Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Chris Hill]

On 21/12/2020 15:59, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

Post towns may be somewhat arbitrary, but they are at least a 
verifiable national scheme which we can use for addressing every 
location in the country. That has to have some benefits compared to 
each individual mapper deciding where they believe each address falls  
- easy for many places, likely contentious for others. The other 
consistent scheme we could use is tagging by local authority but 
that's likely to annoy just as many people.
How are they verifiable? There is no open source that is compatible with 
the OSM licence that I am aware of that lets us look up an address. If I 
walk down a street, recording house numbers / names I know the number, 
street name and the place I am in, I have no idea what RM choose as the 
postal town. There are no name boards to see.


I also disagree with the assertion that post towns are no longer used 
or only of use to RM. Whilst a street address and postcode should 
suffice, there is an expectation that post is fully addressed. By 
including the full address, post can still arrive at the correct 
address despite an obscured, incorrect or illegible postcode. The 
advantage of a consistent national scheme of addressing is as useful 
to other couriers in this regard as it is to RM. If you should use 
parcel labels supplied by the couriers I have usually found them to 
follow RM's addressing scheme including the relevant post town.


Royal mail deliver by house number / name and street name. Ask a postie 
- I have and they confirm that. The sorting above that (to divide into 
rounds) goes by postcode. Latters without postcodes are delayed, even RM 
say that in a round about way.


Other organisations use the RM address lists because that is the only 
way to get addresses in the UK. They buy the PAF from Royal Mail then 
adapt it as needed in their own system. They include the bunkum that RM 
publish just because it is there. Postal towns were ALL about directing 
post in bulk to Royal Mail sorting offices where ever they happened to 
be and as postcodes because more established, postal town stopped being 
useful. Most sorting office have been consolidated or closed, yet the 
postal town part of the PAF has not changed - because it is no longer 
useful. RM just can't be bothered to clean up useless data in the same 
way they left the old counties in the PAF.


--

cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Chris Hill]

On 21/12/2020 15:28, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2020-12-21 16:07, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 12:50, Colin Smale <mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:



Royal Mail say that a house number must be numeric, and anything else
(like Rose Cottage, 7A, 3-7, 11/13 etc) should go in the house name 
field.


So in  a row of three adjacent, identical houses, known as 11, 11A,
and 15, two have numbers and one has a name? That's not logical.


Hey, this is Royal Mail we are talking about here...
Building Number must be numeric, max length=4
https://www.poweredbypaf.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Latest-Programmers_guide_Edition-7-Version-6.pdf

Do you think we could get away from talking about Royal Mail please as 
though they are the only way to create addresses.


The original question was about how to represent an address *in OSM*.

I have seen a number of replies that seem to say that Royal Mail is the 
authority on addressing, they are not!


Addresses are created by Local Authorities, not Royal Mail, RM only 
supply the postcode.


No one can claim that Royal Mail's handling of addresses is great, we 
have an opportunity to create useful, meaningful addresses in an Open 
database that could become the go-to place for addressing in the same 
way that OSM is steadily becoming the map of choice.


Let's start by dropping any address component that is only useful to a 
single company and that doesn't benefit anyone else, namely the postal 
town. It is not needed and it is confusing. Let's not compound the mess 
that RM has made of addresses in the UK by repeating their mistakes.


No postal town in OSM addresses please.

--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Chris Hill]

On 20/12/2020 14:57, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2020-12-20 15:41, Chris Hill wrote:

Addresses in OSM are not the same as Royal Mail's addresses. RM 
addresses are all about their processes for delivering post to 
delivery points. The postal town (Largertown in your example) is a 
convenience for RM that we have all been persuaded is useful, but RM 
have ceased to use postal towns for many years!
Are you not thinking of Postal Counties? They were indeed deprecated 
many years ago (1996), but the Post Town is AFAIK a mandatory 
component of a postal address, and Wikipedia agrees: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_town 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_town>


No, Counties are still useful. The only reason RM no longer uses 
counties is that they depend on postcodes and street addresses to 
deliver. We are not confined to delivering using RM's infrastructure. 
Near to York there is a village called Dunnington, near to Hull there is 
another small village called Dunnington. Without postcodes the county is 
vital to reach the right place.


Long after RM say they no longer used counties, their PAF list, used 
across Britain to find addresses in the absence of a proper, Open 
address database,still has counties in it. People still quote my address 
as being in North Humberside. North Humberside never existed, Humberside 
was abolished in 1996! SO it is with postal towns, RM no longer use them 
but they still appear in their PAF and so get perpetuated in general 
use, even though they are useless and misleading.


Royal mail do not use postal towns and neither should OSM.


--


cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Chris Hill]

On 20/12/2020 15:30, ndrw wrote:

On 20/12/2020 12:45, Dave Abbott wrote:
There is a page at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping 
which mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is 
in use. If correct I would be tagging as -


addr:housenumber=99
addr:street=Postal Street
addr:town=Smalltown
addr:city=Largertown

This is correct, although there is no consensus wrt to the tag used 
for Smalltown. I'm using one of addr:villlage|suburb|town myself. 
There was a proposal to switch to addr:locality only, which I argued 
against in the past, but it would indeed match RM addressing better 
and often classification of the locality is unclear.


Using the two separate towns is not correct. The house (or whatever) is 
not in Largertown,it is in Smalltown.


Postal towns are in invention of Royal Mail. Correct addressing of any 
location are set by Local Authorities, not Royal Mail. There are no 
postal towns in LA addresses.


In the original example the 'Smalltown' (or indeed village or even 
hamlet) translates into addr:city in OSM. I know this may look confusing 
as a small villiage is not a city, but that is, IMHO, the correct way 
tobuild an OSM UK address.


Adding postal towns is not only redundant, but is misleading. It looks 
as though the way to find Smalltown would be first to go to Largertown, 
when that is very rarely the case. OSM addresses are hierarchical, RM 
addressing is not as postal town is usually a separate place.


I should have added that postcodes are a useful addition and my postcode 
overlays can help to workout what the correct postcode is for a given 
building. You can see more at https://codepoint.raggedred.net/





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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Chris Hill]

Addresses in OSM are not the same as Royal Mail's addresses. RM 
addresses are all about their processes for delivering post to delivery 
points. The postal town (Largertown in your example) is a convenience 
for RM that we have all been persuaded is useful, but RM have ceased to 
use postal towns for many years!


I live in a village called Swanland, nearby is a similarly sized village 
called North Ferriby. There RM owned a building big enough to use as a 
post office and have a small sorting office behind it, so it was adopted 
as the postal town for a few villages. The sorting office closed about 
twenty years ago and sorting was moved to the town of Hessle then, yet 
still the postal town for Swanland remains North Ferriby.


Royal Mail don't use postal towns at all now, they use street address 
and postcode.


We should not put postal town into OSM addresses at all. They are a 
fiction invented by RM for their processes which they no longer use and 
they offer no benefit to OSM, indeed they simply add confusion to anyone 
seeing a postal town in an address.


To use your example I would tag the address as:

addr:housenumber=99
addr:street=Postal Street
addr:city=Smalltown

--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 20/12/2020 12:45, Dave Abbott wrote:

Hi,

I am trying to make sure I tag addresses correctly. I am currently 
trying to understand how to map in my area.


The postal addresses are like:

99 Postal Street
Smalltown
Largertown
West Yorks XY9 7GY

Smalltown is geographically separate to Largertown, which however is 
the Postal Town. Omitting Smalltown from the address is probably 
correct postally-speaking, but local residents would object as 
Smalltown is seen as completely separate to other places under the 
same Postal Town.


Currently tagging as -
addr:housenumber=99
addr:street=Postal Street
addr:city=Smalltown, Largertown

But I am pretty sure this is wrong.

There is a page at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping 
which mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is 
in use. If correct I would be tagging as -


addr:housenumber=99
addr:street=Postal Street
addr:town=Smalltown
addr:city=Largertown

Hoping someone can advise me as to the correct way to tag for the UK...




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Chris Hill]

{this time to the list]

And the people who care about OSM and the way imports and automated 
edits affects OSM, but don't use Loomio and are not connected to OSM UK? 
What should they do?


Everyone in OSM has access to the Wiki.

Having said that, I'm not sure what a vote will do. OSM is very clearly 
not a democracy in any sense. Voting tends to give any outcome the 
veneer of consultation and listening to feedback, but in practice so few 
people vote that the process is meaningless.


Chris (chillly)

On 28/09/2020 17:53, Dan S wrote:

Hi Rodrigo

Before you create a vote on the wiki, can I suggest a different
method? "OSM UK" has started using Loomio for discussions and votes,
and it generally seems to work out well. I think Loomio is designed
for the purpose of making good decisions together:
https://www.loomio.org/openstreetmap-uk/

I'm sorry, I don't wish to confuse you with tools and differing opinions...

Cheers
Dan

Op ma 28 sep. 2020 om 15:31 schreef Rodrigo Díez Villamuera
:

Thanks all of you for your messages.

As a new joiner, I could not ask for more than other members engaging in such a 
passionate way :)

It's fair to say that there is no clear consensus of whether the proposal, in 
its current form, is acceptable or not. So, I am going to create a voting 
section on the wiki page to help us visualise what people think

However, before I do that I would like to reply to a point that was made by Andy

Andy,

I'm not actually convinced that's a problem - as others have said, web browsers are perfectly capable of converting 
"www.mypub.com" into either "https://www.mypub.com"or ""http://www.mypub.com"as 
appropriate, so this doesn't really add any value.  "Letting the browser sort it out" is a great approach as it 
can deal with now/near future things such as removal TLS 1.0 and 1.1 support as well.

This is not true based on my experience. I just tested on the latest version of 
Chrome and Firefox and, if the URL scheme is not specified, they both open the 
the URL using http even if https is also available for it.

You may have experienced a behaviour by which the user gets redirected from the 
http url to the https one but that depends on the configuration of the site 
server which is not always set-up.

This is also well documented for Firefox here: 
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/URL_Bar_Algorithm

I see value in updating schemaless :website tags with the https version if 
available.
--
Rodrigo Díez Villamuera

w: http://rodrigodiez.io
t: @rodrigodiez_pro
p: 00 44 7513 638225



On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 13:50, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 10:00, Frederik Ramm  wrote:


The change you plan to execute is of limited use. Yes, it ensures more
conformity in the data, but it will be a temporary fix (since new
"wrong" URLs can be added at any time).

This seems like an argument for never fixing any error.


So what your edit does is, it "touches" lots of objects and adds no
meaningful information whatsoever.

This statement is false, not least because in some cases "http://; is
added, in others "https://;; each of those - and the difference
between them - conveys meaningful information.


It creates load on the database

The level of load is trivial. Have our database maintainers ever said
that a load of such small magnitude is problematic?


There are many, many better ways to contribute to OSM than runnning a
useless automated conformity edit. Take a notebook or mobile editor, go
outside, check if the phone booths on OSM are still there on the ground,
add a few opening times, or even trees for that matter - a single hour
of such original work is more useful to OSM that what you are proposing
here.

Denigrating another's contribution - a valid and valuable contribution
- in this manner is antithetical to the spirit in which OSM activity
is supposed to be conducted.


Remember: OSM is not an IT project.

Of course it is. "Information technology (IT) is the use of computers
to store, retrieve, transmit, and manipulate data or information." [1]


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology

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

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

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

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


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

[Talk-GB] Codepoint Open postcodes

[Chris Hill]

I have just updated the tile layer of Codepoint Open postcode centroids, 
based on the August 2020 data. My update process was thwarted by a 
change from my host and has had to be changed. I believe the update has 
worked, but if you find any problems please let me know.


Details about using the tile layer is here: https://raggedred.net/codepoint/

--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Using OSM as a base for my own fictional map?

[Chris Hill]

On 24/07/2020 16:59, Martin Wynne wrote:

I'm looking for some pointers.

I have a dedicated server (located in Ohio, I'm in UK) with full 
controls. I'm fairly confident with web sites and javascript (and 
geometry), but I'm entirely new to online mapping (apart from editing 
OSM in the iD editor).


What I want to do is use OSM as a base map for small areas of the UK, 
but remove entirely all the OSM-derived railway tracks, and replace 
them with my own data. This data would be essentially fictional, not 
based on or derived from anything which is there now. I want to be 
able to create tiles zoomed in far enough to see individual rails and 
sleepers, with each rail as two separate rail edges.


Where would I start to do that? How would I deal with attribution, 
warning unsuspecting users that everything is derived from OSM (and 
can be relied on to the same extent, if any, as any other OSM) EXCEPT 
the railway tracks, which can't?


Many thanks for any help/ideas/suggestions.


I have done this a few times for my own maps. For a small area I 
download the area into JOSM (so you need to setup and learn JOSM). This 
allows you to save an area as an .osm file on your local PC. I then 
remove, change and add anything I need and save it to the .osm file 
again. The crucial thing is to avoid uploading the edited data to the 
OSM server, so I disable my credentials in JOSM so that uploads won't 
work. You can load, edit and save many times of course to get what you want.


When the map data is how I want it I load the .osm file into a local 
database with osm2pgsql (the normal process for making local map tiles) 
and go through a rendering process. I still use TileMill, but there are 
various other options.


This allows you to invent or subvert any tagging regime you want. You 
can use any existing OSM data but also remove (or ignore in the render) 
anything you don't want. You can add anything else that suits you.


The map tiles that result from the rendering process can be uploaded to 
the usual map tile directory structure on your web-facing server and 
then you will need a web page with map code on it to display the tiles. 
I always use Leafletjs which is powerful and easy to use if you know 
your way around Javascript.


You need to credit OSM in the normal way for any published map - 
Leafletjs helps you add a suitable credit on a web page.


Making a map that lets you zoom in so far to be able to see rails and 
sleepers on a track is a tall order - I think Leafletjs handles up to 
Zoom level 22, but I'm not sure that will show enough detail. At that 
level renders of even small areas starts to make very large numbers of 
tiles.


I have used this (or very similar) techniques to make map for temporary 
events such as fairs, fêtes and festivals as well as a planned scheme of 
flood defences and a mock up of a tidal barrier.


HTH

cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

[Chris Hill]

On 21/07/2020 21:54, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 21/07/2020 21:27, ael wrote:

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 05:30:25PM +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 21/07/2020 16:57, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:

Is the National Chargepoint Registry data open for OSM now? If not
somebody should write a nice enough letter?


It is open, it's OGL now. But it's not reliable enough for an 
unfiltered

bulk import; there are duplicate entries, incorrect coordinates and
incorrect or missing addresses.


And missing entries. Two charge points that I have mapped do not appear,
at least with a post-code search.


Yes; it's a good start, but by comparison with other (non-open) 
sources, it appears to have only around 80% of the total included. 
Although missing entries are less of a problem for a data import than 
erroneous entries, because gaps can be filled in manually. It's the 
errors which are more of a problem, because it's generally better not 
to map something than to map it wrongly.



The 'About' section says it is a register of publicly funded charge 
points. In the list for my local area they are all privately owned & run 
charge points and the council-funded ones are all missing. The private 
ones may have received some public funding but the council ones 
certainly have.


The addressing is poor, 'North Humberside' is used - Humberside was 
abolished in 1996!


It lists all the points as 'in service', but I know one it has in 
service is out of service, has been for while and is probably going to 
be replaced rather than repaired, so that data is suspect. Another shown 
as in service is not a public charging point, it is a 'Customers only' 
point for Nissan customers, yet a similar Hyundai customers only site is 
not in the list at all.


There are links to an overlay on OSM, but the locations are pretty 
poorly positioned, so bad they could almost be Google Maps business 
locations from a few of years ago.


