names from OSGB data I usually check to see if I can find support
for that name in another open data source (not difficult, we have around
70% coverage of postcodes in open data according to Will Phillips). When OS
Locator came out I visited the locations of the missing names.

Broadly speaking we have a decent awareness of these issues going back a
number of years (see licence discussion at SotM '07). Don't forget that
OSMs genesis was, in part, because of OSGB's onerous licence terms in 2004.
Several early OSMers in the UK were behind the FreethePostcode
 site.

Regards,

Jerry

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 11:06, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 28 Nov 2019, 11:30 by jez.nichol...@gmail.com:
>
> As Jerry says, the key feature was that it compared OS road names to OSM
> and highlighted the differences.
>
> Just to check: was it containing any third-party data where
> "the licence explicitly excludes rights in third party data and therefore
> you
> need to take the same steps as you would for CC0 licenced material. "
> would cause it to become unsuitable for OSM use?
>
> See
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#Open_Government_Licence_.28OGL.29_based_licences
>
> The Microsoft Open Data Team recently analysed
> streets-with-no-name-but-lots-of-houses which threw up positive hits, and
> some potentially false positives of new housing estates which do not have
> road names yet and auxiliary service roads.
>
> StreetComplete would suffer from the same issue, though there is some
> benefit from tagging noname=yes
>
> I'd like to see a new tool be built
>
> Sounds like something doable, but for me it goes onto a big pile of "nice
> idea, not enough free time"
> for now.
>
> Also, licence issue would need to be confirmed to be not existing (has
> somebody did a review
> who makes this data? Is there even any third party data there?)
>
> i'd also like someone to fund it being built and sustain it either through
> a grant or donated work.
>
>
> ___
> 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] ITO! World Tools

[SK53]

The big difference of the old Locator layer from ITO is that it displayed
the name. The other tool which used OS locator is Robert Scott's OSL
Musical Chairs .
Both suffer because OS Locator was last released in 2016.

One way to get potentially missing names is to use OS Open Roads. These are
big shape files, so its probably best to cut them down using something like
ogr2ogr, or QGIS. The file can be pulled in as a custom layer in iD,
Potlatch and as a standard layer in JOSM.

A more elaborate approach is to grab the OSM roads in an area (e.g., with
an Overpass Turbo query), pull them in to QGIS, buffer by 25 m & use the
buffered layer to find any roads in OS Open Road which are outside the
buffered area. This in turn can be saved in a form for use as a custom
layer in editors. With JOSM & Potlatch 2 (I think) you can use this as the
basis of a to do list to check each missing road.

Obviously webhosted layers would be more convenient for the average mapper.

Jerry



On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 10:02, Paul Berry  wrote:

> >  Does anyone know the best, or suitable alternative, tool that replaces
> their analysis tools for the missing road names?
>
> http://qa.poole.ch/ is your friend and guide.
>
> Regards,
> *Paul*
>
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 21:12, Guy Collins via Talk-GB <
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Apologies if this has already been announced. ITO! World have stopped
>> supporting their very helpful set of OpenStreetMap tools. Please see the
>> announcement here:
>> https://www.itoworld.com/ito-openstreetmap-tools-announcement/
>>
>> Does anyone know the best, or suitable alternative, tool that replaces
>> their analysis tools for the missing road names? Their tools also
>> highlighted road coverage by local authority which was helpful.
>>
>> Guy
>> ___
>> 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] Tagging RADAR Key Access

[SK53]

I notice that the recommended tagging for places which can be accessed with
a RADAR key (typically disabled loos) is centralkey=nks.

Given that the term RADAR is much more likely to be known, I'd prefer that
we don't use the rather cryptic acronym "nks" (National Key Scheme) and in
particular because it also doesn't show that this is a UK scheme.
Alternatives might be centralkey=RADAR, centralkey=radar or
centralkey=uk_national_key_scheme or centralkey=nks_radar . The latter by
analogy with crt_watermate which is in use.

One reason why RADAR may not have been used is that the charity behind the
acronym are now called Disability Rights UK.

Currently there are 17 uses
. Most on
toilets. We could probably increase this 10 fold just from places surveyed,
particularly if we made it more discoverable through a more meaningful tag
name.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Types of Kissing Gates

[SK53]

In general I try and map both (example here
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.81555/-0.85014> where the
footpath goes over a stile, but notion is the same), and if it's a public
footpath route the public footpath through the pedestrian gate. This is
definitely micro-mapping, so If I'm in a hurry I'll do a single gate which
is implicitly the pedestrian one.

It might be worth expanding discussion to types of gates too. Both gate &
gate:type are in use (and both have values of kissing!). I've very rarely
used gate=wicket_gate for the small <1m wide pedestrian gate, but standard
single & double farm gates are worth noting.

Jerry

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 12:29, Tony OSM  wrote:

> Happy with a kissing_gate tag that could combine these variations.
>
> Can we also discuss paths/tracks which have a vehicle gate and a
> pedestrian gate alongside each other. Is it one complex gate? or for
> routing do we have to place two gates and draw paths through each?
>
> Personally I just need to know what is the agreed method.
>
> Regards
>
> TonyS999
> On 20/11/2019 11:35, SK53 wrote:
>
> Whilst we tag different types of stiles, I'm not aware that we
> differentiate different kinds of kissing gates.
>
> Yesterday visiting Clumber Park to participate in a National Trust path
> mapping briefing we saw three distinct kinds, to which I've added a fourth:
>
>
>1.  A traditional wooden kissing gate with a triangular cross-section.
>Generally now replaced by 2.
>2. A metal kissing gate with a circular cross-section
>3.  As for 2, but substantially larger, with the gate part able to be
>opened entirely with a RADAR key for wheelchair access (including, I think,
>powered ones).
>4.  A large wooden one with the central gate being of the size of a
>traditional farm gate, locking into a latch at either end of it's swing.
>(Probably really need to find a picture)
>
> Obviously we can use material and wheelchair tags to capture some of these
> differences, but it might be worth having a kissing_gate tag to separate
> them more clearly.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Jerry
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Types of Kissing Gates

[SK53]

Whilst we tag different types of stiles, I'm not aware that we
differentiate different kinds of kissing gates.

Yesterday visiting Clumber Park to participate in a National Trust path
mapping briefing we saw three distinct kinds, to which I've added a fourth:


   1.  A traditional wooden kissing gate with a triangular cross-section.
   Generally now replaced by 2.
   2. A metal kissing gate with a circular cross-section
   3.  As for 2, but substantially larger, with the gate part able to be
   opened entirely with a RADAR key for wheelchair access (including, I think,
   powered ones).
   4.  A large wooden one with the central gate being of the size of a
   traditional farm gate, locking into a latch at either end of it's swing.
   (Probably really need to find a picture)

Obviously we can use material and wheelchair tags to capture some of these
differences, but it might be worth having a kissing_gate tag to separate
them more clearly.

Any thoughts?

