Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] West Midlands Fire Service using OSM data without attribution

[Ed Loach]

Andy wrote:

> West Midlands Fire Service announced a new "Risk Explorer" web
> service
> [1] today; it is clearly based on OSM map data, but I can see no
> attribution,
> 
> I have pointed this requirement out to them on Twitter [2] and
await
> their response.
> 
> The site was built by a company called "Shoothill" [3].

If you get a response, they should probably also be pointed at 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/737
as they are still using the a. b. and c. prefixes, and perhaps more
importantly
https://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/tiles/
  
> [1] https://riskexplorer.wmfs.net/map
> 
> [2]
> https://twitter.com/pigsonthewing/status/1719715267003974084
> 
> [3] https://shoothill.com/

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Cosford aircraft

[Ed Loach]

Andy asked:
> We have several of the static, outdoor aircraft at the RAF Museum
at
> Cosford mapped as "historic=aircraft" nodes, but with no tags
giving
> their type, registration, etc.
> 
> An example is:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6249198920
> 
> with others close by.
> 
> Does anyone have the details, please?

If anyone can identify aircraft from slightly blurry photos then
this one
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6249198917
is visible in 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=734140723946844
(taken when I decided to drive a section of NCN81 for some reason
I've since forgotten).

Ed


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[Ed Loach]

> Good point. Also consider that OSM ids have an advantage over
> coordinates, because if an OSM object gets deleted then a query for
> that id will return "Not found". That in itself is valuable information
> to a data consumer.

But rather than being deleted, they may become a different thing, such as:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1/history

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lorries can't limbo

[Ed Loach]

The one mentioned on this list in July 2017 perhaps?

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-July/020359.html

 

Ed

 

From: Peter Neale via Talk-GB 
Sent: 13 November 2020 08:37
To: n...@ijive.co.uk; Jez Nicholson 
Cc: Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lorries can't limbo

 

I am pretty sure that I remember checking bridges in my area some time ago, 
using a tool that someone kindly provided, which flagged up all bridges, where 
the clearance height was not specified in OSM.

 

I regret that I cannot now find the link.   

 

Regards,

Peter

 

 

On Friday, 13 November 2020, 08:26:48 GMT, Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com> > wrote: 

 

 

Added to the Quarterly Project list 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:UK_Quarterly_Project#Bridge_Heights

 

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:56 PM Neil Matthews mailto:ndmatth...@ndmatthews.plus.com> > wrote:

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-reveals-most-bashed-bridge-in-britain-09-11-2020/

Saw this and thought it might suit a small virtual project - to 
check/add bridge heights from mapillary images or similar might be useful.

And maybe network rail have a longer list / more info?

Cheers,
Neil



___
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] ISO 3166-2:GB

[Ed Loach]

The values seem to be in OSM in the ISO3166-2 tag (a couple twice)

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/ISO3166-2#values

 

I tried to get overpass turbo to display them but I either got a timeout or a 
very large amount of data returned. I zoomed in and got GB-ENG, GB-ESS, GB-SOS 
and whatever Suffolk is (GB-SFK) showing, but Suffolk seemed to be under 
England so I couldn’t click on it. I removed ways and nodes from the gather 
generated by the wizard and increased the timeout to get

 

[out:json][timeout:55];

// gather results

(

  // query part for: “"ISO3166-2"=*”

  relation["ISO3166-2"]({{bbox}});

);

// print results

out body;

>;

out skel qt;

 

Ed

 

From: Steve Pointer 
Sent: 26 August 2020 18:19
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] ISO 3166-2:GB

 

Hi

 

Is there a OSM overlay map of any type that shows the Second-level subdivisions 
as outlied in ISO_3166-2:GB

 

So that would be:

 


Code

Subdivision name (en  )

Subdivision category

Parent subdivision


GB-BKM

Buckinghamshire  

two-tier county

  ENG


GB-CAM

Cambridgeshire  

two-tier county

  ENG


GB-CMA

Cumbria  

two-tier county

  ENG


GB-DBY

Derbyshire  

two-tier county

  ENG


GB-DEV

Devon  

two-tier county

  ENG


GB-DOR

Dorset  

two-tier county

  ENG


GB-ESX

East Sussex  

two-tier county

  ENG


GB-ESS

Essex  

two-tier county

  ENG

...

 

And so on?

 

Many Thanks

Steve P

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Ed Loach]

Peter asked (re NCN 51):
> What area is this, please?
> 
> NCN 51 comes near me through Milton Keynes, so I have made some adjustments 
> to the relation in the past (when it was re-routed to avoid going through the 
> middle 
> of the intu shopping centre).

I live near the Colchester to Harwich section, before it takes the foot ferry 
to Suffolk and turns back west past you to Oxford. On the Cycle map layer the 
EV2 labels seem to take priority until you zoom in closer.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Ed Loach]

DaveF replied to:

> > So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t
> > it remain in OSM?

with:
 
> OSM should be using the most up to date data available. In this
> instance
> I think Sustrans saying they've decommissioned a few NCNs &
> publishing
> an updated map is the more accurate information. I don't think the
> relations should be deleted as they're probably to be reclassified (I
> think).

In some cases OSM *is* the most up to date data there is. Locally I watched as 
the local Sustrans ranger (I hope I've got the term correct) added NCN 150 to 
the map after getting home from putting up the stickers - the relation grew 
over the few days it took. I will be leaving the local part of the NCN 51 
relation that has been reclassified for him to update as and when it gets 
re-stickered.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries and Combined Authorities

[Ed Loach]

Colin wrote:

> Thanks for your message. I would like to challenge one point - your assertion 
> that the Regions 
> at admin_level=5 are in "widespread popular use". It is true that many people 
> talk about 
> geographical regions like "the South-East" or "the North-West". But these are 
> ill-defined 
> vernacular phrases and do not refer to the sharply-defined regions that are 
> only occasionally 
> used in governmental areas. If you asked people "is Essex in the South-East" 
> I expect 99% would 
> say "yes"

I must be in that 1% being an Essex resident who lives in the East of England 
(and gets "Look East" as the local news). 

Admin level 5 is the NUTS 1 regions which as far as I know we are still using 
to keep statistics from one year to the next even though we have now left the 
EU. As such it is a meaningful admin level as much as say UPRNs on properties, 
or references on A roads, or fhrs ids. 

There is some argument I suppose for changing from boundary=administrative 
admin_level=5 to boundary=statistical and something to indicate NUTS 1 though 
(type will have already been used for type=boundary).

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bus Routes on OSM

[Ed Loach]

I use the opendata to compare with OSM to identify any changes to routes that 
include any bus stops within the Tendring, Colchester and Maldon districts of 
Essex, then manually update. I usually do this weekly. The app I use to compare 
the data is in github, but I've got a feeling "Add Area" is buggy, and is 
definitely untested since I made a recent change to folder structures so it 
only downloaded the TDNS zips if they were newer than the local copy. I'll see 
if I can get to that tonight (as in test adding Basildon as an area), though 
might not get to it as I'm also ploughing through Tendring district pub social 
media pages for Tendring CAMRA to see what has reopened, or has a planned date 
to reopen, or has said they don't have a date, or haven't posted since March, 
and sorting my town and pun I'm only up to Frinton...

I do document the routemaster relations and when they were last checked on an 
OSM wiki page.

Ed

From: Gareth Boyes 
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 4:47:41 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bus Routes on OSM

All bus routes in Great Britain and Isle of Man are available from 
https://www.travelinedata.org.uk/traveline-open-data/traveline-national-dataset/
 under the Open Government Licence which I believe is compatible with OSM 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Government_Licence.

You will need to apply for access from Traveline.  I applied using 
"OpenStreetMap contributor” as the reason for use and was granted access on the 
next working day. Access is granted to an ftp server that can be accessed using 
an FTP client e.g. Cyberduck.

BTW The traveline request form asks you to provide a password. Make sure you 
provide a unique password that you are happy to be sent in non-encrypted FTP 
request.

Gareth


Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 14:43:55 +0100
From: David Woolley 
mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk>>
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bus Routes on OSM
Message-ID: 
mailto:f16cb285-f304-9272-314b-685a25b59...@david-woolley.me.uk>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

On 06/07/2020 14:02, Matthew Scanlon wrote:
How are Bus Routes added into OSM? I have noticed that bus routes in
Basildon (my local area) are a few years out of date with some service
such as the 5 and 8Ahaving been  withdrawn and the route 2 being
renumbered 28


My understanding is that TfL doesn't licence the information on a basis
that would allow it to be directly used, so OSM rely on members of the
public using the buses, or tracing the routes between bus stops.

How up to date the information is depends on how enthusiastic people are
in an area, and there tends to be a preference for mapping things for
the first time over maintaining existing mapping.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Ed Loach]

I'd suggest only add it to buildings where the address already exists and there 
is a one to one mapping, so we can use unmatched values to see where needs 
surveying.

Ed

Get Outlook for Android


From: Stephen Knox 
Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 12:16:38 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map


On 04/07/2020 08:51, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> I'm not convinced this data should be pulled into OSM. It would add a
> lot of clutter that users would be tempted to move around or delete. In
> areas like mine where I've added thousands of buildings and addresses
> from surveys, it would be making matters worse not better. It would be a
> disincentive to adding more buildings with addresses as the additional
> nodes would get in the way of editing, and because they represent a semi
> random set of things. Because the dataset is fixed I would think it
> should be a layer used alongside OSM by those tools that think it adds
> value. Ideally, OSM itself should support layers, but AFAIK it doesn't.

I don't think there is value in bringing in the points themselves but I think 
there definitely is value in tagging existing buildings / locations with the 
UPRN where it is incontrovertible - e.g. a single unit house. This is the vast 
majority of the buildings in the UK, if not the addresses. There are 
difficulties to overcome with multiple unit buildings, that probably needs a 
lot of further thought and possibly further open data releases to do properly, 
which may appear eventually. How historical values are managed is also a 
consideration to deal with.

UPRNs will not bring any obvious value initially, but will gradually make OSM 
much more useful for the commercial sector, hopefully for everyone's benefit, 
as they can match IDs from proprietary datasets with Open OSM data, and it also 
enables OSM to be used an an authoritative ID for every building - neither 
postcodes nor addresses do that.

Arguably of more use for OSM for the here and now is the change to the licence 
of the UK Land Registry INSPIRE polygons to OGL, which I haven't seen much or 
any discussion of on this list. This means that we now have an authoritative 
reference for boundaries and can use that to alter and check geometries of 
things like semi-detached house boundaries, gardens, hedges etc. 
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inspire-index-polygons-spatial-data.

Stephen


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Ed Loach]

Thanks from me too Robert. Of course the first place I zoomed into was where I 
live. It appears that where the house next door was knocked down (roughly 10 to 
15 years ago at a guess) and two built there are three pins. Checking the 
council's planning portal it was 17 years ago and the application lists 3 
associated properties with one being "Site of former (address that was knocked 
down)". I think it also includes pins at junctions that represent what the 
council call their "street record" in the planning portal, e.g. for 
https://idox.tendringdc.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do?keyVal=JQS696QB03B01=summary

Ed

Get Outlook for Android


From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 5:38:03 PM
To: talk-gb 
Subject: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

I'm not completely sure if/how we can best make use of the new OS
OpenData (UPRNs, USRNs and related links) in OpenStreetMap, but as a
first step I've set up a quick slippy map with the UPRN locations
shown:

https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ (zoom in to level 16 to show the data)

The UPRN dataset literally just contains the UPRN number and its
coordinates (both OS National Grid and WGS lat/lon). There are some
additional linking datasets that link these ids to other ids (e.g.
USRNs, TOIDs). But no address information is available directly. (You
may be able to get street names by matching to OS Open Roads via TOIDs
though. Coupled with Code-Point Open, you might be able to assign
quite a few postcodes in cases where there's only one unit for a whole
street.)

The UPRN data has already helped me find a mapping error I made
locally though -- it looks like I'd accidentally missed drawing a
house outline from aerial imagery, and also classified a large garage
a few doors down as a house. The two errors cancelled out when the
houses were numbered sequentially, so I didn't notice until now. Today
though I spotted a UPRN marker over some blank space on the map, and
no marker over the mapped house that's probably a garage.

Now a few initial thoughts on the data that I've explored so far:

I believe that the UPRNs are assigned by local authorities, so
conventions may vary from place to place. I don't know who actually
assigns the coordinates (authority or OS). Looking at those for rows
of houses around me, they don't seem to have been automatically given
coordinates from the house footprint, it looks more like someone
manually clicking on a map.

The UPRN dataset should include all addressable properties. It is also
ahead of reality in some places, as it includes locations for houses
on a new development near me that have yet to be built yet. For blocks
of apartments/flats, the UPRN nodes may all have the same coordinates
or may be displaced from each other, possibly in an artificial manner.