I think the best we could do with this is use it as a list of places to 
survey - it doesn't look good enough to import to me.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

[Chris Hill]

Leccy car drivers need to know if the point is working. Apps from the charge 
point suppliers and from others such as Zapmap try to keep drivers informed 
about the availability and condition of the point. OSM doesn't have that info 
and can't update it in real time. Some leccy cars have this live info built 
into their satnav.

There's nothing wrong with adding charging points.  I expect people wanting to 
actually use them will look elsewhere for more info than OSM can reasonably 
supply.

Chris

On 21 July 2020 11:58:53 BST, Mark Goodge  wrote:
>Do we map electric vehicle charging points? If not, should we?
>
>None of the ones in my town are on OSM, at the moment. I could add
>them, 
>but it seems a bit pointless if they're not generally mapped.
>
>Mark
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Wildlife Sites

[Chris Hill]

On 20/07/2020 15:52, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with 
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/local-wildlife-sites ?


I've had an inquiry about including Brighton & Hove LWSes on OSM.


I am a member of Yorkshire Wildlife Trust so I had a conversation with 
them about their reserves a few years ago. They sent me some data. It 
was entirely based on OS data, so I couldn't use any of it in OSM. I 
surveyed North Cave wetlands, a large reserve close to me. You can see 
my efforts here https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.7846/-0.6634 
Most of the names are from my own knowledge.


I think each trust is independent, with a loose affiliation to the 
national group.


I've added one or two smaller reserves in outline that I have visites 
with a few lakes and woods as you would expect. It can sometimes be hard 
to know the extent of a reserve just from aerial imagery and surveys can 
be awkward because the sites usually want people to stay on paths to 
avoid wildlife disturbance.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Import of UK SSSI data

[Chris Hill]

I think there may be a problem here. The web page describing the data 
says "© Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data". Many 
public bodies suffer from the viral OS copyright problem, where the data 
is based on OS mapping data and OS have claimed copyright over the 
geodata element of such data in the past.


You need to be sure this is not the case before you use any of these 
datasets in OSM.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 16/11/2019 15:30, Henry Bush wrote:

Sorry, yes, the source of the data is the Natural England API:

https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80
https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80_0/

The data is freely usable, so there shouldn't be any licensing issues.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 15:24, Philip Barnes <mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>> wrote:


What is the source of the data you are planning to import?

Remember wikipedia is not a useable source under OSM licensing terms.

Phil (trigpoint)


On Sat, 2019-11-16 at 15:12 +, Henry Bush wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> (I've sent this to both the talk-gb and imports mailing lists)
>
> This is just a heads-up: I'm thinking about importing the data about
> UK SSSI areas into openstreetmap.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest
>
> I've had a quick look at a few, and none of them seemed to be marked
> on the map. If I go ahead with the import, I'd do a much more
> thorough investigation first. This mail is simply a prompt for
> discussion as to whether people think it's a good idea.
>
> At the moment I'm still in the research phase. I've started
> collecting related links on a wiki page:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Spookypeanut/SSSIBot
>
> NB: this page is really just bookmarks for me at this stage. If I go
> ahead I'll make a proper, more informative page.
>
> Cheers,
> 



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

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

[Chris Hill]

On 04/10/2019 15:41, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Twopenn'orth and not particularly a reply to any single message:

1. I'm not against them being in the OSM database, mostly for the reason
that it's unrealistic to expect every single app to do additional processing
for all 195 countries in the world. Sure, it would be nice if Osmand and
maps.me and Fred's routing app and Jo's OSM-based game were all smart enough
to ingest CodePoint Open (and its 194 equivalents worldwide), but they
won't. Expecting them to do so is akin to people expecting every single app
to filter out C-roads in Britain, and even osm-carto doesn't do that. So it
seems a reasonably pragmatic thing to do.

2. However... just blindly importing them seems to be a real missed
opportunity. If you give me a nice interface with centroids for Charlbury, I
will have a go at mapping them to actual, useful polygons, based on my
knowledge of the street layout and Carla the post-lady's daily rounds (or I
could ask her, but I'm not sure of the IP of asking an RM employee...). If
you dump them into the database as-is I almost certainly won't get round to
it.

cheers
Richard

One such map is here: 
https://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=16=53.73916=-0.49208=BFF 
<https://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=16=53.73916=-0.49208=BFFTFF>


It uses the same overlay I provide for editors: 
https://codepoint.raggedred.net <https://codepoint.raggedred.net/>


The OSCompare does need a tidy up and would work better as a 
Leaflet-based map, maybe that's the jib for the rainy Saturday that's 
coming.


Fill y'boots :-)

--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

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

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

[Chris Hill]

On 04/10/2019 01:52, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote:


Besides, the main reason for importing these data is that we can get 
_all_ postcodes in the database. This gives users confidence that when 
they search for a postcode they will reliably get a result they are 
looking for. This is not possible when merging postcodes with 
buildings simply because we still have only a small fraction of 
buildings in the database.


Searching for GB postcodes on the OSM site works already. The search 
system, Nominatim, has extra datasets loaded to improve the search and 
one of them already is Codepoint Open. If you search for postcode that 
is not currently in a GB address (it's not yet been added possibly 
because the buildings it describes have not been created in the database 
yet) search still find it and centres the map on the imaginary postcode 
centroid. So to make searching work we do not need to import imaginary 
postcode centroids to the main OSM database.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

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

[Chris Hill]

Thanks for reporting a problem - I'll always try to respond if I can. 
The installation process has changed in the past but it looks familiar now.


I've just tested the installation instructions on JOSM version 15390 and 
it worked as expected. The Okay button enabled when the URL (with https) 
and a name for the layer are both input, a max zoom can be added too.


I tried this on Mac OS and Linux and both worked. I don't have an easy 
access to Windows, but Java stuff should be cross platform I think.


You can use HTTP or HTTPS for the overlay as both are provided, I just 
think it's better to use HTTPS whenever possible.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


On 02/10/2019 16:55, Dave F wrote:
FYI in JOSM (latest) https wont generate a TMS URL. I had to change 
the pasted URL to http & then back again. then it generated & 
'ungreyed' the Okay button. Is this expected behaviour?


On 02/10/2019 15:37, Chris Hill wrote:

Thanks,

I've just updated with August 2019 data, the next update is due in 
November I think.







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

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

[Chris Hill]

I would not like to see that happen. OSM maps real objects, postcodes 
are not real and only apply as a part of an object's address. They apply 
to buildings (delivery points on buildings really). The postcodes in 
Codepoint Open are centroids derived from a combination of all the 
delivery points that share the postcode so are not at all real-world 
objects.


If you want to apply postcodes to addresses you can see the map overlay 
I have produced which you can use in editors as an overlay: 
https://codepoint.raggedred.net/ I will update it again shortly. You can 
also derive postcodes from other open data sources such as FHRS data.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 02/10/2019 13:43, Russ Phillips via Talk-GB wrote:


Hi,

I'm wondering if it would be feasible and advisable to import the UK 
postcode data from OS OpenData Codepoint 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData#Code-Point_Open>.


The licence is OSM compatible. My thinking was that we could create a 
node for each data point and set the addr:postcode tag. This would be 
useful for routing software like OsmAnd, since it would allow a user 
to enter a postcode as a destination.


I'm happy to do the work, but the import guidelines 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines> say that 
imports should be discussed on the imports@ list and the appropriate 
local communities, hence this email.


Russ Phillips


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

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

[Chris Hill]

Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the public 
today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in the future and 
that may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if the administrator sells 
some or all of them to another company. In the mean time they are still 
branded and still a landmark of sorts.


If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change that one 
otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see what happens.


cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:

I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself

You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell, <mailto:t4d...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent
since I wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case. Not
all of them had the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?


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

[Talk-GB] Parkland

[Chris Hill]

HI All,

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, if so sorry.

Someone has added the land around large country houses in East Yorkshire 
as leisure=park. The grounds are what I might describe as parkland, 
private space around the house (though it may be open to the paying 
public such as around Sledmere House) and often it is grazing for sheep, 
sometimes cattle or even deer. I think it is possibly farmland (pasture) 
but it is somewhat different with a number of individual trees in the 
space, probably to enhance the view from the house. It is not what I 
would describe as a park, but the mapper probably took the name (e.g. 
Dalton Park) as the clue.


Does anyone have a better tagging scheme than farmland?

--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN/Lancashire import

[Chris Hill]

On 26 July 2019 13:35:30 BST, Tony Shield  wrote:
>Following on from SilentSpike's import of NaPTAN/Aberdeen I am planning
>
>to perform a similar import for Lancashire.
>
>I've created a wiki page 
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Lancashire which I have
>coped 
>from SilentSpike Aberdeen and changed the areas, also slightly altered 
>the process to use csv files.
>
>I have performed several dry runs, there are approx 8,000 bus stops in 
>Lancashire with about 4400 reported by overpass-turbo.
>
>Importing on a town by town basis is the plan.
>
>Comments please.
>
>Tony Shield
>
>TonyS999
>
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

If you find any NaPTAN data that doesn't match the real stops I suggest you 
drop an email to the council transport team. It might help them improve the 
next pass of data. I did that with both Hull and East Yorks when they were 
imported originally about 10 years ago. After some skepticism they did use my 
info.
-- 
Chris Hill
( OSM: chillly)___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] How would tag or name this wall crossing?

[Chris Hill]

I've always known them as squeeze stiles.

--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 27/04/2019 17:18, Michael Collinson wrote:
What do you call the type of wall crossing the that consists of two 
stone pillars placed close to each other (usually in a drystone wall) 
to leave a gap wide enough for humans and sheep dogs to squeeze 
through but not cattle or fully-grown sheep? Has anyone one got a 
barrier= tag for them?  Just got back from Middlesmoor in Nidderdale 
where there are ton of them. They are typically not raised, so not a 
stile, and typically no gate, just a gap.


Mike


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey date

[Chris Hill]

Every changeset has a date automatically added to it, if your survey is 
much earlier than the data you make the edit maybe it's worth noting the 
difference.


cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


On 10/03/2019 21:24, Martin Wynne wrote:

I'm minded to start adding

 survey:date=

to some of my mapping (if you can call climbing over a stile surveying 
it). I've noticed on repeat visits that things do change quite a lot, 
and I can't guarantee to go back and keep everything I map up to date.


But I'm puzzled by the wiki, which says:

"This key should only be used when providing the survey date would be 
of some value to the OSM community, for example if the survey date 
occurred a reasonable amount of time in the past."


Surely end users of the map are just as likely to want to check the 
date of something shown on the map as the "OSM community", which I 
assume means mappers?


And what is a "reasonable amount of time in the past", and starting 
from when? It doesn't make sense. If I survey and map something now, 
and it is still on the map in 10 years time, I need to have put the 
date on it now.


cheers,

Martin. -- 



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Chris Hill]

On 28/01/2019 21:56, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2019-01-28 22:22, Chris Hill wrote:

Post town do not exist, and never have. They are a fiction invented 
by Royal Mail for their own internal use which they persuaded the 
public into using for the sole benefit of Royal Mail.
...and for the benefit of anyone posting a letter and expecting it to 
get delivered properly...
RM used to use postal towns when post was sorted by hand, but as soon as 
mechanised sorting based on postcodes took over postal towns were just a 
legacy that no one needed any more. In 1976 I posted a batch of 
postcodes from my holiday in Norway. As an experiment I addressed one to 
my parents as Number 10, HU14 3BA, UK. It arrived on the same day as all 
the others because it had a postcode on it. So post towns were beginning 
to be obsolete in 1976.
In the UK places (as opposed to admin areas) don't have well-defined 
borders unfortunately. If you live in the "no-mans land" between two 
villages there is in many cases no way of determining if you are in 
Village A or Village B.
Why does a postal town help with this? The postcode is much more precise 
than a generalised post town that will cover a wide area - that was the 
point of a post town.
Addresses are not maintained by RM, local authorities are responsible 
for addresses (which obviously don't include postal towns), except 
for the postcode. Most LAs have a system to request a new postcode 
from RM when a planning application gets approved that will need a 
new postcode.
The LA is certainly responsible for house names/numbers and street 
names. Wouldn't all the rest (not just the post town) be down to RM?

No the process is that RM only supply the postcode.
I don't see what purpose adding post towns to OSM would serve. The 
ONLY people who ever used it were Royal Mail as they were the only 
organisation to have a sorting office there. I'm sure RM don't need 
OSM to make deliveries, so who would we be benefiting by including 
this? To anyone else looking for an address the postal town is just 
confusing.
Are you saying is that there is no point in adding addresses to OSM? 
Addresses are also useful for the senders of letters, or users of 
navigation systems, so I think that might be a little controversial.
Of course not. Addresses are a fine idea, but real addresses that 
actually exist on the ground, not some mythical, out-of-date idea used 
by one organisation in the past.


This document gives loads of examples to aid the interpretation of PAF 
fields

https://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/programmers_guide_edition_7_v5.pdf

The RM PAF is not the definitive address list for the UK, it is just the 
way RM sees it. It is widely used because there is no other published 
list of addresses. If we ever see a proper national address list 
compiled from the UPRN that local authorities maintain it will not 
include any field introduced by a company such as post town. OSM can 
help here by not confusing addresses with RM's muddled postal addresses.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents

[Chris Hill]

Here's one of Jerry's blog posts about the not-so-open Land Registry data:

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

and my post about testing using them:

https://chris-osm.blogspot.com/2013/10/land-registry-inspire-polygons.html

As Tom says, these datasets are not Open Data and we cannot use them as 
a data source in OSM. I feel that the Open Government Licence should not 
be used in this case as it isn't  Open.



On 09/01/2019 11:47, SK53 wrote:

Hi Andy,

Both Chris Hill & I blogged about them at the time, but they NEVER had 
any semblance of being open data.


The same proved to be true of the Land Registry Prices Paid which now 
can only be used if you are an estate agent.


Owen has covered both on his Map Gubbins blog.

Have to dash, so no time to find the links.

Jerry

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 11:07, Andy Robinson <mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com>> wrote:


As a follow-up, has anyone looked at the OGL licenced INSPIRE Land
Registry index polygons?
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/download-inspire-index-polygons

Data is in GML format.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com
<mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com>]
Sent: 09 January 2019 10:56
To: 'David Woolley'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Property extents

On Wed 09/01/2019 10:35 David Woolley wrote:
>Actually, that seems more valuable to OSM than the building
>outlines as it is much more difficult to accurately recover from
>aerial imagery and ground surveys can normally only see front yards.

Agreed, though I wonder whether this will have any correlation
with Land Registry. I'm guessing .gov isn’t that joined up.

Cheers
Andy





___
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


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

[Chris Hill]

On 09/11/2018 09:38, Tom Hughes wrote:

On 09/11/2018 09:09, Phoenix830 wrote:

I want to add postcodes but I am aware of issues with this being 
copyrighted material.


I maintain a GB postcode overlay, based on the Codepoint Open datasets. 
This was last updated using the August 2018 data. I expect another 
update shortly. You can see postcodes on a map I provide or use the 
overlay tiles in your favourite editor. More details can be found here:


https://codepoint.raggedred.net/ .

I don't agree with either adding the postcode centroids themselves to 
OSM, nor adding postcodes to roads. They are all about delivery points 
not roads. If I find postcode centroids in OSM I routinely delete them.


There are roughly 1.7 million postcodes in GB (the Northern Ireland 
postcodes are not released as opendata). I find that new postcodes are 
created early in the development cycle of new building developments so a 
new postcode exists often before buildings have even been started to be 
built.


If you find any problems please let me know.