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

[Talk-GB] Derby Pub Meeting tonight **NEW VENUE** The Brunswick

[SK53]

Just a reminder that the East Midland mappers are meeting in Derby tonight
at the usual time of 19:30. We are moving to The Brunswick on Railway
Terrace opposite Derby Station in order to be more accommodating for our
Sheffield attendees.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar farms from REPD, all checked

[SK53]

Great work Dan.

A couple of the larger solar farms which don't seem to have repd:ids are on
water company land. The one I've looked for a few times is the floating
solar panels  on Godley
Reservoir. I've also been unable to reconcile the panels
 (currently
without a surrounding plant) which are at the Five Farms Water Treatment
Plant, just S of Wrexham Industrial Estate. So I have been wondering if
installations on water company land are different in some way.

It's also worth noting that several of us have continued mapping rooftop
solar in the past 6 weeks and we should pass 120k mapped installations in
the next day or so. A big shout out for gurglypipe who has mapped a huge
number around Lancaster as areas. My own focus started in Wrexham district
as I visited it in the middle of October which meant I ground-truthed a
number of ones already mapped, and enabled me to add quite a few others.
More recently I've been aiming to connect existing hotspots by bringing LAs
which connect them up to 50% (Halton, Rochdale & Oldham already done,
Warrington, Barnsley, Kirklees & Doncaster current targets).

There's still a lot of work to ensure every rooftop installation has an
building underneath. Gregory's site reports these at the detailed level,
but not at LSOA or LA. I suppose there's scope to create MapRoulette
challenges.

On the debit side I have also created a lot of fixmes which I can now clear
up: there's an estate on the edge of Runcorn with building integrated solar
panels which looked a bit like solar hot water. Fortunately after having
mapped them I discovered a promotional write up by the manufacturer. I just
need to decide on the relevant tag (see the wiki page

).

Jerry

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 11:36, Dan S  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This weekend I completed the task of going through the REPD dataset
> (UK planning data) for solar farms. Out of 1058 entries, about 65 were
> un-spottable,* the rest are in OSM.
>
> We have 908 solar farm objects in OSM for the UK.
> The REPD list totals about 8.1 GW and we've got approx 6.9 GW
> explicitly tagged. (Plus 70 of the 908 have no capacity tagged.)
>
> Most of the solar farms are in there as power=plant. However, there
> are plenty that had previously been tagged as power=generator, and I
> chose not to coerce everything into fixed format. Also, I generally
> didn't trace the panels (nor even the blocks of panels) within solar
> farms, I merely drew outlines. So there's plenty of scope to improve
> the mapping in future!
>
> The repd:id tag is really useful for checking back against REPD. Some
> of the mapped solar farms have multiple IDs (semicolon separated),
> since there are lots of solar farms which had extensions added in
> later years.
>
> As I said, there were about 65 REPD items I couldn't spot in aerials.
> Funnily enough, we have a rather similar number (55) of solar farm
> objects in OSM which have not been associated with a REPD entry nor do
> we have any capacity tagged for them. (Here's a query for non-repd
> solar farms: )
>
> Best
> Dan
>
> P.S. my spreadsheet is still messy, but I updated it as I went, so
> fwiw: http://mcld.co.uk/tmp/wiki_repd_list_dan.ods
>
> * Here are 87 REPD IDs which were either "not seen", or unsure and
> could do with a second eye:
> 1098
> 1176
> 1233
> 1304
> 1325
> 1332
> 1494
> 1515
> 1546
> 1550
> 1587
> 1611
> 1620
> 1716
> 1746
> 1817
> 1827
> 1838
> 1840
> 1900
> 1908
> 1914
> 1975
> 1981
> 2013
> 2015
> 2027
> 2044
> 2060
> 2075
> 2082
> 2089
> 2104
> 2176
> 2204
> 2237
> 2252
> 2274
> 2324
> 2364
> 4713
> 4740
> 4844
> 4857
> 4861
> 4874
> 4884
> 4896
> 5006
> 5063
> 5093
> 5149
> 5152
> 5164
> 5190
> 5232
> 5255
> 5265
> 5320
> 5322
> 5330
> 5360
> 5398
> 5412
> 5440
> 5443
> 5450
> 5472
> 5485
> 5499
> 5506
> 5512
> 5525
> 5543
> 5559
> 5593
> 5603
> 5631
> 5650
> 5793
> 5891
> 5945
> 5977
> 6007
> 6019
> 6108
> 6328
>
> ___
> 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] Import of UK SSSI data

[SK53]

A few things:

   -  A number of SSSI's are mapped
   

   as many are co-incident with various types of Nature Reserves, although
   sometimes there are minor differences in boundaries. For instance the SSSI
   at Newhouse Farm National Nature Reserve is smaller than the NNR.
   - SSSIs are not nature reserves, so protected area is correct. A
   designation, protect_class etc should be considered.
   -  As some are already mapped, any import would need to detect
   collisions & potentially do some quite complex processing if the SSSI is
   not coincident with the element currently tagged with that information.
   This needs to documented. I note that at least one SSSI lies within another
   on OSM which is possibly inaccurate, or reflects historical change (merging
   of 2 SSSIs).
   -  Document which transforms are used to convert from OSGB co-ordinates.
   I suspect we have 3 potential ones in use EPSG:27700, OSTN02 and OSTN15, see
   this 
   (lengthy) doc from the OS.
   -  What is the purpose of adding these to OSM? If they get rendered and
   show up on private land which is not accessible this may have undesirable
   consequences. For 90% of all my purposes I only want SSSIs as an overlay
   and find using the native data from NE/SNH/NRW either as a separate layer
   in QGIS or as discrete tables in PostGIS is perfectly fine. The major gripe
   is having to get data from 3 separate sources (it would be 4 if NI ASSIs
   were available as open data).
   -  Virtually all of NE (and SNH & NRW) data is created against MasterMap
   and therefore contains OSGB material. I think, but cannot be certain, that
   NE obtained the necessary permissions for this data to be freely usable.
   Owen Boswarva who occasionally contributes to the list may know the actual
   position rather better than me. To date I have relied on personal knowledge
   or survey for things like NNRs and LNRs rather than consulting the NE shape
   files. (There's a reasonable write-up on Rowmaps as to how this pertains to
   footpath data and the PSMA, but, again, I'm not sure under what type of
   agreement NE licences OSGB dat)
   -  SSSIs change (although perhaps not as much as nature reserves), the
   most notorious being the dunes at Menie: if data are imported there needs
   to be some plan w.r.t. maintenance.