Other objects also appear to have UPRNs. Likely things I've noticed so
far include: car parks, post boxes, telephone boxes (even after
they've been removed), electricity sub-stations, roads and recorded
footpaths (the UPRN locations seem to be at one end of the street, so
usually lie at a junction), recreation grounds / play areas,
floodlight poles (around sports pitches), and allotments. There's no
information about the object type in the UPRN data unfortunately.

Anyway, I hope some of this is useful / interesting. I hope to be on
the OSMUK call on Saturday to discuss things further. Best wishes,

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker
https://osm.mathmos.net/

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] One-way in Wolverhampton

[Ed Loach]

Wolverhampton Council's Twitter feed provides a link to

 

https://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/parking-and-roads/city-centre-road-changes

 

Ed

-- 

EdLoach

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Farmfoods clean up

[Ed Loach]

If you can't copy the opening hours data, are you sure you can copy the store 
reference?

I've already checked and I used shop=supermarket for their local store, 
probably based on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom

Ed

From: Cj Malone 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:13:04 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Farmfoods clean up

Hello everyone,

I'm intending on doing some maintenance on Farmfoods stores across the
country, and looking for some comments before I do. I've been looking
at it and as far as I can tell Farmfoods has 329 stores, with OSM
having 223 of them. I don't think I'm going to go through Mapillary
images to try and add the missing 106 stores, but I may do.

I'm going to use the nsi recommended tags:

"brand": "Farmfoods"
"brand:wikidata": "Q5435841"
"brand:wikipedia": "en:Farmfoods"
"name": "Farmfoods"
"shop": "frozen_food"

So I'll be unifying on on "Farmfoods" the majority are already tagged
as that with some using "Farm Foods" with various different
capitalisation.

This also means shop=frozen_food, currently they are mainly
shop=supermarket, although a surprising amount don't even have a shop
tag, or invalid tags like shop=food or shop=yes. I imagine this might
be a bit controversial, the standard map on osm.org seems to render
shop=frozen_food as a generic dot and label.

I'll add the website tag to the specific store page, eg
https://farmfoods.co.uk/store-finder.php?branch_code=880.
I can't copy any data from there but I would also like to add opening
hours, I can do this with opening_hours:url. So I can use the above
link or https://farmfoods.co.uk/includes/opening_hours.php?branch=880.
The second link is more specific to opening hours, and might even look
better if a user agent renders the page inline. But I doubt any user
agents do that, and I don't know how committed to those URLs Farmfoods
are, it would be unfortunate if they update their site without
redirects.

I could also add the stores number/branch code. 880 in the above
example. Should I use store_ref or ref:store, neither seem very common
according to taginfo GB.

I've done a similar thing for Asda except I had permission to use data
from there site, so we now have most of the stores (notes for the
remaining) and instore facilities like pharmacies and cafes. See
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/CjMalone/diary/392901

So any comments or anything I should/shouldn't do before I get started
on this?

Cj


___
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] hgv=discouraged

[Ed Loach]

I used motor_vehicle=unsuitable here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26551700 
for want of a better tag. I wouldn't ever drive it, as having walked it and 
seen all the scrapes in the road surface where cars bottom out on the sharp 
transition from the steep slopes up to the bridge to the horizontal bit over 
the railway I wouldn't want to risk the damage to my car. Many people do though 
- presumably in company cars.

Ed

From: Philip Barnes 
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 1:29:00 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] hgv=discouraged

Hi Mateusz
You would need to venture deep into the rural UK to start finding these signs, 
they are quite common around here.
An example here
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Hys6QlJfrRC9fNHsPzeTTQ

This one is just narrow, with few ad-hoc passing places, places to squeeze to 
allow another car to pass but certainly not a hgv. Meet one and hopefully you 
are good at reversing.

One thing that was not mentioned on the international list was there is also 
Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles.

An example here
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/7DD5trbqVEil3AKJCJeJDg

In practical terms the question is what does this mean.
Well its not a good idea for a router to use these roads blindly, so although 
this example I have driven through it many times.
The practical problems are that it is a narrow single track road, no space to 
turn and after a heavy rain it likely to be under deep water which can flood 
and destroy the engine of a modern car.
Would I drive through there tomorrow, well yes. I know it has been dry for the 
last week.

Another here https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/y3zTGNAT7MgGtxoaGXPUvQ
Well its officially an unclassified road, not a green lane or county road, many 
practical roads have this category.

It deteriorates into a very muddy, deeply rutted track. I have walked it, but 
no way would I attempt to drive the full length of it. Premises need to to 
approched from the right end.


Discouraged does seem to be a reasonable tag, effectivly =destination but a hgv 
driver in particular does need to know which end to approch from.

Phil (trigpoint)



On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 01:31 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
I created
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:hgv%3Ddiscouraged
based on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access content
and what I found on internet.

Triggered by post on an international mailing list by someone who was unaware
that we have a way to tag "Unsuitable for Heavy Goods Vehicles" signs.

I never was in UK, but content at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
about "discouraged" value seemed to be a good idea.

Review is welcomed - is it matching reality and how OSM community maps such 
objects?

This new page should be found by
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=%22Unsuitable+for+Heavy+Goods+Vehicles%22=Special%3ASearch=Go
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=Unsuitable+for+HGV=Special%3ASearch=default=1
searches

(and that was primary reason for creating it).


___

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] Motorway junctions where the slow lane seperates from the through lanes

[Ed Loach]

See also 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes

which has some quite good notes on how to map lanes. I suspect this is how 
OsmAnd knows to give me lane guidance (can’t think how else it could know).

 

I suspect based on that you’d want to begin your new way for the drop lane 
where the lane splits away from the main carriageway, with an earlier split for 
lanes=3, turn:lanes=slight_left|through|through with lanes=1 on the new way and 
lanes=2 on the main way after the split.

 

Ed

 

From: Paul Berry 
Sent: 14 January 2020 13:15
To: Mike Parfitt 
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Motorway junctions where the slow lane seperates from 
the through lanes

 

Hi Mike,

 

Interesting points and no easy answer I fear.

 

I think in mapping terms the midlines of each carriageway after the diverge 
will look more like a upside-down Y and I tend to do a bit of smoothing to make 
it look less abrupt. I think this is what you're getting at (apologies if not). 
It's not dissimilar to the situation where a single-carriageway road splits 
around an island: because the way is drawn as a line—not an area—the 
carriageway split is always going to look more dramatic drawn that way compared 
to the smooth continuous reality of what's on the ground.

 

In the situation of a lane drop don't forget to keep track of the lanes= 
in the keys.

 

It might be easier if you just go ahead and map as you see fit then post the 
changeset link if you want further commentary.

 

Regards,

Paul

 

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 08:26, Mike Parfitt mailto:m_parf...@hotmail.com> > wrote:

The technical term is a drop lane.  This might later intersect with a 
roundabout, join with another motorway or primary road etc.  Between junctions, 
a single way for each direction is commonplace.  At junctions, there are ways 
for the through lanes and for traffic exiting and entering the motorway.

For example, on a 3-lane motorway with 3 lanes going in one direction and no 
junction anywhere near, the way would typically be placed along the centre of 
lane 2.

However, when lane 1 is designated as a drop lane, what was being mapped as 1 
way needs to split into 2 ways.

The question is where ?

There are various anticipatory changes in road markings well ahead of the 
physical separation of the asphalt, together with blue and white signs, some of 
which precede the first of the changes in road markings.

In the case described above, my convention is to pick the start of the shorter 
dashes between the drop lane (1) and the through lanes (2 and 3).  From then 
onwards, the way for the through lanes is mapped along the longer dashes 
dividing lanes 2 and 3, while the way for the drop lane is mapped along the 
centre of lane 1.

Others do it differently.

See "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual; from 
where you can download "Traffic signs manual chapter 5 road markings (2019)" 
which is a PDF.  Page 82 contains figure 7.7 and text documenting drop lane 
road markings. 

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data

[Ed Loach]

You'll probably get comments about import guidelines but I did similar for 
Tendring about 9 years ago before there were any. I think your use of the word 
import in this scenario may be misleading as you're not bulk importing the 
whole coastline but selectively improving sections of coastline by manually 
improving existing data by using a small subset of available opendata.

If you're using JOSM you can remove excess nodes (which I didn't know at the 
time and have tried to clear up a bit since).

Coastlines take some care when editing so you don't flood the country; from 
your post and the lack of any recent issues you've proved you can handle this.

Coastlines change over time - locally a coastal protection scheme added a few 
fish tailed groynes to MHW so I replaced that short section when the data 
became available (too recent to trace from imagery).

OSM is a process of continual improvement. I would say if you are doing small 
areas manually with care rather than bulk importing the whole coastline then 
carry on doing areas if you're willing to maintain them too.

Best wishes,

Ed

From: Borbus 
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 8:38:39 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data

Hi,

I've recently done an import of coastline data from OS VectorMap into OSM 
around The Wash. I did this because I'm interested in coastal regions and the 
coastline was a complete mess in that area. I'm sure it's similar in other 
parts of GB as well.

The mess often happens because mappers don't necessarily know what a 
"coastline" is (I didn't before I researched it). For land-based maps the 
coastline that is shown is generally shown is mean high water level. The other 
"coastline" that is also shown on land-based maps is the mean lower water 
level. The bit between these lines is the intertidal zone. This is admittedly a 
bit less interesting, but it's certainly useful when there are causeways and 
other features in the intertidal zone. The actual high and low tides can be 
higher or lower than the means. The tide varies throughout the month and the 
highest highs and lowest lows are called spring tides. Nautical charts will 
show the lowest low, not mean low.

This seems like quite difficult data to obtain so using OS seems to be the 
obvious choice here. I'm pleased with how the import went in The Wash. It 
integrated well with the existing OSM data around the coastline. It's certainly 
a lot easier to integrate than groundwater but it does require a lot of manual 
processing.

But before I start importing other areas (I'm looking at the Blackwater estuary 
next), I want to discuss it with others because I'm concerned that the way I've 
done it could negatively impact other mappers.

The data as it comes is essentially the two coastlines as described above: MHW 
and MLW. The MHW can just replace the existing coastline in OSM. It adds many, 
many more nodes to the coastlines, and possibly more ways too. The MLW along 
with MHW then can form multipolygons containing the intertidal zone, which is 
mapped as a wetland=tidalflat.

Using the coastline to make multipolygons means the coastline is broken up into 
many, many small ways. One concern is that the GB island multipolygon will 
become very hard to maintain. On my computer JOSM is very slow to operate when 
I load this multipolygon.

So before I continue I'd like to give people the chance to tell me to stop and, 
if necessary, suggest a better way to do this import. Or maybe people wouldn't 
like to see this import done at all. Personally I think there is value in 
integrating the data but some may disagree.

Happy mapping,

Borbus.

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Downloading Slippy Maps / User-Agent

[Ed Loach]

I've recently written an application to download (non-OSM) information 
automatically by basically automating what I previously did manually. In case 
the people who run the site I'm downloading from  wonder why I'm only making 
three calls to complete the authentication and download the data rather than 
all the extra ones their javascript/php site does at the same time (to check 
things for display etc) I included a descriptive application name to explain 
what the data was for, and an email address in case they wanted to reach me.

Ed

> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Simpson
> Sent: 09 July 2019 13:54
> To: talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Downloading Slippy Maps / User-
> Agent
> 
> "..set it to something that uniquely identifying your application,
> rather than using one from a web browser"
> 
> Thanks for the comment. I take your point and I've now created a
> unique
> user-agent, identifying the OS and application description, which
> works.
> 
> Since the standard Python agent is blacklisted,  there does not seem
> to
> be much documentation on how small non-browser applications
> (using very
> simple HTML techniques) should format their user-agents.
> 
> --
> Iain Simpson
> 
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data [Thread 2]

[Ed Loach]

Stuart wrote:

> Even more so in bus stations. The name Derby Bus Station (actually 
> just "Bus Station” in the locality of Derby) applies equally to all 29 
> bays in the bus station. “Bay 1” through “Bay 29” are the indicators.

Agreed this is useful when adding the stops for the mapper, but unless we are 
going to keep updating the naptan information fields as well as the OSM fields, 
isn't the naptancode (or atcocode) sufficient to check the latest information? 
Take for example this bus stop, imported ages ago:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/474893182#map=19/51.88949/0.89687=T
It has "naptan:Indicator"="Stop T" but "local_ref"="Fa" which might well be in 
the naptan indicator field now, but for a local mapper they are more likely to 
update local_ref to what is signposted when it changes than look at the naptan 
fields. And I don't think "opp" or "adj" belong in local ref.

What has been useful when adding routes is stop bearing, but again I can check 
this in NaPTAN data from the reference - it should be obvious in OSM from 
looking at the map. However I did find a few sections of very roughly traced 
roads that were the wrong side of the stops when I was creating the route 
relations, which I used the stop bearing and aerial imagery to sort out. 

Also, I suspect some latitudes and longitudes have been refined in NaPTAN since 
stops were first imported. I was creating one route where the stops showed as 
in the middle, or behind, the buildings fronting the road.