I also maintain a postcode layer based on the Office of National 
Statistics OGL postcode data (ONSPD). There is currently a problem with 
the way the tiles are generated, which I'm addressing. I believe 
Codepoint Open and ONSPD are pretty much identical with the current 
postcodes, but there is much more historical data in the ONSPD data.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Wickham Market, Suffolk

[Chris Hill]

One place to look is OS Open Names. That has place names listed with a 
category of populated place that seems to be hamlet, village, town or 
suburban area. That lists Wickham Market as a town.


Wikipedia, on the other hand, says it is a large village.

The parish council website sits on the fence and calls it a 'thriving 
community'.


I'd plump for townage or maybe villown.

Cheers, Chris


On 06/09/2018 22:00, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
Is anyone familiar with this area?  Someone's mentioned on IRC that 
Wickham Market has been changed from town to village and back a couple 
of times:


http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=114148812

Obviously it's been "town" more than village (and the person who added 
it as such was/is pretty local) - but is that still correct?  I'll 
comment on the latest change about this thread so that everyone's 
aware of it.


Best Regards,

Andy




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


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] 46 errors on OSM

[Chris Hill]

On 4 September 2018 11:25:15 BST, Stadia Arcadia  
wrote:
>Hi, I found some errors on OSM, can anyone fix those?
>
>Missing stadiums:
>1 Colorado State Stadium
>2 Balikesir Atatürk Stadyumu
>3 Intility Arena
>4 Right to Dream Park
>5 Aalborg Portland Park
>6 Ariake Coliseum
>7 Estadio Centenario Ciudad de Quilmes
>8 Estadio Nacional de fútbol (Managua)
>9 Habiganj Adhunik Stadium
>10 U Arena
>11 Stadion Utama Gelora Bung Karno
>12 Spor Toto Akhisar Stadyumu
>13 Yeni Malatya Stadyumu
>14 King Saud University Stadium
>15 Nizhny Novgorod Stadium
>16 Kaliningrad Stadium
>17 Stade Kashala Bonzola
>18 East Bengal Ground
>19 Tau Devi Lal Football Stadium
>20 Jimma University Stadium
>21 Barbourfields Stadium
>22 Dinamo National Olympic Stadium (Minsk)
>23 Kottappadi Football Stadium
>24 Estadio de fútbol Municipal El Alto
>25 Ekana International Cricket Stadium
>26 Velayat Stadium (Semnan)
>27 Bangkok Arena
>28 Hamad bin Khalifa Stadium
>
>Stadiums have been completely renovated:
>29 Estadio Nacional Dennis Martínez
>30 Generali Arena (Vienna)
>
>Demolished stadiums (should be removed):
>31 Stadio Sant'Elia
>
>Missing sports fields/athletics tracks:
>32 Estadio Akron
>33 Sakarya Atatürk Stadyumu
>34 Banc of California Stadium
>35 JYSK park
>36 Xinzhuang Baseball Stadium
>37 SunTrust Park
>38 Wallace Wade Stadium
>
>Missing stands:
>39 Stadion Bumi Sriwijaya
>40 Estadio Nemesio Díez
>41 Bornova Stadyumu
>42 Stade Charles-Mathon
>43 Toyota Stadium (Frisco)
>44 Estadio Olímpico Andrés Quintana Roo
>45 Estadio Julio Humberto Grondona
>
>One stand is much larger:
>46 Estadio Huancayo

Thanks for pointing these out. The way OSM works is that people edit the map to 
add value to it. Of you want these stadiums on the map, why not create an 
account (it's free and very easy) and add the building outlines yourself. You 
can add a few tags to describe it and in a few minutes the stadium will start 
to appear on the map. Take a look at a few existing stadiums to see how other 
people have done it.

Good luck.
-- 
Chris Hill
( OSM: chillly)___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Chris Hill]

On 27/08/2018 18:09, Martin Wynne wrote:



Landuse=highway does have some usage, and certainly the term forbidden
does not exist in OSM.

There is no such thing as available, if you think a new tag is needed
then you can use it.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway


Hi Phil,

I'm confused. If anyone can use anything, what is the meaning of 
having a vote about it?


That page says voting on landuse=highway was suspended 5 years ago, 
and there are more opposed to it than in favour.


There must be some distinction between "official" tags and home-made 
ones, otherwise how is the renderer to know what to do with them? If 
it is not rendered, and no-one knows it exists to be searched for, 
what is the point of adding it to the database? If I put 
landuse=ufo_landing_pad who would ever know that it is in there?


There are no official or approved tags. There are thousands of renders, 
each one is free to use the tags they want. If you want a specialist 
cycle map or specialist sports map you can create it, focussing on the 
items you want to show. The problem with having a few maps on the 
landing page of OSM is that newcomers assume they are the way things are 
rendered, when anything is possible.


Voting is, IMHO, largely pointless and possibly a bad thing as it lends 
an air of importance to a tag when in reality a couple of dozen people 
said Yes to an idea they may know nothing about nor even ever use.


The only metric that matters is whether a tag is used, and yes landuse = 
highway is used and makes a lot of sense to me.


If you want to add UFO landing pads that you can *verify* on the ground 
then use the tag. If it is popular then the guys who maintain the OSM 
website map schemas may even include them there. You would be free to 
create your own map render that shows the sites for the hoards of UFO 
spotters to navigate there.


--

cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Open MasterMap presentation

[Chris Hill]

On 26 June 2018 13:25:29 BST, Jez Nicholson  wrote:
>There is a recording of yesterday's AGI/OS webinar at
>https://www.agi.org.uk/news/agi/1297-open-mastermap-webinar-recording-available
>start
>at 11mins 30secs
>
>- Jez

Wow, two years discussion before release. This "OS are keen to ... " stuff is 
really "we are being dragged into this".

Most will be provided by API, I feel OSM editors will quickly provide plugins 
or extensions to use the APIs, but licences need checking carefully first.

OS Detailed Path Network will only be for National Parks. Seems odd.

No addressing data as previously discussed.

Still seems like a half-hearted, muddle from people who don't understand or 
want Open Data. 

--
Chris Hill
(user chillly)___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] House of Fraser

[Chris Hill]

The plan to close the stores is still just a plan. It needs to be voted 
on to approve it. I think we should wait until it is really happening 
before we add any notes and I think nothing should be changed until 
stores actually close.



The store in Hull is a real landmark, originally Hammonds, then Binns, 
then House of Fraser, then briefly Hammonds again before being HoF 
again. I suspect that people will still refer to Hammonds long after the 
store has closed.



--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


On 07/06/2018 20:53, Andrew Hain wrote:
House of Fraser today announced today that half their branches are to 
close, listing which ones. Although shops should not yet be removed 
does it make sense with this announcement (or others like it in the 
future) to put notes or fixmes in the 31 locations involved?


--
Andrew


___
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] Council Footpath data

[Chris Hill]

Robert,

thanks for chasing the East Riding of Yorkshire council to receive their 
rights of way data licenced as OGL. I failed to get this but your 
tenacity, knowledge and skilful wording made the difference. Thanks again.


Chris


On 30/05/2018 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On 30 May 2018 at 11:37, Adam Snape  wrote:

Over the coming months I'm hoping to individually clarify licensing with all
of the authorities which haven't explicitly, unambiguously and publicly
licensed their RoW data under OGL3 (and, yes, I know that's most of them).
I'll also try and get new or updated data where not currently available or
several years old.

That sounds great. Some time ago I was planning to do something
similar, but have been side-tracked by other projects and have never
found the time. This is as far as I got:
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/open-data


In the slightly longer term I think our aim needs to be to persuade all
authorities to proactively publish new versions of their data as open data,
rather than individuals having to individually badger authorities to update
their data. Under their Publication Schemes they should start doing this
automatically once information is supplied the first time, but it seems that
only a minority of authorities who have released data currently publish it
proactively.

Indeed. Also, the Environmental Information Regulations (which PRoW
GIS data probably fall under, rather than FOI, though FOI Publication
Schemes still apply) also includes provision for councils to
proactively digitise and publish environmental data they hold --
whether requested or not-- but they don't seem to be making much
progress with this...

Anyway, Adam, I've just sent you a longer private message with some
more thoughts you might be interested in.

Robert.



--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Chris Hill]

On 5 May 2018 10:02:01 BST, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 05/04/2018 09:10 PM, Brian Prangle wrote:
>> When will it be  appropriate to do a mechanical edit and remove the
>47
>> instances of this store that can be seen in Overpass? Have they all
>> closed now?  My local one is now closed and leaving a large gap on
>its
>> retail  park
>
>
>
>Obviously-outdated POIs are the standard user interface for maps to
>signal their age and quality. If you take a paper map today, and it
>features a chain restaurant that you know went out of business five
>years ago, you immediately have an idea of how old/trustworthy the rest
>of the map is.
>
>OSM can benefit from this same mechanism. Leave the Toys R Us-es in
>place until a local mapper re-surveys the area which might include
>mapping any number of other nearby POIs, updating opening times, and
>whatnot.
>
>It is easy to run a script that removes all the Toys R Us-es, but that
>script would also destroy the valuable information that this general
>area of the map hasn't been updated since Toys R Us went bankrupt.
>
>If you could run a script that truly updates the map in the area that
>would be another thing, but you cannot; you can only run a script that
>removes the obvious "this map is outdated" marker. That might make the
>map *look* more current but actually it isn't - the script would just
>be
>window dressing.
>
>
>

I agree with Frederik wholeheartedly.

-- 
Chris Hill
( OSM: chillly)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Chris Hill]

On 03/11/2017 18:45, David Woolley wrote:

On 03/11/17 17:51, Ilya Zverev wrote:
postcodes, should they be removed from the import? Is there a 
database that I can check these against?


There is a database, but one of OSM UK's big bug bears is that it is 
not licensed in a way that allows it to be used for OSM.  About the 
limit of what you could do is find wrong postcodes, and then use other 
means to correct them.  I think removing a postcode on a mismatch 
might be too close to using the data.


I'm, of course, referring to Royal Mail's Postal Address File (PAF). 
There is a list of GB postcodes (not Northern Ireland) which, being OGL, 
is compatible with the OSM licence. I maintain an overlay of postcodes 
using that data, which you can see more about here: 
https://raggedred.net/codepoint/


I am, of course, referring to the dataset Codepoint Open, supplied from 
Royal Mail and distributed on the Ordnance Survey open data page. 
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendatadownload/products.html


There is a version also supplied by the Office of National Statistics 
which is based on Codepoint Open, but with some extra information for 
each postcode. This also contains expired postcodes too.


Both of these datasets do not show each delivery point, but just a 
centroid (in OSGB grid ref) for all the delivery points.


--

cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of Way Data for Warwickshire

[Chris Hill]

On 14/09/2017 19:42, Philip Withnall wrote:

On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 18:37 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

PS: To contrast with the good news here, East Riding of Yorkshire is
being decidedly unhelpful at
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_
2
, although they'll need to drag their feet for some time to beat
Warwickshire.

That makes for some disappointing reading. What are the reasons
councils could have for withholding a GIS file? That’s not a rhetorical
question — I am actually interested in why they’re being dogged.


I have made some requests of East Riding of Yorkshire council, where I 
live. I've asked for various datasets and some friends have also asked 
for stuff too. Most of our requests were not related to OSM. They 
diligently, consistently and stubbornly refuse to release any data under 
an open licence.


My friend believes it stems from a piece of bad publicity about how the 
council failed to maintain some waterways which were implicated in the 
wide-spread flooding of the area around Hull in 2007. Someone released 
maintenance records unofficially and since then there is a blanket ban 
on releasing any data.


I am grateful to Robert for taking on asking ERoYC for this data.  I 
think he now has the experience and persistence to succeed and I wish 
him well.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

[Talk-GB] Naming of places

[Chris Hill]

The thread recently about how places in Wales should be named has made 
me wonder about the City of Hull. It is officially known as Kingston 
upon Hull, but absolutely no one calls the place that. It is always 
Hull. The signs that greet you say Hull, the city council call it Hull, 
the council is called Hull City council. I don't think I've ever heard 
anyone call the place Kingston upon Hull except in jest. When it was 
announced as City of Culture 2017 it was announced as Hull. The 
university is the University of Hull. The newly appointed Minster is 
Hull minster, there is a Bishop of Hull, I could go on and on.


I'd like to replace the name=tag with Hull. I originally did have a Hull 
as the name of the place but someone who lives outside of the UK changed 
it to Kingston upon Hull and wouldn't accept that the place is really 
Hull. I've left it like that for years, but I still think it's wrong. 
That's why I want a discussion about it. Kingston upon Hull could go in 
another tag (sunday_name=*).


Should we use the name that is the official, never-used name or the 
real, on-the-ground name that everyone knows the place by? What do you 
think.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata

[Chris Hill]

I've added the Natural England dataset that shows CRoW Access land for 
England. The polygons were extracted from large multipolygons (ten 
covered all of England) so they have no individual metadata, such as a 
name.


I've now called the overlay openover to reflect that it's not just OS 
Greenspace. I intend to add some information to explain what is being 
shown and where it comes from, thanks to a helpful comment from Ed Loach.


See the latest here: https://raggedred.net/openover

--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata

[Chris Hill]

On 09/08/2017 22:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On 9 August 2017 at 18:13, Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net> wrote:

I have a rather strange explanation as to why Forestry Commission land is
not shown on the OS Open Greenspace dataset. OS Customer Services have
explained that they can't distinguish what woodland is Forestry Commission
from aerial imagery nor can they determine what the access is from such
imagery. This seems ridiculous but that is their answer.

I suspect that producing the Green Space map was forced upon OS by
politicians, so they've just taken whatever existing datasets they
have, and looked for polygon features that map to "Green Space" and
exported them. (Hence the odd choice to include Golf Courses, which
are mostly private.) Around me, the OS Green Space coverage is
particularly poor with a lot of the public green space in my town
missing. Much of the missing land in the town is owned by the District
Council, but there are also bits that are CRoW Access Land and
registered commons, which I'd have thought OS should know about. And
then there's the whole of Thetford Forest missing!


I think it still has some value as it stands.

Definitively. I've already found a couple of play areas hidden in
housing estates that I didn't know existed, that I'll need to go a
survey.

The killer feature would be doing a comparison with the OSM data and
showing discrepancies -- though that's much easier said than done!


Any more feedback will always be welcome.

Would you consider adding the CRoW Access Land as an additional layer?
(You can get the data under the OGL from
http://environment.data.gov.uk/ds/catalogue/#/catalogue under the
heading "CRoW Act 2000 - Access Layer".

If you're interested in adding even more datasets, the National Trust
has OGL data of it's "always open" land at
http://uk-nationaltrust.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/202ec400dfe9471aaf257e4b6c956394_0
, and the Forestry Commission make their Public Forest Estate
boundaries available under the OGL at
http://data-forestry.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/national-forest-estate-legal-boundary-england-2016/
and/or 
http://data-forestry.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/national-forest-estate-ownership-england-2016
(though there isn't public access to all of it). In both of these
datasets there will be overlap with the CRoW Access Land.

Robert,

Thanks for the ideas. As it was, it was put together quickly and wasn't 
very flexible. I have reorganised the way this works, though it looks 
about the same. This will make it a bit more responsive and easier to 
extend. I'll look at adding some more datasets. Every dataset is 
individual so needs to be handled in it's own way.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata

[Chris Hill]

I have a rather strange explanation as to why Forestry Commission land 
is not shown on the OS Open Greenspace dataset. OS Customer Services 
have explained that they can't distinguish what woodland is Forestry 
Commission from aerial imagery nor can they determine what the access is 
from such imagery. This seems ridiculous but that is their answer.


I have updated the overlay [1] to change the colours, though I left the 
outline red to help them stand out. I've added a layer selector and 
turned the overlay off for low zoom levels (<12) to make scrolling work 
better. I fixed a bug and remembered to add the OS attribution this time 
too.


