Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Tony OSM]

Hi

I did know of that plug-in so i created my own


http://josm.openstreetmap.de/tagging-preset-1.0; >
preset_name_label="true">
    
            href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:listed_status; />

    
    
            
            values="Grade I, Grade II*, Grade II" />

            
            
            
            
            
   


to produce tags

HE_ref=123456 (example)
heritage:operator=Historic England
heritage=2
historic=heritage
listed_status=Grade II* (from dropdown list - must extend this to 
include Scheduled Monument etc)

operator=an operator (example)
start_date=2022 (example)
website=a:url (example)

Tony

On 30/07/2020 13:00, Nick wrote:


In relation to this, I wondered if anyone using JOSM has reviewed the 
preset https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Presets/Heritage? For 
example, it seems that for England the use of he:criteria has been 
used to tag listed buildings. Should this preset use a drop down for 
he:criteria with values for the NHLE heritage listings? Taking this 
further, should the preset also have a drop down for Listed Building 
listed_status?


On 23/07/2020 15:12, Nick wrote:


Out of interest, I note that in England the 'List Entry Number' 
appears to be simply numeric, which does not appear to give an 
indication of the type of designation. Perhaps I have not picked that 
up correctly.


N.B. in Scotland, designations have a code + numeric listing e.g. 
HMPA2 (which is a Historic Marine Protected Area). This makes it 
easier to identify by the listing as to the type of heritage 
designation (suggest that code references/descriptors could be 
included on a wiki for ref:hs=*)


On 23/07/2020 11:39, Tony OSM wrote:


Hi

When I started mapping these objects I looked at what other people 
had done and followed suit. I looked at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#United_Kingdom and 
saw a the statement



/National Heritage List for England (Historic England)/

//

/The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England 
(commonly known as //Historic England 
<https://historicengland.org.uk/>//) has given permission for the 
//National Heritage List for England 
<https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/data-downloads/>//(NHLE) 
to be used in OSM under the terms of the //Open Government Licence 
v3 
<http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/>//. 
//[10] 
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re_use_request_for_national_heri>//No 
specific attribution was requested, so the default: "Contains public 
sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0." 
applies. The NHLE includes the following heritage listings: /


//

  * /Listed buildings (see //Key:listed_status
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status>//)/
  * /Scheduled monuments/
  * /Protected wreck sites/
  * /Registered parks and gardens/
  * /Registered battlefields/
  * /World Heritage Sites/
  * /Buildings with Building Preservation Notices (BPNs)/

Revisiting today I think England is OK to use the data, but what 
about Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and Isle Of Man ......


On 23/07/2020 10:47, Robert Skedgell wrote:

On 15/07/2020 10:18, 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 have a related question about using data from the Historic England
list. How can we comply with the attribution requirement in para. 2 of
OS Open Data Licence Agreement used by HE (below)? Some of this may be
covered by OSM's general license and acknowledgements, but would an
additional tag on the object be required?

Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence Agreement

Historic England is able to license the use of a number of its spatial
data sets for use in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ("Historic
England GIS Data") for commercial and non-commercial use.

1. Subject to the terms below, you are now granted a worldwide,
perpetual, non-exclusive licence to use this Historic England GIS Data.
You may:
- copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Historic England GIS Data
- adapt or modify the Historic England GIS Data
- exploit the Historic England GIS Data commercially for example by
combining it with other information or by including it in your own
product or application

2. You must always use the following attribution statements to
acknowledge the source of the information:

© Historic England [year]. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown
copyright and database right [year] The Historic England GIS Data
contained in this material was obtained on [date]. The most publicly
available up to date Historic England GI

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Tony OSM]

Hi

When I started mapping these objects I looked at what other people had 
done and followed suit. I looked at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#United_Kingdom and saw 
a the statement



   /National Heritage List for England (Historic England)/

//

/The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (commonly 
known as //Historic England <https://historicengland.org.uk/>//) has 
given permission for the //National Heritage List for England 
<https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/data-downloads/>//(NHLE) 
to be used in OSM under the terms of the //Open Government Licence v3 
<http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/>//. 
//[10] 
<https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re_use_request_for_national_heri>//No 
specific attribution was requested, so the default: "Contains public 
sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0." 
applies. The NHLE includes the following heritage listings: /


//

 * /Listed buildings (see //Key:listed_status
   <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status>//)/
 * /Scheduled monuments/
 * /Protected wreck sites/
 * /Registered parks and gardens/
 * /Registered battlefields/
 * /World Heritage Sites/
 * /Buildings with Building Preservation Notices (BPNs)/

Revisiting today I think England is OK to use the data, but what about 
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and Isle Of Man ..


On 23/07/2020 10:47, Robert Skedgell wrote:

On 15/07/2020 10:18, 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 have a related question about using data from the Historic England
list. How can we comply with the attribution requirement in para. 2 of
OS Open Data Licence Agreement used by HE (below)? Some of this may be
covered by OSM's general license and acknowledgements, but would an
additional tag on the object be required?

Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence Agreement

Historic England is able to license the use of a number of its spatial
data sets for use in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ("Historic
England GIS Data") for commercial and non-commercial use.

1. Subject to the terms below, you are now granted a worldwide,
perpetual, non-exclusive licence to use this Historic England GIS Data.
You may:
- copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Historic England GIS Data
- adapt or modify the Historic England GIS Data
- exploit the Historic England GIS Data commercially for example by
combining it with other information or by including it in your own
product or application

2. You must always use the following attribution statements to
acknowledge the source of the information:

© Historic England [year]. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown
copyright and database right [year] The Historic England GIS Data
contained in this material was obtained on [date]. The most publicly
available up to date Historic England GIS Data can be obtained from
http://www.HistoricEngland.org.uk.

3. The same requirement for an attribution statement must be contained
in any sub-licences of the Historic England GIS Data that you grant,
together with a requirement that any further sub-licences do the same.

4. You must ensure that you do not use the Historic England GIS Data in
a way which suggests any official status or that Historic England has
endorsed you or your use of the Historic England GIS Data.

5. The Historic England GIS Data must not be used for purposes which may
lead to damage to archaeological sites, historic buildings and landscapes.

6. You must not mislead others or misrepresent the Historic England GIS
Data or its source.

7. This licence does not give you permission to use any Historic England
trade marks or logos.

8. You must ensure your use of the Historic England GIS Data complies
with the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic
Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.

9. The Historic England GIS Data is updated on a regular basis. It is
current only to the date of the dataset as given on the downloadable data.

10. All intellectual proprietary rights in this Historic England GIS
Data and the documentation remain vested in Historic England and its
licensors. Where Ordnance Survey base mapping has been used to create
certain Historic England GIS Data, Ordnance Survey claims Intellectual
Property Rights in the data. As such, Historic England GIS Data is
subject to the terms of the Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence – a copy
of which can be found here.

11. Spatial data is provided solely to indicate the location of the
designated area. The spatial data for listed buildings does not indicate
the extent of a listing or the curtila

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

[Tony OSM]

I have compared some of the data in my locale against several I have mapped.

The NCR data does not indicate - I think - the number of chargepoints at 
a location - my Local Asda has 4 but only one entry in NCR. Others are 
missing and some recent ones (in the last year) included. One at my 
local Nissan dealer is not included.


_Could the data be included in _https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/_?_

Be great if it was._
_

_Tony
_

On 21/07/2020 23:11, Nick wrote:


Could the data be included in https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ ?

On 21/07/2020 22:42, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2020-07-21 22:54, Mark Goodge wrote:

It's the errors which are more of a problem, because it's generally 
better not to map something than to map it wrongly.


This is a difficult point. Data is never 100% complete, and 
frequently not 100% accurate. At what point it becomes better not to 
have the thing in OSM at all, is rather subjective.

If the location was only accurate to ±50m, would it still be good enough?
If the operator was not tagged, would it still be good enough?
Is an "imperfect" object in OSM more likely to get corrected than a 
missing object is to get added? Should I not add a missing object 
because I cannot be sure of the "operator" for example? Talking about 
the charging points data set, how can one detect what is an error?
I would say, get the data out there, and let the world feed back any 
inaccuracies to the source for inclusion in the next version.


___
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] UPRN tag proposal page

[Tony OSM]

Thanks for the effort.

No problem to vote for this, no "red flags" for me.

Tony

On 20/07/2020 22:11, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

As discussed at the State of the Map online workshop, I took away an 
action to draft a proposal page for ref:GB:uprn. This page is now up 
online.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ref:GB:uprn

This is the first one of these I have done in a long time so hopefully 
I got it right.


At this stage, please highlight any "red flags" that would prevent us 
from moving to the voting stage. Feel free to also edit the page 
directly, however I'm of the view that less is more in this case as it 
keeps it short for people to read and also reduces the chance that 
something is added that others do not agree with (which would be bad 
during the voting stage).


If there are no red flags I will move for a vote.

P.S. My thanks to Nick for drafting the initial text.
P.P.S If anyone wants to start a page for USRN, please feel free to, 
otherwise I will attempt this later in the week.


Best regards,
*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] Scheduled Monument

[Tony OSM]

Yes, maintenance when things change is an issue.

I've looked at taginfo listed_status and found several variations  for 
Scheduled Monument, Grade(value)


I plan to do several things if there are no objections

1. update wiki listed_status to show the capitalised values Scheduled 
Monument, Protected Wreck Site,
Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of 
Immunity, Building Preservation Notice


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:HE_ref

2. find those variations in the map in England and where I am sure amend 
the values of listed_status. I see this as a data cleansing exercise - 
there are about 20 elements.


Tony

On 16/07/2020 13:42, Nick wrote:


listed_status:website - URL seems to have changed from 
http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1409803 to 
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1409803


On 16/07/2020 10:51, SK53 wrote:
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 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30805101#map=18/52.97843/-1.15535>.


Mapping listed sties was a particular interest when Will & Richard 
Phillips created Evesham Mapped 
<http://www.evesham-mapped.org.uk/map/?z=17=-1.92185=52.11616=OSM,1,16=listedbuildings>, 
so buildings and gardens are covered at least.


Jerry

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 11:17, Brian Prangle <mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I use listed_status =Scheduled Monument

    On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 10:19 Tony OSM, mailto:tonyo...@gmail.com>> 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 <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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


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


___
Talk-GB 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] Scheduled Monument

[Tony OSM]

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Tony OSM]

Hi

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans the first line is '*Sustrans* 
is a UK walking and cycling charity and custodian of the National Cycle 
Network .' 
Custodian is the important term.


The Sustrans website 
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/national-cycle-network-design-principles/ 
does not make that claim (please correct me) but the whole of the site 
suggests it is the custodian and that they make decisions about the NCN.


