Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?

[David Woolley]

On 07/05/2019 11:11, Martin Wynne wrote:
What is a "residential area" in the iD editor? How many dwellings are 
needed in what proximity to become one? Is it a physical plot of land on 
which at least one person lives? Or the usual meaning of a 
village/hamlet/housing estate/suburb where a number of people live?


I would say it was anything that was landuse=residential, and, in the 
UK, that would basically be anything where the primary planning class 
was C3 or C4.


However OSM usage is always fuzzy.


In my patch there are lots of instances where a single house or an 
isolated pair of cottages along a country road have been mapped as a 
"residential area". Which seems a strange use of words to me.


OSM land uses can be nested, and landuse=residential is the only way I 
know of of showing the curtilage of a house, so if there is nothing 
better it could be on a such a micro scale.  If you have a gated 
development, or an estate with communal gardens, I would consider using 
a nested landuse=residential.


I tend to change them to leisure=garden, access=private. When I do that, 


If you are going to micromap to that extent, you should exclude the 
house itself.I would suggest that whole plot would be 
landuse=residential, and if the garden was of particular scenic value, 
it should be placed on top of that.



the iD editor removes the landuse=residential tag. Should it? Should I 
put it back?  I also put a fence or hedge or wall around or between them 
if visible on Bing, add the buildings, and a name if it's known to me or 
shown on OS OpenData.


Very few people would map to that level of detail.  Some people take the 
view that you should not map curtilages, because they are difficult to 
verify, but I think this is normally possible to do with reasonable 
accuracy (actually even Land Registry property maps only given 
approximate boundaries).  On the other hand, I consider house numbers 
much more important than buildings or curtilages.


But is that the correct thing to do? If I do one, am I obliged to do all 
the others nearby? Users of OSM might legitimately wonder why some 
properties and residents are singled out for this treatment, and others 
are not? Should we concentrate on adding detail, or aim for uniformity 
of treatment?


The level of detail in OSM is always going to vary widely, not least 
because different people have different priorities.


Although some people cut schools and parks out of landuse=residential, 
councils tend not to see it that way, but rather as those being 
allowable in such areas.  OSM generally expects data users to understand 
that, for some purposes, e.g. rendering, a nested school or park 
overrides a general landuse classification.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Bridge Gunnislake

[David Woolley]

Of course, that was one of my concerns. We really need some sort of
lifetime tagging with an end-date.


You can use opening hours to indicate a period in which something is closed.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

[David Woolley]

On 18/03/2019 14:03, Martin Wynne wrote:
If you suggest to someone that they try OSM instead of Google maps, the 
standard Carto map is what they arrive at from search engines:


How do you propose funding such a service?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

[David Woolley]

On 18/03/2019 13:06, John Aldridge wrote:
For many people, the *point* of OSM is that it's a better version of 
Google maps. If data is not visible on the 'front page' rendering, it 
might as well not be there.


OSM doesn't have a business model that supports that usage.  It is not 
something that they would want to encourage, because there is no way for 
them to pay for the servers needed to support a general move from Google 
to OSM.


My understanding is that the standard style is primarily as an aid to 
mappers, and secondarily as a demonstrator to show that it is possible 
to create reasonable looking maps.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

[David Woolley]

On 16/03/2019 13:23, SK53 wrote:
OSM tagging is not analogous to the syntax and semantics of a computer 
language or API.


Whilst there is possibly a valid point about Plain English, OSM tagging 
is, very much, a computer API, albeit one where the semantics are fuzzy.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[David Woolley]

On 15/03/2019 01:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

AFAIA, neither tag had any impied permissions or condition attributes.


They do, and they are country specific.





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of Argos stores

[David Woolley]

On 10/03/2019 14:58, Donald Noble wrote:

I suspect shop=catalogue is probably the best option for a normal Argos 
store, but just wondering:
a) if anything special is needed when it is just a counter in another 
store (given that this is pretty much all there is own the other shops,

b) if there is any consensus on how to tag these, and
c) if so, whether these should be standardised across the UK?


Concessions aren't limited to Argos and have existed for decades, at 
least, in department stores.  What has tended to happen recently is 
their extending to other sorts of stores, e.g. Post Office in W H 
Smith's, Timpsons in Morrison's, Costa in Tesco, or even Amazon lockers 
in various places.


Shops that are pure shops of one type seem to be quite rare.  Even the 
small independents near me normally don't fit into one category.  Small 
shops often have concessions for courier services.   A lot of this is 
about "foot fall", the theory being if people use one service they may 
also use the the primary service of the shop.


I'm not sure if any more than a nested point or area is needed, but if 
it is, one really needs to look at he whole concessions picture, and 
possibly also better support of multi-valued shop tags in renderers.


What I haven't worked out yet is whether the Argos concession, in my 
local supermarket, itself has an E-bay concession!


(Actually shops on railway stations are probably technically 
concessions, as well.)



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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to map new housing?

[David Woolley]

On 08/03/2019 11:23, Lester Caine wrote:


One source of information that I use is the planning application. 
Although it may also be necessary to ask the builders if you can use it 
directly. It's a useful background on josm ... when combined with a GPS 
walk around.


Planning applications are made available to the the public on the strict 
understanding that they may only be used for planning purpose.  They 
generally contain maps which, if from digital sources, have a condition 
that all copies be destroyed after a year.


Generally I would say that planning applications are not an acceptable 
source.


Personally I think people put too much emphasis on building outlines, 
probably because they can be armchair mapped.  Having housenumbers is, 
in my view, more useful, but less common.


Unless you can convince the developer to contribute them, I would 
suggest that only old fashioned triangulation, or hiring a professional 
drone operator/commissioning aerial photography, are going to give you 
good information.


I suppose you could laser scan, but the hire fees will be excessive.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Marking closed businesses

[David Woolley]

On 07/03/2019 09:47, Jon Spriggs wrote:


Near where I am are some mapped businesses properties which have closed, 
primarily shops, but also a couple of restaurants.




There is more than one common way of doing this.

Is the building exclusively used by the business?  If not, I would map 
the business as a point, or as a polygon covering the plan view area 
occupied by the business, and not tag the building with business details.




a) A building holds a functioning business (that isn't a shop or restaurant

The appropriate tagging for the functioning business, e.g. office=*


b) A building holds a functioning shop


shop=yes


c) A building holds a functioning restaurant


amenity=restaurant

d) A building is a former business property (ceased 
trading/closed/moved) with no new business taking it's spot


shop=vacant

or

disused:shop=
disused:amenity=restaurant



As a side note, I've been using Street Complete on Android. Is it worth 
asking the Street Complete developers to add information about 
businesses to their collection data, if they aren't already?


I've never heard of that, so I've no idea what the developer's 
objectives were.  I'm not aware of any Android tool that I would 
recommend to someone who was not experienced with one of the big three 
PC editors.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] DoBIH Update - Permission Received

[David Woolley]

On 23/02/2019 16:05, Silent Spike wrote:
but I have always understood that heights and grid references are 
scientific fact and as such are not copyrightable.


There is explicit legislation in the UK that establishes database rights 
and it is actually those, rather than copyrights, that are the main 
issue for open mapping.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] GPS longboat positioning

[David Woolley]

On 05/02/2019 19:43, BD wrote:
Does anyone know if such is already possible using OSM + plugins etc? 
I've had a quick look online but most advice refers to Google maps. Most 
of the rest gets very technical very quickly. Goes over my head.


I think you are confusing OSM with the tools used to display slippy  maps.




Plan B, is there a dev out there looking for a project? Unpaid and 
'free' naturally! Would it feasible to create something like 
FlightRadar' that displayed boat positions on inland waterways? There is 
already marinetraffic.com  for shipping, but 
that's way too big. I'm thinking of something boat owners could 
subscribe to that was available online and capable of being embedded in 
a webpage.




You might want to look at http://www.aprs.net/


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Dropped or lowered kerbs

[David Woolley]

On 31/01/2019 10:33, Andy Mabbett wrote:


I am looking to tag dropped kerbs in two circumstances; in places that
look like this:

https://goo.gl/maps/UnBiAsxgCFR2

Sometimes, there are two crossings adjacent, or nearly adjacent,
making a place convenient as an informal crossing point for
wheelchairs, pushchairs, barrows, etc.