Jerry

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 16:34, Henry Bush 
wrote:

> Hmmm, I see. I'll dig further into the licensing side of things before I
> go any further.
>
> Thanks for the pointers!
>
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, 16:28 Chris Hill,  wrote:
>
>> I think there may be a problem here. The web page describing the data
>> says "© Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data". Many
>> public bodies suffer from the viral OS copyright problem, where the data is
>> based on OS mapping data and OS have claimed copyright over the geodata
>> element of such data in the past.
>>
>> You need to be sure this is not the case before you use any of these
>> datasets in OSM.
>>
>> --
>> cheers
>> Chris Hill (chillly)
>>
>>
>> On 16/11/2019 15:30, Henry Bush wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, yes, the source of the data is the Natural England API:
>>
>> https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80
>>
>> https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80_0/
>>
>> The data is freely usable, so there shouldn't be any licensing issues.
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 15:24, Philip Barnes  wrote:
>>
>>> What is the source of the data you are planning to import?
>>>
>>> Remember wikipedia is not a useable source under OSM licensing terms.
>>>
>>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2019-11-16 at 15:12 +, Henry Bush wrote:
>>> > Hello all,
>>> >
>>> > (I've sent this to both the talk-gb and imports mailing lists)
>>> >
>>> > This is just a heads-up: I'm thinking about importing the data about
>>> > UK SSSI areas into openstreetmap.
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest
>>> >
>>> > I've had a quick look at a few, and none of them seemed to be marked
>>> > on the map. If I go ahead with the import, I'd do a much more
>>> > thorough investigation first. This mail is simply a prompt for
>>> > discussion as to whether people think it's a good idea.
>>> >
>>> > At the moment I'm still in the research phase. I've started
>>> > collecting related links on a wiki page:
>>> >
>>> >   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Spookypeanut/SSSIBot
>>> >
>>> > NB: this page is really just bookmarks for me at this stage. If I go
>>> > ahead I'll make a proper, more informative page.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB 

Re: [Talk-GB] The Range - looking for tagging consensus

[SK53]

Thanks for doing this: I had wondered who the fairy was!

As is often the case it might be easier to say which tags look out of place.

   - Department store should be reserved for what are classically called
   department stores and larger shops of the M type, not for a shop with a
   number of different departments (think Woolies before it closed and Wilkos
   now). These latter I would characterise as variety stores (because that's
   how Woolies was described in the trade press). Clothes have always been a
   major category for department stores & the absence of a broad clothing
   offering is, I think, a straight disqualification. (Aside: this is a good
   example of where some over-generalisation of a tag meaning actually
   devalues the overall value of the tag)


   - DIY looks wrong too. Some of the items in their DIY section just look
   like house wares to me (fans, dehumidifier etc), and many ranges are
   smaller than one would find in a small neighbourhood hardware shop.


   - Furniture Garden Centre & Interior Decoration, whilst all categories
   stocked at The Range are too restrictive in meaning.

So I'd favour the remaining candidates & I think housewares or homewares is
probably a better fit.

Jerry

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 10:50, Silent Spike  wrote:

> This brand was brought up in the name suggestion index thread as one that
> doesn't currently have an entry due to it being tricky to determine the
> best tagging.
>
> I'm a UK based maintainer of the project and would like to get it added,
> but am not comfortable making a tagging judgement call alone without
> consulting the UK community.
>
> It looks like currently there are:
>
>- 21 shop=department_store
>- 18 shop=doityourself
>- 15 shop=variety_store
>- 14 shop=houseware
>- 6 shop=furniture
>- 5 shop=interior_decoration
>- 3 shop=garden_centre
>
>
> Probably a few others too. Personally I'd rule out `variety_store` as per
> the wiki "a variety store or price-point retailer is a retail shop that
> sells inexpensive items" (think Poundland).
> ___
> 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] Name Suggestion Index

[SK53]

I wish there was a general rule which could be easily formulated: certainly
it would be useful to make some useful rules-of-thumb more explicit. Below
is a crude attempt at some considerations.

Broadly speaking the shop=confectionery, confectionery=chocolate is
probably what works best. The issue is not specifically chocolate but, as
DaveF pointed out earlier in the thread, all the other specialist
sweet/cake shops selling local specialties such as fudge or toffee (or
perhaps even Bakewell Puddings). There are probably lots of these special
cases which is usually a good sign to stick with the more general tag. The
other issue is that a tag has to work across the globe & the presence of
significant numbers of South Asian sweet outlets in Britain also suggests
sticking with the more general tag.

Also confectionery is more widely used & has a much longer usage. So both
sets of tags need to be looked at anyway if one is looking for chocolate
shops.

Lastly using a subtag (confectionery) always means one is adding
information and not changing the meaning of an existing tag. shop=chocolate
implies that shop=confectionery is a shop which sells sweet things except
chocolate.

The archetypal shop tag where a more general value is better than a
specific one is shop=beauty. Some will be pure nail bars, but many offer a
bewildering array of treatments. The general tag allows one not to have to
worry about all this detail unless one is specifically interested.

For really posh chocolate shops (not Hotel Chocolat or Thorntons) one could
add craft=chocolatier (but be careful, many years ago I remember being
disappointed to discover that the Belgiian chocolate firm Godiva was owned
by Campbells Soup).

Jerry

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 11:01, Peter Neale via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hotel Chocolat could be tagged "shop=chocolate", I suppose, but chocolate
> is a sub-set of confectionery, so perhaps it should retain
> "shop=confectionery", so that users looking for a sugar high don't have to
> search for both shop=confectionery and shop=chocolate (and shop=boiled
> sweets and shop=fruit_gums and shop=seaside_rock and)?
>
> Would that make it "shop=confectionery / confectionery=chocolate"?  (I am
> a bit new to the "rules" of tagging)
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
>
> On Friday, 8 November 2019, 10:41:28 GMT, Silent Spike <
> silentspike...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm a (UK based) maintainer of the NSI repository and can push changes
> directly to it. I haven't been as active lately, but previously was working
> my way through UK brands.
>
> "The Range" is one I've looked at previously but never figured out the
> most appropriate tagging which is why it still isn't in the index (for
> cases like that I'd like to consult the community for some consensus). I'll
> actually start a new thread to discuss this brand today.
>
> "Hotel Chocolat" I believe is shop=confectionery in the index purely
> because it was the established tagging. If there is some community
> consensus it should be changed then that can be done (and this is why the
> index is so useful, because all existing locations matched to the brand via
> `brand:wikidata` could be automatically re-tagged with the preferred value).
>
> If there are brands missing or issues with the current brand tagging I'd
> suggest either:
> - Open an issue on the repository (or a pull request if you're comfortable
> with git and json) and all contributors will then see it
> - If you don't have a github account and don't want one, just bring things
> up on this mailing list (feel free to email me directly too) and I'll see
> them and can either open an issue or push changes
>
>
> ___
> 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] Name Suggestion Index

[SK53]

Personally I'd prefer retaining confectionery & perhaps using some kind of
sub-tag for the chocolate bit: although chocolate only/dominated shops are
much commoner than some other kinds of sweet shop.

There's a trade-off between overly general & overly specific tags which is
sometimes difficult to judge. OSM-Nottingham

lumps cake & sweet shops together (many have a café too). A quick look
through shows that 'indian' (South Asian) sweet shops is a pretty common
sub-category, and there are a still a few pick-and-mix places too. This
suggests sub-tagging would be useful in other situations
(chocolate/pick_and_mix/south_asian/etc), see taginfo
 for current values.
There's always been some overlap between cake shops & bakeries (Birds the
Confectioners being a classic East Midlands example), but shop=patisserie,
shop=cake & shop=sweet have never had much traction. There seems no good
reason to separate out chocolate shops from other types which have equally
valid reasons to be distinguished, and doing so may encourage a fissiparous
tagging tendency. Note that there will tend to be regional & cultural
differences in styles of confectionery & the shops (I've always been a bit
puzzled how to tag the little places with "Regalos Dulces" above the door
in Spain), and in an ideal world we keep tags which work best across
cultures.