As Sustrans is described as the custodian and its website infers/implies 
that it is, then unless a route is on their website or literature it is 
not part of the NCN. OSM does not have the right to make a decision like 
that no matter how good the intentions.


So please do not tag as ncn; but please keep as a route.

As the route is tagged mtb I think that it may not meet the design 
principles as shown on the referred  Sustrans page.


Tony - TonyS999

On 12/07/2020 11:34, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

A mapper has recently added a long mountain bike route to OSM and 
there has been a difference of opinions in the changeset comments 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87757341 .So I thought I'd 
share here to try to achieve some community consensus.


Personally I'm concerned that it appears to be an undiscussed import 
without explicit copyright owner permission, possibly containing 
OS-derived data. It goes against the general principle that we only 
map what's on the ground, potentially opening the floodgates for all 
kinds of such unmarked  routes. The route is tagged as ncn despite not 
being part of the National Cycle Network and as a mountain bike route 
is largely unsuitable for general bicycle routing.


Does anybody have any further thoughts? I'll make the original mapper 
aware of this discussion.


Kind regards,

Adam

___
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 & USRN Tagging

[Tony OSM]

Agree with ref:GB:uprn and ref:GB:usrn.

Yes we do need to understand the data. If a usrn is given to a road, 
then the road is extended is the extension included in the original usrn 
or given a new usrn. Plenty of scope for decisions when using in OSM.


T

On 03/07/2020 16:55, Robert Skedgell wrote:

Surely these should be ref:GB:uprn and ref:GB:usrn, as UK is not an ISO
3166-1 alpha-2 country code?

Having had a quick look at USRN data, it appears that roads may have
more than one USRN, as a road may have more than one of 'Designated
Street Name', 'Officially Described Street', 'Numbered Street' and
'Unofficial Street Name'. In addition to this, some streets appear to
have a UPRN for the 'street record'.

On 03/07/2020 15:31, Tony OSM wrote:

As we have access to the data and Robert Whittaker has produced a great
UPRN locations map, how are we planning to tag OSM objects?

ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn

have been suggested as tags - I think this is the way to go.


There is also Key:ref:NPLG:UPRN:1 in the wiki.


Question: Should uprn be applied to the building outline or to a node?

The OS data applies them as nodes, they are assigned by local
authorities to a location as a node.

The uprn is applied to many objects even bus shelters, and individual
flats within a block; there may be what appear to be duplicates.

I suggest that for OSM buildings or building parts which are
individually linkable to a uprn then the uprn is assigned to the
building way outline; otherwise to an OSM node if the mapper deems
appropriate

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] UPRN & USRN Tagging

[Tony OSM]

As we have access to the data and Robert Whittaker has produced a great 
UPRN locations map, how are we planning to tag OSM objects?


ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn

have been suggested as tags - I think this is the way to go.


There is also Key:ref:NPLG:UPRN:1 in the wiki.


Question: Should uprn be applied to the building outline or to a node?

The OS data applies them as nodes, they are assigned by local 
authorities to a location as a node.


The uprn is applied to many objects even bus shelters, and individual 
flats within a block; there may be what appear to be duplicates.


I suggest that for OSM buildings or building parts which are 
individually linkable to a uprn then the uprn is assigned to the 
building way outline; otherwise to an OSM node if the mapper deems 
appropriate


Tony Shield    ---   TonyS999

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Tony OSM]

The £1000 data rules are at https://osdatahub.os.uk/ and the pricing tab 
https://osdatahub.os.uk/plans


States:::


 What is the difference between an OS OpenData plan and a Premium plan?

*Our OS OpenData plan* ensures you only consume OS OpenData. It locks 
down calls to our APIs so that you can never accidentally use or be 
charged for our Premium Data.


The OS OpenData plan is free to use for any purpose, including providing 
services from which you make a profit.


You can always upgrade to a Premium plan later which will unlock our 
Premium Data for you to use.


*Our Premium plan * opens up the use of our Premium Data. This is our 
most detailed mapping and geospatial feature data. You receive £1,000 of 
free Premium Data transactions each month on a use-it-or-lose-it basis. 
Once you've used up your free credit we'll either start charging for 
further Premium Data usage or, if you don't provide payment details, 
we'll pause your ability to make calls to our Premium Data until the 
next month when you receive another £1,000 of free Premium Data^* 
<https://osdatahub.os.uk/support/plans#premiumPlan> .




On 03/07/2020 12:28, David Woolley wrote:

On 03/07/2020 11:23, Tony OSM wrote:


There was a reference to £1000 worth of data being made free each 
month to individual users - can't find out how this works yet. This 
may allow us as individuals to populate OSM and OSM essentially 
aggregates the data - rather like postcode data.


Generally reconstructing a database piecemeal is considered no 
different from copying a substantial part in one go.


I suspect the reality with postcodes is that the the Post Office 
doesn't see collection of individual codes from the relevant business 
or resident as a significant risk, as they don't believe anyone will 
construct a sufficiently complete database that way.


Unlike natural features, both postcodes and telephone numbers start 
their life as entries in databases, but both of them need to be known 
to contacts of a person without the need for formally entering into a 
licence agreement.


However, if every user used their free quota of postcode searches each 
day, I think the Post Office would take action.


Normally when limited searches are allowed, there is also a personal 
use only restriction 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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Tony OSM]

Thanks Russ - didn't know about https://os.openstreetmap.org/

Free beer or free speech -  I'm looking at.

T

On 03/07/2020 11:35, Russ Garrett wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 11:24, Tony OSM  wrote:

There was a reference to £1000 worth of data being made free each month
to individual users - can't find out how this works yet. This may allow
us as individuals to populate OSM and OSM essentially aggregates the
data - rather like postcode data. I am researching the site to find out
how this works.

I'm fairly sure that's "free as in beer" and not "free as in speech",
and the data will still be subject to a restrictive license which is
incompatible with OSM.


OS have also made maps downloadable as images 'OS OpenMap Local' - I did
OS square SD, this provides a map picture, I checked out a new housing
estate and it has the street names - not currently in OSM (haven't put
them in yet). So the OS data is useful. For that SD square they provide
hundreds of files based on their method of 10km  map references with 4
sections per 10 km - NW,NE,SW,SE. Not easy to use, an overlay of
sections is required. This is updated regularly so can replace OS Open
Data Streetview which I believe to be no longer updated.

OpenMap Local is already available on https://os.openstreetmap.org/
and presumably it will percolate down into editors in due course.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Tony OSM]

I spent part of yesterday navigating the relevant OS and LandRegistry 
sites and trying to figure out what we can do.


We can basically put UPRN and USRN into OSM freely - the license is 
written to enable that.  OS have also separated out the ability to match 
UPRN and USRN to address and street records - essentially they are 
creating an index into their MasterMap products which are behind a 
paywall. So anybody who wants to pay -  possibly Logistics companies - 
can find exactly where their van has to go, more accurate than a postcode.


OS also seem to have been careful not to place UPRN and USRN data into 
their other free products so as to make cross referencing difficult.


There was a reference to £1000 worth of data being made free each month 
to individual users - can't find out how this works yet. This may allow 
us as individuals to populate OSM and OSM essentially aggregates the 
data - rather like postcode data. I am researching the site to find out 
how this works.


OS have also made maps downloadable as images 'OS OpenMap Local' - I did 
OS square SD, this provides a map picture, I checked out a new housing 
estate and it has the street names - not currently in OSM (haven't put 
them in yet). So the OS data is useful. For that SD square they provide 
hundreds of files based on their method of 10km  map references with 4 
sections per 10 km - NW,NE,SW,SE. Not easy to use, an overlay of 
sections is required. This is updated regularly so can replace OS Open 
Data Streetview which I believe to be no longer updated.


Leaving aside the philosophy of what is an address  - a UPRN in OSM will 
allow users such as logistics companies to accurately plan their routes. 
Logistics companies can be encouraged to add UPRN's and addresses and 
continue to use OSM freely.



Regards

TonyS999




On 02/07/2020 17:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 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.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] M58 / A49 Link Road Wigan - Open - MAPPED

[Tony OSM]

Hi guys

Went out yesterday with GoPro & Mapillary to survey the new road.

I've updated the map with the new road referenced as A49 as signed. Some 
cycleways need surveying.


The old road I've left as is but will survey it later to get its new 
reference and status - a lot of the signage is incomplete.


I've updated Don Drapers proposed route to reflect reality. Basically it 
is the eastern section between Goose Green and Westward Park which has 
opened, the western section between Goose Green and Orrell interchange 
is still in the planning process - no work on the ground that I could see.


Regards

Tony

On 29/06/2020 08:32, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

You could try contacting user Don Draper, who added the proposed route in this 
changset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/68842940

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020, at 6:25 PM, Tony OSM wrote:

Reported in Local Newspapers
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/long-awaited-20m-road-linking-18495724

the road has opened.

Can anyone point me to a definitive line to allow me to map it, or does
anyone else want to map it correctly.

There is a way marked proposed  in OSM  but I don't know enough to
confirm that is the correct path.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Virtual meeting: New open data and towards more UK addresses

[Tony OSM]

Hi Rob

I think a meeting this weekend is a good idea.

Even if a basic discussion of what we understand is available and the 
creation of an agenda of how to use the data.


Tony Shield

On 29/06/2020 20:37, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

The new open data comes out on Wednesday this week (land ownership 
boundaries, Unique Property Reference Number, etc). We are considering 
holding a virtual meeting to discuss how we might be able to use this 
and any next steps.


Does this sound of interest to you? If so, what times and dates might 
work best? One option is we schedule it as a State of the Map virtual 
session. Either 19:00 BST on Saturday 3rd July (just before Allan's 
Q session) or at 19:45 BST on Sunday 4 July. If this is too soon 
then we can slip it by a week or so.


Let me know what you think.

Best regards,
*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] M58 / A49 Link Road Wigan - Open - Needs Mapping

[Tony OSM]

Hi Guys

Thanks for the pointers. My plan is to go over there and 
Mapillary/survey it. The newspaper reports do not match Don Draper's 
route relation.


Regards

Tony

On 29/06/2020 08:32, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

You could try contacting user Don Draper, who added the proposed route in this 
changset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/68842940

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020, at 6:25 PM, Tony OSM wrote:

Reported in Local Newspapers
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/long-awaited-20m-road-linking-18495724

the road has opened.

Can anyone point me to a definitive line to allow me to map it, or does
anyone else want to map it correctly.