I think it still has some value as it stands.

Any more feedback will always be welcome.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

[1] https://raggedred.net/greenspace


On 09/08/2017 10:16, Andy Robinson wrote:

Chris,

I guess the bit of interest is the 90% of Public Forest Estate that the 
Forestry Commission dedicated right of access.
https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7rufp5#access

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net]
Sent: 08 August 2017 20:08
To: Andy Robinson; 'OSM Talk GB'
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata

Thanks Andy,

I've asked OS about Forestry Commission land, let's see what they say.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)


On 08/08/2017 09:37, Andy Robinson wrote:

Nice work Chris. As you say it does contain some privately owned space. It also 
looks somewhat out of date with changes from a couple of years ago not 
reflected and missing plenty of smaller play areas within our urban sprawls. A 
very useful tool for checking though.

Also as this set doesn’t include Forestry Commission land that is fully accessible it can 
give a false impression of some of our "open spaces". A good example is Cannock 
Chase (Staffs), which is mix of open space and Forestry Commission.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net]
Sent: 07 August 2017 22:34
To: OSM Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata

I've taken a look at the latest OS open data: OS Open Greenspace. I've created 
a simple overlay made of 1x1 degree overlay tiles, which is probably a bit big 
for some areas, so scrolling can be a bit unpredictable.

https://raggedred.net/greenspace/#13/53.4520/-1.2173

There are ten types of green space in the dataset:

"Allotments Or Community Growing Spaces"
"Bowling Green"
"Cemetery"
"Golf Course"
"Other Sports Facility"
"Play Space"
"Playing Field"
"Public Park Or Garden"
"Religious Grounds"
"Tennis Court"

Click on an area to show the type and the name if it has one.

Often the OS open data is a bit of a crude representation but this looks a pretty good. 
OS described it as "public open space" but it certainly includes some 
privately-owned spaces such as private golf courses. I think this is a useful dataset to 
check an area to see if OSM is missing something.

Feedback is welcome. If it's useful, I'll probably sort out the tile sizes and 
change the colours for each type.



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

[Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata

[Chris Hill]

I've taken a look at the latest OS open data: OS Open Greenspace. I've 
created a simple overlay made of 1x1 degree overlay tiles, which is 
probably a bit big for some areas, so scrolling can be a bit unpredictable.


https://raggedred.net/greenspace/#13/53.4520/-1.2173

There are ten types of green space in the dataset:

"Allotments Or Community Growing Spaces"
"Bowling Green"
"Cemetery"
"Golf Course"
"Other Sports Facility"
"Play Space"
"Playing Field"
"Public Park Or Garden"
"Religious Grounds"
"Tennis Court"

Click on an area to show the type and the name if it has one.

Often the OS open data is a bit of a crude representation but this looks 
a pretty good. OS described it as "public open space" but it certainly 
includes some privately-owned spaces such as private golf courses. I 
think this is a useful dataset to check an area to see if OSM is missing 
something.


Feedback is welcome. If it's useful, I'll probably sort out the tile 
sizes and change the colours for each type.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Scotch Corner (A1 - J55) near Darlington

[Chris Hill]

Looks like a typo. a road providing the link, northbound A1 to the 
roundabout was tagged as trunk link (missing underscore). I have changed 
that.


cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


On 28/03/2017 15:07, Jones, Luke (KEU.FXT) wrote:


Good afternoon,

The above-mentioned junction was amended last night 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47187974> in such a way that 
there is no longer a valid route from the A1 Northbound to the A66 
Westbound. Could I ask that someone with local knowledge could have a 
look and see if these changes are valid?


As I understand it, the A1 in this area is being upgraded to a 
triple-lane motorway and it’s possible that this is a temporary thing.


Regards,

Luke

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Countryside access map

[Chris Hill]

On 24/03/2017 19:17, ael wrote:

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 06:57:58PM +, Chris Hill wrote:

On 24/03/2017 17:58, ael wrote:

I have just noticed a newish mapper who has added many footpaths around
Oxfordshire apparently using Bing but with changset comments
"from countryside access map".

Is this copyright free? I have sent a polite message welcoming to OSM,
but pointing out that rural footpaths usually need a visit, and asking
about that map.

Is this likley to be legitimate?

ael


A quick search came up with this
https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/countrysidemap/

That matches the name exactly and it is copyright.

Well, the mapper has now replied, saying that indeed thatwas the map,
but that it is open data:

https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/sites/default/files/folders/documents/environmentandplanning/countryside/access/os-opendata-licence.pdf

which seems to be right?

I have some video of the alleged end of one of the footpaths that he
added and it doesn't seem to be there.

ael


That licence is for OS OpenData. That map is overlaid on a copyright OS 
map, not the Open Data version. The licenec doesn't release all OS data 
as Open Data, only the selected parts.


Additionally, the footpath data belongs to Oxfordshire CC, you need a 
licence from them (preferably OGL) and the waiver from OS that releases 
the council from the OS viral copyright. AFAIK the council has to ask OS 
for that waiver - they may have done this already. Without the OGL 
licence from Oxfordshire CC we have to treat the data as copyright and 
out-of-bounds to OSM.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Countryside access map

[Chris Hill]

On 24/03/2017 17:58, ael wrote:

I have just noticed a newish mapper who has added many footpaths around
Oxfordshire apparently using Bing but with changset comments
"from countryside access map".

Is this copyright free? I have sent a polite message welcoming to OSM,
but pointing out that rural footpaths usually need a visit, and asking
about that map.

Is this likley to be legitimate?

ael

A quick search came up with this 
https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/countrysidemap/


That matches the name exactly and it is copyright.

--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Import Progress

[Chris Hill]

So you decided that the Imports mailing list isn't useful and is too 
20th Century for you.


Don't you see how arrogant and disconnected you sound?

An hour a week was spent in the provider's office, but not once was the 
process required by OSM to do imports mentioned?


It may have been done by WM team, but clearly at least two directors of 
OSMUK support this flawed process.


I repeat: What a Mess.

Chris.
P.S. telling me not to worry is horribly patronising Rob, please don't 
do it.


On 19/03/2017 15:04, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi Chris,

I don't think any of us are members of the import mailing list and I 
don't see the point of joining any more mailing lists. They represent 
an arcane 20th century solution that allows a few negative comments to 
derail a locally supported project.


Mailing list posts drift off topic way too easily any it's never clear 
when "consensus" is found. Richard F did the right thing in 2013 when 
he quit them and I encourage others to do the same


Few people replied to Brian's messages on the local list as we had 
already discussed and agreed it. Thus for every negative email there 
are usually many people who support it but just don't post.


Far from a bad import i think this is a great example to hold up as a 
good case study. Who else would spend an hour a week in the data 
providers office discussing not just the current data but 
methodologies for keeping it up to date.


The new and old data is being consolidated as Brian mentioned in his 
post yesterday. Everything is in hand, so no need to worry.


We are making huge strives forwards in the West Midlands and I'm 
looking forward to Open Data becoming the norm as a result of Brian's 
hard work.


Rob

P.s. this is being done by the local community not OSM UK which is 
still working up it's first project. As a fellow Director however I 
fully support Brian. I'm glad we have set up OSM UK and I hope it can 
get involved in similar projects where it is provided the devolved 
powers it needs to cater for it's community rather than leaving those 
decisions to an unclear "central power" that goes round in circles 
effectively preventing any new ideas seeing the light of day.



___
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-westmidlands] Import Progress

[Chris Hill]

The problem with this is there are import guidelines which have been 
completely ignored. Was there an email and discussion in the Imports 
mailing list? Was there a wiki page to record and share the process? How 
were the tags chosen? What steps were taken to check the accuracy of the 
data supplied? Why was the import data not merged with existing data 
(that was just deleted). Why was the data imported with a regular user 
id not one created for the import process? The imported data doesn't 
align with the existing data - what's going to be done about that?


These are just the points I can see, before a broader discussion has 
started.


Why do you believe that this is only a matter for the West Midland group 
to discuss? This sets a precedent for any other area to use. If this had 
been done properly this could have become the go to example of how to 
use local authority data, as it is it is a great example of how not to 
do it.


I am disillusioned that the newly formed OSMUK has a director that just 
ignores the good practice set up across the world. Are the aims of OSMUK 
to just hack off the rest of the UK mappers?


The problem is, I don't expect that anything will change. There may be 
some bluster, some indignant emails hurled around but these imports 
won't be reverted as they should be and the precedent will remain. What 
a mess.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 19/03/2017 14:03, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi,

This was discussed at our monthly meeting, it was then shared to the 
appropriate local list [1] and a post about quality to Mappa Mercia 
blog [2].


Brian has also been meeting with the data suppliers on a regular basis 
(at times spending an hour a week with them) helping to develop a 
strategy. Expert advise was also sought on the tree data.


So we have a data process that is supported by the local community, 
shared publicly and covers a very small region. Our community is also 
well established (10 years) and experienced to make these decisions.


My view is that appropriate steps have been taken. Anything more would 
have been disproportionate any suggests a desire to have OSM centrally 
run (which as we know is unrealistic).


Best,
Rob


[1] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/2017-March/002127.html 
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/2017-March/002127.html>
[2] 
http://www.mappa-mercia.org/2017/03/massive-release-of-highways-asset-data-in-birmingham.html



On 19 Mar 2017 1:14 p.m., "ajt1...@gmail.com 
<mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>" <ajt1...@gmail.com 
<mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On 19/03/2017 12:52, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On 18 March 2017 at 18:52, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com
<mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I'm off for a break and I'm leaving a couple of key
imports partially
complete so I thought it best to give you an update of
where I'm at:

I'm told that Brian has been blocked for these edits This is
outrageous.


No, he was sent this message:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1271
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1271>

because it appeared that the link between changeset discussions
and his email inbox was broken.

There is clearly consensus for them in the local mapping
community, and a well-defined and transparent plan for the
process has
been published.


That was one of the questions asked in changeset discussions - can
you please link to where the "well-defined and transparent plan"
for the "trees" import was published, and where discussion took place?

A well-respected member of the community should not be treated
this way.


No-one doubts that Brian is well-respected member of the OSM
community - few if any have put in as much effort as him over the
years.  Unfortunately even well-respected community members can
have email filters go rogue on them - it's not the first time that
it's happened and I'm sure it won't be the last  :)

Best Regards,

Andy

(cc:ing talk@ because I know there's been discussion, including on
IRC, outside the West Mids about the trees import and as similar
sort of council work is being outsourced elsewhere, it's useful to
discuss it more widely).




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



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


___
Tal

[Talk-GB] New postcode overlay

[Chris Hill]

I have updated both the Codepoint Open [1] and ONSPD [2] postcode tiles 
which can assist with . The open data from OS has changed from 
Address-Point which was discontinued last year I think. The new source 
is the Postal Address Location Feed of Geoplace. This means some 
postcode centroids have moved. Most differences are small but a few are 
infeasibly large.


I have also created a new map overlay [3] showing the postcodes that 
have been added recently. This will help people find places, such as new 
developments, that need a survey. Any feedback would be welcome. If it 
is useful I'll update it each time a new version of the open postcode 
data are released.


I'm working on including an overlay that shows postcodes that have 
recently been retired too.


[1] http://codepoint.raggedred.net
[2] http://onspd.raggedred.net
[3] http://pcdates.raggedred.net

--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

[Talk-GB] Codepoint postcodes

[Chris Hill]

Hi GB postcode users,

I've just updated the Codepoint Open tiles that can be used as an 
overlay for editors to see postcodes. You can often work out the 
postcode for an address from these tiles. The latest data update was 
released in February.


You can see more info about using the tiles here 
http://codepoint.raggedred.net/


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering (?) bug at Marble Arch

[Chris Hill]

I suspected that the Multiploygon was defaulting to being an area and 
screwing up the roads. I speculatively added area=no to the MP and all 
seems well now (I think).


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


On 26/01/2017 16:00, Edward Catmur wrote:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6809001 
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6809001> isn't rendering on the 
Standard layer at any zoom level. It looks to be rendering OK on the 
Cycle and Transport layers, but the Humanitarian layer is failing to 
render not only that way but also a load of others making up the 
Marble Arch gyratory.


Off absolutely no evidence, I'm inclined to suspect that the breakage 
is caused by http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5640188 
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5640188> - has anyone seen 
anything like this before?




___
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] crop=grass or sod

[Chris Hill]

The farms near me that grow grass as a crop to transplant onto, say, a 
pitch sell their product as turf.


I would say this is crop=turf on landuse=farmland, the turf is grown for 
many seasons on the same location.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


On 09/01/2017 21:28, Warin wrote:

Hi,


There are a number of farms near me (on a flood plain) that are used 
to produce grass.


However when I look it up on wikipedia .. I get sod. And, yes, I will 
know what you mean if you tell me to 'sod off' :-)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod


I am wondering what is 'best' GB English in this case ... grass? or sod?


I am tending towards sod, but this might create language translation 
problems, I'll raise that on a separate forum if necessary.



So, what say you? grass? or sod?


___
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: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

[Chris Hill]

I disagree with this. A revert is putting right the wrong of an 
undiscussed mechanical edit or automated import. *All* undiscussed 
imports should be reverted. That will be part of the enforcement of the 
mechanical edit guidelines.


If we want high quality data (and I certainly do) we must enforce the 
widely discussed and accepted mechanical edit guidelines and when 
someone has flouted those guidelines a revert is to be expected, and as 
quickly as possible.


The idea that a bad quality data should be cleaned up so the revert is 
not needed is opening the door to yet more poor quality data imports, 
some of which inevitably doesn't get cleaned up. Clean it up *before* it 
is imported.


OSM is not a database to dump any old data into in the hope that some 
kind soul will tidy up later.


Bad feeling comes from leaving too long before a revert is made. If the 
revert is made quickly then the importer will realise they have to sort 
the data out before it is imported.


I fully support Frederik in his continued efforts to keep the quality of 
data in OSM as high as possible.


--
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 04/01/2017 21:18, Mikel Maron wrote:
Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports (outside of 
obviously urgent problems). That means a well documented and visible 
plan, community discussion. Rob's comment shows that it is not 
possible for someone eyeing a revert to judge this from a quick look 
at the data or discussion on talk@. Right or wrong, the communication 
I've seen from community members making reverts has left a lot of 
rough feelings. I don't believe that this thread meets a community 
friendly threshold for reverts.


Can we hold off on the current revert regime across the board until we 
have as good guidance and practice in place as we have for Imports?

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 2:50 PM, Frederik Ramm 
<frede...@remote.org> wrote:




Hi,

On 01/04/2017 07:25 PM, nebulon42 wrote:
> I would revert it then.
> Violations of the automated edits policy should not be tolerated.


Some automated Wikidata additions have been reverted by me in the
past,
mainly where they came from an algorithm that used proximity (and not
existing wikipedia tags) to match OSM to Wikipedia.

As for Yuri's edits which are based on matching Wikipedia tags, I
asked
him on 18 November to stop making un-discussed automated edits:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4377#map=6/54.750/35.752

to which Yuri replied (last comment in the list)

"Woodpeck, I have already stopped changing any objects except the
admin
levels regions 1-6, and even those I have greatly slowed down, and
began
reviewing most of the auto-resolved wikidata IDs. I will cease further
automodifications, and instead concentrate on getting wikidata tags
quality review for the admin levels."

Contrary to what he wrote there, he's modified more than one hundred
thousand objects *after* that exchange - newly adding, instead of just
quality reviewing, Wikidata tags.