Often, however, there is a dropped kerb on one side, but not the
other, That's still useful info someone needs to drop off a wheelchair
user, for example.



Footway crossovers can be legally blocked by permission of the occupier 
of the property for which they were provided.  Also they are not 
necessarily in places where it would be safe for a pedestrian to cross.


I'd suggest this is overmapping, and any attempt to map a pedestrian 
crossing at the point would be subjective.


Dropped kerbs for pedestrians are placed at safe places, albeit 
generally only near junctions, and it is illegal to block them.


___
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

[David Woolley]

On 27/01/2019 21:21, Colin Smale wrote:

OrganisationOrganisation Name   60  n/a
Department Name 60  n/a
PremisesSub Building Name   30  


addr:unit


Building Name   50  addr:housename
Building Number 4   addr:housenumber
ThoroughfareDependent Thoroughfare Name 60  


This is the one that actually normally causes questions.  It is quite 
common to have named terraces, and to have runs of maisonettes numbered 
within a name.



Dependent Thoroughfare Descriptor   20  
Thoroughfare Name   Street  60  addr:street
Thoroughfare Descriptor 20  
LocalityDouble Dependent Locality   Small villages  35  
Dependent Locality  35  
Post town   30  addr:city


Firstly, addr in OSM is generally postal, not geographical.  As 
indicated elsewhere containment (or is_in) define the geographical place.


Secondly, in practice the only parts of the address you need are the 
detailed destination point code and the post code.  However, I 
discovered that the postie on the beat also needs the street name to 
avoid having to look it up from the postcode.


The bar codes for Walksort only contain the postcode and two character 
detailed destination.  (Is there a potential project there, to capture 
these.  Everyone who has received utility bills will have their own 
code, but they are only available to paying customers, as far as the 
sender is concerned.)



PostcodePostcode7   addr:postcode
PO Box  PO Box  6   


PO Box is not really relevant.  In most cases it is attached to a post 
office building.






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

Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents

[David Woolley]

On 15/01/2019 12:00, Martin Wynne wrote:
Given that they are part of the public highway, it's puzzling why the 
Environment Agency feels the need to compulsorily acquire the rights to 
pass and repass over them? And what about the rest of us? Is it usual 
for small areas of tarmac in the public highway to be privately owned? 
Should I give thanks every time I pass that way that the owners have not 
erected toll booths on each side?


Yes it is usual.

Being a public highway only gives limited rights regarding moving 
vehicles and people.  Some more rights may arise if it is also 
maintained at public expense.


Whilst I may have originally stated that ownership belongs to the 
fronting properties (but note that the duty to maintain unadopted public 
highways does belong to those), public highways will generally be owned 
by either the fronting properties, or the developer that created those 
properties.  In the latter case, there is a good chance that they have 
gone out of business and the land was unsellable, so has reverted to the 
Crown.


I live in blocks of flats that were built around the end of a cul de 
sac, whilst it was unadopted.  It is now adopted, but there has been no 
change to the freehold title as a result, so the end of the road still 
belongs to the flats, although maintained at public expense.


I saw the original title plans for the first place my parents owned, and 
their boundaries went to the middle of the road.  That was possibly 
before compulsory land registration, so I would need to pay a small fee 
to see what the registered title plan says.


Looking at the new build house they then bought, and noting that it the 
Land Registry map search is not precise enough to isolate just a road, 
one find that as well the individual plots, what must be the road itself 
is identified as "Land associated with xx xx Avenue", where xx 
xx is constant throughout the estate.  I imagine the title register 
for this will show the builder/developer as the owner.


Note that public highways don't have to be adopted (maintained at public 
expense), so both the legal ownership and maintenance responsibility can 
be private.


Certain statutory undertaking do get a right to ride roughshod over 
property rights, and being maintained at public expense does appear to 
include granting rights for things like phone boxes and telecoms cabinets.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents

[David Woolley]

On 14/01/2019 09:03, Jez Nicholson wrote:
I have summarised this discussion at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Property_extents_in_the_United_Kingdom




"A property owner is legally required to maintain property boundaries 
such as fences. This is intended to minimise disputes. So, being able to 
manually survey a reasonable property extent is feasible."


That is either not true, or the law has fallen into disrepute.  With the 
car parkification of front yards, boundary features in front yards are a 
dying species.  That definitely applies to the private/adopted land 
boundary, but also commonly applies to neighbouring properties.


Boundaries of properties fronted on roads technically extend to the 
middle of the road, at least for residential roads, and I have never see 
those marked.


Private/adopted boundaries are often very difficult to see in shopping 
areas, such that most people think that environmental crime is the 
responsibility of the council when it is actually on the shop forecourt, 
and the responsibility of shopowner.  The boundaries between private 
forecourts of shops can be even more difficult to see there may be a 
change in surface, or a single line of block paving at the adopted land 
boundary, but not between shops.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents

[David Woolley]

On 10/01/2019 00:18, Warin wrote:

Even if it were open .. does OSM want it?

I don't see any specific tags for it?


landuse=residential combined with addr:*

It is something I would definitely want included if it were possible to 
capture the data.  The main reason it is rare at the moment is probably 
that it is very difficult to deduce boundary lines from aerial images 
without very detailed local knowledge or surveys, of land that is private.


And you do want to have them accurate and up to date.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents

[David Woolley]

On 09/01/2019 09:36, Rob Nickerson wrote:
It is the land area (e.g. garden boundary of a detached house) rather 
than the building outline. They deem the building outline to have too 
high a commercial value under their current funding mechanism.


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.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

[David Woolley]

On 07/01/2019 12:37, Mike Baggaley wrote:

I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as lines, 
then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and it is 
illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the highway or 
waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be mapped both as 
a line across the area and also as a node at the intersection of the centre 
line. Only if both highway and waterway are mapped as areas would expect the 
ford to be mapped as an area (and also as a node at the intersection of the 
centre lines).


I would say that it should not be mapped as a node on the centre line. 
If data consumers want that, they can infer it from the more detailed 
mapping.


I would say that fords are conceptually quite similar to bridges and 
tunnels, and people don't generally map those as points.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Using data from OS maps

[David Woolley]

On 30/11/2018 11:49, Dave F wrote:
It's OS's lazy/arrogant/corrupt business model which prompted me to 
start contributing to OSM.



I imagine that OS are in a difficult business because their core 
business is fixed, but they are obliged, by de-nationalisation, to try 
and create a business model that will fund it.  Ordinary businesses 
would simply drop activities that didn't have a viable business model.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Using data from OS maps

[David Woolley]

On 30/11/2018 10:29, Philip Withnall wrote:

An enthusiastic new contributor in the Lakes area has admitted using OS


Unfortunately, I think there are an awful lot of enthusiasts around who 
think it is more important that their pet subject is mapped than that 
they should understand IPR rules.  Quite a lot admits to be being mapped 
from Google Street View, although I can't pull up an example at the 
moment.  For many people, the end justifies the means.



data in one of their changesets ­— afaik copying from OS walking maps
is not allowed, and I don’t think any of the OS OpenData data sets
include PRoW designations (I’m happy to be corrected on this).

What’s the right thing to do here?


Notify them by a changeset comment and allow them a reasonable time to 
correct the problem, or reply.  If that fails to happen, or the reply is 
defiant, contact the Data Working Group.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Network tag on railway stations

[David Woolley]

In the UK, the rails may be operated by Network Rail, the platform by 
one train operating company and a particular train using that platform, 
by a different train operating company.


When you add rapid transit systems (incidentally, is Merseyrail really 
one of these, rather than part of National Rail?), you can have single 
stations that serve more than one network, where there is only a single 
operator for the whole station.  I believe Queen's Park in London is in 
that category.


On 17/11/18 10:08, Michael Collinson wrote:
Lester's comments look logical from a general perspective: 1 network 
(National Rail), 1+ operators (Merseyrail, Northern, ...). I'd expand a 
bit by saying the it IS possible to have both multiple networks and 
operators at the same transport point (rail/bus station/platform). I 
have local Swedish bus stops with 3+ networks: Stockholm SL 
bus/ferry/subway system, Uppsala UL bus system, private long distance 
networks and then specific operators such as Nobina and Arriva for, at 
least, specific routes with the Stockholm network. Fun.