There is a way marked proposed  in OSM  but I don't know enough to
confirm that is the correct path.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] "secret" site

[Tony OSM]

I question the meaning of the word 'secret' when used in a newspaper. My 
observations are that secret means the reporter didn't know about it.


Tony

On 28/06/2020 00:47, David Woolley wrote:

On 27/06/2020 23:37, Dave Love wrote:

I was going to map a covered reservoir round here that I've known from
my youth, but I happened to find an article about it from the local
paper suggesting the location is secret, though it's listed in
Historic England.  (It's not far from a "sensitive government
establishment" that no-one locally knew about before it ceased to be
secret :-/)
Should I not map it, or pretend I didn't see the article?



How would another mapper verify this?  I normally think that people 
interpret the map only what's on the ground rule too literally, but in 
this case, I'd suggest the moral thing to do is to ignore your local 
knowledge an only map what can be seen, without guessing its 
significance.


(There are some road signs entitled "secret bunker", e.g. for Kelvedon 
Hatch, but I don't think this is the case here.


On the other hand, there used to be part of the North Yorkshire moors 
that had "undefined" written over it on OS maps.)


___
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] M58 / A49 Link Road Wigan - Open - Needs Mapping

[Tony OSM]

Reported in Local Newspapers 
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/long-awaited-20m-road-linking-18495724


the road has opened.

Can anyone point me to a definitive line to allow me to map it, or does 
anyone else want to map it correctly.


There is a way marked proposed  in OSM  but I don't know enough to 
confirm that is the correct path.


Tony Shield

TonyS999


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Land Registry INSPIRE data - 1 July OGL release

[Tony OSM]

Agree with -

My preference was for ref:GB:uprn and ref:GB:usrn,

Can we put onto the Wiki as placeholders and ask people to refrain from 
changes until agreement on how best to use them and apply a source 
reference.
I'm thinking that the data may be more accurate than our existing 
methods allow, so what will be policy of updating OSM data with new 
shapes from INSPIRE.

Tony Shield
TonyS999

On 27/06/2020 08:58, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 20:50, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

Looks like 1 July will be a big open data release day. Not only do we get the 
USRN and UPRN data, but the land registry data will also be released:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inspire-data-to-be-shared-under-open-terms

Should we attempt to coordinate something to prevent a mixture of uses across 
those OSMers who may want to do something with this date?

I'm not sure about the INSPIRE polygons, but for USRNs and UPRNs, I'd
imagine it will be useful to add these identifiers to the appropriate
OSM objects. (I can see doing this being very useful in terms or
measuring completeness in OSM, and finding missing streets/properties
to add.) To that end, we should agree on a tagging to use for these
references. I started a conversation at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-April/024383.html
about this. My preference was for ref:GB:uprn and ref:GB:usrn, though
I think there were some people arguing for the simpler ref:uprn and
ref:usrn.

Does anyone have any details of the specifications of the UPRN, USRN
or INSPIRE releases? For example, I'm assuming we won't get the
addresses with the UPRNs, just the coordinates, but will they be
linked to streets (via USRNs) and will each include a type/class? Will
we get street names with the USRNs? For the INSPIRE polygons will we
just get the INSPIRE ID, or will it be linked to LAnd Registry title
numbers or UPRNs?

(Depending on exactly what we get, it could be very useful for adding
and checking postcodes. e.g. if we have all the UPRNs that are tied to
a single USRN, and we know there's only one postcode centroid on any
of them, it's a good bet those properties all have the same postcode.)

Robert.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API

[Tony OSM]

Hi Kai

Was thinking that automatically selecting the first array element which 
will be highlighted in the display will solve it.


My belt and braces is to catch that exception and display a suitable 
error message ( should never occur)


Tony

On 26/06/2020 16:35, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:


Hi Tony, Hi Dave,

yep, that's the same Issue 
(https://github.com/kmpoppe/fhrsPlugin/issues/2) - current, you HAVE 
to select an entry, even if there is only one. I have covered for that 
now in code, but I'm thinking it might be easier, if there is just one 
entry, to automatically go for that one without the user having to 
select it.


Kai

On 26.06.2020 17:14, Tony OSM wrote:


Hi

I get that also. In my case its caused by not selecting an entry in 
the table presented after the initial Search entry. I've reported 
this issue & Kai is aware.


Tony

On 26/06/2020 15:54, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

I'm getting this after selecting the Search Entry option:

https://snipboard.io/7J6Eb0.jpg

Latest JOSM version

Any ideas?

On 26/06/2020 10:45, o...@poppe.dev wrote:

Hey Tony,

as I'm from the other side of the Channel, I doubt that there's 
someone from the UK community that knows me well enough to reassure 
you about my person (I could always ask people from the German 
Telegram group to tell you I'm not a lunatic *g*)


You could always take a look at the GitHub repository ( 
https://github.com/kmpoppe/fhrsPlugin) and check what's going on in 
the code - which heavily relies on the JOSM core source.


Regards

Kai

> Hi Kai
>
> I'd like to help as its a good idea - however I don't know you, 
so could
> you get some community people who are well known to vouch for 
you, its

> just that I don't want strange software on my machine.
>
> Regards
>
> 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 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] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API

[Tony OSM]

Hi

I get that also. In my case its caused by not selecting an entry in the 
table presented after the initial Search entry. I've reported this issue 
& Kai is aware.


Tony

On 26/06/2020 15:54, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

I'm getting this after selecting the Search Entry option:

https://snipboard.io/7J6Eb0.jpg

Latest JOSM version

Any ideas?

On 26/06/2020 10:45, o...@poppe.dev wrote:

Hey Tony,

as I'm from the other side of the Channel, I doubt that there's 
someone from the UK community that knows me well enough to reassure 
you about my person (I could always ask people from the German 
Telegram group to tell you I'm not a lunatic *g*)


You could always take a look at the GitHub repository ( 
https://github.com/kmpoppe/fhrsPlugin) and check what's going on in 
the code - which heavily relies on the JOSM core source.


Regards

Kai

> Hi Kai
>
> I'd like to help as its a good idea - however I don't know you, so 
could

> you get some community people who are well known to vouch for you, its
> just that I don't want strange software on my machine.
>
> Regards
>
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API

[Tony OSM]

Hi

It works without the FHRS:ID - just used it on 5 businesses I know.

It needs the address details  - road and place seem to be sufficient, 
post code is optional.


The FHRS -> Search entry will take the address details and get one or 
more entries - select which you want. Then a dialog appears offering 
which tags to be selected for adding to the OSM object including the FHRS:ID


I've reported one issue, but otherwise I regards this as a great assistant.

Tony Shield

TonyS999

On 26/06/2020 12:02, o...@poppe.dev wrote:
And of course, you're right Dave, it would be great to lookup stuff 
that hasn't got FHRS info. As I was already planning on implementing 
the Business Types from the API to check if the amenity fits, I shall 
see if I can gather information on objects on the layer that could 
poentially have FHRS info - searching through each and every one of 
them could take some time though.


Kai
Dave F via Talk-GB < talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
> hat am 26. Juni 2020 um 12:39 
geschrieben:



As the OSM entity has to already contain the FHRS:ID tag it limits the
usefulness of this plugin. Won't most have address data added when
contributors initially add the FHRS tag? I certainly do.

What would be useful is a way to search the LA's database for retailers
which don't have a FHRS tag.

DaveF.

On 26/06/2020 05:58, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:

Good morning everyone,

I built a plugin for JOSM that allows you to merge data from the FHRS
API into OSM with a few clicks. I'd love to find some people that would
be willing to test the 0.1.2 version and report bugs they found and/or
comment on the user experience.

Just throw me a line at o...@poppe.dev  and 
I'll send you the download link.


Thanks in advance!

Kai


___
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] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API

[Tony OSM]

Hi Kai

I've looked at github and your OSM profile - impressive, more so than 
mine. Pleased to make your acquaintance.


I will download the fhrs app and give you feedback.

Regards

Tony

On 26/06/2020 10:45, o...@poppe.dev wrote:

Hey Tony,

as I'm from the other side of the Channel, I doubt that there's 
someone from the UK community that knows me well enough to reassure 
you about my person (I could always ask people from the German 
Telegram group to tell you I'm not a lunatic *g*)


You could always take a look at the GitHub repository ( 
https://github.com/kmpoppe/fhrsPlugin) and check what's going on in 
the code - which heavily relies on the JOSM core source.


Regards

Kai

> Hi Kai
>
> I'd like to help as its a good idea - however I don't know you, so 
could

> you get some community people who are well known to vouch for you, its
> just that I don't want strange software on my machine.
>
> Regards
>
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API

[Tony OSM]

Hi Kai

I'd like to help as its a good idea - however I don't know you, so could 
you get some community people who are well known to vouch for you, its 
just that I don't want strange software on my machine.


Regards

Tony Shield

TonyS999

On 26/06/2020 05:58, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:

Good morning everyone,

I built a plugin for JOSM that allows you to merge data from the FHRS
API into OSM with a few clicks. I'd love to find some people that would
be willing to test the 0.1.2 version and report bugs they found and/or
comment on the user experience.

Just throw me a line at o...@poppe.dev and I'll send you the download link.

Thanks in advance!

Kai


___
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] Cycle Track - part/soft protection tags - proposal

[Tony OSM]

Hi Guys

While investigating I cam across this company who have a product line 
which uses these terms and shows pictures - they have an exemplar from 
Greenwich which I believe to be in London.


site is - http://www.rediweldtraffic.co.uk/products/cycle-lane-products/

TonyS999

On 16/06/2020 23:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:

Do you have a photo of such feature?

https://i1.wp.com/bicilonatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/barcelona-cr-urgell.png
link is dead


Jun 16, 2020, 20:21 by simon.st...@gmail.com:

Full disclosure - I’m currently working for London Cycling
Campaign on a project to bring data from the Transport For London
Cycling Infrastructure Database to OSM.

As part of this the question arose as to how to tag cycle
facilities that are give more protection and comfort than a
painted lane on the road but not as much as a fully protected lane
with, say, a 50cm concrete kerb separating cyclists from motor
traffic.

This was raised here -

https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/23

There are may types of ‘hybrid’, ‘partial, or ‘soft’ separation.
 The London COVID-19 ‘StreetScape’ programme is bring a lot of
this type of infrastructure to London’s streets very quickly.
 Looking at OSM Wiki and previous discussions it doesn’t appear
that there is a definitive way to record these. And indeed,
looking at the recent infrastructure and how it has been entered
to OSM by users it is not happening consistently as a result.

My view on this is that the greatest distinction is between a
painted lane and a track (that has some form of protection).  The
difference between the different types of track is less than
between no protection at all and ’something’.