I think that at in a first step, those wikidata tags added by Yuri
after
18 November need to be removed. It is rather brazen to ignore our
existing rules outright, especially after I had made it very clear to
Yuri that his edits *are* automated edits according to our rules.
I was
a bit hesitant because there's quite a few people in OSM who think
that
low-quality Wikidata tags are better than no Wikidata tags at all, but
hearing here that the express desire of other community members
has been
blatantly ignored just like our automated edit rules have, I'm leaning
towards reverting the lot and making a clean new start.

We're not in a rush here - we can afford to wait until someone who
actually knows the area they are working in has the time to add
Wikidata
tags. That will yield much higher quality data than some automated
matching.

Bye
Frederik

-- 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Chris Hill]

Owen, I’ve seen that before, but it is at odds with my experience.

I have asked ERoY council to release their Rights of Way data under OGL 
repeatedly. I have asked by email, through their customer services web page, by 
twitter, by letter, by telephone, by asking my local councillors to help and 
every time they refuse, saying there is no need as they publish the data on a 
(copyright) map. There are various other Open Data requests against ERoY 
council, all have been refused. 

When I spoke on the telephone I used rowmaps as an example of how they had 
already released the data under OGL. I was told there was no record of this 
data being released under any open licence. 

This is why I tried to contact Barry to get an explanation and to strengthen my 
case. He has not replied to me.

Chris Hill
(User chillly)



> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:42, Owen Boswarva <owen.boswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The circumstances under which the East Riding of Yorkshire data was provided 
> to rowmaps are set out here:
> 
> http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/EY/ <http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/EY/>
> 
> I've no reason to mistrust Barry's account. But there is obviously a 
> provenance issue for other users if the Council as copyright holder has not 
> confirmed the licensing publicly.
> 
> This is a case by case problem, as the OGL status of some of the other rights 
> of way datasets on rowmaps can be confirmed via council sites.
> 
> I can't see that http://www.rowmaps.com/ <http://www.rowmaps.com/> has rights 
> of way data for Hull.
> 
> Owen
> @owenboswarva
> 
> On 21 December 2016 at 11:32, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com 
> <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:
> Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the data 
> that ROWmaps is using?
> 
> DaveF.
> 
> On 21/12/2016 11:17, Chris Hill wrote:
>> Row maps is definitely not based on OGL data. It includes E Yorks and Hull 
>> data that both councils have explicitly refused to release as OGL.
>> 
>> I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney silence. If 
>> anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would revert that edit. 
>> 
>> 
>> Chris Hill
>> (User chillly)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com 
>>> <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
>>>> A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many 
>>>> definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they will 
>>>> almost certainly be online.
>>>> 
>>>> It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will 
>>>> know the copyright status.
>>> 
>>> Could you expand on your claims please.
>>> 
>>> Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ 
>>> <http://www.rowmaps.com/> isn't OGL & the distributor wouldn't know?
>>> 
>>> DaveF
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
>>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
> <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] Local Authority rights of way information

[Chris Hill]

When I asked the council they said they had no record of releasing the data 
under any licence. The data is published on a copyright map on the ERoY web 
site and the council always pointed me to that. The data is available to be 
extracted from that site, but obviously I can’t use that as it is copyright. 
Barry has not told me where he got the data from that he uses. I have asked.

Chris Hill
(User chillly)



> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:32, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the data 
> that ROWmaps is using?
> 
> DaveF.
> 
> On 21/12/2016 11:17, Chris Hill wrote:
>> Row maps is definitely not based on OGL data. It includes E Yorks and Hull 
>> data that both councils have explicitly refused to release as OGL.
>> 
>> I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney silence. If 
>> anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would revert that edit. 
>> 
>> 
>> Chris Hill
>> (User chillly)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com 
>>> <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
>>>> A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many 
>>>> definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they will 
>>>> almost certainly be online.
>>>> 
>>>> It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will 
>>>> know the copyright status.
>>> 
>>> Could you expand on your claims please.
>>> 
>>> Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ 
>>> <http://www.rowmaps.com/> isn't OGL & the distributor wouldn't know?
>>> 
>>> DaveF
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
>>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
> ___
> 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] Local Authority rights of way information

[Chris Hill]

I believe that link to be unsupported by contradicting evidence.

Chris Hill
(User chillly)



> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:15, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> I'm a bit confused. Both Chris & David W. appear to have missed the link to 
> http://www.rowmaps.com/ <http://www.rowmaps.com/>. Can others see it?
> 
> DaveF.
> 
> On 21/12/2016 11:07, Chris Hill wrote:
>> Have any Local Authorities released their definitive maps or statements 
>> under OGL? I want to know so I can use examples as a lever to persuade East 
>> Riding of Yorkshire and Hull City councils to release *anything* as open 
>> data. 
>> 
>> Chris Hill
>> (User chillly)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21 Dec 2016, at 10:54, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com 
>>> <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Paul
>>> Short answer: Yes, it can be incorporated as long as it's been issued under 
>>> the Open Government Licence.
>>> http://www.rowmaps.com/ <http://www.rowmaps.com/>
>>> 
>>> However, this data is not always the most accurate & the consensus is that 
>>> it's much better if "witnessed" by walking it. For example, the direction 
>>> of a few paths on the OS map in my area are set by hedgerows which have 
>>> long since been uprooted.
>>> 
>>> DaveF 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 21/12/2016 10:39, Paul Berry wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an up-to-date 
>>>> copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then be 
>>>> incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of public 
>>>> but copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a rural right of 
>>>> way blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area and have had the 
>>>> need to get very familiar with my local footpaths...
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Paul
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
>>>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>>>  
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
>>> www.avast.com 
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
>>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
> ___
> 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] Local Authority rights of way information

[Chris Hill]

Row maps is definitely not based on OGL data. It includes E Yorks and Hull data 
that both councils have explicitly refused to release as OGL.

I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney silence. If 
anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would revert that edit. 


Chris Hill
(User chillly)



> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
>> A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many 
>> definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they will 
>> almost certainly be online.
>> 
>> It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will 
>> know the copyright status.
> 
> Could you expand on your claims please.
> 
> Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ isn't OGL & the 
> distributor wouldn't know?
> 
> DaveF
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ideas for quarterly projects

[Chris Hill]

It would be good to improve the road names. I feel it is easier to do the 
survey that is needed to weed out the rather odd 'errors' that pepper the OS 
Locator when the days are longer. 

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 7 December 2016 12:37:52 GMT+00:00, Martyn Evans  
wrote:
>How about streets and their names ?
>
>According to the ITO OSM analysis, at 24/11/2016, compared to OS 
>Locator, there were 17,687 missing major roads.  The UK is 97.8% 
>complete, only 16 out of 408 areas are 100% complete, and in the last 
>month only 68 were added.
>
>The ITO tool is available to point out the missing data, and is updated
>
>frequently enough to show progress.
>
>regards, Martyn
>
>On 06/12/16 19:32, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to float the following ideas for quarterly projects, and see
>
>> what folk think.
>>
>> * GLAMs - Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. As with schools
>
>> we could turn points into ploygons, add names, URLs, street
>addresses, 
>> Wikidata items, and other info.
>>
>> * Blue lights - police, fire and ambulance stations, and associated 
>> infrastructure. Including fire hydrants!
>>
>> * Public art - location, artist, material; also Wikidata - could be 
>> combined with http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/public-art-wikipedia/
>>
>> * Shops - even where mapped, these soon fall out-of-date.
>>
>> * Vets - maybe not enough to do on their own. Combine with shops?
>>
>> * Pubs, bars & other licensed premises - see 
>>
>https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2016/oct/21/worlds-longest-pub-crawl-maths-team-plots-route-between-every-pub-in-uk
>
>> for inspiration. Also breweries.
>>
>> * Public toilets - follows nicely from the previous suggestion! Maybe
>
>> in collaboration with https://greatbritishpublictoiletmap.rca.ac.uk/
>>
>> * FixMe & Notes - let's clear the backlog!
>>
>>
>> What are your thoughts?
>>
>> -- 
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

[Chris Hill]

On 05/12/16 20:19, Dave Barter wrote:

Excuse the noob question as I’ve not been on the list long.

I’m doing a bit of work trying to create an open version of the OS Codepoint 
Polygons. To do this I need as much postcode data as possible. I’ve been 
looking at extracting this from OSM and as far as I can tell I’m looking for 
the following tags:-

-addr:postal_code
-addr:postcode
-postal_code
-postcode

Are there any others I’m missing? And I guess I am (sadly) right in thinking 
there is not a huge amount of data in there, circa 40-50k records?

Thanks
Dave



Have you looked at the OS Opendata Codepoint? They are centroids, not 
polygons. You can see an overlay on OSM on my map here:


http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=15=53.73731=-0.48844=BFFTFF 
I have a simple overlay, that the map uses, too. More details here: 
http://codepoint.raggedred.net/


There are Office of National Statistics postcode files too under Open 
Gov licence. They have the same active postcode centroids as Codepoint 
but with extra detail for each postcode and expired postcodes too.


--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tweet von Sentamu Academy (@SentamuAcademy)

[Chris Hill]

On 23/11/16 15:32, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:


Hi, maybe interesting and not totally OT ;-)

Sentamu Academy (@SentamuAcademy) twitterte um 3:35 nachm. on Mi., 
Nov. 23, 2016:

We are currently advertising for a Teacher of Geography.

https://t.co/tGNRmgvjIm

Join #TeamArchie 

@getintoteaching @HDMJobs https://t.co/UuaNFsUZta
(https://twitter.com/SentamuAcademy/status/801434109457367040?s=03)

If the new geography teacher tries to encourage the pupils to get into 
OSM I hope she / he does a better job than the staff did in the past.


My experience and impressions of the school were not good.

I was invited to visit the school, which I did a couple of times to 
explain about OSM and to try to help a member of staff incorporate some 
OSM into a lesson or two. It quickly became clear that the motivation 
was not to broaden the pupils' education or improve the quality, use or 
understanding of OSM, rather that a foreign trip was on offer under some 
European scheme.


Almost everything the pupils added to OSM was junk. Quality control 
seemed to be absent and very little of real value remains. I had to step 
in and correct or revert awful edits that the team seemed happy to leave.


Little wonder that in July Ofstead ruled Archbishop Sentimu Academy 
inadequate and placed the school into special measures.


I have been disheartened by my experience and would think long and hard 
before offering to help a school again.


--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Chris Hill]

Stuart, You explained your idea (thanks for emailing first) and you 
added 'in case anyone has any violent objections'. I voiced my 
objection. I'm not in charge nor am I the OSM Police, you should proceed 
as you see fit and so will I.


I have written about this process more than once in the past, for 
example 
http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html


Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13/10/16 18:33, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only 127, two 
of which are one single instance of access:psv:bus, which surely ought 
to be just bus=*, and one single instance of access:psv:maxweight


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


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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


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

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


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


DaveF.


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


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


Cheers, Chris (chillly)

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


Greetings all!

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

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Chris Hill]

Dan, I'm not being dogmatic, I'm being practical. If a data consumer 
needs to edit the data rather than incorporate the options into their 
data handling stream they are making their process vulnerable to 
anyone's edits. If Stuart edits access:psv=* to psv=* his process will 
work, until someone adds the next access:psv=* or until someone who 
expects to see the access:psv tag and reverts Stuart's edit. If he deals 
with both there will be no problem at all.


If you import into a database, you could process the tags during the 
load (that's what people use lua for when importing the data for 
rendering) or you could change the SQL you use. If you don't use a 
database, the tag selection needs to managed by a list rather than a 
single key. Anyone working with soft data would expect this kind of thing.


As to the edit, I would always support the data being edited. If you 
want to change psv=No to psv=no, that's fine and useful, but changing 
one perfectly acceptable tagging scheme to another one to make a data 
consumer's job very slightly easier seems like a very poor reason for 
such an edit. It sets a terrible precedent.


Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13/10/16 18:15, Dan S wrote:

Chris, I think that's a bit too dogmatic, if you don't mind me saying.
It seems to imply nothing should ever be tweaked, e.g. spelling
mistakes. It's entirely possible that the key in question was a simple
misremember rather than a deliberate choice. There have been many
larger mechanical edits applied, officiated by the imports list I
think. Or one could check with the mapper(s) who did the tagging in
question?

Dan

2016-10-13 18:00 GMT+01:00 Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net>:

There are not an infinite number of ways to tag things. In order to edit the
tags you think need changing, you have to find them. So instead of editing
them just add the tag to your list of accepted tags. If you edit you have to
re-download the extract of the OSM data, if you simply update your list of
tags then just run your code again.

If you edit tags as you describe that is a mechanical edit and I would
insist it is reverted.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)




On 13 October 2016 17:53:11 BST, Stuart Reynolds
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

Chris,

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

Regards,
Stuart




Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

m: +44 7788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds



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

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

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

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

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

Greetings all!

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

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

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia






Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
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] UK Postcodes

[Chris Hill]

The £20 million was helpful but the real deal was the PSMA, which killed off 
the embryonic commercial competition for OS overnight. 

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 25 September 2016 22:41:37 BST, Owen Boswarva <owen.boswa...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
>Government agreed to pay Ordnance Survey £20 million per annum for the
>OS
>OpenData package, including Code-Point Open. The contract is here:
>https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/os_opendata_agreement_with_ordna_2#incoming-498165
>
>I can't see any obvious reason why Royal Mail would oppose a similar
>arrangement for NI postcodes, if NISRA wanted to support an open data
>release. (Addresses are a different matter, of course.)
>
>Owen
>
>On 25 September 2016 at 22:26, Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net> wrote:
>
>You would have to ask OS. As I understand it OS and RM were pressured
>into
>> releasing open data by the government in a bit of a hurry. I suspect
>the
>> government didn't understand the different position of NI. OS has now
>> seemingly become a convert to open data, publicly at least.
>>
>> OS had the deal sweetened with the Public Sector Mapping Agreement,
>but I
>> don't know what leverage was applied to RM. Now that RM is a private
>> company that boat has sailed IMHO.
>>
>> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
>>
>> On 25 September 2016 22:16:08 BST, Killyfole and District Development
>> Association <webmas...@killyfole.org.uk> wrote:
>> >How did the OS manage to release the GB postcodes? Could a similar
>> >model be
>> >applied/lobbied for in NI?
>> >
>> >This has a huge impact for the residents of NI and especially those
>in
>> >County
>> >Fermanagh. We have no signage on rural roads here and even if you
>have
>> >the
>> >correct road name and number it is very difficult to find an
>address.
>> >This makes
>> >delivery of goods and services to be a nightmare to anyone not
>working
>> >for
>> >Royal Mail or local to the area.
>> >
>> >On Sunday, 25 September 2016 22:06:25 BST Chris Hill wrote:
>> >> GB postcodes are published under a compatible licence by the
>Office
>> >of
>> >> National Statistics. The confusion over the Codepoint Open licence
>> >has been
>> >> resolved as it is now released under a suitable licence too.
>Northern
>> >> Ireland does not release its postcodes under any open licence.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers, Chris
>> >> (osm: chillly)
>>
>> --
>> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>

-- 
Cheers, Chris (chillly)___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcodes

[Chris Hill]

Postcodes don't apply to a road, they apply to a collection of delivery points. 
Many, many roads have multiple postcodes. Some buildings have multiple 
postcodes. See my postcode page: http://codepoint.raggedred.net

Cheers (chillly)

On 25 September 2016 22:52:27 BST, Lester Caine  wrote:
>On 25/09/16 21:34, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Does this not bother anyone else? It is just me? If it bothers lots
>of
>> people, why did those projects shut and why does no-one appear to be
>> doing anything about it? I kind of feel I must have missed something
>big
>> as this has seemed like an enormous glaring issue for years, but
>no-one
>> else seems bothered...
>
>CodePoint does not give road names, only a coordinate. What we need is
>to add postcodes to every road already in the OSM data. Perhaps that
>should be a quarterly project? Although in my book, since 'we' paid the
>council rates that paid for building the NSG (National Street
>Gazeteer),
>I see no reason that should not be downloadable data.
>
>-- 
>Lester Caine - G8HFL
>-
>Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
>L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
>EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
>Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
>Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-- 
Cheers, Chris (chillly)___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcodes

[Chris Hill]

GB postcodes are published under a compatible licence by the Office of National 
Statistics. The confusion over the Codepoint Open licence has been resolved as 
it is now released under a suitable licence too. Northern Ireland does not 
release its postcodes under any open licence.