Mike

On 2018-11-17 10:09, Lester Caine wrote:

On 17/11/2018 07:12, SK53 wrote:
I've just come across a large number of instances of network=Nation 
Rail on stations. Clearly this is a mistake, presumably National Rail 
is intended.


As the station concerned is heavily branded with Merseyrail my first 
instinct was to change the tag to this, but then I wondered if 
National Rail is more useful. Today a network=Merseyrail would be 
more useful to me because I have a day rover for that network.


I wonder what others think, and can we clean up the erroneous name?


Merseyrail is the operator rather than the network. The network is 
owned and managed by Network Rail. National Rail is simply a  club of 
operating companies and includes both Network Rail and Merseyrail. So 
every station should have an operator=xxx and network=Network Rail, 
but they should also have some tag to the other train operators using 
the network through the station if more than 'National Railway' member 
is using it. So Ormskirk Station 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86878104#map=19/53.56928/-2.88114) 
for example needs an operator=merseyrail and *I* would prefer 
network=Network Rail. The line north should be tagged 
operator=Northern which would at least associate that fact with the 
station, but other stations may have more than one train operator 
using the track. Network Rail and National Rail is probably 
interchangable in the public mind, but freight services use the track 
and is not covered by National Rail, but it's unlike that stations 
like Ormskirk would have that problem ;)


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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


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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Network tag on railway stations

[David Woolley]

On 17/11/18 09:09, Lester Caine wrote:

The line north should be tagged operator=Northern


My understanding is that all tracks used for public rail services (but 
not metropolitan rapid transit systems), in the UK, are operated by 
Network Rail.  The train operating companies only operate the actual 
trains and many of the stations.


Certainly it is Network Rail that commissions all track and trackside 
maintenance.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

[David Woolley]

On 09/11/18 16:27, Will Phillips wrote:
Sources such as Companies House don't validate their addresses, so this 
total will certainly include some proportion that are incorrect.


Most sources that do validate ask the user for the postcode an then to 
select the address from the valid ones on the list.  I would say that 
such sources were tainted.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

[David Woolley]

On 09/11/18 11:34, David Woolley wrote:
if you are only dealing with centroids, I think many have been mapped 
already,


<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=uk_postcode_centroid> 
indicates that at least 2500 have been mapped.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

[David Woolley]

On 09/11/18 09:09, Phoenix830 wrote:
They have confirmed that this data is released under the Open Government 
Licence 
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ .





There is a gotcha in the OGL regarding restricted upstream sources, so 
OGL is probably not enough.  In any case, if you are only dealing with 
centroids, I think many have been mapped already, and, if not, you 
should use the OS Open Data source for those, not take them from a site 
whose business model depends on accumulating their own database of 
detailed postcode information.


As pointed out, you cannot say that a particular property has a 
particular postcode just because the nearest postcode centroid has that 
postcode.  You need to individually verify each property.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[David Woolley]

On 26/09/18 14:49, Tobias Zwick wrote:

Thank you for the answers given. Perhaps there are some
misunderstandings, so I want to clarify two points:

1.
A HGV is defined as a vehicle with a max allowable mass of above 3.5t,
even in the UK. Tagging "hgv=no" when seeing this sign is plain
incorrect, except if we specifically redefine only for OSM what
constitutes a HGV contrary to what can be found in the actual
legislation. I don't think it is wise to do that.



In terms of licensing, up to 7.5T MAM (or up to 8.25T with trailer) can 
be driven by people with suitable classes on an ordinary driving 
licence.  Many older drivers already have these.  7.5T is where HGV 
licensing really bites.  Some sources use the term MGV (Medium Goods 
Vehicle for the 3.5T to 7.5T range, but it does seem to be the case that 
HGV is used in some places.


In practice you are not going to get an HGV restriction below 7.5T MAM 
as that would rule out appliance delivery vehicles and house movers. 
You might have a maxweight below that, because of weak structures.


Also technically, the limit is on mass, not weight.  It is not dependent 
on the barometer reading or whether the vehicle is at the poles or the 
equator.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[David Woolley]

In that specific case (7.5T), which is the most common, it would be 
hgv=no, as that is the defining maximum authorised mass for an HGV.  I'd 
consider maxweight, for higher limits.


The traditional UK term is Gross Weight, but the, more scientifically 
correct, term now used, in formal documents, is Maximum Authorised Mass.



On 26/09/18 12:35, Tobias Zwick wrote:

Hey there

I can't believe this didn't come up before - or maybe it did but was not
documented in the wiki.

In United Kingdom, how do you tag roads signed with this sign?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_622.1A.svg

Note that the GVM for which the sign applies is given explicitly on the
sign, which is apparently always the case for any HGV-access-restriction
sign in the UK.

In other words, you will never find a sign like this in the UK:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C7.svg

Greetings
Tobias

P.S: GVM is gross vehicle mass
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating

___
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] Wickham Market, Suffolk

[David Woolley]

On 07/09/18 10:47, Martin Wynne wrote:


The great advantage of this definition for mapping is that it is an 
undisputed fact, on the ground.


You put lots of caveats into this, which leads lots of grounds for disputes.

One thing to remember is that OSM is international and the 
town/village/city concepts don't map cleanly to other cultures.  Even US 
English has a rather different concept of city.


What I've seen, in the context of other countries, is population being 
favoured as the determiner.  Obviously you can get over-pedantic about 
borderline cases.


The thing that makes the UK difficult is that the tag values look like 
the common language terms and match well enough to be right, a lot of 
the time.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Shropshire's rights of way

[David Woolley]

On 04/09/18 10:55, James wrote:
The officer confirmed that Rights of Way data was in the 
public domain for any use.


That's a bad sign, as it indicates that they don't understand UK 
intellectual property law.  They only way that database rights can lapse 
into the public domain is through the passage of time.


There are two likely rights owners.  One is the council.  They need to 
explicitly licence their data base right under the Open Government 
Licence.  Any other licence needs to be approved centrally.


The other is Ordnance Survey.  That normally means that any actual map 
cannot be used, although, if licensed by the council, the narrative 
description can be used.




Following some more research, I discovered rowmaps.com which has a 
database of Shropshire's RoW data from 2014. I contacted the owner, 
Barry, to enquire about this data. He is currently seeking a more 
up-to-date database for me.


I believe there are concerns that a lot of this data has been lifted 
from council web sites without getting appropriate licenses.  Typically 
web sites are licensed for personal, non-commercial, use, but OSM 
requires that the licence permit redistribution, and permit commercial use.




Once I have this data, what would be the best way to make it available 
in OSM? Is it not considered accurate to directly import the data, or 
should it be used as a guide for a ground survey?


Given that it is likely that the database rights on the actual 
coordinates are owned by OS, and you will have to use the narrative 
descriptions, you are going to have use other sources, and on the ground 
surveys are always best, to fill in the details.  In any case, any 
import needs to be checked to make sure it is consistent with existing 
data (e.g. doesn't duplicate it, and is topologically consistent with 
other features, even if they are not in their true, WGS-84, positions.


Also, what many OSM users are interested in is mapping those public 
rights of way that the council does not know about, as there is a 
deadline looming after which only those known to the council will be 
valid rights of way.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] un-named roads in UK

[David Woolley]

On 29/08/18 21:21, Jubal Harpster wrote:

Rosneath Castle Caravan Park



https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92291906



_https://goo.gl/maps/5zn1EEXwYER2_



_https://binged.it/2BCrYOr_



OSM has the name on the actual caravan park, which sounds more likely: 
.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[David Woolley]

On 29/08/18 20:25, Toby Speight wrote:

Thanks for that - it predates my joining this list.  It seems to (partially)
answer only my first question - it's to benefit those who don't like their
rendering (on paper/screen or on a navigation device).  That's why we have
rendering rules - if you don't like the rendering, change the rules.  Using
the wrong tag for the data (especially a totally undocumented tag) to get a
rendering you like is really not helpful.



The people it benefits are people using OSM to navigate in vehicles, 
whether with routing software or with visual maps, as displaying 
information that doesn't exist on the ground results in their looking 
for signs that don't exist.


I would argue that the people tagging for the renderer are those who add 
references that don't exist on the ground and are not actually 
nationally unique.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[David Woolley]

On 28/08/18 12:54, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote:

The objection is that you are undoing the effort and time spent by mappers


The data has not been destroyed, just more correctly tagged.