Jerry

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 13:28, Paul Berry  wrote:

> Continuing with the Hotel Chocolat example, it could well be the case that
> most are tagged with shop=confectionery because that was the nearest-fit
> tag that was suggested when each was initially mapped. If the more precise
> tag of shop=chocolate is now available we should make adjustments so that
> iD suggests this as an "upgrade" the next time someone is making an edit in
> or around one of them. Some of their shops offer a cafe/restaurant service
> as well, which should be suggested as a second tier of tags.
>
> Yours chocolatey,
> *Paul*
>
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 10:14, Jez Nicholson 
> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK 'The Range' has not got an entry. You can enter it in the Tag Text
>> field with/without 'gb' in the Country Code on https://nsi.guide
>>
>> To me, the big question is: how do we adequately consult the community so
>> that we feel that the GB entries are appropriate?
>>
>> Depending on github/dev abilities individuals can either create their own
>> fork/pull request. We also have an OSMUK fork that group work could be done
>> on. Or evidence could be added to
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom and
>> Talk-GB can be consulted...a number of things are possible. But ultimately,
>> I would like "the community" to feel that the changes are ours.
>>
>> There are a number of minor decisions involved, e.g. is Hotel Chocolat
>> a shop=confectionery or the newer shop=chocolate. Overpass Turbo says 50
>> the former, 13 the latter. Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom
>> says shop=confectionery so that is what the NSI says.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:38 PM Gareth L  wrote:
>>
>>> Curious as to what is selected for branches of The Range. That was
>>> recently highlighted as being tricky to categorise.
>>>
>>> Gareth
>>>
>>> > On 6 Nov 2019, at 07:51, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
>>> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 08:24, Jez Nicholson 
>>> wrote:
>>> >> I was wondering how iD (and Vespucci) decides what to offer as brands
>>> when I create a new feature, or when it suggests something like "Ibis looks
>>> like a brand with incomplete tags". The answer is the
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name_Suggestion_Index (NSI) ...now
>>> detailed on a wiki page that I created.
>>> >>
>>> >> The NSI is a github repository, so updates and editions can be
>>> suggested. This can be done via your own fork or on the OSMUK fork. I'm not
>>> sure what will work best for us yet.
>>> >
>>> > I stumbled across the NSI myself a couple of months ago, while looking
>>> > to add brand tags to shops in my local area though iD. I've been
>>> > collecting a list of missing UK brands (or at least ones that iD
>>> > didn't suggest) and also some potential errors (e.g. where it's
>>> > assumed all shops of a certain brand have a specific shop tag, when in
>>> > reality there can be some variation in the types of outlets). What I
>>> > haven't looked into yet is the mechanics of how to suggest
>>> > adding/correcting entries and what other info is needed for each one.
>>> > (Submitting github issues and pull requests for each individual brand
>>> > seems like a lot of effort on the face of it -- but maybe that's what
>>> > you need to do.)
>>> >
>>> > In case anyone is interested in adding these, or providing details of
>>> > 

Re: [Talk-GB] Reference numbers for UK admin areas?

[SK53]

They are current ONS 9-character codes ('E' for England). These codes cover
a wide range of administrative geographies.

There is absolutely no need to add a reference to the local authority to
street furniture objects as OSM is a geographical database & this can be
determined from the data. Note that individual authorities may have two
sets of codes (probably non-overlapping) for a given set of objects
simultaneously. This is certainly true of street lights when
replacement/maintenance has been out-sourced to a third party.
Additionally, some councils only use a within street reference number for
street lights (and possibly other street furniture).

Jerry



On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 15:54, Edward Bainton  wrote:

> Hi all
> On the forum marczoutendijk gave me an Overpass query to find grit-bins in
> Sutton.
>
> He added an admin-level to distinguish the parish of Sutton from the
> London borough.
>
> The only issue is, there are at least three Suttons at admin_level=10 (as
> it happens, not far from each other).
>
> They have ref numbers thus: ref:gss=E04001120 (for example)
>
> Does anyone know what these are? There is a webpage in the wiki here, but
> I can't make sense of it.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2647
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edward
> ___
> 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] Nottingham meeting tonight (Tuesday 22nd)

[SK53]

Dear All,

Just a reminder that we are meeting at the Lincolnshire Poacher in
Nottingham from 19:30. I have a cold so will not be doing any (or very
little) pre-pub mapping. Sorry about that.

Regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Licensability of an employee's work

[SK53]

This really belongs on talk legal rather than talk-gb. The people qualified
to answer such issues are more likely to be there, and it's rather
specialised for this list.

Certainly when I worked for a large company which paid a great deal of
attention to such issues we would not have been able to claim to be agents
of the company: although certain actions (signing another company's
confidentiality agreement did have the result of being an agent: we were
strongly warned against doing this).

Jerry



On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 17:45, Edward Bainton  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Quick question arising from a 'lobbying' conversation:
>
> *If an employee edits the map in the course of their employment, has the
> work been adequately licensed to OSM/the big wide Open?*
>
> According to Copyright Act 1988,
> s. 11 (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F1
> ,
> or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his
> employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any
> agreement to the contrary.
>
> Can the employee be regarded, as far as OSM is concerned, as an agent of
> their employer with authority to license the work?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Edward
>
>
> ___
> 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] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[SK53]

I went to check one which is a few hundred metres off my normal route to
the supermarket. For some reason I didn't take photos.

Apart from an A4 notice of closure (with few details) on the door, the
absence of staff, and unopened post on the floor, the shop looked as
normal. Deals still advertised in windows, brochures in racks and desks for
staff etc. It did look a little bare compared with how I remember them, but
I don't think I've visited a travel agent more than 3 times in the past 25
years so I don't have a proper baseline of comparison.

If I had just been driving past and had no knowledge of the news about
Thomas Cook I'd be none the wiser that they had closed. Even on a visit the
available evidence would not have been enough on it's own to convince me
that that particular shop had closed for good.

This doesn't provide any answers, but, I think, does demonstrate that even
an initial ground survey would not be adequate to determine the final
status for a less well known store.

Jerry

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:22, Martin Wynne  wrote:

> On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.
>
> "Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under its
> own brand with immediate effect."
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> 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] 24 hour mapathon - Aberconwy

[SK53]

>From memory the bit of Penrhyn Bay close to the Little Orme is 60s or early
70s housing (Penrhyn Beach West etc), with a lot of semis with the first
floor rooms effectively in the roof space (a style I associate with Wimpey,
but other builders may have used it). Unfortunately, I last visited in
pre-OSM days and I think I only have photos on the Little Orme itself. The
rest of that area )Penrhyn Beach East side) looks to be bungalows, and
perhaps a slightly later development.

I've added a bit of solar and the underlying houses.

Beware in the Conway Valley of imagery alignment (e.g. around Bodnant,
Betwys-y-Coed).