Ed


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data

[Ed Loach]

Silent Spike wrote:
> Would be curious to learn more about your route maintenance process. 
> I have a list of local bus route relations I've been meaning to update, but 
> it's hard to do so without all of the stops mapped (hence my desire to 
> import the available data).

The application I wrote and use is available on github and has some (perhaps 
now a bit dated) notes on use available there:
https://github.com/EdLoach/CheckPublicTransportRelations/tree/develop
The develop branch (above link) is what I'm currently using - I've not created 
a recent release to incorporate bug fixes, so should probably do so when I get 
a moment. I think there might be a current bug relating to adding new areas 
that aren't added in the default locations file on first run, so should 
probably fix that first.

I've avoided the recent tagging discussions emails. The app is written to 
validate against the adopted PT v2 schema as documented in the wiki, with 
additions to handle tagging noted in either the wiki or on this list dating 
from the time of the previous naptan stop import, and that I completely don't 
care about public_transport=stop_position. E.g. I have a "surveyed" property 
based on the various tags discussed previously: physically_present, flag, kerb, 
timetable_case and shelter (which I've taken as signs the imported stop has 
been physically surveyed, though typing this now I wonder if I should exclude 
shelter like I do layby as it can possibly be determined from aerial imagery - 
I just know I haven't locally):
https://github.com/EdLoach/CheckPublicTransportRelations/blob/master/CheckPublicTransportRelations/MainForm.cs#L365
(this is in the method that takes the OSM XML and converts it into one of by 
BusStop objects).

Basically it compares the OSM data with the Opendata and I try and fix 
discrepancies manually, either tweaking the route relations that have changed 
or by adding new route variants if required. I have occasionally been rate 
limited by overpass since I added a hyperlink column to zoom to a stop, rather 
than doing click on naptancode cell, ctrl-c, switch to JOSM, ctrl-f, ctrl-v, 
enter, check whether more than one node has been selected (as for example 
1500IM111 might match all these without adding extra bits after ctrl-v: 
1500IM111, 1500IM1110, 1500IM, 1500IM1112, 1500IM1112Y, 1500IM1114, 
1500IM1114Y, 1500IM1115, 1500IM1116, 1500IM1117, 1500IM1117Y, 1500IM1117YB, 
1500IM1117YC, 1500IM1119) - if I get limited I just take a break for a while.

The application isn't clever enough to know when a particular route variant 
runs, so if you run it at an unfortunate time you might find you add all the 
current route variants and all the ones that replace them starting soon so are 
also in the file, and next time you run the application have to delete half of 
what you added the previous time. A recent route change did give me forewarning 
of when a new roundabout on the A120 was about to open when a new route variant 
appeared, changing from the old route as it passed through a village near the 
new roundabout, to head northwest towards the roundabout instead of north to 
the gap in the dual carriageway that was due to close when the roundabout 
opened.

Ed



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data

[Ed Loach]

David wrote:

> Given that few people like maintenance work, if you can't map all
> the
> stops from first principles, it is very unlikely that imported ones will
> get maintained.  Retaining the NaPTAN tagging is important in
> allowing
> any later remerge of the updated NaPTAN data.

I've been regularly updating local bus route relations (all now upgraded to PT 
schema v2) in Tendring [1], Colchester [1] and Maldon [2] areas of Essex. This 
involves more maintenance than just the bus stops (which for Essex were 
imported some years ago). I've written a program to help me with this, 
comparing the opendata with the OSM data so I can work out what needs updating.

Occasionally I encounter a bus stop used by a bus route which wasn't imported 
previously. In these cases I add the stop from NaPTAN (based on their latitude 
and longitude) and add the tags:
highway=bus_stop
public_transport=platform
source=naptan
naptan:verified=no
name=(NaPTAN name)
naptan:AtcoCode=(whatever)
naptan:NaptanCode=(whatever)

If the bus stop type is not MKD I add

naptan:BusStopType=(bus stop type)

and if the status is not "act" I add

naptan:Status=(status)

This last one is very rare as I think it is only once that I've found a deleted 
bus stop still part of a bus route (the road had been diverted and new stops 
installed - the old stop was on what is now a cycle path).
 
> Another problem with NaPTAN stops, which applies to non-OSM
> users as
> well is that they have virtual stops in Hail and Ride areas.  Routers
> seem to only like people boarding at those place, so, in my case, can
> take me about 7 minutes out of my way against the direction of
> travel,
> so tell me I have missed a bus that could be easily caught.

I'll agree with this. I've been adding them at the NaPTAN location as described 
above if they aren't already in, but these are occasionally up cul-de-sacs 
(usually at the start or end of the route). 

Ed

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tendring(Essex)/Bus_Routes
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maldon(Essex_District)/Bus_Routes



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric car charging points

[Ed Loach]

Robert wrote:

> As it happens, I've just started having a play with this data. I
> haven't got a full comparison tool working yet, but you can get an
> idea of how the NCR data compares to what we currently have in
> OSM at
> https://osm.mathmos.net/chargepoint/progress/ (click on one of
> the
> postal areas on the map to see that data for it).

I see what you mean about completeness of the data. I checked the CO postcode 
area which seems to have 5 charge points mapped in OSM and 5 charge points in 
the NCR data, and neither set seem to overlap. I'm aware there is a charge 
point at Harwich International (I remember it being reported as the first one 
in the area when they installed it) but the security barrier at the port 
entrance always puts me off walking down there to find it (I should probably go 
by bus or train, both of which stop near it).

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Increase of mail size limit

[Ed Loach]

Rob wrote:

> Joking aside, please note I'm not asking for much here. A 40kb limit is tiny 
> and 
> people do breach the limit occasionally. In this instance it was ~500kb. I 
> ended up 
> having to put the attachments elsewhere but that delayed the post by 24 hours 
> (it was already late and I decided to delay faffing until the next day). 

I suspect a small limit is designed to discourage attachments, which could be 
hosted elsewhere and links included.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Ed Loach]

I've been generally ignoring this thread, but did spot the handy summary from 
Jarek.

In particular:

> 7. For public transit routing, it appears that having highway_bus_stop
> nodes ("locations where people wait for buses") arranged in order in
> a
> relation is sufficient, per the comments about OsmAnd in Stockholm

I do not use the (documented as optional last time I looked) stop_position 
nodes. The (UK based) opendata I use for maintaining local bus routes[1][2] is 
based on a dataset which includes the latitude and longitude of the stop nodes 
(I add both highway=bus_stop and public_transport=platform to such nodes), and 
the routes data which contains ordered lists of the stop nodes based on their 
reference in the stops dataset. Recently someone "broke" one of the relations 
by removing the stop/platform nodes and adding stop_position ones instead. I 
did leave those stop_position nodes when I added the platform nodes back, but 
ignore them in my validation.

Ed

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tendring(Essex)/Bus_Routes
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Colchester(Essex_District)/Bus_Routes



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?

[Ed Loach]

I'm guessing it was a footbridge, and now needs repair.

From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2019 1:24:22 PM
To: Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?

Is this a footbridge? Or maybe a ford? Stepping stones?

There is a solid handrail, but only a small plank of rotten wood, about
2ft long by 4 inches wide, dropped in the mud:

  http://85a.uk/plank_bridge.jpg

Thanks,

Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

[Ed Loach]

I recently found this gate which I think everyone walks around, but I'll 
probably map it as on the route of the footpath when I get around to looking 
through all the photos from that day. 
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/w2kvnsbGoKkhgIKFMsksLg
Ed

From: SK53 
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 2:00:25 PM
To: Martin Wynne
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

I will often map both the track through the gate & the path over the stile. 
It's usually a matter of judgement as to whether the line of the PRoW should go 
over the stile or through the gate. It's not unusual to find a moribund stile 
in such circumstances, which I map as a standalone node. Keeping all the 
information is, I think, useful. Landowners change usage, or ownership changes 
with accordingly different attitudes to PRoWs, so there's no guarantee that a 
route will go through the gate in a few years time.

As usual, don't worry about how it looks on Carto-CSS: they can't solve very 
rendering problem, and having both gate & stile visible is useful for people 
updating the data. Specialist use for walking could choose to omit the non-PRoW 
elements, or otherwise generalise the data (not widely done yet, but something 
which is generally needed as OSM becomes more detailed).

Jerry

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 13:45, Martin Wynne 
mailto:mar...@templot.com>> wrote:
Often in my travels I come across something like this:

  http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg

  http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg

Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side?

If the latter, which node should the way be connected to?

It's a public right of way on foot, and walkers need to know that they
must climb a stile if the gate is locked. But if you "map what you see
on the ground" (which is the supposed golden rule), it is simply a track
passing through a gate.

If I split the way in two, and have a short section of footpath passing
over a stile *and* a track passing through a gate, it looks daft on the
map, as if there is a Clapham Junction in the middle of a grassy field.

And if I do that, is it essential to split out the short bit of the
track through the gate, from which the public right-of-way designation
(and ref number) is removed?

thanks,

Martin.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[Ed Loach]

Of course, being a wiki, it isn't actually deleted, just marked as deleted. But 
looking at it now I can't see why we'd still want it in the wiki, asking people 
to use possibly no longer existent api end points to test software that long 
since has been tested.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Removal of redundant NaPTAN data

[Ed Loach]

The interactive map on the plusbus site, e.g. 
http://www.plusbus.info/clacton-on-s perhaps has a better display as it shows 
the individual stops and perhaps rather than having the area mapped we should 
add a naptan tag to the stop nodes (for signposted stops I tend to just add 
naptancode and atcocode for stops that are new since the original import, e.g.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4942644320

)

 

Ed

 

From: SK53  
Sent: 04 April 2019 16:17
To: Andy Townsend 
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Removal of redundant NaPTAN data

 

Like Andy I can find these useful, particularly as the ones on local PTE 
websites are very difficult to interpret. However, they suffer from the 
deficiencies of being a) unmaintained on OSM; b) not necessarily reflecting 
multiple bus pass zones; c) being fairly crude hulls of bus stops in the zone.

 

I quickly made this comparison 
  between the 
NAPTAN pay_scale_area (plusbuszone) for Nottingham (orange) and two concave 
hulls calculated with different parameters in QGIS (cyan (0.2) and blue 
(0.15)). All Naptan stops have a field imported into OSM as 
naptan:PlusbusZoneRef, that for Nottingham being NTNG which is what I used to 
identify bus stops for calculating the area.

 

Thus providing information is held on bus stops or (tram & train stops) for a 
given transport zone  these zones can be derived from other data in OSM, and 
indeed can be derived in such as way as to be more informative (e.g. excluding 
sea for coastal towns). It may be worth discussing other ways to store 
information about bus pass zones.

 

Jerry

 

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 11:28, Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com> > wrote:

On 04/04/2019 11:05, Philip Barnes wrote:
> I believe they were the zones covered by plusbus tickets.
>
I believe (and Stuart will know far more about this than me!) they 
predate the widescale adoption of PlusBus in the UK. Certainly when 
PlusBus was introduced in Chesterfield it didn't match the existing pay 
scale area, and since then neither current pay scale area (there is a 
small and a large one) operated by the local monopoly bus company 
matches the pay scale area that was in OSM before I deleted it.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Removal of redundant NaPTAN data

[Ed Loach]

Stuart asked:

> What do you mean by “pay scale”? Are you meaning the definition of a stop as 
> a fare stage, or as part of a zone? 

 

The pay_scale_area ways were the PlusBus zones as they were in 2009 according 
to 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Import

 

e.g. this one for Clacton, which was never correct as it should have followed 
the coastline, not joined the end points directly:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38387713

 

Ed

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Milton Keynes Redways - How to Tag Consistently

[Ed Loach]

How tagging changes over time...

RichardF wrote:
> highway=cycleway, segregated=no achieves all that in two tags
> rather than
> seven. :)

I remember 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_Mapping_Party_2009
where it looks like we (or at least I) only used highway=cycleway, e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34669428/history

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] We're missing changes to M1 Junction 36 which have apparently been in place for a year.

[Ed Loach]

Paul wrote:

> Jerry,
> 
> No worries. I think I'll still pop down for a survey anyway because I now 
> want to 
> try the GPS + car trick and see how it turns out. We'll compare changesets 
> later :)

Much of Clacton was originally mapped using that method, when there was no 
imagery covering the area. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/EdLoach/traces/page/79
When imagery and OS opendata became available it was usually pretty close. I 
was using (and still use) a Locosys GT-31. 

I have seen areas where the uploaded traces and the OSM roads seem to follow 
the pavement in the imagery and suspect it was mapped by a walker who hadn't 
adjusted for not walking down the middle of the road (I'm not talking a 
constant offset here as it depended which side of the roads they were walking).

Accuracy will depend on the receiver and signal reception.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] drawing internal parts of buildings

[Ed Loach]

Marc asked:
> Did you try any of the 2 maps listed on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indoor_Mapping ?
> 
> I tried openlevelup :
> https://openlevelup.net/?l=0#18/52.54051/-0.26289  but I'm not
> sure
> whether I should be able to see the rooms on that one

I think from reading
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenLevelUp
that the shops would need level=0 adding if they are on the ground floor:
"The main tag is level=*, only object having a level value (or member of a 
type=level relation) are shown on map."