In general most of this information can only be obtained from armchairs, 
so it is irrelevant as to whether or not the mapper is in the area.


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

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

[David Woolley]

On 27/08/18 04:20, Chris Jones wrote:

1) The boundary is is clearly a fence. Thats what stops you just walking across.


Also OSM should not pretend to indicate legal boundaries.  In fact, in 
the real world, these can be quite fuzzy, as they depend on verbal 
descriptions, or rough maps from long before DGPS.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

[David Woolley]

On 26/08/18 20:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:

I think we should all think twice before duplicating and triplicating
data in OSM just because there's yet another boundary that includes
Hampshire. We should find a way to reference existing boundaries instead
of copying them.


It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so 
Hampshire, rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object 
referenced in the bigger entities.


On the original question, I would say that the thin end of the wedge is 
going in and needs to be stopped.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[David Woolley]

On 16/08/18 14:45, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote:

How can this issue be resolved without alienating and driving away long time
contributors to OSM?


I thought that we were heading towards indicating whether the reference 
was signed, but keeping the reference.  I'd go further and say that, for 
the use case given, it is whether the turn, rather than the road, is signed.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[David Woolley]

On 10/08/18 13:00, Martin Wynne wrote:
In this area I was taken to task for adjusting an unexplained boundary, 
which turned out to be the local "PlusBus" area boundary for inclusive 
fares from the nearest railway station


That's likely to be subject to database rights, as I don't think that it 
is normal to sign stops with whether or not they are in the area.


In any case an actual boundary can only be obtained from another map, 
not from the ground.  The best you could do on the ground is identify 
the finite set of existing stops that are in the area.



postal counties


These no longer exist.  All you need to fully address mail is the 
postcode plus the two character delivery point suffix, within that post 
code (which is usually, but not necessarily, a simple encoding of the 
house number, although not in base 10).  In practice, though, the postie 
actually wants the street name as well, as I used just post code and 
house number on the return to sender address, and got a note that it 
takes an extra day to find the street.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[David Woolley]

On 10/08/18 09:38, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

If OSM as an organisation wants to take annual snapshots for posterity,


You are confusing two different things here.

1) Things that were never current during the lifetime of OSM;

2) Things that have ceased to exist after being mapped.

The latter are never removed from OSM; they are simply not returned by 
standard API queries for the contents of an are.  Redactions apart, the 
database still contains the previously mapped versions of things that 
were mapped and then "deleted".


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[David Woolley]

I think people are overlooking the original use case for suppressing C 
references, which was that they confused satellite navigator users. As I 
pointed out before, this is really an attribute of the particular turn 
onto the road, not the road itself.  The fact that a road (A, B, or C) 
may have its reference displayed somewhere along it is not going to help 
if someone approaching the turn cannot easily see that reference.


On 08/08/18 10:34, Dave F wrote:



On 08/08/2018 08:30, Andy Townsend wrote:
 The tags "highway_authority_ref" "admin_ref" and "official_ref" are 
assumed to be unsigned.


One of the items on my 'things to do' list was to search for & 
amalgamate any 'this road is signed' tags.


DaveF

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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[David Woolley]

On 08/08/18 09:54, Lester Caine wrote:
They should be moved to OHM but then ANY information that is superseded 
should be automatically archived to SOMETHING since we are now in a 
situation where much accurately mapped material is simply dumped when 
there is a change to the current situation. The 'delete' process should 
be handled in a manor more sensitive to the hard work that has gone before!




Although it can be fiddly to access, the data is not lost.  All you need 
is the changeset number of the deletion to be able to access the deleted 
data and its complete revision history.


A revertion is not a special operation in the database, so would just be 
recorded as a changeset deleting the objects reflecting the historic 
boundary.


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

[Talk-GB] BHF et al Creating AED Location Database (news item)

[David Woolley]

In the 8 am radio 4 news today there was an item about the British Heart 
Foundation creating a database of AED locations because these are often 
not known to people.  Although not the BBC, this is another article 
based on the same news release: 



It mentions the NHS, Microsoft and the BHF, so I wonder if this is being 
done in ignorance of OSM attempts to collect this information.


The first line data consumer is ambulance controllers, so that they can 
direct 999 callers to the devices.  (I'd tend to agree that OSM 
providing this information directly to the general public is not going 
to sufficiently effective, as not enough people will know how to access 
the information and have mobile devices set up to do so quickly in an 
emergency.)


There is a contact email for the project, in the press release, 
n...@bhf.org.uk.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.

[David Woolley]

On 05/08/18 23:04, Warin wrote:
The legal niceties are above me, but the phone book people won ... so 
even though the facts in the phone book are not copyright, practically 
you cannot copy them into your own data base.

Ridiculous but true.
I'd think similar legal arguments could be made in a British court.


There is no need to rely on case law, as there is now statute law that 
covers this, and has been for at least 20 year:




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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.

[David Woolley]

On 05/08/18 22:00, Mark Goodge wrote:
either via a licence which permits re-use or an explicit grant of 
permission from the rightsholder.


That's what a licence is, an explicit grant of permission!

The confusion probably arises because of the open source movement's 
creation of the concept of a public licence, which is a grant to anyone 
who might obtain a copy.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.

[David Woolley]

On 05/08/18 21:10, Martin Wynne wrote:

Copyright doesn't work like that.


But you can't copyright names, addresses and similar material.


That's why the legislators introduced the concept of database rights. 
OSM works more in the concept of database rights, which don't require 
creativity, only that some effort be spent in collecting the data.


Some printed maps are also subject to copyright because human creativity 
has gone into the exact representations used.




Road names and numbers would surely fall within that.

I'm not suggesting copying the document and posting it verbatim.


Database rights apply to copying all or a substantial part, and OSM take 
the position that it is still copying  substantial part if lots of 
people copy different parts that wouldn't individually, be protected.


Incidentally, historically, printed maps contained deliberate errors to 
allow copying to be detected.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.

[David Woolley]

On 05/08/18 19:02, Martin Wynne wrote:


Worcestershire County Council is paid for by me. And a few others.


The only place for which I am aware of national legislation making 
certain government publications automatically free to use is the USA. 
Even there it only applies to the Federal Government, and only to the 
extent that the material doesn't come from a private contractor with 
whom the rights to release were not negotiated (typically software 
licences explicitly override the Federal Governments rights to put that 
software into the public domain).


Some US states and cities have such  policies but it is not universal.

The OSM movement are one of the groups that are trying to get UK local 
government to publish more on open licences, but a large amount of data 
is still restricted, and a lot of it is tainted by being based on 
coordinates taken from OS maps.  A good example are right of way maps. 
The actual maps are tainted by OS data, and a lot of councils still have 
to be convinced to release the narrative descriptions.


Whilst you might think that local councils ought to publish, that is 
often a political issue, complicated by the cost of ensuring that the 
data is not tainted by information from commercial sources - releasing 
data has some cost to the council.


There is also pressure on councils to find ways of making money.  You 
might notice the recent news about how underfunding has affected 
children's services.


Encouraging using data without getting properly documented clearances 
puts OSM at risk in at least two ways:


1) The data owner might enforce their rights after the data has been 
widely used, and the subsequent redaction of the OSM database will be 
very disruptive;


2) If people cannot be sure that OSM will respect restrictions on data, 
people may play safe and simply not consider releasing any of it.


(I think there are quite a lot of cases where OSM has been directly 
contaminated with Google data, as well.)


Use in OSM also requires permission to use for profit, which goes beyond 
simple release to the public for their personal use.


OSM actually exists because of proprietary ownership of mapping data. 
Widespread availability of GPS devices meant it was possible for people 
to bypass the typical mapping data suppliers and obtain the data 
directly from what is on the ground, and it is that ability that led to 
OSM being created.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[David Woolley]

On 04/08/18 17:58, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote:

What do you define as on the ground? The road is there, it has a
classification and name set by the local authority.  Hence setting the ref=
and name= tags.


Some people take the position that you cannot add a name, foreign 
language name, or unless you can actually see that name clearly being 
used as the name of the object if you actually visit the place.


I take a looser position, that the name or reference must be verifiable 
by an average mapper (that might be for example if 90% of locals give 
the name if asked, as well  as if it appears in some open licensed database.