Cheers, Chris
(osm: chillly)

On 25 September 2016 at 21:34:26 +01:00, Gervase Markham  
wrote:

> I hope this isn't a silly question, but: it seems like all the projects
> to free the UK postcode database (like npemap and freethepostcode)
> closed down five or more years ago when the OS release CodePoint Open.
> However, this data set is not suitable for use in OSM, according to:
> 
> 
> The end result is that I still can't type UK postcodes into Nominatim,
> the main OSM search engine, and depend on getting useful results back.
> Which makes it, TBH, bloody useless compared to Google Maps, as 95% of
> the address searches I do are by postcode. Example:
> 
> 
> "No results"
> and
> 
> Gives me "LE11 1##", which is not very close at all. To add insult to
> injury, it says "Results from NPEMap/FreeThePostcode", but it seems like
> either of those projects lets you add to their database any more!
> Nominatim doesn't seem to turn up postcodes even if they are added to
> objects in the OSM database as postcodes.
> 
> Does this not bother anyone else? It is just me? If it bothers lots of
> people, why did those projects shut and why does no-one appear to be
> doing anything about it? I kind of feel I must have missed something big
> as this has seemed like an enormous glaring issue for years, but no-one
> else seems bothered...
> 
> Gerv
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> 
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools

[Chris Hill]

Why do you need area=yes?

On 5 August 2016 17:13:01 BST, Christian Ledermann 
 wrote:
>I changed the logic, example changeset:
>http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90404
>
>1) single polygons are rendered as ways, with the same tags as before
>plus area=yes
>2) when it is a single polygon the holes get ignored
>
>Thanks for all your input this was very helpful :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>On 5 August 2016 at 16:37, Colin Smale  wrote:
>> On 2016-08-05 17:10, Dave F wrote:
>>
>> What I meant was, it makes it more time consuming for those mappers
>who add
>> data.
>> If the school (or whatever) needs to be edited & I see it's an MP, to
>ensure
>> I'm amending all instances correctly I have to do a search for all
>members.
>> A bit irritating when I find it's solitary.
>>
>> Surely the tags should be on the MP relation, so you still only have
>to edit
>> one object?
>
>In this case yes, the tags are on the relation
>
>>
>> Otherwise, maybe you could illustrate what use case you have in mind
>when
>> you say you have to "search for all members".
>>
>> //colin
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Best Regards,
>
>Christian Ledermann
>
>Newark-on-Trent - UK
>Mobile : +44 7474997517
>
>https://uk.linkedin.com/in/christianledermann
>https://github.com/cleder/
>
>
><*)))>{
>
>If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left,
>you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If
>you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.
>
>1) Don’t drive species to extinction
>
>2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on.
>
>3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above.
>
>}<(((*>
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-- 
Cheers, Chris (chillly)___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools

[Chris Hill]

I'd say it's complexity with no advantage so not desirable. It looks like a 
poorly thought-through semi automated edit. No more of these should be added in 
the current form IMHO.

Cheers, Chris
User chillly

On 4 August 2016 15:22:40 BST, Andy Allan  wrote:
>On 4 August 2016 at 15:14, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>> On 04/08/2016 14:42, Brian Prangle wrote:
>>>
>>> Yesterday approx 150 schools were added as relations according to
>the
>>> taginfoscript which is monitoring schools. Does anyone know what's
>going on?
>>
>>
>> I'd ask Christian Ledermann - the numbers roughly match his changes I
>think.
>> Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6457274 .
>
>I had a look at a few of these, and they seem to be simple shapes that
>I'd normally tag on the ways (i.e. they are multipolygons with only a
>single outer way). This seems strange to me - is it intended? Is it
>desirable?
>
>Thanks,
>Andy
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK address tagging

[Chris Hill]

We certainly don't need the phoney, contrived postal town. That is purely a 
Royal Mail invention that serves no useful purpose for anyone else. RM is just 
one user of addressing amongst many.

Addressing is not created by Royal Mail, it is maintained by local authorities. 
We should start there.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 4 June 2016 16:50:37 BST, Colin Smale  wrote:
>Hi, 
>
>I am wondering if there is any consensus about tagging for addresses in
>the UK. I couldn't find any trace of a discussion, nor anything on the
>wiki, but I may have missed something. In particular I am wondering
>about locality vs. post town - one of these should probably go in
>addr:city, but which one, and how do we tag the other one? 
>
>The address model used by Royal Mail is rather complex when compared to
>some of the straightforward systems in mainland European countries,
>which mostly manage with {number,street,postcode,town}. In the UK we
>need something like
>{[buildingname,](number|name),street,[dependent-street,][locality,]post-town,postcode}
>for a full address (actually it appears even more complex than that, if
>you refer to [1]). 
>
>Is anyone aware of a reference for how to map address fields to OSM
>tags? 
>
>--colin 
>
>[1]
>http://www.upu.int/fileadmin/documentsFiles/activities/addressingUnit/gbrEn.pdf
>
>
>
>___
>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-thenorth] Proposal to do some mapping in North Lancashire

[Chris Hill]

It's great that you want to add to the map data. Please do not add the 
OS OpenMap Local building outlines. They are heavily simplified and as 
such, poor quality. You can't distinguish how many residences there are 
in a building outline, so is it detached, semi-detached or a terrace? 
Adding buildings is valuable, but I believe in quality not quantity, so 
I would trace building outlines from aerial images and not import the 
'dumbed-down' OS Open data. Let's make the best map we can, not just 
import OS's deliberately reduced quality stuff.


Cheers,
Chris (chillly)

BTW, this list list is almost dead. If you really want to reach people I 
would use talk-gb.



On 13/05/16 10:50, Roger James wrote:

Hi,

I am proposing to do some mapping in a couple of parishes in North 
Lancashire. These are "Slyne-with-Hest" and "Nether Kellet". I plan to 
use the latest OS OpenMap Local dataset to provide basic building 
boundaries where none previously exist. I will be using OSTN02 data to 
do the transforms.


Any comments or suggestions gratefully accepted.

Roger

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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSGR & OSM

[Chris Hill]

On 05/04/16 14:59, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
Is there a site or tool somewhere where I can click on a point on an 
OSM tile and get back the OSGR? I want the quality of OSM, but need 
OSGR unfortunately.


Thanks

I just created a web page [1] that shows OSM with an OSGB location of 
the mouse pointer in the bottom left of the screen. Feel free to use it 
if it's useful.


[1] http://oslocn.raggedred.net/

--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect spelling of "cemetery"

[Chris Hill]

I found 54 cemeteries with their names spelt cemetary in the GB extract from 
last night. I'm not going to run a bot to change any of them - what if that's 
what the sign on the gate actually says?

On 24 March 2016 11:14:07 GMT+00:00, Stuart Reynolds 
 wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>A user of our site alerted me to an incorrect spelling of “cemetery” in
>one location. I corrected it, and then readily found and corrected
>three more. However, after a very brief further search (using “cemetery
>uk”) I’ve easily found another 10. I could correct these manually, but
>I suspect that it is the tip of an iceberg.
>
>Can I propose that someone who is more knowledgeable than me does a
>mechanical edit within the UK to correct “Cemetary” to “Cemetery”?
>
>Regards, 
>Stuart Reynolds
>for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-- 
Cheers, Chris (chillly)___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] Vandalism

[Chris Hill]

Email the data working group d...@openstreetmap.org with details they can block 
the user. 
-- 
Cheers, Chris (chillly)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] New users and P2

[Chris Hill]

On 26/02/16 11:23, David Woolley wrote:

On 25/02/16 17:04, Nick Whitelegg wrote:





User can also enter relevant POIs like stiles, gates etc when they are
encountered.


When user returns home, track simplification algorithm used to make a
way from the GPX trace and tags it with the tags equivalent to the 
ROW type.



User downloads data from OSM and algorithms are used to auto-join the
user's new ways to existing ways where appropriate (or alternatively,
the user does this manually)


This might have been a good idea in the early days, when most mapping 
used GPS and most mapping was onto an empty map.  These days, I think 
it would just cause problems as it would probably delay the proper 
association of the GPS tracks with, more accurate, aerial imagery 
data, and would not properly account for features that had already 
been mapped, but possibly on a different, or more accurate datum.


I disagree. GPS traces can only be found by being on the ground. Aerial 
imagery is useful but being there and seeing what is really on the 
ground is still the gold standard in my view. Aerial imagery is not 
guaranteed to be well aligned, is guaranteed to be be steadily more and 
more out of date and gives no clue about what signs say. Mapping by 
surveying gives such a good understanding of what is really there that 
it is the best way to integrate your new stuff and perhaps correct what 
may have been added by the folks who have gone before.


--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Chris Hill]

On 12/02/16 11:51, Ian Caldwell wrote:


On 11 February 2016 at 21:32, Michael Booth > wrote:


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


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


The whole situation is complex. There are places with 'city status' that 
really aren't for OSM's purposes, there are villages that become towns, 
villages bigger than many towns that are still villages, there are town 
council areas and civil parishes that have more than one settlement in 
them with separate names, some of which may ormay not be a hamlet. I 
have found a local example where a civil parish has declared itself to 
be a town, but both of the settlements in it are still firmly villages 
(see http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/when-is-town-not-town.html).


I love living in a country with such variety and I'm very pleased that 
OSM copes nicely with this variety (if the tag and wiki fiddlers just 
leave things alone).


--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Applicability of wiki tagging and votes: may, should or must

[Chris Hill]

On 28/01/16 19:16, David Marchal wrote:

Hello, there.

On a GitHub issue 
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2027#issuecomment-174443685), 
I've been told that Wiki tagging votes are only advisory and that the 
community is only invited, neither required nor recommended, to follow 
them. As I understand this comment, the community MAY follow the Wiki 
tagging or votes, it does not SHOULD nor MUST follow them. I was under 
the impression that the community at least SHOULD apply the votes 
results, MUST looking unenforceable due to the free tagging principle. 
Am I wrong on that? What is the applicability of the Wiki content?


Hoping my question isn't too trivial,

I'd say you might be a bit back-to-front. To me, the wiki works best as 
a way to document the tags that get used in OSM, so people can see the 
way tags get used for the object they have in mind. So the wiki doesn't 
fit the 'SHOULD-follow' bill. OSM is a representation of the weird, 
mixed-up, contradictory world as seen by people with a hugely diverse 
way of looking at it. The OSM needs to reflect that, proscriptive wiki 
pages do not reflect that.


The tagging list is a great example of this diversity. Lots of tags get 
discussed there, but very few firm decisions ever come about, simply 
because real-world examples keep throwing up differences, so tagging 
needs to be able to reflect these.


Taginfo is a useful tool for looking at the diversity in OSM. Some 
people look at the the diversity of tagging and see an opportunity to 
harmonise to a single value: x. What TagInfo actually shows is that 
there are many uses of the key and that x is not the only way to use the 
tag, so why should they all be forced to be the same?


This diversity of tagging is often quoted as a problem for data 
consumers. Oddly, this is often by people who don't actually use the 
data but feel it must be awkward. Actually it's not. All OSM data has to 
processed before use. This processing can be fairly straightforward or 
really complex, but that's not much to do with tagging diversity. 
Whatever the processing is (LUA code, SQL code or any other coding) it 
only has to written once and can be used over and over again.


The wiki has its place, but it is certainly not the Oracle which holds 
all the OSM truth.


--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Abbreviations in OSM and schools

[Chris Hill]

On 18/01/16 06:50, Marc Gemis wrote:

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Lester Caine  wrote:

On 17/01/16 20:42, Ed Loach wrote:

So, should we be using the full school name or abbreviating 'church of
england voluntary aided' to CEVA as they do on the school pullovers?
Similar questions for other variations - I've seen CE, CoE, C of E for
example.

I've been changing them to match what is listed on edubase for the main
name, and retaining an alt_name sometimes.

Isn't this a "mechanical" edit ? Shouldn't we list what is on the
ground, .i.e. the name that can be found on the entrance in the name
field ?
I would put CEVA in short_name.

just my .5 cents



+1

--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Chris Hill]

On 07/12/15 18:11, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 00:54 +, Dave F. wrote:

Hi

I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user:
abc26324 prompts me to ask/verify again the point of road relations
in the UK. Example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103301#map=10/51.2112/-2.5578

Route relations are meant to represent, err... routes taken by people
that transverse multiple different ways; such as bus cycle etc & not
just a 'collection' of things, especially when they can easily be
collated/extracted from the ref on the actual way.

I notice even the M4/M5 have one apiece. This has lead to tag
duplication which can never be a good thing.

Are there any roads in GB where references are shared? If not, I see
no reason for their existence.


I have noticed that he is at it again and has not responded to either
my comment with regards to the A50, or chillly's comments with regard
to the A161.

This time he has added a relation for the bits of the A1 that are not
A1(M), there is already an A1 relation. I again am not sure why we need
such relations, and the history is too big to view.delete

The author has not responded, so I have deleted the route relation for 
A161. I will use changeset comments on any more that I find in the UK to 
discuss why they are there - my expectation would be to delete any 
others but only after attempting to engage the author.


--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

[Talk-GB] traffic calming

[Chris Hill]

There has been a discussion on the tagging mailing list triggered by 
Gerd Petermann having made a mechanical edit to some traffic calming 
features. I asked him to revert the undiscussed mechanical edit which he 
has done. He is not subscribed to talk-gb, he asked me to forward a link 
to his email to talk-gb, so here it is: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-November/027597.html


Whatever the outcome of the discussion on tagging@, even in the highly 
unlikely event that tagging@ comes to some consensus, I do not agree 
that Gerd's mechanical edit is much use.  I specifically wanted to point 
out that discussing stuff on tagging@ doesn't constitute agreement to 
run a mechanical edit IMO.


--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] traffic calming

[Chris Hill]

On 22/11/15 19:06, Rob Nickerson wrote:

>There has been a discussion on the tagging mailing list triggered by
>Gerd Petermann having made a mechanical edit to some traffic calming
>features.

Thanks Chris,

To summarise for those who don't want to get stuck in the tagging
mailing list, Gerd spotted that traffic calming (speed bumps, etc) was
tagged in different ways:

1. highway=traffic_calming
2. highway=traffic_calming + traffic_calming=*
3. traffic_calming=*

It looks like highway=traffic_calming (which was only used ~1000 times
vs traffic_calming=*'s ~200,000 times) has never been a suggested tag
on the wiki. As such Gerd made the following changes to the three
cases above:

1. Replaced with traffic_calming=yes
2. Keep just traffic_calming=*
3. No change

The edit included a review of all nodes and extra detail was added on
a case by case basis if required (e.g. crossing details is it is also
a pedestrian crossing).

Quite frankly I don't really care. The tag was hardly used so if Gerd
wants to get rid of it completely and has time to do this then fine by
me. On the flip side the tag is not incorrect (just not documented or
supported by many people) so why waste time to remove it. Given that
Gerd took the time to manually review each one before changing it and
made improvements in some cases, I would have been quite happy to let
this slide - we have bigger issues to be discussing.

Question: Is the discussion of this more wasteful (time) and harmful
(negative impression of the community) than the original edit?