About a year ago I added shops in Wolverhampton City Centre, and where there 
were two levels I added -1 on the lower level (as most were at the same level 
as Dudley Street. These show here:
https://openlevelup.net/?l=-1#18/52.58442/-2.12760
but switching levels doesn't show the level 0 shops I added without the tag 
(though does show some things I didn't add that do have the tag).

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] drawing internal parts of buildings

[Ed Loach]

Dan suggested:

> If you want the rendering to do something different, you could raise
> an issue or even get involved in coding the main "openstreetmap-
> carto"
> rendering style:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto

Like perhaps
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2417

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to map houses

[Ed Loach]

Dan wrote:

 

> The more orthodox use is described here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Using_interpolation

 

Interesting. I'm clearly behind with wiki reading. My views on 
addr:interpolation are still based on 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema#Using_interpolation_to_mark_many_houses_along_a_way

 

'We expect this "interpolation way" to be a temporary construct. In the long 
run, OSM will have every single house mapped as a building outline, and every 
single house will be tagged with its house number, so that interpolation ways 
will gradually vanish. However they are good to make a quick start with house 
numbers, and reportedly there's existing data waiting to be imported that will 
also require interpolation.'

 

In fact I've gone as far as removing some interpolation ways where the 
individual addresses can now be worked out from aerial imagery (usually these 
are ways added pre-Bing).

 

Ed

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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to map houses

[Ed Loach]

BD asked:

> can some one tell me, what is the best way to map houses in residential area. 
> 
> Which one should we consider the most appropriate way to map longer building 
> comprised of few properties?

I'm not sure either of your two examples are the best way, and I suspect the 
answer is likely to be "opinions vary".

Your example of individual houses would, in my opinion, be the better of the 
two if it had house numbers. The long buildings with nodes to mark house 
numbers are better than nothing. Buildings with no other information than just 
an outline are nothing but visual clutter which makes it harder to see where 
still needs address surveying without zooming in close (I'm sure my opinion 
will upset a lot of people who spend ages sitting there tracing them, but when 
I've come to add house numbers in the past it is often easier to delete the 
building outlines and start again).

Here are some other examples you might like to look at.

Maldon, Essex
https://osm.org/go/0EFrpAyFq?m=
Being picky, I think the individual property boundaries are perhaps a bit over 
the top, but if they are going to be added then there probably needs to be 
access to the house from the street rather than a solid barrier.

Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham
https://osm.org/go/euzN_rS4l--?m=

Nottingham
https://osm.org/go/eu8bMaoJB--

East Dulwich
https://osm.org/go/euuuXeO_c--

Clacton-on-Sea
https://osm.org/go/0EHmQd7ib

Apart from the last I just picked places at random and zoomed in. The level of 
detail varies, but what seems to be common is the individual outlines with an 
address on each.

I hope this helps,

Ed



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

[Talk-GB] Plumb Center (etc)

[Ed Loach]

I originally sent this from an unsubscribed email address. If the
list maintainer sees this, please don't release the original copy.

Ed

-Original Message-
From: Ed Loach 
Sent: 28 October 2018 10:32
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Plumb Center (etc)

After spotting that the Clacton store has re-branded to Wolseley I
noticed on their website [1] this is national:
"Wolseley replaces these 5 brands: Plumb Center, Parts Center, Drain
Center, Pipe Center, Climate Center" (logos replaced by plain text).

I thought I'd mention it in case anyone here has a store local to
them that needs checking for the rebranding completing.

Ed

[1] https://www.wolseley.co.uk


___
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

[Ed Loach]

Tobias asked:

> In United Kingdom, how do you tag roads signed with this sign?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_622.1A.svg

Based on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions

I'd go with something like
access:hgv:conditional=no@(weight>7.5)
with added :forward or :backward if only signed at one end of a given road.

Ed



___
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

[Ed Loach]

Stuart wrote:

> I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask them
> to review the arguments for both sides and come to a firm decision.
> That’s what we elected them for, after all. 

I didn't. I thought OSM UK was to promote OSM in the UK, not decide what we can 
and can't map.

Ed


___
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

[Ed Loach]

Warin wrote:

> OSM users can easily remove stuff in there pre filtering of OSM data.
> So it is not an issue for them.

I missed the start of this thread (it was last month - I was nomail) but agree 
with this. If OSM user's want boundaries from OSM then they can quite happily 
set up a filter to only get those tagged boundary=administrative or 
boundary=ceremonial (which has long been used) or boundary=vice_county or 
boundary=political or boundary=traditional or whatever. My relation boundary 
checker [1] (which I discover is still running daily) slightly separates out 
the results into different pages based on boundary=

I'm not sure what the difference is between boundary=ceremonial and 
boundary=traditional (I believe the ceremonial counties generally include the 
districts which were in the county but now are unitary authorities so not in 
the boundary=administrative).

Ed

[1] http://loach.me.uk/osm/boundaries/Default.aspx


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Wickham Market, Suffolk

[Ed Loach]

Chris wrote:

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

At the top of their home page that's true. Lower down they get off the fence 
and write "Please do take a look at our PhotoGallery of our beautiful village"

http://wickhammarket.onesuffolk.net

Ed


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

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

[Ed Loach]

I missed the start of this thread as I was away, but there are some unnamed 
roads in England with houses on that just have a postal address in the format

house name, hamlet name, parish name, postal town

or at least there is the one where I commented on this note:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1390266

for this way

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26465561

 

Ed

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

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

[Ed Loach]

Mateusz wrote:

> Also, OSM Inspector anyway is not useful at all for offline tag listing on 
> map 
> during survey, on a phone (my particular usecase).

Funnily enough I've added FIXME tags when out surveying with my phone 
(Vespucci). FIXME pre-dates the fixme wiki proposal (if you dig out the 
proposal you'll see a discussion on the talk page about FIXME vs fixme when 
FIXME was still in the majority if you excluded an import which added 140,000 
fixme entries) - indeed I didn’t even know there was a wiki proposal. The 
discussion on that wiki talk page decided it didn’t really matter about the 
case if I recall rightly, or this change would have been done years ago. If the 
edit does go ahead then I'll try and remember to use fixme, though perhaps 
notes make more sense than hiding things in tags and instead of changing case 
the proposal should be to extract the FIXME's to notes to increase their 
visibility.

Ed


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

[Ed Loach]

Clifford wrote:

> There is a good website that explains the separate way approach 
> http://opensidewalks.com
> I know the people who put it together and they convinced me it's the better 
> approach.

I would say separate ways make more sense in urban USA where you can't cross 
the road just anywhere, see e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6251431.stm

In the UK I would use sidewalk tags where the pavement (sidewalk) is only 
separated from the road by a kerb, and separate ways where there is something 
more (such as grass verge or fence or whatever). In the cases of verges I would 
then make sure private driveways, etc that cross the footpath are mapped so 
pedestrians can see the obvious places to cross without getting their shows wet 
should the grass be wet. You can still do things like sidewalk:surface if you 
want, and it appears many do:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=sidewalk
Otherwise you start needing relations to show where separate sidewalk and road 
ways allow you to cross, or put arbitrary joining ways at intervals. Admittedly 
this method of mapping doesn't cope with the situation where there is a verge 
so narrow you can step across it without stepping on the grass.

Ed 



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

Re: [OSM-talk] GDPR introduction

[Ed Loach]

Andrew asked:

> Yes that does help clarify my concerns too. I still wonder if someone 
> outside the EU can go ahead and publish the full metadata included 
> OSM database under the ODBL outside the OSMF, or in the worst case 
> local communities outside the EU can still publish their regional extracts 
> with metadata publicly.

I am not a lawyer, but a quick Google search suggests the answer is no, as the 
legislation applies based on the data subject being in the EU, not the 
processor - see for example "Why non-EU companies should care" in 
https://econsultancy.com/blog/69282-how-should-non-eu-businesses-prepare-for-the-gdpr

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposal for simplification of mapping public transport

[Ed Loach]

Stephen wrote:
> If a consumer doesn't care about stop_position members, it's trivial
> to
> ignore them.  If the current spec says they're mandatory, then
> propose
> making them optional; I would support that.  I don't support
> prohibiting
> or removing them.

They are optional in the current spec. I don't bother with them in bus route 
relations as physically a bus has to stop on a relation member way close enough 
to the bus stop (platform) node for passengers to get on (with the exact stop 
position depending whether the particular bus has doors at front, middle or 
rear).

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Post offices that have closed

[Ed Loach]

For a temporarily closed one near here, I just changed the opening hours to 

Mo-Su closed

(the convenience store it is in is still open).

 

Ed

 

From: Adam Snape  
Sent: 06 April 2018 17:35
To: Andrew Hain 
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Post offices that have closed

 

Hi,

One of my local ones is currently closed with an uncertain future ("temporarily 
closed" according to the POL data). I've changed it to 
disused:amenity=post_office and opening_hours=closed with a note. Ideally the 
tools ought to be able to understand the disused: lifecycle prefix on post 
offices. I'm not sure what I'd do for a post office which had been replaced 
with something else.

Regards,

Adam

 

On 6 April 2018 at 17:15, Andrew Hain  > wrote:

What is a suitable way to identify post offices no longer in use such as 
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/branch/19408 to the maintenance tools?

--
Andrew 


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

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Next quarters project: Post Offices

[Ed Loach]

Thanks Robert.

 

I’ve been trying to track down some of the local unmapped ones. 

 

This one I need to update (thanks to the ex-parish clerk who is regularly on a 
pub quiz team with me confirming):

http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/branch/24436

The actual location is the Memorial Club accessed from Harwich Road, but 
probably closer to the Lodge Road postcode.

 

This one is proving more elusive:

http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/branch/90116

It has a postcode in Ramsey village, has but the name of a  different village. 
I tried contacting the Ramsey & Parkeston Parish Clerk and they suggested I 
contact Great Oakley, which suggests it isn’t in Ramsey at all (their village 
hall is on Church Hill the other side of the A120).

 

However there is one in Great Oakley Village Hall on Monday and Thursday 
mornings: http://www.great-oakley.co.uk/calendar.php which doesn’t seem to be 
mapped or missing. This used to be Tuesday afternoons and Thursdays according 
to this 2001 article when it first started: 
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/5478106.Great_Oakley___Use_or_lose__your_post_office_service/
 Ah – and according to that article it was being run by the operator of Upper 
Dovercourt Post Office, which is on a Main Road, but not the one in Ramsey 
which is indicated by the post code. So I think that must be the one, only 
3.5km away from where the post office think it is, and with different opening 
hours.

 

I’ll tag it as you suggested, perhaps also with the id as mentioned in your 
earlier email to help match them.

 

Ed

___
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

[Ed Loach]

I asked:
> > 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?

David replied:
 > 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.

Thanks. That suggestion allows me to find there are already 306 
amenity=post_depot in the UK (according to taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk) and 
while it doesn't have its own wiki page, searching "everything" led me to the 
post_office talk page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dpost_office
where it is suggested, which may explain the high number. 

There was also a relevant thread on this list in January 2014 "Royal Mail & 
Parcelforce delivery offices" which also suggested post_depot for delivery 
offices.

Thanks again,

Ed


___
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

[Ed Loach]

Looks interesting thanks. I found a postbox that had recently been re-tagged as 
a post office by a new editor straight away.

One of the unmatched items is the delivery office in Frinton-on-Sea (the 
counter services have moved to the Co-Op). 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?

Thanks

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Ed Loach]

> All that is left to be sorted out is should all the current
> addr:postcode entries logged against the street ways be replaced
> with
> postal_code 

My suggestion is don't worry about it. Data consumers can easily check for 
both, and as soon as the actual addresses be mapped the tag (whichever) should 
be removed from the road anyway. In fact most data consumers are more likely to 
use CodePoint Open as a more complete dataset anyway.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project: Petrol stations

[Ed Loach]

It looks like amenity=charging_station is documented in the wiki as only for 
nodes. As they don’t let you use your mobile phones or jump start cars on 
petrol station forecourts, I suspect that any charging stations will be 
positioned far enough from the pumps area that a separate node to indicate the 
location makes sense. Most that I’ve seen so far have been in parking areas 
(supermarkets, Center Parcs, etc.)

 

From: Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 09 January 2018 23:25
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project: Petrol stations

 

Hi all,

Just to let you know that I have re-set up the TagInfo scripts that get daily 
data about our quarterly projects. I hadn't realised that it had stopped some 
time in mid-2017 so assume not many people use this.

 

As a reminder, it is a script that collects data from TagInfo UK on a daily 
basis and saves it to a google spreadsheet. I have set it up to track 
amenity=fuel for this quarterly project:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G9KXfp4Ho3fVROO9MxotcYTydl9CEXB_fi5ko2pM5Kc/edit?usp=sharing

 

Do we want one as well for amenity=charging_station? I'm personally not sure as 
it looks like in the future there will be a roll out of EV super-chargers at 
existing amenity=fuel sites rather than at stand-alone charging facilities.