A strict on the grounder, wouldn't for example accept a post code, 
unless the full postal address was displayed on the building.


However, in the case in question a road can still pass the strict on the 
ground test but have the reference not appearing for someone approaching 
from a particular direction, because the reference is really being used 
to label the turn, or the exit lane, in the case of a router.


I get this a lot with urban public rights of way.  They will have the 
reference at one end, but not the other, so can be on the ground 
labelled with the reference, but it would still not be helpful to tell a 
pedestrian to turn right onto PROW 666.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[David Woolley]

On 04/08/18 10:31, Lester Caine wrote:

'display_ref=no' would be appropriate in some areas of the world


As I hinted in a previous response, this is an attribute of the 
junction, not the road.  Moreover, it is probably a directed attribute, 
so actually relates to a turn relation.


Also, display_ref is imperative.  OSM attributes should be declarative, 
so I think you would want something closer to ref:signed=false.


In practice though, anyone adding C references in the UK is, to some 
extent, armchair mapping, so I don't think you can rely on this 
reflecting the on the ground situation in most cases, so I still thin 
the renderer need to apply the rule:


If in the UK and ref:visible not present for the intended turn, assume 
ref:signed no if the destination reference begins C, otherwise yes. 
However, turn right in 100m may be safer for all minor turnings (road 
names don't get replaced when damaged, even for residential roads).


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[David Woolley]

On 04/08/18 10:07, Philip Barnes wrote:

the standatrd renderer is International


There should not be a standard renderer.  That would definitely 
encourage tagging for the (that) renderer.  The map needs to describe 
what is actually there.  It has always been up to individual renderers 
to interpret that in ways most useful to their end users.


In particular, the default Mapnik rendering, on the OSM web site is not 
a standard rendering, it is a rendering intended primarily for mappers, 
not car drivers, and secondarily a technology demonstrator.


Incidentally, I believe there is a trend towards not signing roads, as 
satellite navigators remove the need.  Also, trying to spot a road 
reference on a sign seems to me to be something that distracts from safe 
driving.  The routers should probably simply be referring to distance 
and side of the turning.


If you want to use signage, people should be mapping the exact wording 
on the signage as an attribute of the junction or the sign, rather than 
of the road.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[David Woolley]

On 04/08/18 07:01, Philip Barnes wrote:

The renderer cannot know not to render refs on C roads in the UK, remember osm 
is an international database.

Telling a driver to turn left onto the C666 is confusing if there is no sign to 
back up that instruction.


Routing type renderers need to know that a road is in the UK and handle 
it accordingly, because a lot of tagging has to be interpreted in the 
context of national legislation.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[David Woolley]

On 04/08/18 00:47, Dave F wrote:


After many discussions over the years about the referencing of 'C' class 
roads there appeared to be a general consensus to keep them in the 
database but provide a unique tag to allow them not to be rendered.


I assume you mean the reference is not rendered rather than the road.

It seems to me that, in the UK, class C roads should be exactly the set 
of roads with highway=tertiary, so there is no need for a new tag.  Even 
if that is not true, the correct solution would be to test the reference 
in the renderer and suppress it if within the UK.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths

[David Woolley]

On 31/07/18 16:22, Ian Caldwell wrote:


Some footpaths, some of which are rights of way, have been closed as 
part of building a new residential estate 


How should this be tagged or should I just delete them? I do not think 
they exist on the ground anymore.




Do not delete!  My personal approach to temporary closures is to use 
opening_hours, with closed and possibly a comment saying when the 
closure is likely to end.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Missing long distance footpath relation

[David Woolley]

On 27/07/18 12:56, Brian Prangle wrote:

I'll also drop the offender a helpful note.


Really you should be trying to get them to repair the damage, before you 
resort to reverting for yourself.


Also, as this seems to have been in good faith, you need to revert just 
the relation, not the complete changeset, and you need to understand 
what the problem changeset was trying to do, so you don't undo the good 
parts.


Has this been done as a delete and re-add of the individual ways, which 
is generally a bad thing, and will make it onerous to revert the 
relation without reverting the other changes?


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Spurious No U turns in GB

[David Woolley]

On 27/06/18 15:30, SK53 wrote:
# Junctions with islands which also cause a single carriageway to split 
and merge around the junction.

#


I would definitely agree that this is tagging for the renderer, and wrong.

However, I can think of a case like this where you might well get 
attention from the police, for a dangerous manoeuvre, if you U-turned at 
any time but the early hours.  I seem to remember that one of the 
routers thinks this is a good place for a U-turn.


Obviously the correct thing is for routers to use a heuristic to detect 
that if two one way roads join at a very acute angle, they shouldn't 
route from one to the other, or should give it a large penalty, but it 
does beg the question as to whether OSM should allow router hints.


The problem with hints is that, like "too dangerous for cycles, so mark 
as no cycling" they are subjective, and the router should really be 
looking at the topology to infer a that this is really a dual carriageway.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

[David Woolley]

On 25/06/18 14:13, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
So how should I tag this? I want to have the correct name for the 
sections of A1, yet I don’t know how far these extend (my data lists the 
street names at points, not over lengths), and equally I don’t want to 
lose the Great North Road tag - just to demote it.




I would say that the name should be that which is locally sign posted, 
for which you will need an on the ground survey.


I think I would agree with the discussion that suggests "Great North 
Road" for the entirety, should be a [route] relation.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway Platforms - Covered=yes are not shown in latest rendering

[David Woolley]

On 29/05/18 14:53, Tony Shield wrote:
At the end of this week (2nd June) I intend to change the platforms I 
know to remove covered=yes, if you disagree please challenge.


I disagree; it is tagging for the renderer.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway level crossings

[David Woolley]

Please read the terms of use on that web site, in particular:

"You may only print off copies, and may only download page(s) from our 
site for your personal and non-commercial use."


Anything included in OSM needs to have licence that permits commercial 
use, so you cannot use the data from that web page as a source for OSM.



On 24/05/18 16:00, Martin Wynne wrote:

Hi,

I'm a newbie here, so I don't know if this has been mentioned before. 
Apologies if so.


Network Rail have an online map showing details of all level crossings 
on the system:



https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/safety-in-the-community/level-crossing-safety/ 



This includes all level crossings including roads, footpaths, private 
occupation crossings, etc.


The details include the official name of the crossing, frequency and 
speed of trains, extra risk factors such as grounding of long low 
vehicles, details of the protection such as half or full barriers, 
gates, stiles, etc.


All of which can be usefully added to OSM.

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[David Woolley]

On 08/05/18 13:10, Dave F wrote:
I've changed over to using disused:shop=* as it keeps the use of the 
shop in the tag. Due to shop classifications they often reopen with 
businesses of a similar nature. (food, clothes etc)


That reflects the planning classification (which are actually more fine 
grained than the OSM landuses). 

[Talk-GB] [OT] Maplin (was: Toys R Us)

[David Woolley]

On 05/05/18 08:52, Philip Barnes wrote:

At present Maplin are still open and not sure if they have a closing 
date. I'm still hoping they are saved as there is no get it now 
alternative.


They deepened the discounts, yet again, on Friday, and are selling off 
the shop fittings.  I don't think it will be saved, at least not as a 
high street business.


In terms of their original market (electronic components in small 
quantities), that ceased to be profitable many years ago, which is why 
they were more of a boys' toys type store in the immediate past.  In 
terms of that original market, Rapid are probably closest, but I can't 
see them taking it to the high street.


There are one or two small independents left.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

[David Woolley]

On 03/05/18 17:53, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

I would use a node where the van stops, tagged with
amenity="post_office", name="Over Mobile Post Office Service",



That seems to break the name is only the name rule.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

[David Woolley]

On 02/05/18 18:52, ael wrote:

I am confused:-)  How should a Royal mail local delivery office be
tagged? It seems that it is not amenity=post_office. I notice that
I have used post_depot once some time ago, but that doesn't seem to be
in the wiki (or in the presets for josm). Yet I am sure that I got it
from somewhere. Not that it seems very natural.


I'm fairly sure this came up a couple of months ago and the answer was 
amenity=post_depot; operator=Royal Mail.  It's not, in principle, 
different from Hermes or TNT.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[David Woolley]

On 02/05/18 13:03, Craig Wallace wrote:
A 20 sign with a green circle is advisory. A 20 sign with a red circle 
is a legal limit.