Given the multitude of different ways of giving some protection to
cyclists I wonder whether it is better to treat them all as
variants of track (since they all offer much greater protection
than a lane but vary in comfort level - in my view in this order
of comfort).

cycleway:track=kerb
cycleway:track=rubber_kerb_wand
cycleway:track=rubber_kerb
cycleway:track=concrete_barrier
cycleway:track=plastic_barrier

cycleway:track=stepped
cycleway:track=wandorca
cycleway:track=wand
cycleway:track=orca


There may be more I've forgotten.

This would mean that routing engines would see either lane or
track at the basic level, but the routing engine designer could
then add further refinement using info about the type of track (in
combination  perhaps with the size/speed of the road it was
alongside) if that info was available.   The detail of the precise
type of infra is relevant (rather than just simply tagging these
with a generic tag such as ‘part protected’ or ‘hybrid’ since it
may be that some types of infra prove more successful or have
safety issues and there is a desire to identify locations where
they are present (eg the concrete or water filed barriers prevent
informal crossing of the road by pedestrians)

Since this infra is being rolled out quickly and in volume (both
in London and internationally - though London, due to the
fragmented local authorities seems to be doing it in far more
varied ways than other places) there is a benefit to establishing
this now




___
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] Road closures/changes during Covid19

[Tony OSM]

Hi

Yes a very good idea.

I'm in  North West England - the main driver in this area is Manchester. 
I have seen social media  and news outlets showing photos of Deansgate, 
Manchester with expanded pedestrian areas and expanded cycle lanes; 
motor vehicles removed - but I don't know if there are delivery 
exceptions. This has been an aspiration for several years so it may 
become permanent.


I can't travel to survey this.

I have seen no mentions of expanded bicycle /pedestrian areas in Chorley 
or Preston.


If a table in a wiki page was created iy region/alphabetic town - we 
could pool our knowledge and plan survey trips. Information saying no 
change is also helpful.


Regards

Tony

On 24/05/2020 14:34, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

How are you reflecting current road changes in OpenStreetMap? I am 
aware that some cities are closing a few roads to motor traffic and 
installing additional cycle infrastructure. I'm not sure how permanent 
this is going to be, but it certainly feels like it will last a few 
months.


Is it worth setting up a coordinated approach to mapping these 
changes? We can set up a wiki page with a table of who is contributing 
in each city, where data is available, and what tags we want to use.


Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
*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] Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to OSM (perhaps!)

[Tony OSM]

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 <mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> 
 <mailto: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 mapping at all 
meaning there's still quite a big job to be done.


As you may remember I have been developing a companion app to 
MapThePaths. In the first version of this (around two years ago) I 
experimented with auto-converting GPX traces to OSM ways. However I 
was dissatisfied with the results, the ways generated were really 
rather nasty and I ended up having to prettify them signifi

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to OSM (perhaps!)

[Tony OSM]

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 mapping at all 
meaning there's still quite a big job to be done.


As you may remember I have been developing a companion app to 
MapThePaths. In the first version of this (around two years ago) I 
experimented with auto-converting GPX traces to OSM ways. However I 
was dissatisfied with the results, the ways generated were really 
rather nasty and I ended up having to prettify them significantly in 
JOSM afterwards, rendering the auto-creation facility a little 
pointless. Consequently later versions of the app have focused on 
merely presenting the council and OSM data overlaid (like the 
website),  with only limited editing facilities, to change the 
designation of a path.


However (and I may have mentioned this before, it's been a while) I am 
wondering about a 'two-user' approach in which a new user merely does 
the GPX survey, using an easy to use UI (a refined version of the 
MapThePaths app with the UI re-designed by someone more versed in UX 
than myself).


They select ROW type and path surface via a nice interface, and then a 
tagged GPX trace is generated (which was done by the first version of 
the app anyway). This is then uploaded to the MapThePaths server, and 
volunteer expert users. Said expert user then downloads the GPX trace 
and 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).


Any thoughts?

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] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 164, Issue 16

[Tony OSM]

What a useful insight into a parentless system.

Tony

On 12/05/2020 18:02, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 21:35 +0100, SK53 wrote:
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.
The Leicestershire and Rutland uses a Zone letter followed by a 
number, there is no connection between path numbers and parish and no 
obvious reason for the zone boundaries. I suspect they were just 
numbered 1-99 and then moved on the the next zone with numbers 100+ 
being paths created later. Until 2011 I assumed that was the normal 
way of things.


Rutland uses the same system which it inherited from Leicestershire, 
Rutland was in Leicestershire zone E hence Rutland paths all have an E 
prefix. Paths crossing the border into Leicestershire have the same 
number in both counties.


The City of Leicester is unique again, its definitive map arrived in 
the 2000s shortly after it became a unitary authority having been 
exempted in the original act. Wrongly in my humble opinion, along with 
other urban areas.


Their scheme uses zone numbers which are deliminated by the radial A 
roads. I do remember seeing this for the first time as part of 
Leicestershire and Rutland Rights of Way Committee and we thought, 
different but it does make sense.



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.


I suppose I am in a slightly different place to many mappers in that I 
am a Ramblers Rights of Way Officer.


Here in Shropshire we use the more traditional parish scheme.

I do prefer the parish code, there are 202 parishes and I have not 
memorised them all yet but from the first code you can derive the 
division (old district) which gets you into the right area and is a 
big clue to geography.


There could be a place for both schemes however if OSM is to useful 
for communicating with the rights of way department we need to be 
consistent with their usage, including the link number.


The link number changes each time a right of way meets another public 
highway or right of way. Government assessments of the state of rights 
of way are based on the percentage of usable links, and yes I was 
confused when this came up back in Leicestershire, especially as their 
scheme ignores such detail.


Phil (trigpoint)




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


___
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] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Tony OSM]

Hi

The data file  sent by Lancs CC contained the District Number, Parish 
Number, Type, District Name, Parish Name plus coordinates list.


The first entry in the kml file is

    
        33
        120
        16470.
        Footpath
        18.
        yes
        BURNLEY
        HAPTON
        12.
        7.
        FP 18
        12-7-FP 18
        name="PROW_URL">http://lccmapzone/mapzone/asp/prow/general.aspx?path=FP18dis=12par=7

        FP
        120
        768.56943096600
    
-2.27639184743805,53.772975749866191 
-2.276419499154496,53.773014353403141 
-2.276473919958041,53.773056738569473 
-2.276547825688409,53.773102501481461 
-2.276629364748936,53.773140809891281 ...


The data does contain the relevant information in this case Hapton FP 
18. Some people used the LABEL2 field 12-7-FP-18 which is easier to grab 
for display - but the point is that Lancs CC have provided both formats.


I have shared a list of District & Parish names and numbers.

Rob has an experimental map & tool of Lancashire showing the format of 
Parish Type Number - which I have found to be very useful recently in 
labelling PROW's in my district 9. (Didn't know that Judge Dredd came to 
Chorley!). I understand that Rob will make that experimental map widely 
available if people agree to the Lancashire format, as his tool also 
checks for well formed PROW refs, correct lengths, and completeness of 
implementation of the PROW set per parish.


We have the data from Lancs CC - we need to agree the best way to use 
it, and only the ref is stopping that.


Regards

Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 11/05/2020 09:07, nathan case wrote:


I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).

At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in 
place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID 
is what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open 
data they released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would 
be unrealistic to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID 
with a name, especially since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) 
easily (openly?) available.


Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to 
convert parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly 
acceptable.


The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.

Regards.

*From:*Tony OSM 
*Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public 
Rights of Way - legal vs reality)


I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc 
the written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in 
that order sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.


Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM 
and I have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to 
understand it.


Regards

TonyS999

On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I
agree with Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more
idiomatic and reflects how the routes are most commonly actually
referred to in communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't
use the numeric references with any consistency even within its
own electronic systems (with the format on the online map being at
variance with the underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither
the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire use any such
references.

Kind regards,

Adam



___

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org  <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Tony OSM]

I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc 
the written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that 
order sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.


Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and 
I have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it.


Regards

TonyS999

On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree 
with Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic 
and reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in 
communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric 
references with any consistency even within its own electronic systems 
(with the format on the online map being at variance with the 
underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither the definitive maps 
nor statements for Lancashire use any such references.


Kind regards,

Adam

___
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] COVID-19 Department of Health uses OSM

[Tony OSM]

Hi

Noticed that the government website uses OSM on which to overlay 
coronavirus data.


https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#local-authorities



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

[Tony OSM]

Hi Nathan

I've done some work on Chorley PROW's recently. Populated using the 
style Chorley FP 1; Lancaster area uses the numbering convention in 
MapThePaths eg 1-1 23. Fortunately I know the area well having lived in 
the vicinity for 30 years so I can do armchair mapping with some knowledge.


Robert Whittaker has responded to you and provided the link to 
progress/lancs which I have been using - If find it very useful, 
especially as it checks against format style of Chorley FP 1.


When I have found  PROW which can't be walked I am making a note, I have 
started a conversation with the PROW team at Lancs CC about Chorley FP 1 
and Chorley FP 9 which can't be walked because they have build a road 
and bridge over them. On that particular section I have not placed the 
PROW because the path does not exist and I feel that a Definitive Map 
change is required. However Lancs CC seem to be very reactive about map 
changes. I'm think that FIXME's could be useful in the case where path 
can't be mapped to the actual Definitive Line


I also find the 
https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/ 
to be useful to assist on defining the PROW, it maintains the path 
reference in sight to help with reference changes particularly at parish 
boundaries or path joins.


Where it goes through a building I would divert where appropriate, add a 
FIXME and I would save the information to contact Lancs CC so that the 
Definitive Map can be checked; as we only have 6 years to get these 
things right I believe that Lancs CC should be encouraged to do the 
right thing.


Regards

Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 04/05/2020 11:27, nathan case wrote:


Hi all,

I’m using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson’s 
email on 11 Nov 2019) to map Lancashire’s public rights of way (PROW) 
under the council’s open data licence.


Generally, any existing paths already marked on the map fit quite well 
with the vector files of the PROWs. So if the already mapped route 
lies near enough to the PROW line in the vector file, I leave the 
route as is and just add the missing tags (e.g. designation and prow_ref).


However;

 1. In cases where the mapped route deviates substantially from the
PROW – should I keep the mapped route or edit to fit the PROW?

The mapped route could be an error (even with GPS trails) as the 
original mapper may have taken the incorrect route. Quite often this 
is the original mapper being polite and walking around the edge of a 
farmer’s field even when the PROW is straight through the field. 
Legally, the route is through the field and not around it. Or it could 
be that the way is not well signposted and the mapper has had to guess 
the way (a big issue across Lancashire’s moorlands/heathlands for the 
not so well trodden paths).