Jerry

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 10:21, Andy Robinson  wrote:

> A few minutes done in Penrhyn Bay
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.31715/-3.76346
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> *From:* Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 09 October 2019 06:43
> *To:* Talk-GB
> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] 24 hour mapathon - Aberconwy
>
>
>
> Today is the day of the Aberconwy mapathon. At any point during the day if
> you can spare a few minutes to look at Aberconwy that would be great.
>
>
>
> We're looking at this region:
>
>
> http://geojson.io/#data=data:text/x-url,https%3A%2F%2Fons-inspire.esriuk.com%2Farcgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2FElectoral_Boundaries%2FWestminster_Parliamentary_Constituencies_December_2018_UK_BGC%2FMapServer%2F0%2Fquery%3Ff%3Dgeojson%26where%3Dpcon18cd%2520%253D%2520%2527W0758%2527%26returnGeometry%3Dtrue
>
>
>
> Maybe you can find something mapped using the old NPE source which can be
> updated using latest open data/imagery.
>
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_24_hour_mapathons
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> *Rob*
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[SK53]

I really see no point. The data are already present in Nominatim  (albeit
perhaps not up-to-date) and search is the ONLY thing that so-called
postcode centroids can help with. DE24 (Sinfin) was imported long ago, see
this overpass query .

What can be done is attempt to assign postcodes to streets, and various
incomplete efforts have been made over the years. Open Data provides full
addresses for around 70% of UK postcodes (principally Companies House, Food
Hygiene & National Register of Social Housing).

What would be useful is a maintained set of postcode information based on
codepoint open/ONS postcode data/OS Local. The sorts of things which it
would be useful to know are:

   - Is the postcode centroid co-located with others (e.g., delivery
   offices, some businesses, blocks of flats)
   - Can the postcode be unambiguously assigned to a street & post town?
   - Is the post code in use or not (ONS is now obviously 8 years old, but
   still potentially useful). Greg's FHRS tracker does appear to indicate a
   degree of churn with inner-city postcodes (although some of this will be
   inadvertent use of more general rather than specific postcodes by people
   filling in the FHRS forms)
   - Is a postcode the sole postcode for that street?

Somewhere I have an old CPO table with some of this data populated. I think
Geolytix had summary info associated with their post code sector shape
files as well.

Adding addr:postcode to streets which have a single postcode is in my book
fine: numerous LAs put this on street signs (Rushcliffe & Gedling for
sure); it's an intermediate step to adding the addresses to houses  Once
the postcodes which obviously belong to a single street are eliminated it's
often easier to work out where the others belong.

Note that other than for FHRS we have no good source for Northern Ireland
postcodes at all. Equally assignment of rural postcodes is quite a bit
harder than urban ones. In re-reading bits of Chris's blog last night I
came across a post of his
 showing that
some postcodes move huge distances between releases.

Jerry

PS. The Sinfin postcodes possibly should be removed as they were added IIRC
before Mike Collinson's discussions with OSGB about OS Open Data.

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 13:44, Russ Phillips via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if it would be feasible and advisable to import the UK
> postcode data from OS OpenData Codepoint
> 
> .
>
> The licence is OSM compatible. My thinking was that we could create a node
> for each data point and set the addr:postcode tag. This would be useful for
> routing software like OsmAnd, since it would allow a user to enter a
> postcode as a destination.
>
> I'm happy to do the work, but the import guidelines
>  say that imports
> should be discussed on the imports@ list and the appropriate local
> communities, hence this email.
>
> Russ Phillips
>
>
> ___
> 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] non-squared buildings

[SK53]

I'm sure that in one of the SotM talks someone mentioned that there are no
right-angled buildings in New York City (or at least downtown Manhattan).
I'll see if I can find the relevant talk.

The general issue is really one of poorly mapped buildings, for which
non-squaring is just a proxy measure. Pierre Beland's talk on the first day
was about finding such areas (especially wrt HOT mapping).

Some years ago whilst helping Ralph (another person I didn't get to talk to
at SotM, Hi1) do validation at one of the London Missing Maps events I
noticed a quirky thing. If you square a building in JOSM and then resquare
it in iD or Potlatch the nodes move slightly. Apparently the reason is that
JOSM squares based on a geoid whilst the other two editors just work on the
principle that the editor viewpoint is small enough that one can use
'naive' geometry operations. I imagine for accurately surveyed & designed
buildings JOSM's algorithm is likely to introduce additional errors because
the architects/engineers will have used British Grid.

Jerry

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 11:17, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in OSMcan
> anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'?
>
> - Jez
> ___
> 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] Rights of way vs. tracks

[SK53]

For the bridleway map with highway=track, designation=public_bridleway.
Basic access rights can be inferred from this combination, but explicit
tagging does no harm (although it does make it a little harder to ensure
these are correct if there is a change in status). One of the beauties of
OSM is that we can represent the same PRoW as a driveway, followed by a
track, followed by a footpath or bridleway. The highway=bridleway tag
should be reserved for those public bridleways which do not follow a track,
service road or even an adopted highway. On PRoWs bridleways should have
different types of gates, much higher headroom, and, in some places,
abundant evidence of horses. I have also used highway=bridleway for
permissive access to field headlands, such as those
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335329313#map=16/52.8005/-1.1505> in the
Leicestershire village of Horton.

Rights of way which exist but which no traces are evident on the ground can
be mapped in two ways:

   -  Not at all. I took this option in Carmarthenshire
   
<https://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/07/footpaths-in-carmarthenshire-whats-point.html>
   where paths may be signposted but soon disappear into peoples gardens,
   jungles etc. Representing that they exist in any meaningful way for map
   users is just not a reflection of what is on the ground.
   -  Map the line of the PRoW solely with the designation tag. My
   favourite example <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293561685> is
   between Wellow & Laxton. Bridleway signs exist at both ends of the relevant
   path, but a deep ditch & heavily ploughed fields are a massive disincentive
   to use when there is a perfectly viable alternative along the edge of the
   wood 100 m away. Similarly I've seen a stile embedded deep in a hedge as
   evidence that a right of way exists & that a footpath once existed. Again I
   just used designation as the main tag.

Good places to look at PRoW mapping are the locations where several of us
have met up to map paths (links to Andy Townsends maps, but you can toggle
to the main OSM style):

   -  Hanbury
   
<https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=52.84636=-1.7425>,
   Staffs, see write-up
   
<https://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2015/01/new-year-footpath-mapping-with-mappa.html>
   .
   -  Abbots Bromley
   
<https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=52.81667=-1.87545>,
   Staffs,
   -  Ipstones
   
<https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14=53.04381=-1.95892>,
   Staffs
   -  Scalford
   
<https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14=52.80922=-0.86381>,
   Leics
   -  Gringley-on-the-Hill
   
<https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14=53.04381=-1.95892>,
   Notts
   -  Lees
   
<https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=52.9314=-1.60989>,
   Derbyshire

Several very experienced footpath mappers have participated in these
events, and have worked together to add the detail you see on Andy's map
(pan to the edges & in most cases you'll see the difference) so I think
it's reasonable to describe the results as representing a consensus.
Elsewhere the Peak District in general is very well-mapped for footpaths
and has had many contributors, so offers a bigger set of useful examples:
however this is popular walking country and paths fallen into disrepair
will be rarer.