Some advisory limits are signed as "Slow zone" or similar.


Advisory signs can be put up with no formality.  Legal speed limits 
require a traffic regulation order, with the associated public 
announcements and public consultation periods.  That's the main reason 
you are likely to see advisory signs.


In another thread, on a different forum, this came up for cycle lanes. 
A lot of UK cycle lanes are advisory, meaning cars can park on them with 
impunity, so they are often of limited use.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[David Woolley]

On 02/05/18 12:06, Adam Snape wrote:
Sorry, for clarity, both '20 mph zones' and '20mph limits' are actual 
legal limits, not just advisory. In the former case, the sign on entry 
to the zone coupled with the traffic calming is thought to be enough to 
make drivers aware of the reduced speed required.


The traffic calming does not effectively reduce the speed to 20mph. 
What tends to happen is that vehicles accelerate to about 40mph between 
humps, then slam on the brakes.  It needs to be, and is, a legal limit, 
even though the police will rarely measure and enforce speeds on such roads.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[David Woolley]

On 01/05/18 12:23, David Woolley wrote:
I don't know about your tool, but it is essential that every user has an 
explicit personal account with OSM, and that they are set up to receive 
emails if people add changeset comments, or post messages to their OSM 
account.  maps.me has a high incidence of people who seem not to notice 
changeset comments.


In particular, apps need to be able to recognize that there is a 0 hour 
block on a user and allow them to access the changeset comments to see 
the reason, and remove the block.  I don't know how the API 
distinguishes administrative blocks from other failures.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[David Woolley]

Two or three years ago, we had problem of lots of bogus "wrong speed 
limit" notes being added by one particular app.  The general result ws 
that no-one took any notice of the notes from that app.  More recently, 
we have had problems from maps.me, although possibly not for speed limits.


I think it can be quite dangerous to give people apps that fix or note 
particular problems to people who don't know how to map using the more 
general tools.


I don't know about your tool, but it is essential that every user has an 
explicit personal account with OSM, and that they are set up to receive 
emails if people add changeset comments, or post messages to their OSM 
account.  maps.me has a high incidence of people who seem not to notice 
changeset comments.


On 01/05/18 10:41, Tobias Zwick wrote:

I am quite sure that this problem can lead to wrong tagging,
specifically that normal urban roads, even residential ones, are tagged
with "maxspeed:type=nsl_single" when they should not.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[David Woolley]

On 30/04/18 18:41, Tobias Zwick wrote:

On tagging implicit speed limits in the United Kingdom, the wiki lists
the following values [1] for "maxspeed:type":

GB:nsl_single (=60 mph), GB:nsl_dual (=70 mph) and GB:motorway (=70 mph)


Aren't we missing a couple of points here?

These speed limits encode vectors, not scalars.  As I recall the speed 
limit is dependent on the type of vehicle.  E.g. buses and HGVs are 
limited to 60 on motorways and dual carriageways: 
.  In particular, the signed limit is 
often only the highest of the limits.


The other thing about these codes, is that they allow all limits to 
change quickly if legislations changes.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] unwanted advertising in OSM in the UK

[David Woolley]

On 08/03/18 09:44, Jez Nicholson wrote:
The skill is in how to spot the difference between a description and an 
over-the-top SEO description


I doubt the typically over the top marketing speak description actually 
produces good SEO results!  I think the guidelines for good results are 
similar to those for good mapping.


Also, it is a waste of time to add SEO targeted material to the map as 
the main search engines are excluded from crawling it.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Post Office Data and Comparison Tool

[David Woolley]

On 19/02/18 15:02, Ed Loach wrote:

The delivery office still has the post office tag on. Should it be tagged 
differently, or have a subtag added (post_office=delivery_office maybe?), or 
something else?


I would say amenity=post_depot; operator=Royal Mail.  Maybe not even 
that it you cannot collect undelivered mail there.


post_office implies a customer facing institution that, in the UK, 
provides various government services, as well as services related to 
letter post.


Generally, if you provide a new value to a key, it should be safe for 
data consumers to treat it as though it were yes.





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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Post Office Data and Comparison Tool

[David Woolley]

On 19/02/18 13:29, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

The raw branch list data can be found at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/data/  and it licensed under
the Open Government Licence v3. It includes ID numbers, branch names,
addresses, locations, and opening hours.


What does type=Crown mean, as one of those near me is marked as this, 
but is actually a concession in a W H Smith's?


I also note that the matching hasn't used the address.  For one of the 
others I mapped all the house numbers, but haven't mapped the businesses 
on that road, so there is a matching object, and it is very close to the 
postcode centroid, but it isn't recognized as matched.  I guess I can 
fix that, on an ad hoc basis.


I must fix another, which was a concession, but is now in a disused 
shop, so only the concession part is still operating, and the shop part 
is empty.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Heads up: Please check recent edits by this user...

[David Woolley]

Splitting with JOSM shouldn't break the relations.  I think there may 
have been a technique error here, e.g. some form of delete and re-add.


On 13/01/18 17:15, Colin Smale wrote:
Things are starting to get messy. The original user has been reverting 
many changes (which is good) but some apparently got missed, and another 
user (FvGordon) has started patching up the admin boundaries at least. 
Not sure what source they use to fill in the gaps in the boundaries 
though. Also, other relations may have been affected and they will now 
be broken unless FvGordon fixes them all as well.


I spend a lot of time maintaining the admin boundaries and it is very 
disheartening to see so much damage and extra work being caused in this way.





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Heads up: Please check recent edits by this user...

[David Woolley]

On 13/01/18 14:42, Dave F wrote:
When a router traversing a way encounters a node it does a check to see 
if other ways are connected, If they are, it analyses the tags on those 
ways & decides if needs to go down one of them or continue to the next 
node. There's no requirement to split.


Whilst I don't know the specific algorithms used by current routers, the 
standard algorithms for the shortest path through a network 
 requires a list 
of nodes and edges, and creates the full tree of possible routes out 
from that endpoint, assigning costs to reach each node.


Whilst it might be possible to deduce edges and assign costs to the 
edges on the fly, that is likely to result in more processing, and mean 
one has to customise the standard algorithm.


On the other hand, one could argue that this is almost a case of tagging 
for the renderer.  I'd certainly say it was a misuse of the map database.


(I suspect routers use some heuristics to avoid searching too many edges.)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Nominatim and postcodes

[David Woolley]

On 10/01/18 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
I tried searching on OSM for a postcode, which I know exists, but it 
returned zero entries from Nominatim. Other postcode searches work fine.


Can anyone tell me where Nominatim gets its data from for a postcode 
search, and how often it's updated?




I assume it gets it from the map, in which case it gets updated when 
mappers update it, which, for many places means that they have never 
been provided.


The problem with postcodes is that they are owned by Royal Mail, who 
consider them a valuable piece of intellectual property.  Post codes get 
entered into OSM based on post code centroid information that is release 
through OS with a suitable sub-licence.  As the result of extracting 
post codes from signs on building, and similar sources, and as a result 
of taking them from certain database with an open licence, where the 
postcodes were contributed by the operators of the premises, in 
particular, the Food Standards Agency's Food Hygiene Rating System database.


As such, it is very difficult to get reliable post codes for domestic 
premises, as it would basically require a house to house survey.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Non-free sources [was: Re: Importing Shell fuel stations]

[David Woolley]

On 29/12/17 13:05, Mark Goodge wrote:
We draw the line at using a source which is subject to database right, 
and where using the content would be an infringement of that right.


We also don't allow material used in breach of contract, even if only a 
click wrap contract.  Google Street View falls into that category, as 
well as possibly being a database (facts organised by geographical 
location).   Most web sites attempt to create contracts limiting the use 
of the information they contain.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mistagging of old telephone boxes

[David Woolley]

On 23/12/17 19:13, Dave F wrote:
Not an expert, but I'm surprised if that's true. Isn't BY attribution 
the same that OSM asks of map producers?


I note Mapillary are also CC BY-SA


For third party contributors, OSM only attributes a small number, like 
the Ordnance Survey.  Third party material generally can't be included 
unless the contributor waives the the right to be attributed, or is one 
of the privileged few.