Gerd did the work you describe but went ahead with an almost nation-wide
mechanical edit without any prior discussion or description. That's why
I asked him to revert it. Mechanical edits need to be discussed. He then
indicated that he would discuss the tags on tagging@ - indeed he
suggested leaving his edit and discussing it on tagging@. I wanted also
to make it clear that tagging@ is not the best place to discuss
mechanical edits - a lot of people avoid tagging@ to maintain the will
to live.

--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)




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

Re: [Talk-GB] traffic calming

[Chris Hill]

On 22/11/15 20:17, Steve Doerr wrote:

On 22/11/2015 19:37, Chris Hill wrote:


Mechanical edits need to be discussed. He then
indicated that he would discuss the tags on tagging@ - indeed he
suggested leaving his edit and discussing it on tagging@. I wanted also
to make it clear that tagging@ is not the best place to discuss
mechanical edits


So where is?

On a mailing list or IRC channel that relates to the area the mechanical 
edit is proposed to be. So in a GB-wide edit, talk-GB and #osm-gb makes 
sense to me.


--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] New map style

[Chris Hill]

On 31/10/15 21:59, Colin Smale wrote:


The change could have been managed better, like proper announcements a 
couple of months ahead of time, with a date - "On 30th October OSM 
will switch to a new stylesheet for the standard map. For information 
about what this will mean for you, click here" on some main web page 
springs to mind.


I must have missed seeing your offer to manage the process. I suspect 
the guys making the changes (in their spare time, who don't get paid for 
this and certainly get very little praise for stepping up the plate) 
would have really liked having a deadline set for the job months ahead, 
with their paid jobs, their families and social life getting in the way 
of meeting your deadline.


I quite like the change. There a few things that I would like to see 
tweaked, but I don't care much, I have my own renders which I like.


We should all keep in mind that the standard map on the OSM website is 
not OSM. It is just a single render as an example of what is possible. 
There are thousands of renders out there (I must have made more than a 
dozen). Making your own map tiles in your own style is not that hard and 
not very hard or expensive to host if you have a real need to do it. 
Getting access to the data is the point of OSM. You can use it yourself, 
so rather than bitch about the style or the process or the 
communication, why not just make your map tiles and be happy. Or 
actually pitch in to really help.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Chris Hill]

On 27/09/15 22:54, Alex Barth wrote:


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Paul Norman > wrote:


On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:

Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike
interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for
liberal intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain
terms: to specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike
to third party data elements intermingled with OSM data
elements of the same kind. E. g. mixing OSM and non-OSM
addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM addresses, mixing
OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM
POIs and so forth.


Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in
a geocoding context?


If you methodically use a geocoder to reverse engineer the 
OpenStreetMap database, share alike would kick in. "Reverse 
engineering OpenStreetMap" would need a better definition and it would 
have to cover two dimensions:


1. Comprehensiveness (not just a "narrow extract" like addresses, 
buildings or businesses, but rather a comprehensive extract of the 
most important OpenStreetMap features together)

2. Geographic size (e. g. a country)

We could establish these limits with an update to the community 
guidelines for what's Substantial.



Nice try Alex, but no :-)

Your definitions are *way* too generous. I would say reverse engineering 
parts of the OSM database, such as just addresses can easily be 
substantive and therefore trigger share alike. I would say that the 
geographic size of a few streets would also be substantive and trigger 
share alike.


I know you want to move away from share alike but you won't do it by 
making a barn door definition like that IMHO.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now available

[Chris Hill]

On 28/09/15 16:14, Phil Endecott wrote:

Chris Hill wrote:
I've had a go at extracting the height of buildings from the 
Environment Agency LIDAR, and it seems possible.


I loaded the EA data into a database and found all the height points 
within the polygon of an existing building outline. The highest value 
is the height of the building.


Well it's the altitude above sea level of the roof of the building.
Presumably what OSM wants to record is the height above natural ground
level or adjacent road level or similar.  I can think of various ways
of doing that, e.g. looking for the lowest point near but outside the
building outline.


No, the whole point of subtracting the DTM from the DSM data is to leave 
the height above the surrounding land level. The height=* tag wants the 
height of the highest point of the roof, so simply finding max() of all 
of the points within the polygon of the building does that. That's the 
good thing about this method.


I can also imagine looking at the distribution of heights within the
building outline and working out if it is a flat or a pitched roof.
And maybe working out which direction the ridge runs in i.e. which
wall it is parallel to.




Processing more roof detail is much harder.

I've written another blog about getting these height values: 
http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/extracting-building-heights-from-lidar.html


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now available

[Chris Hill]

Hi Tony,
As OS OpenMap is vector data, finding the height for any building 
outline would be similar to using OSM building outlines. Using the DTM 
data would also give the base height AMSL of the building.


I have used DEM data in Blender (https://www.blender.org/) to create a 
landscape to match a real place. Creating realistic building shapes 
would be great, having building height is a useful part of that.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly



On 26/09/15 10:05, tony wroblewski wrote:

Hi Chris

Would it be possible to somehow use this data with the building
outlines from OS OpenMap?. I know that data is somewhat
simplified/generalised, but maybe combined together we could get an
idea of how the simplified shapes from OS OpenData are terraced and
even get their heights. I'm not talking about an import, but an
imagery layer with both combined somehow.

I've used OS and OSM data combined to produce free scenery for flight
simulators http://world2xplane.com/2015/03/30/gb-pro-scenery/. (I've
used OpenStreetMap for other countries for great effect, but the UK
data lacks detail). Despite the simplified data, I've used various
simple algorithms and rules to try and terrace the buildings
automatically (It doesn't need to be 100% accurate for the
flight-sim), and the results have given realistic looking UK towns and
cities. For my next version of the scenery, I'm going to use this data
to also get the correct building heights (my subtracting the height
from the land mesh underneath). Perhaps this effort could be useful
for OSM in some way.

Regards

Tony


On 25 September 2015 at 23:03, Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net> wrote:

I've had a go at extracting the height of buildings from the Environment
Agency LIDAR, and it seems possible.

I loaded the EA data into a database and found all the height points within
the polygon of an existing building outline. The highest value is the height
of the building. From that I could (haven't yet) create a file of changes to
add the height to each building. One thing that causes a problem is a tree
near a house as it can create a higher point than the house.

Using this would be an import and would need to go through the import
declaration process IMO. I have also thought about creating an editor
overlay to show the heights so they can be added manually. It's more work
and I think it's still really an import, but checking each height as it gets
added should spot anomalies.

I'm going to tidy up the process and write it up in detail as a blog post
over the next few days so anyone else can try it out too.

--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now available

[Chris Hill]

I've had a go at extracting the height of buildings from the Environment 
Agency LIDAR, and it seems possible.


I loaded the EA data into a database and found all the height points 
within the polygon of an existing building outline. The highest value is 
the height of the building. From that I could (haven't yet) create a 
file of changes to add the height to each building. One thing that 
causes a problem is a tree near a house as it can create a higher point 
than the house.


Using this would be an import and would need to go through the import 
declaration process IMO. I have also thought about creating an editor 
overlay to show the heights so they can be added manually. It's more 
work and I think it's still really an import, but checking each height 
as it gets added should spot anomalies.


I'm going to tidy up the process and write it up in detail as a blog 
post over the next few days so anyone else can try it out too.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now available

[Chris Hill]

On 24/09/15 18:41, Phil Endecott wrote:

Chris Hill wrote:

Suitably processed this could provide a source of building outlines.


Yes, I think it could be very useful for that.  I've had a play
and rather than doing shaded relief I've just converted the height
directly into a grey shade.  I've then applied ImageMagick's edge
detection filter.  Here are a couple of fragments near Manchester
taken from the 25cm resolution data; in each case the first image
is the direct height-to-grey and the second is edge-detected:

http://chezphil.org/tmp/lidar1.png
http://chezphil.org/tmp/lidar1_ed.png
This is at SJ 8099, or maybe search for Chaseley Road to find it
on a map.  You could easily trace building outlines from this and
determine roof shapes and could measure building heights by subtracting
roof from ground, with some suitable tool.  You could also trace
trees and some walls.

http://chezphil.org/tmp/lidar2.png
http://chezphil.org/tmp/lidar2_ed.png
This is SE of the last one at SJ 8198.  The gasometers (presumably!)
are at the junction of West Egerton Street and Liverpool Street.
I find it interesting that you can count the number of ridges in
the large warehouse roofs.  You can also easily identify carparks!

How would people find this for tracing compared to photo imagery?


Looks interesting. Have you reprojected the images from the OS 
projection they come as to WGS84 that OSM uses?


Some of the data was gathered in 2009, so Bing aerial images can be more 
up-to-date, but for most buildings this isn't a problem.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now available

[Chris Hill]

On 23/09/15 14:18, Phil Endecott wrote:

Has anyone reviewed how useful this LIDAR data would be for 3D city
mapping?

Chris Hill wrote:
The slippy map with relief tiles made from the data and optionally 
contours also made from the data is here: http://relief.raggedred.net. 


Thanks Chris.  I've just been looking at Hull city centre.  It doesn't
look great; is this the difference between the "terrain model" and the
"surface model" that they mention? Which are you using?  Have you looked
at the other one?


It looks pretty realistic to me, I guess you mean it doesn't show 
building outlines, but that's why I chose the DTM version.


Of course I know that the rationale for the data is for flood risk
evaluation so recording building profiles was not the objective - but
you never know how something could be re-purposed!



In the blog article 
(http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/more-lidar-goodness.html) I 
explain a bit about the difference between DSM and DTM. DSM does include 
building outlines. I've processed a small part of the data to see them. 
Here's an example of a TIFF of DSM data with the building outlines: 
http://raggedred.net/shared/ta0230.tif


Suitably processed this could provide a source of building outlines.

I'm not sure about the age of some of the data. Some recently-built 
flood alleviation measures do not show on this EA data but do show on 
the Bing aerial imagery


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now available

[Chris Hill]

On 23/09/15 20:36, Tim Waters wrote:

Could subtracting between the DSM and DTM where we have buildings
already in OSM give the height of the buildings?



On 23 September 2015 at 15:08, Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net> wrote:

On 23/09/15 14:18, Phil Endecott wrote:

Has anyone reviewed how useful this LIDAR data would be for 3D city
mapping?

Chris Hill wrote:

The slippy map with relief tiles made from the data and optionally
contours also made from the data is here: http://relief.raggedred.net.


Thanks Chris.  I've just been looking at Hull city centre.  It doesn't
look great; is this the difference between the "terrain model" and the
"surface model" that they mention? Which are you using?  Have you looked
at the other one?


It looks pretty realistic to me, I guess you mean it doesn't show building
outlines, but that's why I chose the DTM version.


Of course I know that the rationale for the data is for flood risk
evaluation so recording building profiles was not the objective - but
you never know how something could be re-purposed!


In the blog article
(http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/more-lidar-goodness.html) I explain
a bit about the difference between DSM and DTM. DSM does include building
outlines. I've processed a small part of the data to see them. Here's an
example of a TIFF of DSM data with the building outlines:
http://raggedred.net/shared/ta0230.tif

Suitably processed this could provide a source of building outlines.

I'm not sure about the age of some of the data. Some recently-built flood
alleviation measures do not show on this EA data but do show on the Bing
aerial imagery

--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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



--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now available

[Chris Hill]

(I'll try again ... )

It might well do that. I'll attempt to compare two areas tomorrow and 
see how easy it is get any height data out. As it happens, one of the 
areas covered by the EA data that I have worked on is a large village 
(Cottingham) which has its buildings all traced out, so I might try to 
work out some of the building heights there.


On 23/09/15 20:36, Tim Waters wrote:

Could subtracting between the DSM and DTM where we have buildings
already in OSM give the height of the buildings?



On 23 September 2015 at 15:08, Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net> wrote:

On 23/09/15 14:18, Phil Endecott wrote:

Has anyone reviewed how useful this LIDAR data would be for 3D city
mapping?

Chris Hill wrote:

The slippy map with relief tiles made from the data and optionally
contours also made from the data is here: http://relief.raggedred.net.


Thanks Chris.  I've just been looking at Hull city centre.  It doesn't
look great; is this the difference between the "terrain model" and the
"surface model" that they mention? Which are you using?  Have you looked
at the other one?


It looks pretty realistic to me, I guess you mean it doesn't show building
outlines, but that's why I chose the DTM version.


Of course I know that the rationale for the data is for flood risk
evaluation so recording building profiles was not the objective - but
you never know how something could be re-purposed!


In the blog article
(http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/more-lidar-goodness.html) I explain
a bit about the difference between DSM and DTM. DSM does include building
outlines. I've processed a small part of the data to see them. Here's an
example of a TIFF of DSM data with the building outlines:
http://raggedred.net/shared/ta0230.tif

Suitably processed this could provide a source of building outlines.

I'm not sure about the age of some of the data. Some recently-built flood
alleviation measures do not show on this EA data but do show on the Bing
aerial imagery

--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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



--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now available

[Chris Hill]

Thanks for the plug Tim :-)

The slippy map with relief tiles made from the data and optionally 
contours also made from the data is here: http://relief.raggedred.net. 
This covers a mostly very flat area, yet significant details are 
visible. It does show a number of places where ditches and other small 
water courses might be missing from OSM and therefore places to survey.


The contours are minutely detailed using the 50cm data. If I was 
creating contours that are more generally useful I'd try the 2m data I 
think.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly



On 22/09/15 10:39, Tim Waters wrote:

Ahh correction, there *is* data at 25cm and 50cm in some areas (where
flooding is a threat) but it looks as if the 1m and 2m covers the
country.

Chris has written a post here also:
http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/more-lidar-goodness.html so
we're already playing with it.

Tim

On 22 September 2015 at 10:34, Tim Waters  wrote:

Hello,

back in June we had a thread announcing that this LIDAR data was due
to be released. Well some of it has.

https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2015/09/18/laser-surveys-light-up-open-data/

http://environment.data.gov.uk/ds/survey#/

I think it's just for England, and appears to be 1m and 2m composite
DTM and 1m and 2m DSM They do intend to release a Tiled version next,
and I think 50cm and 25cm are coming also

What can we do with it?

Cheers,

Tim

___
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] Village, Hamlet and populations ...

[Chris Hill]

On 14/09/15 15:18, Richard Symonds wrote:
I see your problem... could you tell me how exactly you define the 
hierarchy at the moment? Is it ad-hoc, with various rules in different 
areas etc?


Perhaps it would be better to, instead of having a hierarchy based on 
definitions, instead having a hierarchy based on pure population size. 
If this gives odd results, then perhaps you could have a "booster 
value" if the town is used as a post town or a seat of local 
government (for example).


I worry that trying to define terms like "village" or "town" is doomed 
to failure, because very few will agree on what it means, no matter 
how much we try ;-)



There is no hierarchy. For any rules you could chose it would be easy to 
find counter examples, probably within a few tens miles of where any of 
us live. UK places are a muddle and all the nicer for being so. 
Inventing a hierarchy to satisfy a short-sighted computer model would be 
bonkers. The very worst rule is population based. A place is a hamlet / 
village / town because the people who live there believe that is what it 
is. Rendering place names when space is tight and hence not showing 
some, based on population, has some merit. A village is a village 
because it is a village. If you can't tell that for yourself then get a 
local to tell you and in the process spread the word about OSM and 
surveying.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Odd highway=primary_link changes in gyratory systems

[Chris Hill]

On 09/08/15 14:40, Paul Bivand wrote:

Noticed some changes that I think odd that appear to derive from mapper
urViator changing highway= primary to primary_link in a gyratory system in
Strood. http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33203852


As I understand the _link versions, these are for short parts of junction
systems rather than substantial chunks of road in the sort of gyratory systems
that traffic engineers surround town centres with.