 

p.s. How do I indicate that a petrol station also has EV charging capability? 
The wiki on fuels [1] doesn't allow for this and only mentions electricity in 
the case of BBQs!

 

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fuel




Rob

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Ed Loach]

I've checked the only one near me, in Clacton, and the address details in 
OpenStreetMap are correct and the proposed address changes are wrong.

Ed

> -Original Message-
> From: Ilya Zverev [mailto:i...@zverev.info]
> Sent: 03 November 2017 09:56
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations
> 
> Hi,
> 
> You might remember a few months ago I discussed here importing
> of Shell fuel stations. The data provider is Navads, which has a
> contract with Shell for putting their stations on the map. They asked
> me to proceed with the import and sent an updated list of the
> stations. I have prepared an import and would like to do it in a few
> days.
> 
> Please help me review the data. Here is the updated map:
> 
> http://bl.ocks.org/Zverik/raw/ddcfaf2da25a3dfda00a3d93a62f218d/
> 
> And here is a list of changed tag values for existing fuel stations, for
> your convenience:
> 
> https://pastebin.com/KvxiZ9mc
> 
> This import will be made from Zverik_imports account and will be
> described at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Navads_Imports
> page.
> 
> Ilya
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Misrepresentation of OSM by HOT?

[Ed Loach]

> At the same time it seems (at a
> first glance) there is not a single link on the site to OpenStreetMap.

At a quick glance the "Learn" page explains the first thing you need is an 
OpenStreetMap account, and when I clicked "Login" it asked me to allow access 
to Tasking Manager 3 (probably as I was already logged in to OSM - otherwise 
I'm guessing you get to login or signup).

Ed


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

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

[Ed Loach]

> For anyone else reading, we're talking about
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postcodes/stats/
> 

When I drilled down a bit I found an NG column with a * in it, e.g.
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postcodes/stats/CO/CO13/

In this instance I think the 4 CO13 3 codes are PO Boxes but fall just below 
your threshold of 5 but am wondering if NG is non-geographic?

Thanks

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Bus stops suspended

[Ed Loach]

If they’re physically still there leave the nodes there but temporarily remove 
them from the affected route relations?

 

From: Andy Mabbett [mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk] 
Sent: 03 October 2017 08:51
To: talk-gb-westmidlands 
Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Bus stops suspended

 

For a supposed "trial period" a number of bus stops in Birmingham have bel 
withdrawn from use:

 

https://www.tfwm.org.uk/news/trial-closure-of-little-used-bus-stops-in-bid-to-speed-up-journey-times/

 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/your-bus-stop-going-axed-13681495

 

How should they be tagged, given the hope that they will return to service? Has 
anyone done this yet?

 

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

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

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

[Ed Loach]

Ew. Bus route relations are a real time consuming pain to maintain. It is 
possible to get both the Naptan data and the Traveline data under OGL

https://data.gov.uk/dataset/traveline-national-dataset

https://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan

(though one requires you to register for an ftp login to download it, and you 
need to remember to convert to WGS84 where appropriate).

 

The Traveline data conforms to a nasty standard which I can in some cases read 
using a program I’ve written to display all the route variants for a given 
service number. For other routes I’ve resorted to trying to parse the XML in a 
text editor. If I get chance I’ll see if I can get the code I wrote into github 
(possibly VB.Net, possibly C# depending how long ago I wrote it). You stick the 
route files in a folder, browse to that folder to get a list on the left, click 
on one of the files to get a list of route variations top left, and see more 
information on a selected route variation below once selected. That shows stop 
references you can get from the naptan set if you can’t already find them in 
OSM.

 

I’d also recommend documenting the relations and when they were last revised. I 
subscribed to an email from Essex County Council which should report route 
changes, but I don’t think I’ve kept up to date with those. I occasionally also 
hunt similar news on the Suffolk website. Checking

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tendring(Essex)/Bus_Routes

I’ve not done the May changes I read about and haven’t even got the new X76 
service in the table. I’ve only included routes that pass through the Tendring 
district which is where I live. If you have more active mappers nearby you 
might want to combine the pages (e.g. if there were a Colchester  or Ipswich 
mapper doing bus routes I’ve already done some which cross the district 
boundary).

 

For national express routes I just include stops as I’m not sure how fixed the 
routes between them are – I’ve caught for example one from London back to 
Clacton and when it got nearer Clacton it only stopped at the stops where drop 
offs had been booked, and didn’t divert for example to Jaywick but took a 
shorter route to Great Clacton. (That example doesn’t happen to be in that wiki 
page for some reason – I need to check the 484 is still running.)

 

As it mentions on the Tendring routes wiki page I mentioned above I had hoped 
to automate the validation – write a program to point at the wiki page, the 
latest naptan and traveline datasets, and then download each route master 
relation and its route member relations in turn and check whether they are 
still correct. This is still probably months (years?) from even being started.

 

Ed

 

From: Brian Prangle [mailto:bpran...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 10 July 2017 12:52
To: Talk GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

 

Hi everyone

This will be to improve bus route relations and station entrances, by popular 
vote on OSMUK Loomio channel.

Bus route relations can be tricky for the uninitiated ( and even for the 
initiated ) so perhaps this quarterly project could do with its own wiki page, 
pointing to existing tutorials or developing some new ones. Any volunteers?

 

Regards

Brian

 

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

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

[Ed Loach]

Split it at the parish boundary?

 

From: Bob Hawkins [mailto:bobhawk...@waitrose.com] 
Sent: 04 July 2017 10:15
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

 

I have discovered a situation in South Oxfordshire where a single bridleway has 
two route codes: 160/28/* and 368/15/*.  The Definitive Statement Remarks read, 
“Also numbered BR 15 in Stoke Row” for Checkendon parish and “Also numbered BR 
28 in Checkendon” for Stoke Row parish, which is borne out by the Oxfordshire 
Countryside Access Map.  Keys cannot be duplicated - prow_ref in this case - so 
I wonder what the solution might be?  I have in mind any Overpass Turbo or 
other queries that might be made, which will return one case only at the moment.

 


 

 

Virus-free.  

 www.avast.com 

 

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

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

[Ed Loach]

Rory wrote:

> To chime in, and say I think it's OK to have external ids/refs
> like this. I've done an import which added such a ref and use that tag
> elsewhere. I can totally see the benefit for this w.r.t. to make it
> easier for OSM to interoperate with other datasets. With the
> obvious
> caveat, of "don't rely on it too much, the OSM community might get
> rid
> of it"

I'd add that such references should at least be documented on the wiki, ideally 
with a link to somewhere the reference can be entered to see what the source 
provided information-wise.

A quick wiki search finds lots of ref type fields that have been documented. 
I've not checked how many can be verified. e.g. sustrans_ref, ref:mhs, 
PMSA_ref, ref:INSEE, ref:isil, ref:FR:PTT, ref:zsj, ref:whc, ref:ERDF:gdo, 
ref:ruian:building, ref:sandre, uic_ref (and then I stopped scanning the search 
results).

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Attenuation Ponds / Sustainable Drainage schemes

[Ed Loach]

That seems to be what I settled on too, e.g. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/189511931

 

Ed

 

From: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net] 
Sent: 07 May 2017 17:35
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Attenuation Ponds / Sustainable Drainage schemes

 

[not cross posted]

I have mapped some largish attenuation ponds as landuse=basin, basin=detention 
here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.7810/-0.4483

These are specifically described by the council, who commissioned them, as 
flood alleviation. These are supposed to work by quickly filling during heavy 
rainfall and slowly emptying into the conventional drainage through a 
restricted outfall thus spreading out the rainfall and preventing flooding.

-- 
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

 

On 07/05/2017 17:22, Steve Brook wrote:

Many new UK housing estates are required to be built with Attenuation Ponds / 
Sustainable Drainage schemes as part of their development. These are to control 
rain water runoff during storms and consist of a pond surrounded by an 
embankment with a controlled release structure to slow down drainage of the 
water to the river system.  

 

The relevant features might be

*   Low or normal water level of pond
*   High water level or top of embankment
*   Land use/vegetation between low/high water marks is water 
tolerant/marsh plants
*   Structures for water input and output – often brickwork and filter 
screens round a pipe.

 

Has anyone any experience of mapping and tagging such a structure? 

Are there any examples of where this has been done?

 

Steve

 






___
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] OSM Postcode Checking

[Ed Loach]

How sure are you that 'Old Postal Unit' isn't just that the postcode got left 
out of the update by mistake?

It's just that checking the first two CO postcodes in the list, the businesses 
there still seem to be using the 'old' one on their websites, e.g:
https://www.eastofengland.coop/travel/eld-lane-colchester
http://www.glynhopkin.com/renault/our-locations/renault-colchester/

Thanks,

Ed


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

Re: [OSM-talk] No changeset discussion box - Modified via wheelmap.org?

[Ed Loach]

James asked:

> wasn't it like 30 minutes without activity it'll close?

 

One hour

https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/master/app/models/changeset.rb#L41

 

Ed

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Is there a problem with the standard tile rendering

[Ed Loach]

I /dirty ‘d a couple of tiles (at z19 and z18) and they seem to have rendered 
OK.

 

Ed

 

From: Ian Caldwell [mailto:ian1caldwell+...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: 01 March 2017 09:22
To: Talk GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Is there a problem with the standard tile rendering

 

Two days ago I add some buildings at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.09396/-2.33114 and they have yet to 
appear on the standard tiles. They are on the Humanitarian tiles.

 

I thought it might be a caching problem but I have tried it on different 
browsers, application, machines and networks. 



Ian

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate ways in multipolygon relations

[Ed Loach]

Nev asked:

> is there a JOSM plugin to assist with duplicate ways?
> 
> We have been given explicit permission to use a good data set of
> shapefiles that define boundaries for the OSM.



> I am a new user to QGis and wonder if the splitting and conflating of
> the shapefile to be merged can be done in QGis prior to introduction
> to JOSM and then would only need to sort out areas between
> adjacent relations.

Not sure about QGIS but have you looked at OGR2OSM?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ogr2osm

> Is it best not to bother doing this anyway or even preferable to leave
> all the polygons as individual entities with overlapping ways?

I'd say no to leaving them as individual entities with overlapping ways. 

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Review of Solihull naptan data

[Ed Loach]

How many of those also have physically_present=no (so definitely a bus stop, 
but no pole) as described here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Surveying_and_Merging_NaPTAN_and_OSM_data#physically_present

?

 

Ed

 

From: Brian Prangle [mailto:br...@mappa-mercia.org] 
Sent: 08 February 2017 12:35
To: OSM Group WM 
Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Review of Solihull naptan data

 

Hi everyone

I've found 39 CUS stops that are marked with highway=bus_stop. Over 60% were 
edited by reliable mappers so I'd trust our data mostly I think it will be 
where CUS stops have been upgraded by TfWM sticking a pole in the ground.

I think we can live with any anomalies unti an automated edit  updates this 
data.

Regards

Brian

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto database schema change

[Ed Loach]

Dave wrote:
 
> One improvement/correction?: The wooded area South of Greyfield
> Wood:
> https://lua.osm-carto.paulnorman.ca/#15/51.3189/-2.5230
> 
> Last edited 2 years ago. OSMI doesn't flag it up as a problem & it
> appears to have just one shared start.end point.
> 
> Cycle/Transport/Human all render it.

So does the LUA one - it is the current live layer which doesn't which suggests 
to me that for whatever reason it failed to end up in the rendering database. 
Try editing it slightly to bump the version number - should fix it I think.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Named landuse polygons

[Ed Loach]

DaveF wrote:

> Please be aware this is the talk-GB forum.
> 
> Use of place=farm in Britain is almost certainly misguided. If anyone
> knows of an appropriate location please post here.
> 
> It's not use of the tag itself that's the problem, it's contributor's
> misinterpretation of it.

When was it redefined? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:place=373452
place=farm - A distinct identified farm at the node so tagged. In some 
countries the official type of a residential area smaller than a hamlet 
(Germany: Gehöft).

My reading of the proposal for place=isolated_dwelling
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling
is that place=isolated_dwelling is like place=farm but for places that aren't 
farms. This suggests the description on the place=farm wiki page is wrong.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging a multilvel building

[Ed Loach]

Mark asked:

> Does that make sense? If so, how do I do it?

For similar reasons I've avoided mapping the Mander Centre in Wolverhampton 
which has 1 level of shop entrances on Dudley Street, 2 in the middle, but 1 
again on Victoria Street. Due to the hill the Dudley Street ground level and 
Victoria Street ground level aren't the same one (hence the two levels in the 
middle).