For direct contributors, there is no downstream requirement to attribute 
them individually, only to attribute "OSM and Contributors".  The BY 
requirement requires individual attribution.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mistagging of old telephone boxes

[David Woolley]

On 22/12/17 22:32, Dave F wrote:

To double check -  CC BY-SA 2.0 is compatible with OSM?


The problem is going to be the BY part.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OpenRailwayMap

[David Woolley]

On 19/12/17 10:23, Steven Abrams (Brook Street) wrote:


https://twitter.com/MrTimDunn/status/942751174922555393 

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

[David Woolley]

On 15/11/17 13:18, Adam Snape wrote:
Interesting, but if your interpretation of the law regarding red/green 
distinctions is correct, why do the majority of road road atlases on 
sale and most maps (both open and proprietary) supplied by Ordnance 
Survey maintain the red/green colouring?


OS certainly have thought about colour blindness, e.g. 
, 
and .  My 
guess, though, is that paper maps are not legally a service, unlike web 
sites, so are immune from the legislation.  There probably also haven't 
been test cases.


Incidentally, my father is red/green colour blind and can tell the 
difference between the two shadesused in road atlases. He does however 


Varying the shade as well as the colour, is one way of making maps 
colour blind friendly.  My understanding, though, is that the degree of 
colour blindness varies, even within the predominant type found in UK 
males.  Also colour vision is affected by the yellowing of the eye with 
age, so something that works for one person, may not do so for another.


The Wired article, above, indicates that there were problems with 
non-traditional colours for roads, which were resolved by creating 
lightness/darkness contrasts.



sometimes struggle with the picking out  the green dashed rights of way 
on the OS 1:25K Explorer mapping.


Googling "colour blindness os maps" throws up a lot of potentially 
interesting material on the subject.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

[David Woolley]

On 15/11/17 01:53, Gervase Markham wrote:

Can we please have blue motorways and green A-roads?:-)  Or do people
not like green A-roads because so many other things are green?


Whilst the OSM map renderings probably fall in a grey area, between 
public services and private hobby, for any map rendering provided as a 
service to the general public, especially in a part of the world with a 
high prevalence of red-green colour blindness, using just a red-green 
distinction would be illegal under anti-discrimination law.


I'm not colour blind, but I rather suspect that most OSM cartographers 
have not considered people with vision defects in their decisions.


The other accessibility issue that is likely to arise is low colour 
contrasts.  Web sites will fail accessibility guidelines, if, when you 
reduce them to black and white with the same luminance components, there 
is insufficient contrast.


The UK philosophy on law is to have laws which say things will be safe, 
accessible, etc., and then use non-legislative standards (building 
regulations approved documents, W3C's Web Content Accessibility 
Guidelines, etc), to try and judge whether the law is being obeyed).  As 
such, you will not find a law that explicitly states you can't rely on 
just a red-green distinction.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[David Woolley]

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).

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[David Woolley]

On 03/11/17 15:35, Philip Barnes wrote:

I would dispute that the operator is most locations is Shell and that
the brand should be Shell, but they are independent businesses who have
a franchise to sell Shell fuel, but Shell do not employ the cashier,
the mechanics or supply what is sold in the shop.


I wondered about this and tried to research it.  It looks as though 
Shell don't do a standard franchise operation, where they only provide 
the branding and branded products, but do something in between, where 
they supply the actual petrol station as well, but they then 
sub-contract the shop to a small local business, but with some branding 
conditions (I've actually seen the head office provided plans of what 
must be on each shelf, although I'm not sure if it was Shell at the time).


I guess it is closer to a tied pub than a Burger King franchise.  I'm 
not sure how to correctly code it.  Arguably Shell operate the station 
as a whole, but the shop and cash desk area has a different operator.


brand=Shell seems safe, but operator is confusing.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[David Woolley]

On 03/11/17 10:59, Ilya Zverev wrote:

I have received the list from the Shell UK. Are you suggesting I should buy a 
ticket and verify each of these on the ground? Are there any better sources for 
Shell fuel stations, or are you implying the UK is a special restricted 
no-imports-whatsoever territory?


Whilst I do sometimes think there is too much paranoia about bulk 
imports in parts of the UK community, company head offices are 
notorious, in my view, for failing to map their branches at the correct 
location, often using postcodes.  As such, I'd expect a very diligent 
attempt to find existing mappings, and that existing addresses which 
appear to have been surveyed on the ground should not be changed, but 
rather either the mapper notified through a changeset comment, or a map 
note added, to point out the discrepancy.


They will get locations wrong, even when using Google Maps on their own 
web site store finder pages.


Generally there is a strong presumption that something already on the 
map is correct, especially if surveyed on the ground.


Having said that, I'm not aware of any errors on the ones I personally 
know, one of which is new to the map.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

[David Woolley]

On 31/10/17 19:04, Bob Hawkins wrote:

2. Permissive paths: I do not understand “/permissive paths need showing/


I hope this means distinguishing from public ones, rather than that they 
are currently not rendered!


Almost every path in a council or Royal park is a permissive path, even 
if very few of them are correctly tagged as such.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

[David Woolley]

On 30/10/17 12:05, Lester Caine wrote:

Yep ... fixmystreet is not working with the right authorities and is a
pain to find the right location anyway. Looking to overlay the website
location map with the sort of facilities a parish council looks after.



I'm not aware that any of the council alternatives use any more council 
specific mapping, although I know that some councils do have online 
mapping of land maintained at public expense (which I don't think they 
use for their fly tip reporting systems).  (One of the problems with fly 
tip reporting is that the general public doesn't understand that 
councils are not responsible for clearing back alleys and the parts of 
the pavement that are really unfenced private forecourts of shops.  Not 
that you can expect these to be mapped well on OSM, as I've come across 
people who won't allow private alley's to be marked private unless 
explicitly signed or gated.)


(Note "maintained at public expense" is not the same as access=yes.)

FMS does direct reports, according to the category, to the relevant 
level of council (or sometimes both).  That does depend on people 
getting the right category, which they often don't do, but that is a 
consequence of the relatively free format input.


I think one of the other issues that councils have with FMS is the libel 
one, and evidence being tainted by being published.  My council use 
lovecleanstreets but don't allow any of the reports to be public.  They 
definitely make it clear that they don't want evidence in the public 
domain, as it can make prosecutions difficult (e.g. finding independent 
witnesses), and I think they are also concerned about people accusing 
identifiable people of crime, or stereotyping communities.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

[David Woolley]

On 30/10/17 10:37, Lester Caine wrote:

  What
I'm looking at here is reports of fly tipping, dog mess, and so on;)





However, note that some councils are insisting that only their own web 
site be used to report problems, and no longer accept email (unless 
there is a partnership with FMS, email is how the reports are presented 
- one of the reasons is that councils want very structured reports, but 
FMS is designed for free format reports).


My own council uses Veolia.  If you report through FMS, it gets emailed 
to the council contact centre, and you get the initial response in 
around five days, by which time the report is usually stale.  If you use 
the official site (which is a re-branded lovecleanstreets, and uses Bing 
mapping, it goes direct to Veolia, and you get a next day, or better 
response, through to the actual removal of the tip.


(Although FMS don't default to OSM, in the UK, OSM is their preferred 
global map provider.  I assume they think that the OS maps have more 
even coverage in the UK.)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS/OSM comparison tool now includes graphs

[David Woolley]

On 23/10/17 16:23, Gregrs wrote:


I'm not sure; it seems to be reverse-geocoded from postcode centroids 
(which is one reason I wouldn't recommend anyone directly copying FHRS 
data into OSM without some manual processing). I have contacted the FSA 
to see what can be done.


Using postcode centroids is why so many self contributed business POIs 
on Google Maps are almost useless for finding the business.  I hope 
no-one is adding POIs based on such data.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS/OSM comparison tool now includes graphs

[David Woolley]

On 23/10/17 15:52, Gregrs wrote:


Several authorities (Copeland, Middlesborough, Sedgemeoor, Portsmouth 
and South Tyneside) seem to have removed geocodes for a large number of 
their FHRS establishments recently, as shown by the sharp dropoff


Is it possible that they were using NPLG data, that is not open?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

[David Woolley]

On 19/10/17 13:15, Adam Snape wrote:
Despite postcode polygons sometimes being used, they are really just 
automatically calculated from the delivery points to which the postcode 
applies.