What's evident on the standard rendering is the odd overlaying on the _link
roads of joining roads. I'd have thought that having joining roads was pretty
much a sign that _link was not appropriate.

What do people think?



All those roads would be primary to me.

I've seen this elsewhere. When I asked the mapper he said that he 
thought is was a link road, so that would be a primary_link.


It might also just be finger trouble. Have you made contact?

--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A UK/GB OpenStreetMap group?

[Chris Hill]

Dave,
I don't think anyone has a veto. Why would it harm you if this went ahead?

On 13 July 2015 19:00:56 GMT+01:00, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Find out first if people want it, rather than ask how they think it 
should be implemented.

On 13/07/2015 14:03, Andy Mabbett wrote:
 On 13 July 2015 at 12:39, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com 
 mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 there's no option to disagree with the whole proposal

 What else do you suppose the Strongly disagree column is for?

 (Though how you expect disagreement with a group of people deciding
to 
 start an organisation to stop them is beyond me)

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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com




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

Cheers, Chris
User chillly
Blog http://chris-osm.blogspot.com___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Quick tagging question

[Chris Hill]

On 08/06/15 10:18, Wittle, Paul wrote:

Hi,

It is interesting that people often say UK counties are defunct because the 
post office no longer use them; you could argue that postal addressing was not 
really the purpose of counties in the first place. The point of counties being 
more about governmental practices than delivering post.

I would point out the following page 
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/beginner-s-guide/administrative/england/counties--non-metropolitan-districts-and-unitary-authorities/index.html

This page contains a link to a PDF Map which can be obtained from 
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/external-links/about-statistics/geography/map-of-all-uk-local-authority-districts-and-counties.html

It is clear that far from being a fictional concept they are in fact a very 
real and very much defined dataset to this day. It is clear that the residents 
will be aware of the boundaries (at least in part) as they define who is 
responsible for key public services like road maintenance, bins etc. I think I 
would personally sit on the side of saying they do still have a role to play 
and I would point out that predicting postcodes is much harder than the rest of 
the address. It is all very well to say just record the house number and 
postcode but if you are digitising an area it is easier to put in the house 
number, street, town/city and county as these are defined in publically 
accessible forms.

Is there an easy tool in the editor to lookup the postcode as royal mail limit 
the number of searchs per day?

I note some of the responses suggest that the county is better placed in the 
addr:place tag/

Paul

I agree that counties are real and important and not defunct just 
because Royal Mail ignore them. Royal Mail are just one user of 
addresses and they have a history of altering addresses to suit their 
own need, e.g. creating fictitious counties  (North  South Humberside - 
there was only ever Humberside) and postal towns.


Addresses are defined for all sorts of use and we need to manage 
addresses in OSM for all.


If you want to look up a postcode in Potlatch2 or JOSM I maintain some 
postcode overlays which allow you to match postcode centroids to street. 
More information is here:


http://onspd.raggedred.net/.

You can see the postcode layers on a map here:

http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=8lat=53lon=-0.67layers=B00FFFTF

I also have a postcode finder - if you know the postcode it will show 
the location on a map:


http://pcf.raggedred.net/

All of these are based on so-call postcode centroids, (released as OGL) 
though I've realised that they are not centroids in the mathematical 
sense as the new OS OpenNames postcodes look more like centroids and are 
consequently harder to use in some cases. I'm still investigating that.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quick tagging question

[Chris Hill]

On 05/06/15 14:15, Wittle, Paul wrote:


Hi,

Is it ok to add a tag 'addr:county' when drawing properties, it 
doesn't seem to be an officially recognised tag but I can find some 
references to it online?


Also, would you put sub-districts of a town (i.e. Wyke Regis in 
Weymouth) under 'addr:place'?


Best Regards,

Paul Wittle



Paul,
You can add any tag for any purpose that suits you, there are no 
official tags. Adding addr:county fits in the apparent address 
hierarchy, but some would say it is superfluous because the county that 
the place is in can be calculated by seeing which county boundary 
relation the location is in. That depends on having intact boundaries 
(they usually are) and the means to run 'is-in' calculations. PostGIS 
extension to PostgreSQL helps with that.  In some edge cases it may be 
better to tag to be sure.


Some people don't even add the addr:city tag for the same reasons but I 
always do, not least because in villages a civil parish boundary can 
have more than one named place in it.


The fact is there is no right and wrong way to do this, do what suits 
you - but not everyone else will follow you.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Open Names

[Chris Hill]

The tiles are tms, the max zoom is 21, the url is as below. 

I'm writing some information pages about these tiles which will include a 
step-by-step guide.

Any feedback, precise or not, is welcome.

Cheers, Chris

On 4 June 2015 10:36:22 GMT+01:00, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk 
wrote:
On 3 June 2015 at 18:57, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:

 You can use the tiles in JOSM

 using the url below[2]

 [2] http://www.raggedred.net/tiles/opennames/{z}/{x}/{y}.png

Please remind us how to add that - is it WMS or TMS?

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

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

[Talk-GB] OS Open Names

[Chris Hill]

Hi,
I've been looking at OS Open Names, part of the Ordnance Survey Open 
Data. OS notified me that OS Locator will be withdrawn, hinted that 
Codepoint Open will be withdrawn too and that OS Open Names is the 
combined replacement. OS Open Names is published under OGL, so it is 
compatible with OSM's licence.


The OS Open Names data has place names, road names and postcode 
centroids, all with location fields. Original OS open data was 
positioned to a square metre, the new locations have decimal parts of 
metres which may make them a bit more accurate, possibly millimetre 
accurate.


I have extracted the postcode data from OS Open Names and generated a 
fresh set of postcode tiles to look at. The centroid locations are 
different from the Codepoint Open and ONS locations, but all that I have 
checked seem an appropriate location, and possibly more useful. The 
difference is more than the sub-metre accuracy improvements. You can use 
oscompare[1] to see the new postcode centroids alongside the older 
centroids. I've made the Open Names postcodes magenta to distinguish 
them - I think I prefer red but I'll leave that for another day. You can 
use the tiles in JOSM and P2 using the url below[2]


The OS Locator replacement has a significant drawback: OS Locator had a 
field for the road name and a field for the road reference. OS Open 
Names ignores the reference for any road, or section of a road, that has 
name, only showing the reference for unnamed roads. (thanks to Robert 
(ris) for drawing my attention to this).


I now have the data extracted and reprojected to replace OS grid refs 
with lon, lat. If anyone is interested in this data I can supply it, 
please ask.


[1] 
http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=17lat=53.95537lon=-1.03351layers=B00FFTFT


[2] http://www.raggedred.net/tiles/opennames/{z}/{x}/{y}.png

--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly
 



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

[Talk-GB] Codepoint Open overlay update

[Chris Hill]

I've just published the latest Codepoint Open release as an overlay for 
editors. More details here at http://codepoint.raggedred.net/


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: [Imports] amenity=bicycle_repair_station :::: only 18 so far

[Chris Hill]

On 26/01/15 19:19, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:10 AM, JB jb...@mailoo.org 
mailto:jb...@mailoo.org wrote:



I have nothing against bicycle repair stations. Really. But, just in
France, how many databases do we have that are as worth as this one ?
Post offices, monuments, schools… Do we want to create some hundreds,
thousands of notes for these?


1)  There's a strong use case for a mobile app to find the nearest 
bicycle repair station.


That can be made without adding poor quality data to OSM.


1a) Even an approximate position is better than not knowing at all.


Hmmm, not sure about that.



2) Nobody seems to mind if a school POI is off by 30 meters.  But the 
people do seem to care for bicycle repair stations.


I'd say lots of people care about quality. Saying that some existing 
things that are poor quality somehow justifies adding more poor quality 
is a steep slope down to junk.


I would say that if you know the data are poor quality, don't add them. 
Find a way to improve them or offer them in a set of hints for people to 
find the real place on the ground.


3) Everything in OSM is subject to verification and change over time.  
There are hundreds if not thousands of USA post offices in OSM that no 
longer exist: data quality never absolute.


Again, that doesn't justify adding data you know are poor quality. 
Please don't do that.



--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly

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

Re: [OSM-talk] MEP - pipelines

[Chris Hill]

A tagging scheme, that was already in use, was being changed by a proposal, 
supported by a small number of votes. Because of these votes the proposer 
decided that his tagging scheme should be adopted by a mass edit. That mass 
edit would have broken any use of the tagging scheme by data consumers. Surely 
data consumers are what we want. We want OSM data to be used, not just for 
rendering but for analysis, routing, research, planning and many more uses. 
Data reliability matters. If a tagging scheme just gets changed on an arbritary 
date, especially in a single step, we risk scaring away dara consumers - all 
for a change that there's no evidence that it's needed and supported by a small 
number of votes.

Mappers matter too (even more actually) and changing tagging schemes confuses 
them too. Extending a tagging scheme is quite different, both for mappers and 
consumers.

Let's stop this crazy idea that a handful of votes makes anything alright. It 
doesn't. Wiki voting is wrong, devisive and sometimes destructive.

If the new scheme is adopted in staged way that would be better than a single 
mass edit, though it can still break data use for people who don't follow OSM's 
mailing lists.

I don't blame the proposer of the scheme; he's just following the daft 
guidelines in the wiki. He probably hasn't realised what a phoney, broken 
procedure voting is. 

Let's stop using voting.

On 6 January 2015 06:06:08 GMT, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
 What about the maps I produce for my client? You're not likely to
know about
 it as it is a private project. If you make a mechanical edit that
breaks my
 render, should I send the bill for the changes to you rather than ask
my
 client to pay? (This is not hypothetical I really do have a render
using
 pipelines. I'm also using pipeline data to calculate approximations
of
 distribution and aggregation).

You'd rather face a tag fragmentation, and slowly see your data slip
away?
It seems in many cases it's a favor to have the data migrated to one
tagging system
as long as that change is properly coordinated.

---
cheers, Chris
osm user, chillly___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] MEP - pipelines

[Chris Hill]

On 03/01/15 16:50, Rainer Fügenstein wrote:

in accordance to the mechanical edit policy, I'd like to open the
discussion on this list:

a recently approved proposal introduced new tags for pipelines and
marker [1] and changed an established tag:

type=* was changed to substance=*


The values may need changing, e.g. type=sewer become substance=sewage


the main reason for this change was a (possible) conflict with type=*
as used in relations. also, type=* was considered to be too generic to
describe the medium flowing within pipelines.

this requires a mechanical update of existing data:


No, just because a handful of wiki 'votes' does not mandate a mechanical 
edit.



nodes: containing pipeline=marker
nodes: containing pipeline=substation
   type=* -- substance=*

ways: for man_made=pipeline
ways: containing pipeline=substation
   type=* -- substance=*

As of now, I'm only aware of the ITO pipeline map (rendering), that is
affected by this change.


What about the maps I produce for my client? You're not likely to know 
about it as it is a private project. If you make a mechanical edit that 
breaks my render, should I send the bill for the changes to you rather 
than ask my client to pay? (This is not hypothetical I really do have a 
render using pipelines. I'm also using pipeline data to calculate 
approximations of distribution and aggregation).




this affects data worldwide. I assume that this update will have to be
executed several times in the near future, as mappers may continue to
use type=* until they are aware of the new pipeline tagging scheme.


What? your amazing wiki page might be ignored by some mappers? How dare 
they?!


If you must have a mechanical edit (which I don't see as vital), why not 
add substance=* tag alongside the type=* tag? That way existing renders 
and other uses will not be broken. Mech edits that are presumably 
intended to improve the quality of OSM data can badly damage confidence 
in the data by breaking existing use.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [OSM-talk] MEP - pipelines

[Chris Hill]

On 03/01/15 17:46, François Lacombe wrote:



2015-01-03 18:22 GMT+01:00 Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net 
mailto:o...@raggedred.net:


What about the maps I produce for my client? You're not likely to
know about it as it is a private project. If you make a mechanical
edit that breaks my render, should I send the bill for the changes
to you rather than ask my client to pay? (This is not hypothetical
I really do have a render using pipelines. I'm also using pipeline
data to calculate approximations of distribution and aggregation).


The map your produce for private projects should be based on a static 
export of OSM.
It will prevent any kind of vandalism to have impact on your valuable 
services.


Thanks for telling me how to run my process. Given that the data used in 
the project are being edited and are evolving and includes data other 
than the pipeline data that are being edited, a static snapshot won't 
cut it.


I include some mechanical edits as vandalism, other than that, vandalism 
has not caused me any problems at all.




As data producer, may I ask you how can I refine any tagging scheme if 
so called private projects have priority on information improvement 
and general interest ?


If you must adjust tagging schemes that are in use, then you must devise 
a way to migrate to the new scheme in stages that doesn't break the 
existing processes that people use the data for. The proposer of the 
change is, IMO, fully responsible for this and if there is not a proper 
migration plan then the change should be quickly rejected. Simply 
replacing a tag with another tag via mechanical edit at an arbitrary 
point in time just isn't good enough to me.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping turn lanes on major roads

[Chris Hill]

The example you give has not been well mapped and the mapper needs to be 
contacted to explain about lanes. There is not an extra physical road between 
the carriageways so it should not be added as such.

On 7 November 2014 23:42:24 GMT, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk 
wrote:
I'd always assumed that the correct way to map turn lanes is via:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes .

However, some mappers in the UK* have started mapping each individual 
lane as a separate parallel road.  Here's an example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/267402#map=19/53.03296/-0.52524layers=N

That note was obviously written from the point of view that mapping a 
single carriageway road as one way with appropriate turn lanes tags is 
correct; whether it is or not is the question that I'm asking here.

So - should we map a dual carriageway as two parallel roads and a
single 
carriageway as one (with appropriate turn lanes) or is it equally valid

(or even perhaps better) to map each turn lane as a separate parallel 
road, even if there's nothing but a broken line of paint between them?

I'm trying to get some idea of concensus here because obviously it'd be

wrong for me to go back to another mapper and say you're not doing it 
correctly if there isn't a concensus about the best way to do it, or 
the concensus is that what they're doing is at least equally valid.

Cheers,

Andy

* and this isn't a question about just one mapper - I've seen a few 
people do it.  The example junction on the A17 just happens to be one 
that I spotted today (and a junction that I'm familiar with from
walking 
that section of the Viking Way).


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

---
cheers, Chris
osm user, chillly___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Chris Hill]

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


Hang on a minute... the name tag should contain the most common name, 
or, as the wiki puts it, the common default name. There are other 
tags for enthousiasts to store official names, legal names, alternate 
names, brands, operators etc which, in a certain frame of reference, 
can also be correct in their own way. What goes in the basic name 
tag should be what most people would call it, and, implicitly, 
should be written how most people would write it. IMHO most people 
would write Spar, Asda, Brantano and only trademark junkies would 
write ASDA for example (discounting people who would write any answer 
in all capitals anyway).


C.


I would write what it says on the sign on the shop. That's why I tag 
ASDA as ASDA, that's what it says on the sign. I don't look at their 
website, their advertising or their letter heads. I use ground truth. 
I'm not a trademark junkie, I'm a mapper who tries to get it right.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

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

[Chris Hill]

On 01/11/14 15:39, Dan S wrote:

Chris, I appreciate what you're saying - except for one point:

2014-11-01 15:35 GMT+00:00 Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net:
[...]

to what is on the ground, I'll revert it and ask for Matthijs to be blocked
from editing, as I would any other vandal.

Please can we all stop using the word vandal to mean someone who
makes edits I/we disagree with? That's very very far from what
vandalism actually is. We do have vandals in osm but please, we can
all tell the difference between vandalism and difference of opinion.
Can't we??

Dan

Matthijs is not a vandal, he has not knowingly made wide-scale incorrect 
edits that he knows other people disagree with.


If he does that would change my opinion.

--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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