HTH,

Jerry

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Edward Bainton  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Two rights of way questions for England & Wales:
>
> 1.
> What do we do when a public bridleway passes down an otherwise private
> track, as here <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729405361>?
>
> Both the track the the right of way are 'on the ground'.
>
> Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then tag horses &
> foot=designated? That acknowledges the track, but disregards the
> documentation here
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales:_Public_bridleways>
> which says "Public bridleways should be tagged: highway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=bridleway and
> designation <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation>
> =public_bridleway" .
>
> Or do I follow the documentation and disregard the visible track?
>
> Same question for public footpaths.
>
> 2.
> What should I do with this footpath
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729709956>, which appears on OSM and
> also on the OS map
> <http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=511004=298838=115=511004,298838=4=y=map.srf=ids.srf=577=511004=298838=0>
> as a public footpath.
>
> There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, no
> fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need one at
> the NE end, open country).
>
> Do I delete as probably

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[SK53]

The specific problem with that suggestion is that you miss lots of Thomas
Cook shops (particularly old Co-op Travel & Ilkeston Co-op travel): it hits
about 3 within 15 miles of Nottingham whereas there are nearer 11 (for
obvious reasons), and one of those is apparently is not
 now a travel agent.

This latter aspect shows that editors other than iD may not surface
Wikipedia/wikidata tags & that therefore such data needs to be
cross-checked, and bulk edits may inadvertently change other things. In
many ways I prefer that we acquire new local mappers (like OftenResident in
Alfreton) who notice that an area is out-of-date & set about getting it
up-to-date, rather than doing a partial update and missing other info (like
the shop is now a hairdresser). Obviously others think we should keep
everything as up-to-date as the information we have available. I don't
think we have ever reached a consensus on this.

Jerry

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 16:41, Silent Spike  wrote:

> It's unclear to me if there's a consensus on the tagging here. Personally
> I like the `disused:` prefix.
>
> I couldn't see if it was mentioned anywhere, but we can also query for all
> the locations explicitly marked as part of the Thomas Cook brand using the
> `brand:wikidata` tag: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MFP
>
> All of the results here can really be automatically re-tagged as disused
> or vacant since we explicitly know they were locations belonging to Thomas
> Cook (the beauty of wikidata tagging). You might say some may already have
> been sold and re-signed, but that can always be tagged after - we at least
> know for certain that none of them are Thomas Cook travel agency shops
> anymore.
> ___
> 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] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[SK53]

I suspect the fixtures & fittings will be cleared out fairly pronto,
although not the fascia signage. As the firm has been liquidated I presume
all leases on retail property are now in default, and consequently null and
void. Landlords will be anxious to get new tenants as quickly as possible,
and are likely to clear the shops for that reason. (A certain amount of
speculation on my part as I don't know what the actual legal situation with
ownership of fixtures & fittings is in these circumstances). Ether way we
can learn more by some on-the-ground surveys.

Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014, and their shops were
cleared out of fittings pretty rapidly, although they remained as visible
'ghosts'  on high streets for a long time afterwards.

A nice refinement of the shop=X => shop=vacant;disused:shop=yes would be to
only go from name=Y to old_name=Y when the signage disappears. Frederic
Rodrigo talked about pedestrian navigation by landmark at SotM, and
prominent closed shops (and also pubs) are often useful landmarks. However,
I think this is still a luxury for the average mapper trying to keep
somewhere up-to-date.

Jerry

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:54, Chris Hill  wrote:

> Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the public
> today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in the future and that
> may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if the administrator sells some or
> all of them to another company. In the mean time they are still branded and
> still a landmark of sorts.
>
> If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change that one
> otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see what happens.
>
> cheers
> Chris Hill (chillly)
>
> On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself
>
> You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell,  wrote:
>
>> I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent since I
>> wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case. Not all of them had
>> the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?
>>
>>
>> ___
> 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] September East Midlands meeting change of venue to Sheffield

[SK53]

Dear All,

As I will not be back from State of the Map in time for our scheduled
meeting and the people who are likely to be there are not from Nottingham,
we have changed the venue to the Devonshire Cat, Sheffield at 19:30 on
Tuesday.

I hope to update the wiki sometime today, but John Stanworth & John Baker
(rovastar) are co-ordinating the gathering.

This is also good time to give advance notice that our next Derby meeting
in November will be at the Brunswick near Derby Station.

Both changes reflect a real extension in range for our attendees, in large
measure due to John Stanworth's enthusiasm.

Cheers,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Parkland

[SK53]

Hi Chris,

I'm a bit surprised this hasn't come up before. I imagine on NPE maps the
land was stippled.

Rural private parks always had some areas used for pasture and even arable.
Even Wollaton Park used to have a couple of fields for cattle grazing when
I was a kid. Obviously places like Chatsworth, Clumber etc should be mapped
as parks. In the East Midlands we have Locko Park
 mapped as such, Maynell
Langley  (a private park
managed as such), Kedleston 
(an NT property, a fair bit of the land is farmed but has a parkland
landscape). Thoresby and Welbeck are not mapped as parks although in
landscape features they are not so different from Clumber.

Attingham Park in Shropshire is very inconsistently mapped. Park of the NT
property is mapped as leisure=park, the area labelled "Deer Park" is mapped
landuse=grass and the wester parts of the park as landuse=farmland. At a
landscape level all of this is one single park with plantings, avenues,
specimen trees are organised as part of a specific scheme.

The area around Belvoir Castle 
from Woolsthorpe westwards is clearly part of a park landscape.

My tentative suggestions are as follows:

   - Map the parkland landscape as leisure=park
   - Have an additional tag which clearly differentiates these historical
   parks in rural areas from the general expectation that leisure=park means
   an urban park. You can see I experimented with urban=no & rural=yes when
   wishing to exclude these areas from potential landuses aggregated to make
   urban areas.
   - Map additionally other landuses in the park: farmland, gardens etc.
   - Use an appropriate access tag.

Problems arise when parts of the area are an attraction and other areas are
private, but this situation exists for many existing rural parks, including
country parks. As NT properties with farming tenants such as Clumber &
Attingham are good examples it may be worth us including them in the
discussion. I vaguely recalled Belton being mentioned at SotM-13 in the
context or OSM & NT.

We can't ultimately avoid the fact that urban parks ultimately derive from
these historical landscape parks of the rich. Indeed it's only in the past
50 or so years that these have tended to disappear from OS maps.

Jerry.