Equally, the mapped route could represent the actual “on the ground” 
route i.e. the route shown by PROW vector may be impassable. It’s also 
not guaranteed that the vector files are correct (as they’re only 
copies from the definitive map).


 2. Where the PROW goes through a building/object – should I map the
route as defined in the PROW, or re-route the PROW around the object?

Unless there is an error in the PROW vectors, the building shouldn’t 
be built on the PROW – though it does seem to happen a lot, especially 
with farm buildings. Obviously the path can no longer run through the 
building – despite it’s legal status. When arm chair mapping (as is 
only practical with such a large data set) should we instead show the 
best alternative route? Or go with the legal route and allow people 
following the route on the ground to find the best route and edit in 
future?


Thanks for any insights!


___
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-transit] Making bus lines more specific

[Tony OSM]

I like node highway=bus_stop for the reasons polyglot gives. bus_stop is 
here to stay cos there are too many to change, by the side of the 
highway they give directionality depending on the customary side of the 
road for driving.


public_transport=platform works well for train and some trams. To me a 
platform is a construct to assist people to get on or off the transport 
vehicle. As a waiting area  - that use is secondary.


In GB some authorities are raising the area around a bus stop to enable 
wheelchair users easier access to buses - so yes a platform tag is 
appropriate, but not for a pole placed in the ground or pedestrian part 
of the road which is the default for buses where I live.


stop_position node - to me has no function - for buses their stop 
position is the bus stop;  for trains they stop at the platform; where I 
live we have 2,3,4,5,6 car trains, the front of the train stops at one 
of two defined positions depending on the number of cars.


Simplification of PTV2 may be helpful, but I have had no strong 
frustrations when using it.


Regards

TonyS999


On 28/04/2020 09:46, Jo wrote:

The basic objection they voice is why need 2 tags, if 1 does the job.

highway=bus_stop

is not exactly nonsensical. It's concise and expresses what is meant. 
(OK, it's not a highway and my preference is to map it next to the 
highway)



public_transport=platform

was designed at first to not need a mode of transport like 
bus=yes/tram=yes. I am the one who proposed adding it, so that it 
COULD start replacing highway=bus_stop back in 2012.


There is not always a platform present, so it's a bit of a misnomer as 
well.


Anyway, someone who wants to render a bus stop ideally wants to look 
at a single tag, not a combination of 2, apparently. For a long time 
it was supposedly a technical problem, but as soon as that was 
resolved somewhere around 2017, it was still considered problematic to 
look at 2 tags.


I wish you good luck with proposing another way of mapping public 
transport. Many have tried before you. It's really hard to beat status 
quo. And the status quo is not the same across the planet. If you can 
propose something that is both simpler, more elegant and still 
expressive enough for all usecases, I'll vote yes on it.


Polyglot

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:26 AM Robin Däneke > wrote:


Indeed, these are good points. I would say, that the „platform“ is
enough. This could then mean either the „stop pole“ of the station
(which I would not say is the most important piece as that could
also just be a sticker on a shelter or a lamp post) close but not
at the station (sadly there are big inconsequent uses in real
life), or the area of the visible platform, if applicable.

But the rest of the community will have to accept the death of
(old) tags, when it is voted for. If this mailing list could come
up with a proposal most users here could live with, we all vote
for it (with the spelling of the end to certain tags) and it is
accepted that way, the community will have to accept that. The
first iteration was just to „nice“ to that conservative fraction.
Public transport can be complex, but this is why it needs
dedicated (own, simple) tags instead of legacy nonsense.

This is, why I would be happy to have many people work on this
„ideal“ solution, that is simple on the one hand, but powerful on
the other hand. I will make a Document where I put in my personal
critique and goal for a new scheme, and am then looking forward to
input on it. Will share it here when I have a framework of what
the current scheme says and have some changes in it. Then, the
specifying of the bus lines, the simplifying of the bus stations
(so that one or two tags can replace bus_stop but still do the
same thing functionally) and other points could be put in there.
Maybe we actually end up with a useful consensus, that one could
propose.

The more people get on board, the more acceptable it can become...

KR
RobinD


Am 28.04.2020 um 10:07 schrieb Jo mailto:winfi...@gmail.com>>:

For years and years we have tried to convince the people working
on carto, our default rendering to start supporting
public_transport=platform/bus=yes instead of highway=bus_stop.

They have clearly stated that this will never happen. Conclusion:
highway=bus_stop is NOT a legacy tag.

That's my conclusion anyway. In Belgium I'm even considering to
drop public_transport=platform on the bus stop nodes, but that's
not straightforward either anymore,, since the editor software
started to depend on them.

stop_position nodes, I have never considered them to be
important, so I never mapped them for ALL the stops. I do map
them for initial and terminus stops, was I want to split the way
there anyway. What I will definitely not do, the way I see it
done in 

Re: [Talk-GB] CWGC: worldwide, war graves

[Tony OSM]

Am browsing the CWGC website as I write, looking at my locality.

Clearly landuse=cemetery is the principal tag for the typical CWGC 
cemetery - dedicated to military with rows of the fallen.


There is a proposal for cemetary=sector which appears to have failed.

CWGC is showing in my locality > 20 locations where there are CWGC 
casualties, most are in local cemeteries and graveyards. Quantity of 
graves is from 1 upwards.


Nationality of the interred also may be important - there may be very 
many commonwealth nationalities in one location.


If we generate a tag schema it clearly needs to be applicable to other 
grave organisations - e.g. German War Graves Commission - /Volksbund 
Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge/ in German.


Will we use abbreviation or the full name?

What about a cemetery with multiple organisations graves? (I've seen some)

URL's to the parent site - CWGC - there could be several in one cemetary.


Tony Shield

TonyS999

On 26/04/2020 12:44, Andy Townsend wrote:

Hello,

How is it suggested to tag "there are commonwealth war graves here"?

At least near me, there's usually a fairly large white on green sign 
near the entrance, so even if it's not something you'd explicitly go 
out to map, it's often something that you'd notice.


Best Regards,

Andy

On 25/04/2020 22:20, Daniel Pocock wrote:


On 25/04/2020 22:55, Michael Booth wrote:

This seems to be it:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-August/010110.html 



Found via a search for: site:lists.openstreetmap.org "talk-gb"
"Commonwealth"

Thanks for finding that so quickly

Daniel, what is actually being proposed to be added to OSM? Is it a 
list
of CWG cemeteries that could then be checked against the data we 
have in

OSM? I remember seeing a maproulette for cemeteries in Texas, perhaps
something similar could be done to find missing CWG cemeteries.

Please see the CWGC and TracesOfWar lists on this page:


https://anzacathon.com/data-sources.shtml

They simply have the name of the cemetery or monument, the latitude and
the longitude

CWGC has 20,000 records, TracesOfWar has 120,000 records

AWM also has about 14,000 records for places but they are not in the
IPFS world yet.

Regards,

Daniel

___
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 Phase 1 Construction NTP

[Tony OSM]

we've seen news reports of parts of the alignment fenced off and invaded 
by protestors - those parts are certainly under construction, and the 
pictures show that bulldozers have been active. I think if we can 
identify those areas then construction is now correct.


Tony Shield

TonyS999

On 17/04/2020 09:14, Andy Robinson wrote:


Jez, I think the actual rails may be a long way off but I agree it’s 
an opportunity to stay ahead of the completion.


A question for the whole list. How do folks feel about changing the 
Phase 1 route from rail=proposed to rail=construction. Perhaps it’s a 
bit premature but then perhaps not.


Cheers

Andy

*From:*Jez Nicholson [mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 16 April 2020 22:15
*To:* Andy Robinson
*Cc:* Talk-GB
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 Phase 1 Construction NTP

Thanks Andy, this is opportunity for OSM to be *the* best source of 
HS2 rails data.


On Wed, 15 Apr 2020, 17:48 Andy Robinson, > wrote:


Government issued Notice to Procced for Phase 1 today, which means
the main contracts construction between London and Birmingham will
start imminently so keep an eye out for major new works in your
area soon (though I expect these will be slow to spot while we are
in lockdown!)

Till now all works relating to HS2 have been enabling works or
design related.

Cheers

Andy

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

[Tony OSM]

Hi Rob

There is a very similar state in Lancashire, I can imagine the 
Lancashire officer providing  a very similar response to that from Dorset.


Dorset are saying that their definitive statement is listed by named 
parish, status and route number.


I believe that as the public definitive reference is named parish, 
status and route number then that should be what is in OSM, using number 
references looks to me like an internal workaround for earlier computers 
and spreadsheets.


Using named parish, status and route number also makes it easier to use 
on maps - eg Andy Townsends 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=13=53.6423=-2.5975


Regards and mapsafe

Tony Shield

TonyS999

On 16/04/2020 14:18, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW
comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new
counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset.
I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different
formats for their Right of Way Numbers. We really need to just select
one for the county in order to be consistent in OSM.

One format has a parish code followed by a slash and then the route
number within the parish (e.g. "SE4/22" for path number 22 in
Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle parish). The other would be to use the
full parish name, right of way type, and number. I asked their
Definitive Map officer about this and got the response:

"Both systems are used in parallel. For mapping (where the status and
parish are obvious) and for internal use, we use the numbering system,
but when reporting to Committee members or members of the public who
will not be familiar with the numbering system, we name the parish and
describe the status. Our sealed statements are listed by named parish,
status and route number. Our working statement spreadsheet uses parish
number, status and route number."

The "SE4/22" style numbers are what are used on Dorset Council's own
online map at 
https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/countryside-coast-parks/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-map-where-to-walk-ride-or-cycle.aspx
. Currently in OSM we have about 394km of routes in Dorset using this
style in the prow_ref tag, and another 98km using this style with a
space instead of the slash. That a total of around 492km based on the
parish codes and numbers. Conversely, there's only around 125km of
routes in Dorset that have a prow_ref tag that includes a parish name.

Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22"
style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other
instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite
Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few
mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM
to this thread to get their input too.

Best wishes,
Robert.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Tony OSM]

Prefer capitalised
ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn

as wikipage for ref https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref shows 
towards the end that US and FR are used to build up refs, FR has a page 
showing all their ref's 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/France/Liste_des_r%C3%A9f%C3%A9rences_nationales


Possibly of interest ISO 3166 allows for GB to be sudivided by local 
government area to produce eg


council areaGB-ABE  Aberdeen City   
en  

council areaGB-ABD  Aberdeenshire   
en  

council areaGB-ANS  Angus   
en  

districtGB-ANN  Antrim and Newtownabbey 
en


Not to be part of addr: but as standalone keys.