I suspect 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:level 
might be applicable, but the fact that the 0 (ground) level on opposite sides 
of the shopping centre isn't the same makes me wonder how best to tag.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Monitoring OSM changes (was Re: natural=heath)

[Ed Loach]

Adrian wrote:
> I did set up some changes-in-a-given-area RSS feeds from ITOworld
> years
> ago (I'd explain what they are better, but while the feeds still work
> I've forgotten my login to go and get the tool's name :-D)

You might not have forgotten your ITO world login - if you have an RSS feed and 
follow the url the login from that doesn't work. 

You have to already have logged in via http://www.itoworld.com in your browser 
before clicking on the url in the email.

Or at least that works for me.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Wolverhampton Railway Station access from 8th January 2017

[Ed Loach]

A GPS trace is in the upload queue. I’ll try and get more details from my 
dashcam though it was fairly misty at 8am this morning.

 

Ed

 

From: Brian Prangle [mailto:br...@mappa-mercia.org] 
Sent: 01 December 2016 13:26
To: Ed Loach
Cc: OSM Group WM
Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Wolverhampton Railway Station access from 
8th January 2017

 

Hi Ed

I can do this - might not be exactly on 8th Jan

Regards

Brian

 

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ed Loach <edlo...@gmail.com> wrote:

I've just been reading about the changes that will take place early next year 
at this link

 

http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/article/10057/Access-to-railway-station-and-car-park-to-change-in-New-Year

 

and wondered if anyone here will be in the area to get a GPS trace of the new 
short stay car park once it opens?

 

Looking at the area as it is now in OpenStreetMap:

 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.58648/-2.12107

 

from a routing point of view bicycles will need to push their bicycles across 
the foot bridge, but as that ends on a pedestrian area I suspect very little 
currently will be able to route that way. A survey of that area from a cyclists 
point of view after the changes might also be handy.

 

Looking at the proposed changes the following section of Corn Hill seems to be 
missing, so it is perhaps possible the derelict building mentioned in the note 
has been removed to make the new short stay parking area:

 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/294503793

 

but a survey will be needed to check.

 

I'll probably be in Wolverhampton at some point between now and new year, but 
don't know when I'll next be visiting after the 8th January.

 

Thanks and best wishes,

 

Ed

-- 

EdLoach


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

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ideas for quarterly projects

[Ed Loach]

SK53 mentioned:

> In Tendring poleclimber adds notes from planning applications. 

And we try and check them fairly regularly. He also updates
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/tendring-openstreetmap-notes_97621

I agree trying to close notes would probably not be a good project - it should 
be an ongoing task to resurvey notes to check them.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Wolverhampton Railway Station access from 8th January 2017

[Ed Loach]

I walked past yesterday and uploaded some Mapillary images and made an estimate 
based on what I could see. There is also a good chance I’ll be in Wolverhampton 
on 8th, so will try and get a GPS trace of the bit that is currently fenced off 
(and if I can get the phone in the car taking Mapillary or whatever 
OpenStreetView is now called images, I’ll try that too).

 

Ed

 

From: Brian Prangle [mailto:br...@mappa-mercia.org] 
Sent: 01 December 2016 13:26
To: Ed Loach
Cc: OSM Group WM
Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Wolverhampton Railway Station access from 
8th January 2017

 

Hi Ed

I can do this - might not be exactly on 8th Jan

Regards

Brian

 

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ed Loach <edlo...@gmail.com> wrote:

I've just been reading about the changes that will take place early next year 
at this link

 

http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/article/10057/Access-to-railway-station-and-car-park-to-change-in-New-Year

 

and wondered if anyone here will be in the area to get a GPS trace of the new 
short stay car park once it opens?

 

Looking at the area as it is now in OpenStreetMap:

 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.58648/-2.12107

 

from a routing point of view bicycles will need to push their bicycles across 
the foot bridge, but as that ends on a pedestrian area I suspect very little 
currently will be able to route that way. A survey of that area from a cyclists 
point of view after the changes might also be handy.

 

Looking at the proposed changes the following section of Corn Hill seems to be 
missing, so it is perhaps possible the derelict building mentioned in the note 
has been removed to make the new short stay parking area:

 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/294503793

 

but a survey will be needed to check.

 

I'll probably be in Wolverhampton at some point between now and new year, but 
don't know when I'll next be visiting after the 8th January.

 

Thanks and best wishes,

 

Ed

-- 

EdLoach


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

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Summer quarterly project

[Ed Loach]

Dan wrote:

> Town-centre blitzes can lead to out-of-date data very quickly. Town
> centre data is better to have in OSM if it has maintainer(s). Jerry
> acknowledged this, but I still would like to register a concern about
> that!

I'll agree that it is better to have a maintained set of data, but once it is 
mapped it is easier to maintain. Locally I added Clacton town centre and while 
I know there are some shops I currently need to resurvey I did do three the 
other lunchtime when I went to collect my new pair of glasses. With Vespucci on 
my phone I was just able to tap each building in turn to check whether it was 
correct or not, and if not update it there and then (a couple of instances 
where it needed more complicated editing I added a note and fixed those when I 
got back). It is the initial survey and mapping which takes the time.

But out-of-date data remains a problem - after all look how many Lloyds TSB's 
remain
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=Lloyds+TSB#values
and the Lloyds and TSB names split in September 2013.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Summer quarterly project

[Ed Loach]

Paul commented on John's suggestion:

> Speed limits would be a good one, although impossible to armchair-map unless 
> you know 
> something I don't. Also, would it stem the tide of useless speed limit notes 
> from Navmii GPS users?

I can't guarantee it would stem the tide of Navmii speed limit notes, but I 
added lots of speed limits locally when Skobbler were creating MapDust notes 
and it seemed to stem that tide.

I like Robert's fhrs suggestion - I keep meaning to cross check what is and 
isn't mapped against the fhrs list but haven’t got around to it. Making it a 
project might spur me to do so.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

[Ed Loach]

I’m not sure which of your data sources give which bit of your rendering, but 
at about TM 151 312 (and I can’t get search by grid reference to find this 
location – slightly NE of Bradfield, Essex) you have both the correct route for 
the Essex Way (as in OSM, here-ish http://osm.org/go/0EHx9iB1-- ) where it has 
been diverted north and south of where it passes under the railway, and also 
show the pre-diverted footpaths (not in OSM) which used to cross the fields 
diagonally.

 

But generally I think it looks great.

 

Ed

 

PS: I just tried searching for the grid reference without spaces, and then it 
seemed to work.

 

From: Luke Smith [mailto:luke.sm...@grough.co.uk] 
Sent: 06 September 2016 16:03
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

 

I mentioned a while back that grough was developing a composite map, blending 
OSM data with OS OpenData to fill in the gaps, and using public rights of way 
data directly from the local authorities which have released it. Over time, 
hopefully we will rely progressively less on other data sources.

 

I'm happy to say there's now a beta available, at http://geo.gy/ with more 
details about the project at http://map.grough.co.uk/. 

 

There'll also soon be a 3D version available, building on the prototype at 
http://3d.geo.gy/ to cover all of Great Britain and improve the controls.

 

The source code behind generating the maps is open source, although not 
suitable for on-the-fly tile generation because of the preprocessing. The idea 
was to create a map which could be printed and used at a fixed scale (1:25,000 
scale), with labels moved around to avoid obscuring detail etc.

 

If anyone has comments or advice for us, it would be gratefully received. We're 
aware of some issues already, so this is only a beta release. Similarly if 
anyone would like to use the maps, we'd be more than happy to help if you run 
into problems.

 

Luke

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Admin boundaries for unparished areas - how to handle?

[Ed Loach]

I don’t think we should be mapping things as parishes then adding an extra tag 
to say “this isn’t a parish”. It isn’t an administrative area so shouldn’t have 
an administrative boundary. 

 

At best you could perhaps use something like boundary=unparished_area (no admin 
level needed, though I suspect people might add 10 so they can extract the full 
set by admin_level) to keep it separate from the admin and political boundaries.

 

Ed

 

From: Colin Smale [mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl] 
Sent: 20 August 2016 13:34
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Admin boundaries for unparished areas - how to handle?

 

Hi everyone,

There have been some discussions in the past couple of weeks about unparished 
areas, i.e. areas in England which are not part of any Civil Parish. Civil 
Parishes are given an administrative boundary relation with admin_level=10 to 
represent their entity as an administrative area. But the unparished areas are 
not, because by definition they are not an administrative entity.

In the East Midlands Alex Kemp has been adding relations for these unparished 
areas, only distinguishable from Civil Parish relations by means of the value 
of the "designation" tag. This is contrary to our normal practice and feels 
counter-intuitive - why add an object to OSM which by definition does not exist?

To an extent I can understand his rationale. Without these areas there are 
holes left in the coverage at admin_level=10, and often these areas can be 
correlated to places or former administrative entities, giving more-or-less 
obvious candidates for names in many cases. Doing this is alleged to improve 
the behaviour of Nominatim, which sometimes struggles with the complex 
structures in the UK compared to many other countries. However they are NOT 
administrative entities, and to tag them as such would be wrong. Words like 
"tagging incorrectly for the renderer" come to mind.

So, ahow *should* they be tagged? What should be done with these unparished 
areas? Should the existing relations be reverted? Retagged to something else? 
Should we document this and encourage other admin boundary maintainers like me 
to replicate the pattern across the whole country?

Best regards,

Colin

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] wrong tag "tunnel_name""bridge_name"

[Ed Loach]

Checking taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk there are 1957 bridge_name
compared to 633 bridge:name - is the wiki's use of bridge:name
perhaps the mistake?

 

Ed

 

From: heimlik...@mail.com [mailto:heimlik...@mail.com] 
Sent: 09 August 2016 18:25
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] wrong tag "tunnel_name""bridge_name"

 

Hello OSM UK Community, 

I found a some tunnel_name   and
bridge_name   in United Kingdom and
I think we should use correct "tunnel:name" and "bridge:name".
I can do this in a single edit, but only if this is OK for the local
mapper.

regards from South Tyrol

luschi

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

Re: [Talk-GB] wrong tag "tunnel_name""bridge_name"

[Ed Loach]

Historically the bridge wiki page didn't have the bridge:name
suggestion, and the only suggestion was that on the talk page

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Naming

which suggested bridge_name. I was unaware of these recent
(pre-2012) changes

 

Ed

 

From: heimlik...@mail.com [mailto:heimlik...@mail.com] 
Sent: 09 August 2016 18:25
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] wrong tag "tunnel_name""bridge_name"

 

Hello OSM UK Community, 

I found a some tunnel_name   and
bridge_name   in United Kingdom and
I think we should use correct "tunnel:name" and "bridge:name".
I can do this in a single edit, but only if this is OK for the local
mapper.

regards from South Tyrol

luschi

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Next Quarterly Project

[Ed Loach]

Are we going to need to discuss tagging?

 

I tend to put landuse=farmyard on the way around the farmyard and name=

 

I then put the address details on the farmhouse building, and just trace the 
other buildings and add a building tag (perhaps building=barn or 
building=stable if I know for certain, but often just building=yes).

 

Random example here: http://osm.org/go/0EHzKANQU-

 

Ed

 

From: Brian Prangle [mailto:bpran...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 30 June 2016 18:13
To: Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Next Quarterly Project

 

Hi everyone

A new quarter starts tomorrow so we need a new topic.  How about farms?  Or 
more precisely landuse=farmyard. These are major landmarks in rural areas, 
often with sizeable buildings and usually named in OS StreetView. The only data 
I've found  so far is that there are approx. 100,000  recipients of EU farm 
subsidies and taginfo with approx 14,000 farms mapped in OSM - so a long way to 
go.  There are obvious problems with just armchair mapping - some farms seem to 
be little more than caravan storage, some have transformed into equestrian 
centres, small industrial parks or become just residential - so lots of 
encouragement for long walks or cycle rides in the country during our glorious 
English summer

Those of us in mappamercia want to try and concentrate our efforts in one place 
as this makes a more obvious difference to the map - so we'll be concentrating 
on the county of Herefordshire, which is generally sparsely mapped. You're all 
welcome to assist, or to suggest a similar place in your own region.

Rob Nickerson will be setting up a taginfo script to show us a running daily 
total.

 

Happy mapping!

 

Regards

Brian

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS open map local polygon accuracy

[Ed Loach]

The shapes themselves aren’t particularly accurate, if you look at say building 
outlines and compare to Bing. It shouldn’t take long to find a non-rectangular 
building on Bing which has been approximated to rectangular in OS Open Map Local

 

Ed

 

From: ro...@beardandsandals.co.uk [mailto:ro...@beardandsandals.co.uk] 
Sent: 06 June 2016 14:45
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] OS open map local polygon accuracy

 

Hi,

I have been looking at the OS openmap local vector dataset. I noticed that the 
coordinates in there are centimetre level accuracy. I am speculating how the OS 
made this dataset a "nominal viewing scale" of  1:1. Scales are somewhat 
irrelevant to vector data. Have they degraded the geometry points by thinning 
or averaging, or is the data still at survey level accuracy? I have some old 
(paid for) OS master map data. It would be interesting to compare the polygons 
in there with the the openmap local ones. But before I search my loft for the 
disc, has anyone already done this?