On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 16:56, Chris Hill  wrote:

> HI All,
>
> I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, if so sorry.
>
> Someone has added the land around large country houses in East Yorkshire
> as leisure=park. The grounds are what I might describe as parkland,
> private space around the house (though it may be open to the paying
> public such as around Sledmere House) and often it is grazing for sheep,
> sometimes cattle or even deer. I think it is possibly farmland (pasture)
> but it is somewhat different with a number of individual trees in the
> space, probably to enhance the view from the house. It is not what I
> would describe as a park, but the mapper probably took the name (e.g.
> Dalton Park) as the clue.
>
> Does anyone have a better tagging scheme than farmland?
>
> --
> cheers
> Chris Hill (chillly)
>
>
> ___
> 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] Georeferencing / zeroing imagery

[SK53]

Hi Edward,

In general the GPS rule is still the best way of doing it, we used to have
access to Strava heatmap which was very good, but no longer.

Other viable alternatives are:

   - OS OpenData road centrelines. Of course if you use a crude OSGB->WGS84
   based on OSGB36 this may be upto 5 m out anyway (maximum error of the
   straight conversion).
   - Open Data sets which have probably been very accurately located
   (Nottingham Streetlights, trees in Bristol, Birmingham etc). I presume
   councils use some kind of differential GPS to locate assets.
   - OS StreetView layer was rectified by Grant using OSGB-02 and is good
   to crosscheck across layers for shifts.
   - Lidar data from Enivornment Agency/SEPA etc doesn't suffer from
   parallax errors and can be useful for identifying shifts also.

The whole issue of conversions is vexed. There are a number of recent
diary/blog posts summarising the issues. Basically georectified imagery is
probably rectified to some OSGB standard here.

Imagery is always a mosaic you can drop off a consistent area at any point.
Nor are individual zoom layers always consistently georectified or even
from the same time. Old maps are generally poorly aligned compared to other
layers. The NLS 1:25k is usually OK. GSGS3906 in Northern Ireland is also
generally OK and can sometimes be enhanced by adding more warp points on
MapWarper. Something like 80% of ways mapped from GSGS and imagery is
within 5m of OSNI data.

In general the more effort put into aligning features the more pain when at
some later time one discovers that the alignment was out. I would only
really bother with gross misalignments (say >10m). Anything which is within
5m is unlikely to repay the effort of realignment. Always maintaining
topological relationships is however important. If one really wants greater
precision then OS sell quite a decent product.

There is scope with things like RTK to create a set of known locations with
known precise co-ordinates. People do this for drone imagery flown in
humanitarian situations.

HTH,

Jerry

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 15:58, Edward Bainton  wrote:

> Hi folks
>
> Another query from me that I imagine has been done to death elsewhere (so
> apologies), but I haven't found it on the wiki. The usual disclaimer that
> I'm not well up on the technical side of the map.
>
> I've read the wiki on Using Imagery
>  and have understood
> that the best way of 'zeroing' the offset of imagery is to look for GPS
> traces, albeit even they are somewhat inaccurate.
>
> A few questions:
> - Over how wide an area does an offset obtained that way hold good?
> - Are the old OS maps better/worse/same as this system? Are they an
> alternative for zeroing imagery?
> - If I know the grid reference of somewhere (eg, Environment Agency puts a
> 10-fig reference on a plaque on their assets) is that any help?
>
> On the last point, this wiki page
>  mentions OSGM02. The link
> has rotted so I searched their site which gives hits for OSGM15
> - Is 02 an outdated standard that I should update on the wiki?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edward / eteb3
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Solar power mapping: 100k up

[SK53]

It looks as though we have just passed the 100k solar installation mark as
calculated by Gregory's site
. We had 98,307 this
morning and around 1700 have been added since this time yesterday (roughly
the cut-off time for the stats).

We have 4 LAs with over 80% of the FIT target mapped: Knowsley, Nottingham,
Plymouth & Sunderland. Amazingly Plymouth is over 95% of the target. There
are 2 others over 75%: Tameside and Ashfield, and around 16-17 with over
half mapped. I hope one of these is the former district of Caradon in SE
Cornwall as I've been mapping this area following Dan;s suggestion when I
last reported this status.

There are still a lot of solar farms to chase down. It would be nice to get
more of them located (or in some cases just updating tagging). This is an
area where we can get close to completeness (pace Brian's remarks earlier).

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Showgrounds (tagging)

[SK53]

Hi Ian,

Judging by this
<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rating-manual-section-6-part-3-valuation-of-all-property-classes/section-40-agricultural-showgrounds>
the government (Valuation Office) has also come to that conclusion. Some
interesting snippets about how showgrounds developed in the text. Anyway
I'd agree that  landuse=commercial may also be appropriate, and will
probably depend on local conditions. For instance Rutland sold-off the
original showground for housing, so are presumably cash rich, but  don't
think they have many big events so the grounds are used by sports clubs.


Jery

On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 21:11, Ian Caldwell 
wrote:

> For the  Three Counties Showground in Malvern
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35432806 is tagged with
> landuse=commercial. Any given the number of events there most of which are
> commercial. Commercial would be correct. That how the NEC is mapped
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243830271.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 20:55, SK53  wrote:
>
>> I just came across <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/161362655> an
>> agricultural showground tagged as leisure=park and realised I didn't know
>> what a sensible way to retag it would be. Although there are a limited
>> number in the UK (perhaps 100 or so) they do tend to be quite prominent and
>> when major events take place at them (e.g., Scout Jamborees, National
>> Eisteddfod) good tagging can be useful. I recall Richard Bullock mapping
>> the Royal Cheshire quite a few years ago as it helped parents pick up their
>> children after the scout Jamboree.
>>
>> Various (inconsistent) approaches have been used:
>>
>> * Newark <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/178396540> & Norfolk
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40942963> mapped as tourism=attraction
>> * Rutland <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/547075306> as
>> leisure=recreation_ground (there are certainly sports pitches here out of
>> events)
>> * Royal Cheshire <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/67375462> as
>> amenity=showground with landuse=grass.
>>
>> It strikes me that how grounds are a special type of events venue and
>> perhaps rather than using amenity=showground it may be better to use
>> amenity=events_venue with a subtag events_venue=showground. leisure &
>> tourism tags may still be applicable, and landuse=grass can still be (mis-)
>> used to show the area (see Newark & Royal Cheshire). Alternatives might be
>> amenity=exhibition_centre, but this seems more for places like the NEC. The
>> current wiki description circumscribes events venues fairly closely, so
>> this would be an extension in meaning.
>>
>> I don't think anything in the UK (or Europe) is quite on the scale of the 
>> Minnesota
>> State Fair <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39662664> which certainly
>> merits tourism=attraction.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> Any thoughts,
>>
>> 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

[Talk-GB] Showgrounds (tagging)

[SK53]

I just came across  an
agricultural showground tagged as leisure=park and realised I didn't know
what a sensible way to retag it would be. Although there are a limited
number in the UK (perhaps 100 or so) they do tend to be quite prominent and
when major events take place at them (e.g., Scout Jamborees, National
Eisteddfod) good tagging can be useful. I recall Richard Bullock mapping
the Royal Cheshire quite a few years ago as it helped parents pick up their
children after the scout Jamboree.

Various (inconsistent) approaches have been used:

* Newark  & Norfolk
 mapped as tourism=attraction
* Rutland  as
leisure=recreation_ground (there are certainly sports pitches here out of
events)
* Royal Cheshire  as
amenity=showground with landuse=grass.