I recognise coding could obviate the need for GB - but that's hard work 
, GB is easy and memorable and matches what other OSM'rs are doing, and 
extensible if other countries have keys with the same acronym.


Tony Shield

On 09/04/2020 20:28, Dan S wrote:

Op do 9 apr. 2020 om 19:47 schreef Lester Caine :

On 09/04/2020 15:32, Mark Goodge wrote:

So I'd propose that we use either ref:uprn and ref:usrn, or
ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn. What does everyone else think?

I'd be happy with either, so long as it's consistent.

That is ideal from my point of view ... yes you can get the country by
processing the location information, but being able to simply list all
of them WITHOUT the overhead of other processing has to be the right way
forward?

We could make such an argument about any tag, e.g. "addr:postcode"
couldn't we? Someone who wants a GB-only list can easily get them from
a GB extract such as Geofabrik's.

On the other hand I'm happy with "ref:gb:uprn" and "ref:gb:usrn" if
preferred (can we use lowercase for convenience please?) since it
seems these terms are not global.

Best
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Tony OSM]

That makes perfect sense to me.

Any other views?

Tony

On 09/04/2020 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM  wrote:

If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging.
Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data?
What should they be?

[snip]

So I'd propose that we use either ref:uprn and ref:usrn, or
ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn. What does everyone else think?

Oops. If we were to use the ISO Alpha-2 country codes, it should of
course be GB rather then UK. So that would make the keys ref:GB:uprn
and ref:GB:usrn .

Robert.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Tony OSM]

Thanks to Andy for highlighting this.

If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging.

Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data?

What should they be?

Do we need a wiki for them , where?  I'll summarise the answers and 
create a wiki page if someone tells me where to place it - a UK specific 
page or section?


Any traction in creating tools to help populating any new tags?

Could this be a subject for a discussion as the probably virtual OSM AGM?

 Regards - and stay safe

Tony Shield

TonyS999

On 02/04/2020 16:08, Andy Mabbett wrote:

"Unique Property and Street Reference Numbers to become the standard
way of referencing and sharing address information about properties
and streets across government, helping to transform public services
and boost our economy"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/geospatial-commission-to-release-core-identifiers-under-open-government-licence



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Tony OSM]

 decide which ones to add (if any)
  * For the rest of the bins, we’ll convert the GeoJson to OSM
format using one of the toolslisted here

<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Converting_map_data_between_formats>(probablyosm-and-geojson
<https://github.com/aaronlidman/osm-and-geojson>as I’ve
tested this). My colleague Stuart has a good knowledge of
OSM so he’s identified which tags we’ll use – I will post
a list of these to get feedback before we upload anything.
  * I will use thebulk_upload.py tool
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bulk_upload.py>to
upload the osm file. This seemed like a good choice but
please let me know if there’s a better one.

The whole process will be tested with the dev server first,
just to be safe.

Tony, thanks for the advice – I’ll have a look at the West
Midlands stuff yes. The verification tag & date seems like a
really good idea too – we hadn’t thought of that.

    Cheers,

Patrick

*From:*Tony OSM mailto:tonyo...@gmail.com>>
*Date:*Tuesday, 24 March 2020 at 12:18
*To:*"talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>" mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>
*Subject:*Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

Agree with Silent Spike.

This has a lot of similarities with NaPTAN bus stop imports -
conflating and verification/validation are the difficulties
there - looking at the West Midlands notes may help.

For Leeds with a workforce regularly checking/cleaning bins
then perhaps the tool you are planning to build could add a
verification tag & date for completion on the first visit
after an upload.

TonyS999

On 24/03/2020 12:02, Silent Spike wrote:

Hey,

I think this seems like a well planned and researched
proposal. Personally would be happy to see such an import
- especially since you've already got buy-in from the council.

Only really have two questions:

- Has the accuracy of the council data been evaluated at
all? I'm personally of the opinion that mostly accurate
data is better than no data so this is more just a curiosity.

- Could you specify those steps you'd be taking for
conflation? I don't doubt the ability to do so (this seems
like a very competent proposal), but just for
transparency of the process.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:44 AM Patrick Lake
mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>> wrote:

Hi,

AtODI Leeds <https://odileeds.org/>we’re working with
Leeds City Council to create an up-to-date, open
dataset of bins and recycling points. Different parts
of the council have different datasets about bins and
recycling points – e.g the bins around Leeds market
are maintained by a different department. Nobody has a
full, exhaustive list of all of them, so we’d like to
get them all in one place.

We think Open Street Maps would be perfect for this,
as it’s ‘open by default’. We’re building them a tool
using the API & OAuth so that council workers will be
able to quickly add bins (amenity=waste_basket and
amenity=recycling) from their phones. We’d also like
to addtheir existing dataset
<https://datamillnorth.org/dataset/litter-bin-locations>,
which is published under OGLv3, to Open Street Maps.
We have buy-in from Leeds City Council but under
theimport guidelines
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines>we
also need community buy-in, and we’d really like some
feedback from the OSM community.

Here’sa quick map we made

<https://mapper.odileeds.org/?10/53.85050/-1.47903/datamill-38356ad9-a184-44c1-a4f0-055ac71356ec;osm-leeds-waste_basket>comparing
the Leeds City Council dataset of bins (yellow
markers) to the OSM amenity=waste_baskets for Leeds
(black markers). We’re aware that there is probably
duplicates so we’ll be taking steps to remove those.

We’d appreciate any comments or feedback.

Cheers,

Patrick Lake

ODI Leeds

patrick.l...@odileeds.org
<mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>

___
Talk-GB 

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Tony OSM]

Agree with Silent Spike.

This has a lot of similarities with NaPTAN bus stop imports - conflating 
and verification/validation are the difficulties there - looking at the 
West Midlands notes may help.


For Leeds with a workforce regularly checking/cleaning bins then perhaps 
the tool you are planning to build could add a verification tag & date 
for completion on the first visit after an upload.


TonyS999

On 24/03/2020 12:02, Silent Spike wrote:

Hey,

I think this seems like a well planned and researched proposal. 
Personally would be happy to see such an import - especially since 
you've already got buy-in from the council.


Only really have two questions:
- Has the accuracy of the council data been evaluated at all? I'm 
personally of the opinion that mostly accurate data is better than no 
data so this is more just a curiosity.
- Could you specify those steps you'd be taking for conflation? I 
don't doubt the ability to do so (this seems like a very competent 
proposal), but just for transparency of the process.


On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:44 AM Patrick Lake 
mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>> wrote:


Hi,

At ODI Leeds  we’re working with Leeds City
Council to create an up-to-date, open dataset of bins and
recycling points. Different parts of the council have different
datasets about bins and recycling points – e.g the bins around
Leeds market are maintained by a different department. Nobody has
a full, exhaustive list of all of them, so we’d like to get them
all in one place.

We think Open Street Maps would be perfect for this, as it’s ‘open
by default’. We’re building them a tool using the API & OAuth so
that council workers will be able to quickly add bins
(amenity=waste_basket and amenity=recycling) from their phones.
We’d also like to add their existing dataset
, which is
published under OGLv3, to Open Street Maps. We have buy-in from
Leeds City Council but under the import guidelines
 we also
need community buy-in, and we’d really like some feedback from the
OSM community.

Here’s a quick map we made


comparing the Leeds City Council dataset of bins (yellow markers)
to the OSM amenity=waste_baskets for Leeds (black markers). We’re
aware that there is probably duplicates so we’ll be taking steps
to remove those.

We’d appreciate any comments or feedback.

Cheers,

Patrick Lake

ODI Leeds

patrick.l...@odileeds.org 

___
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] European Water Project - Introduction

[Tony OSM]

I completely agree with Colin

On 13/03/2020 12:12, Colin Smale wrote:


Daniel, that is completely uncalled for. If you can't live and let 
live, take your own advice and go procreate somewhere else.



On 2020-03-13 12:27, Daniel Holsey wrote:


Fuck Off

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 10:31, European Water Project 
> wrote:


Hello,
My name is Stuart Rapoport. This my first message on the UK OSM
forum, so I decided to give an introduction to our project before
jumping into the thread regarding the tag drinking_water:refill =
yes.
A small group of us have recently started a project called
European Water Project. Our project is 100% collaborative and
100% open data, powered by OSM and wikidata. Our goal is to help
empower individuals to reduce single use waste in their lives.
With the help of many (including OSM members in
Italy, Switzerland, France, and Spain), we have written a set of
instructions available in 7 languages for adding new water
fountains to OSM and as well as instructions on how to add photos
to Wikimedia Commons and link them back :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH/Project/European_Water_Project

We have developed a Progressive Web Application which allows
individuals to find nearby locations where they can refill their
sustainable water bottle for free anywhere in Europe.
We strive to contribute to the builiding of a collaborative
network of foutains, cafes, restaurants and other establishments
which are willing to allow individuals to fill up their water
bottle as part of the battle agains single-use waste.  There are
currently over 235,000 fountains and 70 cafés available on the App.

Our web App is available directly at
https://europeanwaterproject.org (installation instructions are
in the hamburger menu).
A description of the project and the project genesis :
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1f0dts-RErPepgrEnddSAOh1rDqpxMYC3

Best regards,

Stuart Rapoport

___
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] "OSMUK-in-a-box"

[Tony OSM]

Absolutely Fabulous!

Not done Docker but I'll start learning how to get it on those 
environments.


I'll try to support by QA and writing instructions as to how to get it 
live.


Cheers

TonyS999

On 06/02/2020 12:29, Jez Nicholson wrote:
I come from a database background, and when a question isn't easily 
answered with Taginfo or Overpass Turbo I jump to my trusty local 
postgres database of UK data. I have a script that downloads the 
British Isles from Geofabrik, loads it with osm2pgsql, adds some 
useful indexes, and then removes Eire. Thereafter I can run SQL 
queries across the whole database to get 'UK-wide' results.


I think that this would be useful for people on hackdays and the like 
and would be a good service for OSMUK to provide, so have just added a 
new github repository https://github.com/osm-uk/osmuk2pgsql


Friendly-worded Issues are welcome, as are code contributions. I'd 
like to put it on a Docker environment so that it works 
quickly-and-easily on Windows, Linux, Mac, whatever.


Comments? Thoughts?

Regards,
             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

[Talk-GB] OSM Stickers

[Tony OSM]

Hi

I've been pointed to the 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Promotional_Material_Programme page.