Roger

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Project

[Ed Loach]

Christian asked:

> As schools.mapthe.uk is an import project to osm:
> 
>  Does the community `buy in` to this approach?
>  Can I go forward to contacting osm imports?
>  What would you like to see as improvements?
> 
> As usual silence counts as approval ;-)

I missed earlier emails on this subject but have had a quick play now. 
Instructions seem very lacking. Why do I get the option to add an OS OpenData 
polygon when the school is already mapped? That is likely to lead to 
duplication. 

Or is it just because I'm seeing live tiles but we’re using api06 data for 
comparison?

When I clicked Add to OSM nothing seemed to happen, so I tried again. So I 
added it twice:
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85444
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85445

Why is it adding a simple closed way as a multipolygon relation? Why not put 
the tags on the way?

In the example changesets above, it is adding the website key with a blank 
value. I'm not sure blank values need adding.

The changesets could probably use "source" tags to show where the data has been 
added from.

When I clicked on "Add to OSM" I thought it might both add the multipolygon and 
open my default editor to allow me to trace buildings within the polygon, and 
any other details visible from Bing. Is this possible?

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Defibrillator Mapping

[Ed Loach]

I've just emailed the East of England Ambulance Service to let them know their 
current worksheet of locations has the postcode of the Wivenhoe Co-Op store 
against both the Wivenhoe location and the Brightlingsea location (which should 
be CO7 0BT).

Discrepancy spotted thanks to
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/defib/progress/CO/

Best wishes,

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] defibrillators - was: phone boxes used for other purposes

[Ed Loach]

I spent some time not that long ago trying to survey all the ones in Tendring 
using the list available at 

http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/Get-involved/Community-Public-Access-Defibrillators.htm
 

as a starting point of where to look.

 

I’ve fed back to them some spelling mistakes that are on their list (they’ve 
not corrected them yet), and mentioned one that they aren’t aware of (I need to 
get Morrisons at Waterglade in Clacton to let them know officially before they 
can add it). There are also a couple on their list that I can’t find. Possibly 
inside the swimming pool and office that are mentioned, but not externally 
accessible outside opening hours when I surveyed, so they aren’t in OSM yet. I 
might try and get back during opening hours at some point, but this suggests we 
might need opening hours tags (or maybe access tags if they are only for 
customers, for example) for those not always accessible.

 

I used Overpass to view them

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cgh

 

The reason I mapped them was because our CAMRA branch decided to apply for some 
available funding to purchase some for local village pubs, getting the funding 
for all three that we applied for. One of the conditions was that there weren’t 
any near where we were applying to add another. So I needed to know where the 
existing ones were, and the overpass map seemed perfect for that. One of the 
pubs that was originally suggested already had one on the outside. Anyway, the 
three have been delivered to the pubs, and the one I know has been attached to 
the pub I mapped yesterday. One of the other two is (or will be) at the pub 
around the corner from another new one I need to survey

http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/532309

as it appears the different funding sources don’t co-ordinate (or the Firs 
decided to get their own). The final one is (or will be) at the Plough in Great 
Bentley.

 

This story is another reason why we might want to consider access tags:

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/leisure_centre_did_not_lend_defib_to_school_when_teacher_collapsed_because_of_health_and_safety_1_4462686

 

Ed

 

 

From: Brian Prangle [mailto:bpran...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 21 April 2016 09:57
To: Paul Berry
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] phone boxes used for other purposes

 

Well as we have a healthcare QP running which seems not to have generated a 
community focuslike we did with schools and there's some interest in defibs - 
why not get cracking on this for the rest of the QP?

regards

Brian

 

On 19 April 2016 at 12:21, Paul Berry  wrote:

On the subject of defibrillators, they could make a useful GB mapping
project. They need surveying, but it is something that both urban and
rural mappers could get out and find on the lighter evenings.

 

I quite agree. I've just mapped two near me (one in an old phone box, one 
affixed to the wall of a shop).

 

I suspect there are far more out there than would be apparent from the map: 
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/defibrillators-uk_81299#8/53.635/-2.304

 

Regards,

Paul

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project April-June 2016

[Ed Loach]

With noon rapidly approaching I'll withdraw my earlier suggestion regarding 
deleting sadly-lacking-in-information buildings as part of a future project.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project April-June 2016

[Ed Loach]

I was thinking of a different possible project which perhaps we can postpone 
until a different quarter rather than starting today.

 

There are a lot of buildings which have been traced from various imagery layers 
but with no other useful information on them. Is it a shop, a house, what is 
its address, etc?

 

I was going to suggest that we spend three months trying to gather the address 
information for such buildings, and at the end of the quarter remove all the 
others to give us a better idea of how complete the map is. If we just want 
approximate building shapes we’ve got OS OpenData for that. At the moment they 
give a false impression of completeness, and also make it harder without 
zooming in to work out which areas still need a proper survey.

 

If the project proves successful we could extend it to farmland areas where 
hedges and fences haven’t been added to break up the area.

 

Ed

 

From: Brian Prangle [mailto:bpran...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 31 March 2016 18:53
To: Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project April-June 2016

 

Hi everyone

It seems from the discussion on this topic that you would like a subject 
similar to schools for which monitoring tools can be built relatively quickly; 
will improve the map for the greatest number of potential users; and now we 
might have some better weather, something that needs  some surveying rather 
than rely on too much armchair mapping.

So the suggested topic we start on from tomorrow is Healthcare facilities, 
concentrating on hospitals (get a complete dataset, get detailed site plans,add 
bus routes and stops,do some indoor multi-level mapping etc.) and doctors 
surgeries. Anybody who wants to go off and concentrate on others such as 
pharmacies, dentists etc feel free to do so

I feeel that we should continue background effort on schools to keep some of 
the momentum, and list it as a national ongoing project on the wiki. I'm sure 
Robert's postcode-based completion will continue to be available and RobJN will 
continue to run the taginfor script for schools

Happy mapping

Brian

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] This evening: Night school - Status report

[Ed Loach]

Great news.

 

Is it possible we can add something to the wiki page about an agreed way to tag 
multiple schools on a single site, or schools with multiple sites. I think 
earlier discussions here suggested:

 

For a site with multiple schools (grounds shared, separate buildings) tag the 
grounds as amenity=school, and the name, edubase ref and address details for 
each school on the relevant building.

 

e.g. http://osm.org/go/0EHYuEeGJ--?m=

http://osm.org/go/0EHS4rvGk--?m=

 

For a school with multiple sites, use a site relation, with each site being 
tagged amenity=school with the relevant address on each, and the edubase ref on 
the main site. I’m less sure about this one and have no examples.

 

I also don’t have an example for multiple schools in a single building. If they 
were separate entrances I’d probably put the differing details on the entrance 
nodes, but as I’ve not encountered this I’m not sure whether it happens 
anywhere. Nor if they share an entrance how that would be tagged.

 

Robert’s excellent progress tracking tool also shows adult education centres 
where I have been unable to find an edubase reference, e.g.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203713626

Should they have edubase references? If so how would I find them?

 

Ed

 

From: Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 02 March 2016 00:22
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] This evening: Night school - Status report

 

We did it! 

Today we set the record for the highest number of edits to amenity=school 
features in the UK. Between us we edited 405 schools beating our previous high 
from 18th January.

Looking at the detail we created 202 new school polygons (a 33% increase on our 
previous daily best) and modified 191 ways. The other edits (12) were to nodes. 

We are now at 75.4% of all UK schools mapped as ways (according to Robert W's 
fantastic progress tool). This is up from just 62.8% when we started this task 
at the start of January. All but 10 postcode areas are above 50% complete. When 
we started there was 30 below 50% (8 below 40%). At the top end we have 24 
postcode areas 95+ percent complete. Compared to zero when we started!

A total of 38 people edited during the day - again, another record! And the 
edits of those who used the #OSMschools comment in their changesets can been 
seen at 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-changesets?comment=OSMschool#5/55.838/-1.604

Thanks for the amazing effort today. I hope the MapRoulette task is proving 
popular and will encourage more edits in the least loved parts of the UK OSM 
map.

Best,


Rob

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Ed Loach]

Robert wrote:

> Just a quick note to say that I've updated the matching used in my
> tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/ so that
> OSM
> objects with a ref:edubase, ref:seedcode, or ref:deniirn that
> matches
> an entry on the official list will now always be 'matched' in my tool.
> 
> (Previously the match would only be recorded if the OSM object was
> within 1km of the postcode centroid recorded in the official list.
> Also official list entries with a missing or invalid postcode could
> not be matched at all. Both of these problems are now fixed.)
> 
> This new looseness in the matching is needed to cope with some
> schools
> that have missing postcodes in the official lists, and multiple sites
> and/or use PO boxes for their official address. However, it may lead
> to some false positives, so there is a new report at
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/matching-queries.html
> which
> lists possible problems with the matching that would benefit from
> manual checking.

I think this is an improvement (certainly it has boosted the CO matching by a 
couple of % - though that might also be partly down to the surveys and edits I 
made yesterday).

But the above and my edits yesterday make me wonder if we can settle on a way 
to map two schools that share grounds. I have been tagging the grounds as 
amenity=school, and the separate buildings for the two schools with the 
different ref:edubase etc tags on. These don't get matched - I end up with a 
proximity match for one of the two schools to the school grounds area, and a 
blue dot for the other.
Examples: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/393006341
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/64096389

Similarly there are schools with two sites. For these I put the ref:edubase 
tags etc on the main site, being the one matched by address from the data. The 
second site I don't add anything to, but that leaves it as something which will 
possibly cause a false match based on proximity. Should I add just the 
ref:edubase tag to the second site as well?
example: school 114705 is being matched to a second site, though in this case 
that site is further away and without a ref:edubase than the actual school 
which is closer and does.
False match school: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35732246#map=16/51.8778/0.9127
Second site: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/183160516
Primary site: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305233410

Can we agree best practice for these two cases, so Robert is able to detect 
them and I can remap where necessary?

I also have one situation where I have added the school as a node within 
another building, as a school seems to be something they offer in the building 
with the primary purpose being health related (perhaps hospital isn't the exact 
correct tag - maybe one of the social_facility ones).
http://osm.org/go/0EHZHHjsK?m=
I'm fairly sure though we don't want to start matching to nodes, so am happy to 
leave this showing as unmatched.

Incidentally the Braiswick Primary School on the new possible problems list is 
a new build school (not sure the larger building is finished yet) and either 
the postcode is wrong in the DfE data or the centroid location you have for it 
is way out - I suspect it is using the CO4 centroid rather than anything more 
accurate.

Thanks again for the matching tool. That and OsmAnd made surveying both easier 
and interesting yesterday (as I was letting OsmAnd guide me down lanes I didn't 
know just moving from one point to the next - was interesting to see the GPS 
trace this morning to find out where I'd been). I still managed to miss two of 
the points I'd aimed to survey - those are likely to have to wait until next 
weekend now. I've also found out how to get OsmAnd speaking directions in 
background and have Mapillary taking photos in foreground. Those 2700+ photos I 
think are currently processing.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Ed Loach]

Stuart wrote:

> 1 site, 2 schools:
> • boundary has amenity=school
> • buildings have school names & e.g. edubase tags. I used amenity=school for 
> the individual buildings though, as well as building=school. It should 
> probably 
> only be building=school, really, as the site is the amenity. But this way it 
> gets 
> picked up on the match tool.
> • I would ideally like to have named the boundary e.g. “Hamstel Schools” 
> or “Chalkwell Schools” but haven’t as that will (for now) lead to a false 
> “look at” flag.

I think what you describe as what you’d ideally like to do is what I did in 
those examples I mentioned in my previous email (I can't remember though 
whether I used building=school or building=yes).

> 1 school, 2 sites.
> 
> • I used the site relation, via JOSM. I believe that this is the correct way 
> to do it. I 
> tagged the site relation with the edubase code and names, and the individual 
> sites 
> with the names of e.g. “XX upper school” and “XX lower school”. However, 
> these 
> didn’t get matched.

The site relation page however 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Proposal
suggests it should be multipolygon and not site -
"For example the tag amenity=school describes the perimeter of the school 
grounds, for schools with multiple sites the multipolygon relation can be used. 
Usage of a site relation is not appropriate here."

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Ed Loach]

> > The site relation page however
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Prop
> osal
> > suggests it should be multipolygon and not site -
> > "For example the tag amenity=school describes the perimeter of
> the school grounds, for schools with multiple sites the multipolygon
> relation can be used. Usage of a site relation is not appropriate
> here."
> 
> Hi - it's an interesting ambiguity between "multipolygon" and "site".
> I actually think the thing you quote is a bit mis-worded, and what
> they're trying to say (I'm inferring from the other sentences in the
> wiki page...!) is that you should use "multipolygon" to aggregate
> multiple buildings (for example) that sit within a single grounds,
> whereas you should use "site" to aggregate multiple objects that are
> more widely separated ("scattered throughout across the city" is the
> wiki guidance).
> 
> This shows that OSM could perhaps live without the "site" relation if
> people simply used multipolygons. However I think people tend to
> assume multipolygons are quite localised, which probably makes a
> difference to how they are rendered (e.g. one label for a whole
> multipolygon, vs one label for each member of a site).
> 
> Anyone else got input on this? I might tweak the wiki, if it seems I'm
> not in the wrong.