It strikes me that how grounds are a special type of events venue and
perhaps rather than using amenity=showground it may be better to use
amenity=events_venue with a subtag events_venue=showground. leisure &
tourism tags may still be applicable, and landuse=grass can still be (mis-)
used to show the area (see Newark & Royal Cheshire). Alternatives might be
amenity=exhibition_centre, but this seems more for places like the NEC. The
current wiki description circumscribes events venues fairly closely, so
this would be an extension in meaning.

I don't think anything in the UK (or Europe) is quite on the scale of
the Minnesota
State Fair  which certainly
merits tourism=attraction.

Regards,

Jerry

Any thoughts,

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

[Talk-GB] Derby OSM Pub Meeting Tonight

[SK53]

Dear All,

Usual reminder that the Derby pub meeting is tonight at 19:30 Old Silk
Mill. We need to discuss potential future venues in the light of more
Sheffield folk joining us. The two disadvantages of the pubs by the station
are: the Alex is a bit small if our group is large; and the Brunswick
doesn't do food on Tuesdays. (Also Derby County match days have put me off
in the past).

I'll be at Derby Bus Station from 18:30 (ish, depends on traffic) to do a
bit of pre-pub mapping. As Dave tends to keep the city centre in good shape
these days I'll probably do a loop down towards the station.


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

[Talk-GB] Solar Panels Quarterly Project: 39 days to go

[SK53]

Thought I'd write a really quick summary of progress on the quarterly
project:

   - As of last night we had a total of 67,475 installations
    (solar farms
   enclosing several groups of panels are treated as one installation. At the
   time of writing another 500 have been added this morning.
   - 8 local authorities have more than 50% of the estimated total number
   (based on FIT data), in descending order : Nottingham, Ashfield,
Liverpool, Knowsley,
   Tameside, Wrecsam, Bassetlaw, Peterborough, and Manfield.
   - During August anywhere from 1500 to nearly 2500 panels have been
   mapped each day. Even if only average 1000 a day for the remainder of the
   project it means we should comfortably exceed 100k mapped installations
   (between 10 & 12% of the total).
   - There's no shortage of places where it is easy to add a lot of panels
   in a short time (I added nearly 500 in Worksop yesterday). Gregory's site
   has a list of candidates at the bottom of the main page.
   - As expected urban areas are easier to do than rural areas.
   - General areas with a lot of mapping are: West Midlands, North-East
   (Tyneside, Wearside etc), North-West, East Mids and Kent. I think you can
   guess who the likely suspects are.
   - I don't have any immediate stats on solar farms, but Dan pointed out
   that we have over 50%. perhaps Dan or Jex can provide an update.

Apart from a general target of 100k installations some other things are
worth focussing on for the remainder of the project:

   - Getting a few LAs over 75%. Ashfield
    is surprising
   because installations are widely distributed. Liverpool
    is more typical:
   two-thirds are mapped but perhaps 80% of the LSOAs have not been touched,
   and over a 1000 are in 4 LSOAs around Speke. So finding the additional
   panels may be less rewarding.
   - Searching a small number of rural LAs intensively: small ones are
   probably best: Anglesey, Isle of Wight, Rutland etc. My suspicion is that
   panels are harder to find, but also that imagery is often quite a bit older.
   - Get more done in Scotland (and Northern Ireland). Gregory's site
   doesn't allow the micro-targeting by LSOA which has been so effective for
   England & Wales.

The first two are because there is the possibility of using located rooftop
solar panels as training sets for more automated identification using
machine learning. Dan may want to say more on this.

Lastly, a couple of remarks stemming from jumping around England & Wales
about OSM mapping in general:

   - Buildings have been diligently mapped in all sorts of unexpected
   places. Unfortunately address data is scarcer.
   - Former council estates often lack many of the footpaths which give a
   better sense of their layout. Particularly true for the post-war Radburn
   style estates.
   - Some places were obviously mapped when OS Streetview first became
   available and the road networks could do with tidying up (I'll draw up a
   separate list at some stage).
   - MS StreetSide is really valuable particularly around Manchester.
   Although the imagery is 7 years old it allows a much more detailed
   appreciation of building types, and checking of other detail..

Happy hunting,

Jerry

PS. I was only the 3rd OSMer to look to add the new solar plant
 at Aldershot station

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSNI Open Data

[SK53]

This query would actually be better directed at talk-ie as the Irish OSM
local chapter have been having discussions with OSNI (and OSI).

However, I think it's safe to say that the relevant licence is not (yet)
compatible with OSM: I did briefly discuss this point with one of the Open
Data NI people who organised OpenData Camp #5 in Belfast, and she was
certainly of the view that OSNI data (or any LPS data) was not very open.
Many of these datasets would be very useful, for instance there is a point
data set of streetnames (e.g., when the name of this bit
 of street was being
questioned, or just to do streetnames which are perhaps 10% completed).

It is for this reason why there are no local authority boundaries in NI.
However, at some point I used FHRS data to produce concave hulls which
would be a first approximation (and no worse than things like the Limerick
boundary 3-4 years ago). Also KDDA has some open data for the old Fermanagh
district  (on umap here
)
which may assist in working out the boundaries (as will townland and other
boundaries). But do check with talk-ie before leaping in.

At one point maps.openstreetmap.ie had a number of overlay layers sourced
from the OSI/OSNI data, but I think these never got restored after the
server move. I used OSNI townland boundaries to compare with OSM ones back
in 2015.

Jerry

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 18:42, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Has anyone investigated if the data covering Northern Ireland which OSNI
> make available under OGL V3, is licence-compatible with OSM in the same way
> as the OSGB open data? I am particularly interested in admin boundaries,
> e.g.
> http://osni-spatial-ni.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/a55726475f1b460c927d1816ffde6c72_2
>
> The website says: "Open Government Data Licence applies.Land &
> Property Services (LPS) has made a number of Ordnance Survey of Northern
> Ireland® (OSNI®) branded datasets available free of charge under the terms
> of the current Open Government Licence (OGL). These datasets – which
> include raster and vector mapping, boundary, gazetteer, height, street and
> townland products – are available for download.  Each dataset is clearly
> marked with the OGL symbol. The OGL allows you to: copy, distribute and
> transmit the data; adapt the data; and exploit the data commercially,
> whether by sub-licensing it, combining it with other data, or including it
> in your own product or application. You are therefore able to use the LPS
> datasets in any way and for any purpose. We simply ask that you acknowledge
> the copyright and the source of the data by including the following
> attribution statement: Contains LPS Intellectual Property © Crown copyright
> and database right (year)  This information is licensed under the terms of
> the Open Government Licence (
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3).
> You must also: include the same acknowledgement requirement in any
> sub-licences of the data that you grant, and a requirement that any further
> sub-licences do the same; ensure that you do not use the data in a way that
> suggests LPS endorses you or your use of the data; and make sure you do not
> misrepresent the data or its source. N.B. Any dataset that does not
> expressly state that it has been released under OGL will require a licence
> from LPS and the appropriate licence fee will be applied."
>
>
>
> ___
> 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