Noticed one of their stickers contained a QR code.

Would it be possible to create stickers containing QR code for UK or 
locations such a AGM in Leeds?


Could a mechanism be provided to create a local sticker which contained 
a local QR - to be placed on local notice boards (we have a lot around 
here)?


If I get a positive response I'll research the subject to create a 
proposal looking at costs and benefits. If anyone has information please 
point me to it.


Cheers

Tony Shield

TonyS999


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

Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Tony OSM]

Hi

Great to see your station work.

I agree they should all be station.

If DfT classifies stations as A-F or whatever then a tag to indicate 
that would be useful. These DfT classifications seem to be used by the 
rail industry to indicate roughly importance by passenger numbers, from 
which they base some decisions/discussions as to whether they should be 
staffed or unstaffed or the hours of staffing. There was a recent 
discussion about Chorley which from the publicly reported discussion I 
believe to be class C.


Knowing request stops is helpful.

TonyS999

On 31/01/2020 23:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi
Over the past few months I've been sorting & adding detail to the UK's 
National Rail railway stations so that OSM has the correct amount.


I'm unsure of the benefits of tagging some of them as 'halts'. I'm 
proposing they should all be 'station'.


All 2567 NR Stations with 96 halts in blue: 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qik


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dhalt
Determining based on size, as the wiki suggests, is too subjective 
IMO.  How is 'size' determined? The number of platforms? Tracks? 
Passenger usage (which fluctuates)? Note, OSM doesn't have an 
equivalent tag to distinguish really big stations..


Another factor is if they're request stops. This is a much more 
appropriate criteria. I've now added them with the more explicit tag 
'request_stop=yes'.


All 137 Request Stops in blue: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qil
65 of these are already tagged a stations.

British Rail remove all references to halts (1974?)
There are only two which have since been renamed to include halt. It 
appears to be for purely cosmetic reasons. (The locals probably think 
it'll increase property values).


I've contacted Thunderforest and OpenRailMap. Neither make a 
distinction between halts & stations in their renders.
Carto label them the same but display halts at a higher zoom level, 
which personally, I find irritating.


Opinions/Suggestions?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Update bus stop names

[Tony OSM]

Hi Guys

I imported NaPTAN data for my local area (Chorley) some months ago. Took 
the data for Lancashire and filtered on Town:Chorley. Some of the stops 
were excluded because the data had not been correctly input by reason of 
no entry, misspelt, wrong town entered.


Using the JOSM:Conflate tool enabled me to identify existing stops and 
merge/manipulate the data - hard work with some mistakes which I am now 
correcting by field survey - I know the area well so I tend to be able 
to spot errors. Conflate allows the setting of distance to match nodes - 
I started at 10 meters to get the close matches then 50 metres, several 
iteration through the data.


I would encourage you to add the fields naptan:ATCOCode & 
naptan:NaptanCode as they are useful references when using timetable 
software - all my local bus stops include NaptanCode for text alerts for 
buses.


Bus stop types - most are MKD which I think translates as marked on the 
ground, but CUS are the Custom and practice stops which Stuart refers. 
As they are not physical should they be in OSM ? Answering my own 
question - I think so because it is additional data and very useful for 
map users, but I would now put in the BusStopType field. Similar for HAR 
hail and ride.


Have a look at putting nodes in - helps to complete the map.

I found Latitude and Longitude locations to be accurate within 10 yards 
or so, more accurate than the previously entered bus stops - I surveyed 
/ used Mapillary to confirm.


Be critical about the data and your process - it helps accuracy but 
don't be afraid.


Good mapping

Regards

Tony Shield (TonyS999)

On 18/01/2020 12:16, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

Hi Cj,

What you have got there is Southern Vectis’s link to a subset of the 
current NaPTAN data. Please note, though, that Southern Vectis are not 
responsible for this data - that is maintained by Isle of Wight Council.


NaPTAN data is always available by local authority, or for the entire 
country, from the official source. You don’t need to have a login, and 
instructions can be found at 
http://naptan.app.dft.gov.uk/DataRequest/help on how to download 
individual areas. Essentially, you will need the Atcoprefix to form 
the URL and you can get this most easily by following the “last 
submissions” link contained within that page.


But all this comes with a health warning!

NaPTAN data from the official source will /generally/ be more up to 
date than what has been imported into OSM some years ago. But I know, 
from when I proposed a mechanical edits few years ago, that many 
mappers have surveyed their local stops and would be unhappy with it 
being updated without a further survey by what they regard as an 
inferior source, particularly if is not well maintained.


Be aware of “Custom and practice” stops in NaPTAN which are unmarked. 
Buses stop there, but there isn’t something that you can see on the 
ground that you can map, necessarily. Hail and Ride stops are even 
worse, because they are virtual stops intended to give something that 
a scheduling system can hang a time on rather than an accurate 
representation of where a bus stops. You can identify all of these by 
BusStopType in the data.


Common errors in the official NaPTAN data set may be missing stops, or 
the inclusion of stops that are no longer in use. Some areas remove 
stops when they are no longer served, even though the infrastructure 
is still in place on the ground (wrong, in my opinion, but there you 
go). You may also find stops that are not precisely where you expect 
them to be, and they may also not have the name that is on the stop 
flag on the ground.


That last one is a point worth dwelling on. NaPTAN is intended to be 
granular in its data. That means that the street that a stop is on 
should go into the “streetname” field, and a short name should go into 
the “commonname” field. Our advice to database administrators is that 
where there isn’t a prominent landmark (bus station, pub, etc) then 
this is most suited to a nearby side road. That way stops along a long 
road can have different names, which is essential in a journey planner 
or timetable. On the ground, though, many authorities will put 
composite names on the flags, and often the other way round if they 
consider the main road to be more important. And they then differ on 
occasion from what the operator wants to call the stop (although 
operators tend to focus on just the timetabled points). Oh, and some 
areas misuse the fields. In Sheffield (for good historic reasons, so I 
don’t want to pick on them unduly) you will find that the commonname 
is simply the stop letter e.g. CS1 which should properly be in the 
Indicator field, and the common name (which should be “Century 
Square”) is only found by looking at the stop area name.


All this just goes to highlight that you will need to reflect 
carefully on what the fields that you are updating in OSM should be 
before making the changes - although I agree that in 

[Talk-GB] New Entertainment venue - what tags?

[Tony OSM]

Hi

In Chorley a new entertainment business has opened - 
https://www.escapeentertainmentvenue.co.uk/


It's primary offering is TenPin bowling, Gator Adventure golf (a form of 
indoor golf) and a bar & restaurant.


What is the best way to tag? One node or three nodes?

The new building is multi-tenanted and includes M Food and a cinema 
(already tagged).


Cheers and an Excellent New Year to all mappers.

TonyS999


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

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

[Tony OSM]

Hi

I've been in several of their shops, have just looked at their website, 
and can see the tags below - -  I think that this is a lifestyle shop 
that sells all of those tagged bar fashion. Lifestyle tag  is only used 
5 times but that word occurs frequently on their website.


My 2nd choice is home-furnishing.

To me clothes are less important to this shop than historically was the 
case.


Tony

TonyS999

On 20/12/2019 00:50, 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] What is farmland?

[Tony OSM]

Mapping Fields - preferred method I think is individual fields, or at 
least polygons which are based on road or natural boundaries. Mea Culpa 
- I have also mapped farmland as larger polygons.


Large polygons make life difficult when a field changes use - near where 
I live it becomes scrub for several years before being developed for 
housing/industrial/retail.


On 16/12/2019 10:21, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Monday, 16 December 2019, 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


Large polygons make future editing very difficult.

It is very beneficial to differentiate between arable, pasture and hopefully we 
can get real meadow back from the misuse it has received.

Farming use changes, mapping individual fields allows farmland types or other 
changes to be maintained far easier than if it is part of a huge polygon.

All in all it goes to make for a better more usable map.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Tony OSM]

I have always thought that farmland as an English word means land used 
for production by growing things - cabbages, cows etc. Hierarchy then 
led to arable, pasture, horticulture. But what do you do with managed 
woodland eg coppiced or pollarded or left to semi-wild animal 
populations eg deer, swine?


Fields also have a habit of having several uses determined by a farmer  
- pasture/grass for silage, arable/grazing stubble. These also change 
over time.


Climate has a highly important role in determining what farming is 
carried out - west side of England is predominantly pasture, east side 
of England predominantly arable. Wales and Scotland also have altitude 
to modify farming practice


Can we agree a hierarchy and notation method to this deceptively simple 
question and then update the wiki.


Tony

TonyS999

On 16/12/2019 10:21, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Monday, 16 December 2019, 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


Large polygons make future editing very difficult.

It is very beneficial to differentiate between arable, pasture and hopefully we 
can get real meadow back from the misuse it has received.

Farming use changes, mapping individual fields allows farmland types or other 
changes to be maintained far easier than if it is part of a huge polygon.

All in all it goes to make for a better more usable map.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OpenStreetCam in JOSM

[Tony OSM]

Hi Brian

Occasionally I have a problem displaying the images. I often see the 
road sign symbols and just one sequence track of photos. If I focus 
elsewhere sometimes the photo tracks become visible and I can view the 
images. Most of the time they work as expected.


BTW - I still have the Waylens camera and it provides good photos - if 
anyone else wants it please book it via the system/Rob Nickerson. The 
photos when transmitted to OSC can be shown within 20 minutes and 
certainly within 2-3 hours.


Regards

Tony

On 06/12/2019 12:27, Brian Prangle wrote:

Hi everyone

Does anyone else have a problem displaying photo  images in JOSM with 
the OSC plugin? I can only get the road sign icons and no photos. I've 
reinstalled the plugin and update JOSM but to no effect


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] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Tony OSM]

Adam, thank you

Anderton and Adlington parishes are next to each other on the ground - a 
good example of read across error which needs to be avoided.


Euxton Parish Council have published a recent LCC notice on their 
website - http://www.euxtoncouncil.org.uk/news.php?id=83


which refers to PUBLIC FOOTPATHS EUXTON 37 & 38, CHORLEY BOROUGH .

Separately on Chorley Borough Council website, a modification order 
https://democracy.chorley.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD2280=2280=6590173 
refers


Add to the Definitive Statement for Croston the following:

Restricted Byway 26 from a junction with Back Drinkhouse Lane at SD 4853 
1838running in an approximately easterly direction along an enclosed 
track to pass through bollards at SD 4854 1838 and continuing to 
terminate at SD 4859 1838 at a junctionwith Drinkhouse Road between 
properties 17 and 19 Drinkhouse Road.


It seems clear that LCC have no formal nomenclature reference rules, so 
the method described by you and your reasoning is that which we in 
Lancashire should adopt.


I'd  like to see the data supplied to you made more widely available - 
as that public availability was part of my original question. I shall 
send to Rob the data I extracted from the data supplied.


Regards
Tony

On 26/11/2019 21:12, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,


Firstly, Tony, I think 9-4 is Anderton and 9-1 is Adlington.

As part of the original FOI/EIR/Re-use request for the GIS dataset, I 
also requested (and was supplied) the council's scanned copies of the 
Definitive Statements along with permission to use them under the OGL. 
They appear to be complete as of when they were scanned (Early 2000s) 
but don't include any subsequent modification orders (like many 
councils Lancs don't frequently update the Map/Statement themselves, 
the documents have to be read in conjunction with any relevant 
modification orders)..  If Tony or anyone else is interested in the 
Statements I can send a download link. If anybody knows anywhere where 
they could be hosted to be publicly accessible in the long term then 
that would be great. With the statements the Council also supplied and 
OGL licensed scans of the county's surviving original parish survey 
cards which were used as part of the process for drawing up the draft 
definitive maps/statements. The same applies to these (though beware 
that these only cover a fraction of the County (the Rural Districts of 
Lancaster, Fylde, Wigan, West Lancs and Chorley).


The paper Definitive Maps and Statements for Lancashire don't go as 
far as naming the paths or supplying a definitive reference and as 
Robert suspected I've not seen any pre-digitisation records which use 
anything like 9-4-5. Parishes are not numbered on either the map or 
Statement. Paths are numbered individually and colour coded by status 
on the maps. The format varied over time but most of the statements 
are tabulated by (named) parish with column headings 'path number', 
'kind of path', 'position', 'length', 'any other particulars', there 
is no section for path name or reference, though where the statement 
for one path it refers to another path it is usually in the form of 
parish, path type, path number.


Whilst there is a pretty much de facto standard when discussing rights 
of way to use the format parish, path type (often abbreviated), path 
no., I'm really not sure we need to be overly bothered about the 
(perceived) formatting preference of each county (I've never heard of 
a coucnil actually having a preference on path referencing format). In 
this context differences in formatting don't change the meaning 
'Rivington FP3' is synonymous with 'Rivington Footpath 3', is 
synonymous with 'Public Footpath Number 3 in the Parish of Rivington'. 
It is much more meaningful to have national consistency than to 
slavishly following what we imagine to be the formatting preference of 
each individual authority.


Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, 16:04 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), 
<mailto:robert.whittaker%2b...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:32, Dave F via Talk-GB
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2019 12:01, Tony OSM wrote:
> >  to the preferred prow_ref format  Adlington FP 5.
>
> As previous, this is not the preferred format. The format should
be as
> supplied by the LA, the organisation which has the *authority*
to name
> PROWs.

My reading of the original post is that Tony is saying that the
Council themselves are inconsistent in how they refer to their PRoWs.
In which case, I think we should use the format that is most prevalent
on the underlying legal documents (i.e. the Definitive Map and
Statement) rather than any electronic working datasets that are
produced from these. The onilne map at

https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
uses 

[Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Tony OSM]

Lancashire PROW data has been made available and is presented on 
http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/ and http://www.rowmaps.com/


The reference presented is in the style "9-4 5". I have researched and 
analysed the data used by Rowmaps, read Lancashire County Council public 
notices and noted that LCC notices use two formats in their notices, 
they refer to Footpath 9-4-5 and Adlington FP 5 in the map and 
descriptive parts of a notice. Consistency - nil point!
My analysis of the available data shows 9 is Chorley District, 4 is 
Adlington Parish and 5 is the sequence number. My collated list from the 
Rowmap data has the district and parish references and names, so I can 
read across from Rowmaps and MapThePaths to the preferred prow_ref 
format  Adlington FP 5.
I wish to share the data table either as a csv file, as a table in the 
wiki or both - but I need suggestions as to where it should go - in an 
existing wiki page or a new page?

There are 235 data rows in the table.

TonyS999


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Types of Kissing Gates

[Tony OSM]

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 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-transit] Multiple ref=* on route=train

[Tony OSM]

Hi Janko

In my experience all railway companies give a journey a reference 
Headcode like that, though the format differs. In Great Britain the 
format used is ncnn, so for example 2P44 is a train from Manchester 
Victoria to Preston  departing 10:05. the next service will be issued a 
different Headcode. The Headcode is usually used internally within the 
railway; some  GB trains show a reference number on the doors and 
announcement system - this is not the headcode but the train number and 
is different for each service, look at https://traksy.uk/live to get 
unofficial service data and train locations  in GB.


Personally I am not convinced that the headcode or train number is 
useful as a reference, they change every 6 months when the timetable 
changes (most of Europe) - so a maintenance nightmare.


I think that a service reference which every train on a route uses and 
is shown on the vehicle is useful - such as the service number for a 
tram or bus - like you have created for the service 150 Garaža Tuškanac 
- Gornji grad.


Regards

TonyS999

On 19/11/2019 09:50, Janko Mihelić wrote:

Hi!

The local rail transport company has a timetable where each departure 
has its own ref. So a train goes from A to B in the morning, and that 
has a ref 8005. Then it goes the same route an hour later, and that is 
8007. Anyway, during the day, the same route is done 21 times, and 
tags on my relation look like this:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7251329

Does this make sense? Do other companies have the same way of putting 
refs on their departures? How do you deal with it?


Thanks,
Janko

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project

[Tony OSM]

Hi

I've been using MapThe Paths for the last year to add my local ROW's to 
OSM - I find it a great help. If we can get all of the data into OSM it 
will enable all ROW users to identify in one source of ROWs and 
NOT.ROWs. This is important as I have identified several paths which 
perhaps should be ROW's or diversions not correctly mapped by the 
Highway Authority.



People provide walkers maps based on OSM - they are very useful when 
ROW's are correctly referenced, the route planning can go ahead with 
increased confidence that the route will not be contentious by routing 
over a private road/track.



I would like missing paths to be a regular feature until 2026, its our 
heritage some of which can only be identified by mapping.


Perhaps working nationally and with local Ramblers groups (another 
project) could a conduit be formed to enable ramblers to identify 
changes needed to the map (perhaps by listing tags and possible values).



Technically on MapThePaths can an option be made available to show  
highways (roads) as an optional overlay to help identify ways which 
perhaps should be included in OSM but are not.



Regards

Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 30/09/2019 18:25, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Hi,

Was just thinking whether it would be worth us (as in OSM UK) 
resurrecting the 'missing paths for 2026' project?


A quick reminder - we have until 2026 to record historical rights of 
way which have fallen out of use in recent times, and the combination 
of OSM, council data and historical map layers (which I have been 
granted access to by NLS for MapThePaths) would be a good way to 
identify possible missing paths.


I made a start on this about a year ago, here's a quck mock-up showing 
council data in colours and OSM paths shown in white as a 'tippex' 
effect. This allows the identification of historical 'F.P' footpaths 
on the historical maps which do not correspond either to current 
council RoWs or current OSM paths, and thus would be candidates for 
investigation to see if the path is in a usable state or there is 
evidence of use.


http://mapthepaths.org.uk/?mode=1

Obviously it's perhaps not the best time of year to launch an outdoor 
project - but the next few months would be a good time to develop the 
project ready for use in the spring.


Anyone keen to work on this?
Gitlab: https://gitlab.com/nickw1/mapthepaths/

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] Canoeing infrastructure/river features

[Tony OSM]

Hi,

Had a quick look at https://opencanalmap.uk/about/ particularly the 
Canal & River Trust license link at the bottom, it clearly states


3.1 This licence does not permit the use of: .3.1.4Data for or 
in connection with or for the direct or indirect benefit of any 
Commercial Purpose; and


so I think that the data does not meet OSM license requirements 
particularly Commercial purposes.


However canoeing data does seem to be something that OSM should work with.

TonyS999

On 31/08/2019 22:33, BD wrote:
For some time I did wonder why this information is not available on 
OSM (or at least not complete)


Have you seen this project:
https://opencanalmap.uk/about/

One thing that puzzles me is fact that this open data is merged with 
google maps. Wouldn't be easier to have it on OSM?


Cheers,
dzidek23

Dnia 29 sierpnia 2019 12:02 talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org napisał(a):

Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."


Today's Topics:

 1. Wales Coast Path almost finished (Richard Fairhurst)
 2. Re: Canoeing infrastructure/river features (Jez Nicholson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:05:01 +0100
From: Richard Fairhurst 
To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Wales Coast Path almost finished
Message-ID: <9e1d2555-65a1-9e19-3501-22a25f0f3...@systemed.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

I was in holiday in North Wales last week and mapped the biggest
remaining gap, east from Aberdaron:

https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13!52.8079!-4.6498

That leaves three smaller gaps around the central Cardigan Bay
coastline, between Barmouth and Borth:

https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!52.6483!-4.0907
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!52.4981!-4.0189
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!52.5799!-3.9411

plus one short one in South Wales near Gowerton:

https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!51.6472!-4.0787

Fixing these will mean not only that the WCP is complete in OSM, but
also, as far as I can tell, that we have full coverage of National
Trails in England & Wales. So if anyone's going on holiday to West
Wales, or the Gower, please do map the missing bits and we'll be
complete.

cheers
Richard



--

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 09:57:35 +0100
From: Jez Nicholson 
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Canoeing infrastructure/river features
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

By 'collect some relevant info' I mean 'document your findings
from asking
questions on Talk lists and poking round the wiki'. Before
constructing any
grand new project pages, I would add a section to a relevant UK
page. This
_could_ spin off into a new page later, or it might provoke the
response
of, "but this is documented here on  page", or people might
join in.
Either way, everyone wins.

A search on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=canoe and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=kayak throws up some
pages. The https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dcanoe
caught my
eye as I didn't know that canoe routes were signed/plotted.

My best experience with the wiki comes from writing
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom
By writing up the situation in the UK and working-in-the-open on a
personal
project to locate wind farms, I have found other people who were also
interested, and it has led (partially) to the solar quarterly project.

The OSMWiki is organised in places, chaotic in other places, and
frustrating in many.but it is *ours*. I appeal to all UK
Mappers to
make it a good place to be.

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:48 AM Jez Nicholson

wrote:

Interesting. There must be some waterways fans around here
somewhere. I
can see some pages like
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Whitewater_Maps
which
focus on one aspect of canoeing, and some countries appear to
have marked
routes.

As a UK Mapper you could add to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_waterways
and collect
some info relevant to UK canoeists.

- Jez