There is an extended version of the postcode, which includes an extra 
two (I think) characters, that qualify it to an individual delivery 
point.  I think you have to subscribe to the Walksort service, or 
similar, to be able to see the list of those, but anyone who receives 
official mail with a pre-printed bar code, could, in principle, find 
their full code.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Red route attribution

[David Woolley]

On 04/10/17 10:32, David Fox wrote:

What's a red route?
I only know of mountain bike classification.


They are primary roads, and short sections of tributaries, marked with 
red, rather than yellow lines, on which vehicles are not allowed to stop 
(except for traffic lights and tail backs).  They are mainly, or 
exclusively urban.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[David Woolley]

On 01/10/17 14:12, Adam Snape wrote:
To move things forward I would like others' opinions about how we should 
map such shared space schemes Are we happy to broaden the definition of 
living_street to include them or are they better mapped as ordinary 
streets with additional tags? Another potential


I would say that they are not "living streets".

Note that the UK term for a real "living street" is actually "home 
zone", and I think that is what you will see on the signage that should 
be used to justify their mapping.


Shared use possibly needs its own highway tag.  It includes living 
streets, but is broader.


Living streets are more about things like children playing in them, 
which is not something that would be encouraged in a High Street.


(Searching on "Living Streets" gives false positives for a charity that 
encourages walking as a means of transport.)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

[David Woolley]

On 29/09/17 13:56, Bob Hawkins wrote:

In the absence of the image, the two signs read as follows: 1. In white 
on blue: Oxfordshire County Council/No vehicles beyond this point except 
for access. 


motor_vehicle=destination

 2. In white on green: RESTRICTED BYWAY/PRIVATE ROAD/NO 
vehicle access except for residents.  I should appreciate views on the 


motor_vehicle=private

My reasoning, the first one allows all comers, as long as they are 
visiting.  The second one requires explicit permission, either from the 
land covenants or from a resident.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

[David Woolley]

On 11/07/17 16:38, David Woolley wrote:

notices about "Withdrawal of Implied Permission", e.g.
<http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1388775198_80.177.117.97.jpg>


This is a clearer version, both in terms of the sharpness of the image, 
and in terms of its presentation of the actual legal status: 
<https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0e/d2/33/c9/warning-notice.jpg>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

[David Woolley]

On 11/07/17 14:37, SK53 wrote:

public rights of way through stations (i.e., notional places on stations
where you don't need a ticket). Paul Sladen defended the one
 at Nottingham station. Here
I think 'duck' tagging is the way to proceed, so entrances from the
street should be tagged not tops of stairs from the PRoW.


There is no public right of way simply because you are outside the 
ticket line.  Access is generally "permissive".  In fact, a number of 
big stations now have notices about "Withdrawal of Implied Permission", 
e.g. 
, 
which clearly indicate that the operator thinks that access is only 
permissive.


There may be cases where a public right of way does pass through a 
station, but that will generally be a narrow corridor, not the whole 
concourse.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

[David Woolley]

On 04/07/17 10:15, Bob Hawkins wrote:

Keys cannot be duplicated


Keys can, however, have multiple values, using ";" as a delimiter. 
Whether data consumers would cope with this is an open question, but I 
can't seem them coping with alternatives any better.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

[David Woolley]

On 04/06/17 23:07, Warin wrote:

Why are people so reluctant to contact another mapper?


I think that is because they expect a "mind your own business" response, 
in which case there is no casting vote available.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Museums in Berwick-upon-Tweed

[David Woolley]

On 28/05/17 10:24, Frederik Ramm wrote:

"The two Museum symbols at NU 00023 52563 and NT 99988 52538 are no
longer relevant as the museums closed several years ago and the area is
now private housing."

I'll leave it to you to figure out what these coordinates mean and which
museums may need to be checked



Longitude: -2.00120135375

Latitude: 55.76641149

and

Longitude: -2.00175915259

Latitude: 55.7661868566

according to 
.


However, I would suggest that 10 figure OS national grid references 
could only have come from a council database based on OS data, so may 
not be usable.  They are precise to 1 square metre.


The objects that best match are: 
 and 
.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] cryptic bicycle tagging/attribution on Lever Street in London

[David Woolley]

On 19/05/17 19:48, Remek Zajac wrote:

So what is your take on "cycleway:right=lane" used on a one-way street
David?


I would say opposite_lane was wrong.  I would interpret 
 
as saying that cycleway:right=lane was correct.


cycleway:oneside appears to be undefined, and the width should on 
cycleway:right:width


lcn is defined, but there is a bold warning that relations are better.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] cryptic bicycle tagging/attribution on Lever Street in London

[David Woolley]

On 19/05/17 18:47, Remek Zajac wrote:

Not sure I understand what the problem with googlemaps is, but yes, it's
like you've just described.



Google maps is copyright, so can't be used as the basis of another map. 
Moreover there is an explicit restriction on the use of Google Street 
View to create maps.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] Importing fuel stations in UK and future similar imports

[David Woolley]

On 13/05/17 10:48, David Woolley wrote:

Also, maps are covered by database rights as well as copyright, for 15
years, and that is the real issue for geocoding, as it doesn't require
any degree of creativity.


I should have added that the fair dealing exemption for database rights 
explicitly forbids commercial use, see clause 20(1)(b) 
, whereas OSM 
licensing requires that the data be usable for commercial purposes.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] Importing fuel stations in UK and future similar imports

[David Woolley]

On 13/05/17 08:08, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

There is no "fair use" clause in UK copyright law, which is important not
just because OSM is hosted in England & Wales but also because this is
presumably a dataset in part containing materials with an E copyright
holder.


Also, maps are covered by database rights as well as copyright, for 15 
years, and that is the real issue for geocoding, as it doesn't require 
any degree of creativity.


UK copyright law does cover databases, but only to the extent that there 
has been an element of creativity.  For most maps that element almost 
certainly exists, in terms of how shapes have been simplified, and 
features selected as important enough to include.


However there is a second level of protection, which covers things like 
telephone directories, once you eliminate the copyright that does exist 
in the typographical arrangement.  See 
.  In 
particular see clause 16(2) 
, where 
it explicitly says that piecemeal extraction of the data is as much an 
offence as extracting a substantial part all at once.  This is why OSM 
cannot adopt the Wikipedia philosophy of allowing databases to be copied 
one entry per article.


(On fair use and fair dealing, these terms are not well defined in 
English or US law, but one element of them is generally that it should 
not be to the commercial disadvantage of the rights owner, and another, 
at least for the UK, is that there must be a public interest in doing so.)


IANAL TINLA


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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-london] New OSM London Meetup - Invite

[David Woolley]

On 09/05/17 07:14, Andrew Hain wrote:

Does it include stations belonging to Network Rail?


I believe many stations are owned by train operating companies, not 
Network Rail.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Open Litter Map now online

[David Woolley]

On 25/04/17 10:44, Dave F wrote:

Unsure how you expect this site to reduce litter. It's not going to
prevent people dropping their waste & it's more productive to contact
your local authority to get fly-tipping debris removed.


+1

Also, by looking at sites that already collect this sort of information, 
e.g. FixMyStreet.com, one would conclude that the map you get will show 
the locations of concerned individuals, not a complete picture of the 
litter, and that, where there is a picture, it can be predicted from 
local sociological and environmental conditions, that are probably 
already well known to the relevant council employees, and their refuse 
collection companies.


My guess would be that the areas with the worst littering problems have 
relatively few concerned individuals, and, in any case, the number of 
individuals sufficiently interested to spend the time needed to lock up 
a GPS and take the photographs, is too few to get even 1% coverage.


(I also found the animation annoying, and possibly even disability 
discrimination violations, and found it difficult work out what you were 
really doing.  I'm still not completely sure.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering Stiles

[David Woolley]

On 05/04/17 10:09, Ian Caldwell wrote:



One of the reasons I think he was adding  name="stile". is that stiles
are not rendered on the standard map. Is there are web based map that
does render stiles? I cannot find one.


It may be possible to create one using uMap.  Unfortunately the English 
instructions are garbled, and half French, and the French ones seem to 
be lacking detail, only giving an example for areas: 




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