I personally don't see the difference between our case here (a school with 
multiple sites/campuses) and the university example provided on the page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Examples
Although having said that the amenity=university wiki page suggests a 
multipolygon should be used (an unanswered question on the talk page there asks 
how to put the different campus names on the relevant member areas).

However, I think in the standard render that Site gets no labels and 
multipolygons gets one for each outer way (based on local woods with the name 
all over the place). Not that how things render should affect our choice.

The other bit of text on that wiki page though is "The features should have a 
close geographic relationship, usually within the same town." I'll cling to the 
word 'usually' if we decide to use site relations for multi-campus schools, as 
Colchester Institute has a Clacton campus, and Tendring Technology College has 
the main school in Frinton and the second campus in Thorpe-le-Soken. I've not 
yet worked out what to do about the mapped Adult Community Learning centres 
that don't have edubase refs and are scattered across Essex (there are three 
centres already mapped and tagged as amenity=college in the CO area - Harwich, 
Clacton and Colchester) - this relates 
https://www.essex.gov.uk/Adult-Learning/Pages/Default.aspx

So I'm currently unconvinced by the site relation, especially as the discussion 
on its talk page suggests the proposal is still evolving - it seems I commented 
on it nearly 5 years ago and since forgot.

Ed


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

[Talk-GB] Abbreviations in OSM and schools

[Ed Loach]

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

I've been leaving existing names in the main (occasionally adding VC or VA)
in the hope these are from surveys and are what are on the sign, but some
names are sourced from fhrs or even os opendata. Is the DfE name better in
these cases?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one site

[Ed Loach]

 On 17/01/16 00:08, alasd...@dunakin.me.uk wrote:
> I'd like some advice please on how to tag 2 Schools that use the
> one site.

Lester replied:
> What I've done initially is tagged the buildings of each part with the
> correct name and ref:edubase tag, and not put a tag on the site
> boundary. This I think will throw errors on the progress page, but in
> some cases the sites have a public name ... such as Abbey Park
> Schools
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36626132, but the sites
> in
> Evesham I don't think make the distinction, with in one case 5
> separate
> edubase establishments across two sites. Not sure what to do there,
> but
> tagging the building has to be correct, and the lack of a site name is
> not a problem! So should not be flagged as an error.

I was working through some schools last night and found this example:
http://osm.org/go/0EHYuEbV1--?m=
in Wivenhoe. Already well mapped in my opinion with the fhrs:id already on each 
school's building, so I just added ref:edubase to each building too. In this 
situation the amenity=school tag is on the site with the individual schools 
within the sites having the tags that apply to them (but not an additional 
amenity=school tag). 

There are a few more examples in Colchester where neither school is currently 
mapped where I've added a note that a survey is required to see if they can be 
distinguished, or whether they might need to end up as two nodes in the same 
building even.

Ed


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering idiosyncrasies

[Ed Loach]

Dave asked:
> > > Is anybody able to explain why the wood on the left renders
> > > above the school, yet the one to the right, under?

Martin replied:
> > because areas are sorted by size, bigger is rendered first.

Dave commented:
> I genuinely can't work out if that's said as a joke.

Take for example landcover-low-zoom layer

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/project.mml#L103

Ordered by layer (if present, else assume layer=0) then by way_area

Ed


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.36.0

[Ed Loach]

Richard wrote:

> Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> > Today, v2.36.0 of the openstreetmap-carto stylesheet has
> > been released and rolled out to the openstreetmap.org
> > servers. It might still take a couple of days before all tiles
> > show the new rendering.
> 
> Congratulations to all involved - real dedication to the cause despite
> the
> slings and arrows. Thank you.

Despite my earlier reservations, I have to agree. While I was attached to the 
"proper" colour scheme and couldn't see the reason for the change, now it is 
deployed I can see how this is a clear visual improvement (especially where 
part of the screen has redrawn in the new style and part still shows the old). 

Congratulations from me too.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Restoring a usable map service!

[Ed Loach]

Lester wrote:

> Bing and Google are almost useless, and the new indistinguishable
> rendering primary routes and motorways on OSM once everything
> finally
> re-renders are going to be useless as well. 

As I just posted on talk, I was attached to the old colour scheme and didn't 
want it to change for change's sake, but now it has I can see it is visually 
much clearer than the old colour scheme and I have no problem distinguishing 
between primary routes, trunk routes and motorways. 

I was particularly concerned about tertiary going white, but even those are 
significantly different to residential and unclassified that they stand out 
enough for me to feel it is an improvement.

Ed


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

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

[Ed Loach]

Ah, yes. I had to upgrade to JOSM latest rather than JOSM tested. I would like 
to thank Simon04 for his quick response to my error report 

https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11942

 

Ed

 

From: Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 15 October 2015 23:16
To: Ed Loach
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now 
available

 

Thanks. Have you had any trouble getting the tiles to load in JOSM? When I 
tried I keep getting error messages popping up which made it unusable. JOSM 
does seem to suffer from bugs these days (maybe I have a bad plugin).

Rob

On 15 Oct 2015 08:49, "Ed Loach" <edlo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Done

 

Ed

 

From: Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 14 October 2015 18:04
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now 
available

 

Ed,

Is it possible to add Bing aerial as a layer - it would be interesting to see 
how it compares for tracing. I'll check it out in JOSM but others may like it 
on the website.

Cheers,

Rob

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

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

[Ed Loach]

Done

 

Ed

 

From: Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 14 October 2015 18:04
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now 
available

 

Ed,

Is it possible to add Bing aerial as a layer - it would be interesting to see 
how it compares for tracing. I'll check it out in JOSM but others may like it 
on the website.

Cheers,

Rob

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

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

[Ed Loach]

Some time ago Chris wrote:

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

For about the last eight days I have been following the notes in the blog 
article mentioned above to process and upload the DSM 2m, 1m, 50cm and 25cm 
data for TM01, TM02, TM03, TM11, TM12, TM13, TM21, TM22, and TM23 - the 30km x 
30km area which completely covers the Tendring district of Essex and gets a 
small bit of the surrounding area (Mersea Island, part of Colchester, part of 
south Suffolk including a bit of Felixstowe, for example). The 2m and 1m data I 
generated z9-z18 and 50cm and 25cm I generated z9-z19. This created just under 
1.5 million tiles (which totalled just under 11GB). There were probably quite a 
lot of completely transparent tiles in that number.

Results can be viewed at
http://www.loach.me.uk/Lidar/
with the steps I followed available at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:EdLoach/Tendring_LIDAR

Locally, the 25cm data seems to mainly follow coastlines with patches over 
Colchester and north Clacton (switch off the different layers to see coverage 
of each).

Ed



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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Lidar data - Worcester

[Ed Loach]

For the Tendring 50cm link Rob mentions below I downloaded the DSM data for 
TM01, TM02, TM03, TM11, TM12, TM13, TM21, TM22, TM23 (effectively a 30km x 30km 
square which covers more than just the Tendring district) and followed the 
instructions on Chris Hill’s blog post [1] after unzipping all the files to the 
same folder.

 

z9-z17 is already uploaded on the link below. Z19 has just started uploading 
(and is about 440,000 tiles and 1.6GB) and z18 is still generating – I’ll kick 
that upload off once z19 completes.

 

I’ve done similar with the 1m and 2m DSM data (change 50cm in the link below to 
see the difference in terms of resolution and coverage) – they’re uploaded for 
z9-z18. I picked z9 as that is the zoom level where a single tile covers the 
whole area (then 4 for z10 and so on). 

 

Ed

 

[1] http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/more-lidar-goodness.html

 

From: Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 08 October 2015 21:18
To: talk-gb-westmidlands
Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Lidar data - Worcester

 

Hi all,

We spoke about the Lidar data (height data) at this months Mappa Mercia 
meeting. Chris Hill has kindly offered to process and host some tile in the 
Worcester region. In the mean time here is an example of the 50cm resolution 
data:

http://www.loach.me.uk/lidar/50cm/

Rob

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Cathorpe Interchange

[Ed Loach]

Andy wrote:

> BBC News is reporting that part of the new Cathorpe Interchange
> opened today.
> 
> Does anyone know which part this is, and has it been marked as
> open on the map?

I've seen the follow up emails, but I have gps traces of A14 to M6 from 8pm 
Friday and now don't know whether it is worth using them to update the (then) 
current arrangement which takes M6 bound cars onto the old carriageway that 
used to be for cars in the opposite direction for a time (cars heading the 
other way are on a newer carriageway that I think I've updated previously from 
traces taken when heading home to Clacton).

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Anybody a member of CAMRA?

[Ed Loach]

Dave F. wrote:

> Considering CAMRA's What Pub? website is volunteer, crowd sourced, I was 

> mildly disappointed to see it using Google maps. I've just this minute 

> written an email to them explaining some of the advantages of using OSM.

 

Andrew Black commented:

> My concern is the quality of their location data - they suffer from the

> well known myth that a postcode defines the location.

 

Jerry added:

> The data in WhatPub should essentially be regarded as a commercial dataset

> which has value for CAMRA

and

> On the other hand using an OSM base map ought to be a reasonable thing to

> do.

 

I'm on the CAMRA WhatPub email list and a couple of people have suggested using 
OSM as recently as August (I might have been one).

 

Quick summary:

Each branch maintains the data for the pubs in their branch area, so quality 
varies from area to area

Each branch maintains their data in a system which isn't WhatPub (many use one 
of SPILE, HOPS or Pubzilla, though some have their own)

There are mechanisms for sending updates to WhatPub (CSV import or API)

 

Our branch (Tendring CAMRA) uses Spile (and I maintain the data). When adding a 
new pub you can optionally specify latitude and longitude (I always do) most 
easily by dragging a pin on a Google aerial view. If these aren't specified 
than WhatPub will use the postcode as the best information it has.

 

I agree with Jerry's comments.

 

Dave also wrote:

> Ancillary data such as beer lists, food, opening times etc, is probably 
> valuable to 

> CAMRA, but I don't see it as relevant to OSM. These sort of things change so 

> often, it's out of date almost as soon as it's recorded. Just a tag to their 
> website is 

> needed.

 

If you do add a link, then you don't need all of

http://whatpub.com/pubs/MAN/9899/eagle-inn-salford

the ID is meant to remain the same whether the pub moves branch (if branch 
boundaries change/new branch is formed) and whether the pub name changes so

http://whatpub.com/pubs/MAN/9899/

will work even if the pub name changes.

 

> However a list of just pub names & locations that could be checked against 
> OSM database would 

> potentially benefit both parities. Pubs that are only in OSM could be listed 
> in What Pub as a 'to do' 

> so encourage CAMRA members to pay them a visit. 

 

I mentioned the WhatPub email list. One thread began because of

https://twitter.com/RealAleNet/status/626804090555621377?s=03

so it looks like at that time OSM had about 29,000 pubs (see below - that seems 
low). WhatPub's home page says it has details of over 35,000 real ale pubs (it 
doesn't show how many non-real ale pubs and closed pubs are also in the 
database)

 

> I was trying to find out how many GB pubs/bars there were in OSM. Didn't 
> Taginfo used to have a 

> option to just search the UK? It appears to have been removed. Is there 
> another way?

 

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk

shows 35,387 amenity=pub

 

Ed

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Junction assessment help

[Ed Loach]

I’m not sure we should be looking at Google Streetview, but it still looks 
right to me. From a routing point of view there are two short one way sections 
of road either side of the tree; that other maps lack the detail that OSM has 
is no reason to worry.

 

Ed

 

From: pmailkeey . [mailto:pmailk...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: 11 May 2015 01:19
To: Ed Loach
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Junction assessment help

 

Hi Ed,

 

On 11 May 2015 at 01:07, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.com wrote:

Looks correct to me, based on your description. Do you have photos to make 
things perhaps clearer?

Ed (EdLoach)


Google streetview 
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Downe,+Greater+London,+UK/@51.335983,0.053986,3a,75y,145.59h,79.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scbq2Tackwf2SVGdvobYdfQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x47df54cb87081cd9:0xc2f7d48f9b59089!6m1!1e1
  shows the tree in the road. No other map shows this junction like this (with 
two roads connecting the main road.)


 

-- 

Mike.

@ https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction millomweb - For 
all your info on Millom and South Copeland

via the area's premier website - 

 

currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property  
pets

 

T https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail Cs

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Junction assessment help

[Ed Loach]

Looks correct to me, based on your description. Do you have photos to make
things perhaps clearer?

Ed (EdLoach)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk