Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Ken Kilfedder]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020, at 4:35 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> London is the Post Town. Stratford and West Kensington are not relevant for 
> the delivery of post, apparently.


Every day is a school day.   You're right, those are Postal Districts, not 
towns.   I was sure they used to recommend writing those on the envelope - 10 
years ago - but now everything I held dear is in doubt.


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Ken Kilfedder]

If you search for an address on the RM website, I find that (at least in 
London) it does not suggest the post town is used at all, just "London", not 
"Stratford" or "West Kensington" or whatever.   (I mean here- 
https://www.royalmail.com/find-a-postcode )

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


On Mon, 21 Dec 2020, at 3:59 PM, Adam Snape wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Post towns may be somewhat arbitrary, but they are at least a verifiable 
> national scheme which we can use for addressing every location in the 
> country. That has to have some benefits compared to each individual mapper 
> deciding where they believe each address falls  - easy for many places, 
> likely contentious for others. The other consistent scheme we could use is 
> tagging by local authority but that's likely to annoy just as many people.
> 
> I also disagree with the assertion that post towns are no longer used or only 
> of use to RM. Whilst a street address and postcode should suffice, there is 
> an expectation that post is fully addressed. By including the full address, 
> post can still arrive at the correct address despite an obscured, incorrect 
> or illegible postcode. The advantage of a consistent national scheme of 
> addressing is as useful to other couriers in this regard as it is to RM. If 
> you should use parcel labels supplied by the couriers I have usually found 
> them to follow RM's addressing scheme including the relevant post town.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Adam
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Ken Kilfedder]

> I just add `name`="Fourth Row" to the `building=terrace` for simplicity, 
> although duplicating with `addr:housename` also seems OK.

For these terraces in my neck of the woods, sometimes the numbering continues 
on the rest of the street.   For these, I use a landuse=residential with name= 
set to the name of the terrace.   Like this: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/643172532 . Those houses have the address 
"160 Langthorne Road" etc. and "St. Patrick's Terrace" is of historic/heritage 
interest.  (In my view!)

In other cases, (like this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/870814215 ) 
the house-number sequence is different from the main road. (e.g. there is a "1 
Margery Terrace" and a different "1 Margery Park Road").   So here I've created 
a named section of footway to bear the terrace numbering, as well as a named 
residential area to contain the footway, houses and gardens.   

I don't claim this is the best option - I offer another set of alternatives.   
But at least searching for addresses will probably give the expected result (I 
think?).


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Ken Kilfedder]

> But route-finding software needs to know the legal position. Mapping 
> something as cycles-only, when in fact it can also be used on foot, will 
> break a lot of valid pedestrian routes.

Agreed.  I'm not talking about mapping/tagging for use by route-finding 
software; I'm talking about how logically-tagged ways are displayed on osm.org 
Carto style, and wishing for more types of rendering style.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Ken Kilfedder]

 
> ...this distinction doesn't really exist in the UK. The default legal 
> position for for any public highway in the UK is that any permission for 
> any class of user also includes permission for any class of user prior 
> to that in the hierarchy, unless explicitly stated (and signed) 
> otherwise. 

I'm sure that is the legal position.  However, on the ground it's usually 
perfectly clear whether a way is a cyclepath/cyclelane or a footpath/sidewalk 
etc.   That's a separate issue to who is allowed on it.  


> [..]
> 
> Personally, I think the default OSM map render should follow that 
> hierarchy, with minor highways and paths having a three-way distinction:
> 
> pedestrians only
> pedestrians and cycles
> all vehicles

I think there are enough items that look and act like a cycles-only way to make 
it worth having a fourth item in your hierarchy- whatever the legal position.




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

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

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

[Ken Kilfedder]

Isn't addr:interpolation only for ranges of housenumbers on an interpolation 
way?

In this case the question seems to be about a residential building containing 
only even numbered units?  

If you just say addr:housenumber=2-20, it could mean that 19 is included.  If 
you say addr:housenumber=2;4;6;8;10;12;14;16;18;20 - that might be correct, but 
it seems a bit inefficient. 

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

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, at 3:43 PM, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 10/12/2020 15:37, Mat Attlee wrote:
> > Is there a way when specifying a range for addr:housenumber to indicate
> > it's only for even or odd numbers?
> 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr:interpolation#values
> -- 
> Cheers,
>Jeremy
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Ken Kilfedder]

Following a little research, there was a proposal in the Carto style to do 
something like my 5-point suggestion.   You can read the details here, and 
contribute (or give the 'thumbs up' upvotes to contributions you like:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1321 

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

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, at 3:37 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 12:42, Ken Kilfedder  
> wrote:
> > highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as 
> > at present.
> > highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at 
> > present.
> > highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe 
> > blue long dash interspersed with red short dash)
> > highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe 
> > red long dash interspersed with blue short dash)
> > With segregated=yes - possibly, at higher zoom levels, show blue dashes in 
> > parallel with red - the right way round if possible.
> 
> Something like this would be a big step forwards IMO. "highway=footway
> with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line" this one in
> particular.
> 
> I'm with Richard
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 , highway=path
> is meaningless. I think highway=cycleway is something designed and
> built expressly for bicycles, typically smooth, wide, signed.
> 
> Thus I'd mark a public footpath as highway=footway always, adding
> bicycle=designated if necessary (it is a footpath for pedestrians with
> added permission).
> 
> Similarly, I'd mark a sidewalk as highway=footway, footway=sidewalk,
> adding bicycle=designatedy, segregated=no if it is a shared space
> (again, it is an area for pedestrians with added rights for bicycles).
> 
> The tough case is a sidewalk with a segregated cycle lane (designed
> and built as such). I'd prefer highway=footway for all sidewalks, but
> the segregation implies highway=cycleway, segregated=yes,
> footway=sidewalk
> 
> I don't think highway=path is much use at all really.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Ken Kilfedder]

As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for the 
tags.  It would save a lot of heartarche if the map on osm.org showed 
shared-use paths explicitly.   Perhaps as follows:-
 * highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as 
at present.
 * highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at 
present.
 * highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe 
blue long dash interspersed with red short dash)
 * highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe 
red long dash interspersed with blue short dash)
 * With segregated=yes - possibly, at higher zoom levels, show blue dashes in 
parallel with red - the right way round if possible.
I think that would solve the issue here, and prevent a lot of anonymous notes.

Anyone know off hand where/how to propose this?  Or even willing to help on 
coding up a demo?

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


On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, at 12:24 PM, Thomas Jarvis wrote:
> I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural 
> shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as 
> highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path, 
> bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply to 
> it).
> My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater 
> number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for 
> both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore 
> not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though 
> so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
> His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is not 
> configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as 
> highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88, 
> as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route. Both 
> of which are very much true, and are tagged with the appropriate relations to 
> reflect this.
> 
> I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask 
> the community here to see what the consensus is.
> I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole 
> reason being because it renders differently.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> -- 
> *_T_*homas *_J_*
> ___
> 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] Nominatim oddity

[Ken Kilfedder]

That's the name in latin for the UK, I think.   Is it under name:la, and do you 
have your browser set to latin for some reason?

I was able to set Chrome to Latin, and your URL did indeed have "Britanniarum 
Regnum" for place:country.
But in Firefox, set to English (GB), it just displays as "United Kingdom".

I wonder how many users OSM has in Vatican City?  (Where the ATMs have a Latin 
option, IIRC)

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

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020, at 5:23 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> This may be a dim question, and this may possibly be the wrong place to 
> ask it. But, at the risk of being both dim and out of place... Why does 
> Nominatim return "Britanniarum Regnum" as the country name for objects 
> in the UK? For example:
> 
> https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=21279378=place
> 
> Mark
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

[Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS

[Ken Kilfedder]

Just a quick update-

I've experimented along the lines suggested below - having obtained the list of 
relevant changesets - quite a long list - via OSMcha's changeset filters.   It 
looks like it will all work as expected, so I'll try at the weekend.

If anyone who has been using this imagery would benefit from a step-by-step 
guide, let me know.

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

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020, at 9:32 AM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

> 1.  Is there an overpass syntax that would let me download (to JOSM) - 
> all ways with addr:housenumber added or changed via a changeset with a 
> certain source tag?  (and not updated by something else later)
> 2. Could I then wipe all such addr:housenumbers and re-upload?
> 3. Could I keep a JOSM session file around to reupload the 
> addr:housenumbers once the scanner's copyright has elapsed?
> 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[Ken Kilfedder]

Hi Tom,

IpswichMapper forwarded me this note, apparently received from NLS via an 
enquiry made by Rob-from-OSMF:

> “I wish I could give you better news on the 1940s OS maps of south-east 
> England. 
> Unfortunately, you’re right, they were scanned by a third-party commercial 
> company 
> who have placed commercial re-use restrictions on this layer – there are 
> further 
> details under our Copyright Exceptions list at 
> https://maps.nls.uk/copyright.html#exceptions. These restrictions will last 
> for 
> another couple of years – until the end of 2022 – which I know might seem a 
> long 
> way off, but hopefully will pass quickly. Then we’ll be happily able to share 
> them with the OSM community, along with the rest of England and Wales 
> National Grid 1940s-1960s mapping, that will be of interest too.”



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

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020, at 9:41 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> If we assume that a new copyright is created by the scanning (which is
> a complicated question) then there is no way it expires next year.
> 
> What exactly do you think the term is for this copyright and when do
> you think it starts from?
> 
> I don't think it's relevant anyway as I thought NLS had given us
> permission to use their scans?
> 
> Tom
> 
> On 01/12/2020 09:32, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
> > SO,
> > 
> > It turns out - we cannot use these images until the scanner's copyright 
> > expires at the end of next year.  Happily, it seems like there will be 
> > GB-wide coverage available at that point, not just the 
> > London-Southend-Brighton area.
> > 
> > However, I have been happily using these images for a bit less than a year 
> > now, so I'm looking for advice on How to redact. I've tagged all the 
> > relevant changesets with the name of the TMS, so it should be possible.
> > 
> > 1.  Is there an overpass syntax that would let me download (to JOSM) - all 
> > ways with addr:housenumber added or changed via a changeset with a certain 
> > source tag?  (and not updated by something else later)
> > 2. Could I then wipe all such addr:housenumbers and re-upload?
> > 3. Could I keep a JOSM session file around to reupload the 
> > addr:housenumbers once the scanner's copyright has elapsed?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This has come to light thanks to IpswitchMapper's tireless efforts to set 
> > up a tasking manager for adding housenumber, and thank to Rob-from-OSMF's 
> > communications with NLS.
> > 
> > ---
> > https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
> > spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk
> > 
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, at 10:55 AM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
> >> Hi Mark,
> >>
> >> If there is absolute confidence in that, can it be added to the wiki page 
> >> here:
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland
> >>
> >> And can it be added to the default set of old maps in JOSM?
> >>
> >> If it is available for use, not point in keeping it a secret.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
> >> spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk
> >>
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 6:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
> >>>>
> >>>>  It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967
> >>>>  in NLS is available freely.
> >>>>
> >>>> What are its licensing terms?
> >>>>
> >>>> "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"
> >>>
> >>> It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving
> >>> data from it.
> >>>
> >>> I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for
> >>> wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey.
> >>> House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets
> >>> are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number
> >>> in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still
> >>> the same.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Talk-GB mailing list
> >>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >>>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-GB mailing list
> >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >>
> > 
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[Ken Kilfedder]

SO,

It turns out - we cannot use these images until the scanner's copyright expires 
at the end of next year.  Happily, it seems like there will be GB-wide coverage 
available at that point, not just the London-Southend-Brighton area.

However, I have been happily using these images for a bit less than a year now, 
so I'm looking for advice on How to redact. I've tagged all the relevant 
changesets with the name of the TMS, so it should be possible.

1.  Is there an overpass syntax that would let me download (to JOSM) - all ways 
with addr:housenumber added or changed via a changeset with a certain source 
tag?  (and not updated by something else later)
2. Could I then wipe all such addr:housenumbers and re-upload?
3. Could I keep a JOSM session file around to reupload the addr:housenumbers 
once the scanner's copyright has elapsed?



This has come to light thanks to IpswitchMapper's tireless efforts to set up a 
tasking manager for adding housenumber, and thank to Rob-from-OSMF's 
communications with NLS.

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

On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, at 10:55 AM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> If there is absolute confidence in that, can it be added to the wiki page 
> here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland
> 
> And can it be added to the default set of old maps in JOSM?
> 
> If it is available for use, not point in keeping it a secret.
> 
> ---
> https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
> spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk
> 
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 6:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
> > > 
> > > It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967
> > > in NLS is available freely.
> > > 
> > > What are its licensing terms?
> > > 
> > > "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"
> > 
> > It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving 
> > data from it.
> > 
> > I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for 
> > wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey. 
> > House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets 
> > are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number 
> > in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still 
> > the same.
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Indicating an information board is broken?

[Ken Kilfedder]

Hi Mat,

I'd report it to the council.   You can do so using their (attributed) 
OSM-based reporting tool here:
 *  
https://reportaproblem.hackney.gov.uk/around?lat=51.54986=-0.04421_category=Parking%20signs_group=Street%20furniture%20%26%20amenities=1=6

They'll probably fix it, and the map can stay unchanged.



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


On Tue, 24 Nov 2020, at 5:16 PM, Mat Attlee wrote:
> On my survey I noticed that the information board at Homerton Grove - 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6507230158 - is broken and currently lying 
> on the grass. What would be the correct way to tag this?
> 
> ___
> 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] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[Ken Kilfedder]

Hi Mark,

If there is absolute confidence in that, can it be added to the wiki page here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland

And can it be added to the default set of old maps in JOSM?

If it is available for use, not point in keeping it a secret.

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

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 6:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> 
> 
> On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
> > 
> > It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967
> > in NLS is available freely.
> > 
> > What are its licensing terms?
> > 
> > "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"
> 
> It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving 
> data from it.
> 
> I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for 
> wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey. 
> House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets 
> are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number 
> in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still 
> the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[Ken Kilfedder]

I've made extensive use of these tiles for numbering tasks in London E15 and 
E7.  But you are right that more up to date material is needed.  Bing gives me 
the more modern building outlines,  and I then do some spot checks of the 
NLS-sourced housenumbers when I survey the newer buildings.

But I don't recall any instances where NLS was 'wrong' for buildings that are 
still standing.  Maybe the odd 45 vs 45a etc.

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

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 6:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> 
> 
> On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
> > 
> > It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967
> > in NLS is available freely.
> > 
> > What are its licensing terms?
> > 
> > "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"
> 
> It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving 
> data from it.
> 
> I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for 
> wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey. 
> House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets 
> are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number 
> in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still 
> the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway

[Ken Kilfedder]

These changes should be reverted in my view.

But I would note that the default map on osm.org does a poor job of 
communicating the difference between shared paths (like those in QEOP and 
elsewhere) and dedicated cycle lanes.  Both look like blue dashed lines.   They 
look indistinguishable. So an honest pedestrian mapper might easily jump to the 
wrong conclusion and make changes of the sort you've described below.

Perhaps the right way forward is to suggest changes to how osm.org displays 
shared ways - red dash for dedicated pedestrian, blue dash for dedicated 
cycleway and alternating for shared?   Maybe something to indicate priority?   
Without changes like this, I can see this sort of thing happening again.

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

On Thu, 3 Sep 2020, at 10:29 AM, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> A user has recently changed highway=cycleway objects in Queen Elizabeth
> Olympic Park, London (QEOP) from highway=cycleway to highway=footway on
> the ground that "Olympic Park paths are Pedestrian Priority".
> 
> In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access
> tag and segregated=no has been removed, which breaks cycle routing
> through the path. I am unsure whether this is carelessness, or the
> expression of an agenda which has no place in OSM. If the latter, this
> is vandalism.
> 
> It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing
> cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed
> line to a red dashed line.
> 
> Changes made by Skyguy in:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89374106
> 
> Broken routing by missing access tags (not changing the highway=* tag
> for now) fixed in:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90351366
> 
> Most paths in QEOP are 3 metre wide gold-top asphalt (looks a bit like
> surface=compacted and sometimes mapped as such) and there are no paths
> on which cycling is prohibited. The paths are almost all included as
> cycle tracks in the TfL CID export. QEOP is generally open to the public
> 24/7, but any part can be closed without notice for events.
> 
> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging
> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be:
> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive
> 
> There is nothing in the Wiki which suggests that pedestrians do not
> already have priority on unsegregated cycleways, so the edit seems
> unnecessary.
> 
> The current Highway Code Rule 62 does not make this explicit, but
> pedestrian priority seems a reasonable interpretation of: "Take care
> when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people,
> and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop
> if necessary."
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
> 
> The proposed new Rule 63 could also reasonably be read as strongly
> implying pedestrian priority:
> "Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles.
> When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or
> horse drawn vehicles is permitted take care when passing pedestrians,
> especially children, older adults or disabled people. Let them know you
> are there when necessary e.g. by ringing your bell (it is recommended
> that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely.
> Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and
> that this may not be obvious.
> Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or
> at high speed, particularly from behind. Remember that horses can be
> startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and
> stop when necessary."
> https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders/summary-of-the-consultation-proposals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code
> 
> BCC to DWG because of the impact in cycle routing.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)
> 
> ___
> 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] Eat out to help out data

[Ken Kilfedder]

Not all of these data are top notch.  A couple of examples I've come across - 
some outlets are listed by their company name, or the company name of the 
franchisee, not the brand that appears above the door.   For example Costa 
Coffee outlets appear (at least in some places) as 'Scoffs Essex ltd'.

Also, it seems that some office buildings appear with no obvious food outlet 
inside.

What data are available in the EOHO set that we don't get from the FHRS?

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

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020, at 10:17 PM, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
> Hey Rob,
> 
> if they made up their mind about the license 
> (https://github.com/hmrc/eat-out-to-help-out-establishments/issues/3 - 
> Apache 2.0 is software, not data) the ~100 entries with wrong postcode 
> data 
> (https://github.com/hmrc/eat-out-to-help-out-establishments/issues/18) 
> out of 62k entries would be ok.
> 
> But yeah, it would be great to have some very recent establishment data.
> 
> Grouping the Postcodes, there are
>   38,563 unique postcodes (62.1 % of entries)
>6,326 pcs occur twice  (20.1 %)
>1,800 pcs occur thrice  (8.7 %)
>  611 four times(3.9 %)
>  214 five times(1.7 %)
> ...
> checking those data against the FHRS-OpenData would be relatively easy 
> and very quick to implement and would allow for 96.5% of the entries to 
> be checked. Once one has the FHRS data finding an appropriate OSM 
> object becomes easier.
> 
> Someone™ would have to do the coding and once licensing and usage are 
> clear, the data could be used :-)
> 
> Kai
> 
> On 19.08.2020 22:10, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Anyone considered using the Eat out to Help out data that HMRC have 
> > published to aid with mapping efforts?
> > 
> > https://github.com/hmrc/eat-out-to-help-out-establishments
> > 
> > Prior to this, there was a scraper that collated the data:
> > https://github.com/svenlatham/eatout-scraper
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > *Rob*
> > 
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

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

[Ken Kilfedder]

I should think that in places where there is a good, cycle-dedicated way 
roughly parallel to a canal, a pedestrian-respecting router would recommend 
that cyclists stick to the cycle-dedicated way. 

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

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, at 3:36 PM, Simon Still wrote:
> 

> I’m just struggling to think what the tag would add - either for 
> information or for a routing algorithm.  Also note the the proposals 
> for the highway code would establish and road user hierarchy which 
> would apply everywhere 
> ___
> 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] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Ken Kilfedder]

I believe most of the canal towpaths are 'pedestrian priority' too - at least 
there are signs to that effect all over the place.  Well worth tagging them to 
that effect if true.

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


On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, at 1:55 PM, Simon Still wrote:
> 
> 
> There are many sections of cycle route (such as canal towpaths) have many - 
> rough surface, steep inclines to rejoin roads, width 
> restrictions/gates/barriers to stop motorbikes and tight turning radii.  All 
> of those would create issues for someone using a bakfiets, cargo bike or 
> disability adapted cycle. 
> 
> 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] positioning of shop nodes as entrances

[Ken Kilfedder]

I'm partial to tagging the shop/cafe as an area within the building.   In a 
highstreet scenario, you might have a 3 storey terrace containing mostly flats, 
with cafes and Argos's on the ground floor.   Very well, tag buildings as 
buildings, and tag the amenities as areas (likely most of the floorplan, except 
residential doors leading upstairs), and tag the doors as entrances.

Tagging the amenities as points within the building outline is certainly better 
than adding them to the doors, though.  I'd call that plain wrong.

I've done it that way for 43 to 79 West Ham Lane E15, for example - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53920/0.00438

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

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020, at 4:53 PM, Cj Malone wrote:
> >Personally, I don't like tagging the whole building as 'amenity=cafe' as it
> >is only the downstairs of the building being used for that purpose, which
> >is why they were nodes.
> 
> I agree, it also means that shops on buildings sometimes have `level`, 
> which doesn't makes sense.
> 
> >So, is there any downside to marking the entrance? I can see that it links
> >the cafe node to the building better.
> 
> One down side I can think of is that people might deleted the old node, 
> and make a new one, and copy the tags across. Losing the history isn't 
> ideal, but it's not really an argument against.
> 
> Also is there a way to link entrances to a poi as a node? In the 
> example below Boots has 2 entrances. Could they both be linked to the 
> pharmacy?
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/336202468#map=19/50.70033/-1.29443
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

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

[Ken Kilfedder]

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

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

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020, at 6:25 PM, Tony OSM wrote:
> Reported in Local Newspapers 
> https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/long-awaited-20m-road-linking-18495724
> 
> the road has opened.
> 
> Can anyone point me to a definitive line to allow me to map it, or does 
> anyone else want to map it correctly.
> 
> There is a way marked proposed  in OSM  but I don't know enough to 
> confirm that is the correct path.
> 
> Tony Shield
> 
> TonyS999
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] "secret" site

[Ken Kilfedder]

The GPO Tower (AKA Telecom Tower AKA BT Tower) only started to appear in public 
maps in 1984; despite having been completed in the 1960s and dominating the 
London skyline from many angles, taking up two whole 'blocks' on the ground in 
London W1 and containing a commercial restaurant. 

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


On Sun, 28 Jun 2020, at 4:36 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> 

> On 28/06/2020 00:47, David Woolley wrote:
>> 
>> On the other hand, there used to be part of the North Yorkshire moors that 
>> had "undefined" written over it on OS maps.)
>> 
> Interestingly (assuming you're talking about the radar installation at RAF 
> Fylingdales), at least as of my 2006 copy of OS's OL6 map, the OS was still 
> lacking some of the detail - the military area is missing yet clearly 
> signposted onsite, and the bridleway that runs north of the site is mostly 
> signposted on the ground but mostly missing from the OS map (in OSM 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7600885032 and 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813719250 
> ). There 
> are still some "odd" signposts around such as 
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/fylingdales/IMG_20200531_163604.jpg , but at 
> least no-one's pretending that there's "nothing there" - it's fairly obvious 
> in the landscape: 
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/fylingdales/IMG_20200531_183407.jpg .

> Best Regards,

> Andy

> 

> 

> 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] COVID road changes

[Ken Kilfedder]

There will also likely be a spate of permanent renames of roads associated with 
beneficiaries of the slave trade.   It's all go!

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

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, at 11:35 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Hi,
> It seems that COVID is likely to result in some rapid changes to road
> networks, which OSM will need to capture.
> 
> I saw a tweet today of the area around the Bank of England, and a road
> is now one way with a cycle lane the other way. Obviously I can't
> survey that right now, but Google Maps traffic layer is showing it.
> Really it needs someone to do a survey (unless we can use the City of
> London documentation).
> 
> More generally, I guess we will all need to keep an eye on proposals
> from each council. For example, here is a tweet from last month about
> 50 modal filters (road closures) in just Croydon and Lambeth:
> https://twitter.com/MeristemDesign/status/1260339305261785088 showing
> the scale of the task here.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> ___
> 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] postboxes

[Ken Kilfedder]

You can see when things get updated here: https://osm.mathmos.net/updates.cgi

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


On Sun, 19 Apr 2020, at 4:16 PM, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> I've been using Robert's Postbox tracker to plan dog walks around the street 
> of Brighton (as the parks are too full of people!) Quite surprising how many 
> are missing in my area. I had assumed that they'd been done ages ago. Maybe 
> check yours, or point new mappers at them as a nice starter activity? 
> https://osm.mathmos.net/postboxes/progress/BN/BN1/#13/50.8527/-0.1375
> 
> AnywayRobert, is the update running? I haven't seen the display change.
> 
> Regards,
>  Jez
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Ken Kilfedder]

I can't see an easy way to do a 'twice per week' collection where the 
particular days aren't known. Messing about in the validator 
(https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/ ) and looking at their 
examples (bottom of the screen) suggests that complex cases can be expressed as 
a text comment. Making this 'valid' appears to require a comment for both 
normal times and public holdidays, the latter prefixed by a PH. 

So if you know it's tuesdays and thursdays:
 * collection_times=Mo; Fr

If you know it's twice per week, even on public holidays:
 * collection_times="twice per week"; PH "twice per week"

If you know it's twice per week, but not on public holidays:
 * collection_times="twice per week"; PH off

If you know it's twice per week, but have no info on public hols, this might be 
the best compromise:
 * collection_times="twice per week"

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


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


On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, at 10:43 AM, Patrick Lake wrote:
> Hi Ken,

> 

> Yes that seems like a better idea, hadn’t seen that, thanks. Most of the data 
> is in the format mon/tue/fri etc so could be changed into the syntax shown on 
> the wiki, but others just say “twice weekly” – can this just be left as-is or 
> not? As most of this data has been entered by hand it wouldn’t be the easiest 
> task to automate changing all 3000+ into a standard format.

> 

> Patrick

> 

> *From: *Ken Kilfedder 
> *Date: *Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 10:31
> *To: *"talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" 
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

> 

> Hi Patrick,

> 

> For the collection_days tag, it might be possible to use the same tagging 
> syntax as the collection_times for post-boxes and recycling bins. It's on the 
> wiki here-

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

> 

> You can add days or days with times.

> 

> 

> ---

> https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain

> spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

> 

> 

> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, at 10:10 AM, Patrick Lake wrote:

>> Hi Jez,

>> 

>> I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source 
>> of data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential stuff like 
>> planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), however, *will* be 
>> relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we’re doing for 
>> LCC involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and 
>> where the optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points 
>> would be. So we’re keen for it to be accurate.

>> 

>> I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
>> meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the tags we 
>> planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing (obviously we can 
>> change these):

>> amenity=waste_basket

>>  * waste_basket:model=”metal square twin”
>>  * condition=good/fair/poor
>>  * waste_basket:defects=loose
>>  * waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
>>  * lcc:id=1849
>>  * lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”
>> 

>> What do you think?

>> 

>> Cheers,

>> Patrick

>> 

>> *From: *Jez Nicholson 
>> *Date: *Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:04
>> *To: *Patrick Lake 
>> *Cc: *Jake Edmonds , Talk-GB 
>> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

>> 

>> Hi Patrick,

>> 

>> Shame LCC aren't 'dogfooding', ie using their own data, as it does encourage 
>> people to take it seriously. I guess that your regular diffs will spot 
>> discrepancies. I've had problems in the past with benches being removed (in 
>> real life and on OSM) then reappearing because it was just the council 
>> refurbing them.

>> 

>> What do you propose tagging the LCC id as? Or would you like suggestions?

>> 

>> - Jez

>> 

>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, 11:00 Patrick Lake,  wrote:

>>> Hi Jake,

>>> 

>>> No, LCC haven’t told us that they’ll use the data for those sort of 
>>> purposes. It wasn’t part of the specification, and to our knowledge they 
>>> won’t be reliant on it – obviously with it being open data they’re free to 
>>> use it for whatever they would like, but we’ve made them aware that OSM can 
>>> be edited and things can be deleted by users.

>>> 

>>> We currently extract OSM data for different amenities West Yorkshire daily, 
>>> including bins, and  store it in a GitHub repo 
>

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

[Ken Kilfedder]

Hi Patrick,

For the collection_days tag, it might be possible to use the same tagging 
syntax as the collection_times for post-boxes and recycling bins. It's on the 
wiki here-
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:collection_times

You can add days or days with times.


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


On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, at 10:10 AM, Patrick Lake wrote:
> Hi Jez,

> 

> I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source 
> of data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential stuff like 
> planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), however, *will* be 
> relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we’re doing for 
> LCC involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and 
> where the optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points 
> would be. So we’re keen for it to be accurate.

> 

> I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
> meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the tags we 
> planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing (obviously we can 
> change these):

> amenity=waste_basket

>  * waste_basket:model=”metal square twin”
>  * condition=good/fair/poor
>  * waste_basket:defects=loose
>  * waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
>  * lcc:id=1849
>  * lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”
> 

> What do you think?

> 

> Cheers,

> Patrick

> 

> *From: *Jez Nicholson 
> *Date: *Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:04
> *To: *Patrick Lake 
> *Cc: *Jake Edmonds , Talk-GB 
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

> 

> Hi Patrick,

> 

> Shame LCC aren't 'dogfooding', ie using their own data, as it does encourage 
> people to take it seriously. I guess that your regular diffs will spot 
> discrepancies. I've had problems in the past with benches being removed (in 
> real life and on OSM) then reappearing because it was just the council 
> refurbing them.

> 

> What do you propose tagging the LCC id as? Or would you like suggestions?

> 

> - Jez

> 

> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, 11:00 Patrick Lake,  wrote:

>> Hi Jake,

>> 

>> No, LCC haven’t told us that they’ll use the data for those sort of 
>> purposes. It wasn’t part of the specification, and to our knowledge they 
>> won’t be reliant on it – obviously with it being open data they’re free to 
>> use it for whatever they would like, but we’ve made them aware that OSM can 
>> be edited and things can be deleted by users.

>> 

>> We currently extract OSM data for different amenities West Yorkshire daily, 
>> including bins, and  store it in a GitHub repo 
>> .
>>  We plan to make a repo specifically for bin data – we’ll extract OSM data 
>> daily and compare it, updating the repo if necessary. This then means LCC, 
>> and others, will be able to look at the commit history to see what edits 
>> have been made across time, and revert them if necessary. We’re looking at 
>> using the GitHub API to integrate the commit history into the tool we’re 
>> building for LCC.

>> 

>> To differentiate between council and business’ bins, we’ll just use a tag – 
>> we’ll confirm what this will be before uploading. Also, the existing data 
>> we’re bulk importing has a LCC ID which will be included as a tag.

>> 

>> Cheers,

>> Patrick

>> *From: *Jake Edmonds 
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 24 March 2020 at 12:47
>> *To: *Patrick Lake 
>> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

>> 

>> Hi Patrick

>> Are LCC staff planning to use the final dataset for various tasks, such as 
>> planning collection routes? 

>> 

>> I’m sure you have good answers for my questions but I’m just interested in a 
>> practical sense. 

>> 

>> What happens if a bin is accidentally/maliciously removed from OSM/moved?

>> How are you planning to differentiate between LCC bins and bins provided by 
>> businesses?

>> 

>> Thanks

>> Jake

>> 

>> 

>>> On 24 Mar 2020, at 13:40, Patrick Lake  wrote:

>>> 

>>> Hi,

>>> 

>>> Thanks for the feedback, that’s what we were hoping to hear.

>>> 

>>> Silent Spike, in answer to your questions – we’ve been told by the council 
>>> that it is quite accurate, although with a dataset of 3000+ bins there is 
>>> likely to be minor mistakes. Visually, the locations look sensible, which 
>>> is reassuring. 

>>> 

>>> Here’s the method we planned to use:

>>>  * There is definitely some bins which are already on OSM, so to avoid 
>>> adding duplicates I took the locations of existing bins on OSM and the 
>>> dataset from Leeds council, and created a distance matrix. My thought was, 
>>> I would separate any bins in the LCC dataset which are less than 15 metres 
>>> away from the nearest bin already on OSM, as they’re potential duplicates. 
>>> I could then inspect these 

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

[Ken Kilfedder]

Is it worth adding opening_hours to these post boxes (as well as collection 
times.) ? If the postbox is in a supermarket, it'll only be accessible when the 
supermarket is open, but it *will* be accessible then.

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


On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, at 11:12 AM, SK53 wrote:
> The actual locations of many of these are still very useful. As sub-post 
> offices get relocated to shops there are likely to be more of them. In the 
> past I would certainly have appreciated knowing the locations of ones on the 
> departure side of airports. To my regret I forgot to ascertain the location 
> of the one in the RAC Club on Pall Mall when I called in there a few years 
> ago.
> 
> There are other issues with amenity=post_box elsewhere in the world. The tag 
> is used in the US (and possibly elsewhere) for banks of external letter boxes 
> outside apartment building, and also for other non-universal delivery 
> providers (FedEx etc). 
> 
> Jerry
> 
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 07:54, Jez Nicholson  wrote:
>> I'm inclined to think that it is the areas that are restricted and not the 
>> postboxes, and hence map them as normal.
>> 
>> I've had a similar issue with clothes recycling boxes on school premises.
>> 
>> On Sun, 1 Mar 2020, 15:56 Dan Glover,  wrote:
>>> So it’s March, the sun is shining here and it’s time to go back out in 
>>> pursuit of post boxes and other OSM things.

>>> __ __

>>> While working through the CT postal area three things have come up which 
>>> maybe need further thought:

>>> __ __

>>> __- __Some boxes are located within MOD or other restricted access sites. 
>>> To those inside the fence they are normal facilities but perhaps they’re 
>>> not an “amenity” in the sense of being available to the general public. 
>>> This also tends to inhibit surveying.

>>> __ __

>>> __- __Royal Mail data from 2013 in some cases includes “private boxes”, one 
>>> local example is in the reception area of an hotel. There is a mail 
>>> collection from the building but there’s a conventional pillar box within 
>>> 200 m. These probably aren’t an “amenity” in general terms. The RM data 
>>> treats them inconsistently, they’re not all listed.

>>> __ __

>>> __- __There are boxes inside some supermarkets. They are also on private 
>>> property however the public is encouraged to visit the premises. Those in 
>>> Tesco and Asda, maybe others, tend to be tall GRP boxes of this style (a 
>>> variation with clear back is used at airports and other places where 
>>> security might be a concern) 
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post_box_at_ASDA,_Smithdown_Road.jpg.
>>>  These are owned and operated by RM in the normal fashion. In the past 
>>> Sainsbury’s had boxes carrying advertising and often labelled MIDI POST or 
>>> similar, in this style 
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post_box_CH49_15_in_Sainsbury,_Upton.jpg
>>>  I understand these were “private” in RM terms and the third party which 
>>> managed them went into administration, following which most were removed. 
>>> However due to RM’s inconsistent data some appear in the 2013 FOI 
>>> release.

>>> __ __

>>> Is there an appropriate way to handle the first two cases? Should they be 
>>> in OSM at all, or shown with a tag to indicate restricted access?

>>> __ __

>>> As for the Sainsbury’s boxes it may be the best thing is to treat all of 
>>> them as requiring a check to confirm whether the facility still exists.

>>> __ __

>>> __ __

>>> Dan

>>> 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds

[Ken Kilfedder]

The one in Builth Wells has various component parts marked as sportsgrounds, 
but the general area is marked as "amenity=festival grounds". The wiki says 
that festival grounds are "A permanent open field facility which is mostly used 
for public events and festivals." and gives the example of some song festival 
spaces in the Baltics.

 * 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=festival%20grounds?uselang=en-GB
 * https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93280648#map=16/52.1574/-3.4031

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


On Mon, 24 Feb 2020, at 11:33 AM, Philip Barnes wrote:
> The West Midlands showgroung is tagged as amenity=showground.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> On Monday, 24 February 2020, SK53 wrote:
> > I asked similar questions about 6 months ago:
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-September/023452.html
> > ,
> > and there are other discussions going back some 10 years:
> > http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=search_page=5167127=showground=5167127
> > 
> > Jerry
> > 
> > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 09:58, Mark Goodge  wrote:
> > 
> > > Morning all,
> > >
> > > Someone has commented on a change I made to the Three Counties
> > > showground last year when I changed the tagging to landuse=grass rather
> > > than landuse=commercial. Their suggestion is that it really ought to be
> > > landuse=recreation_ground, with a secondary tag of surface=grass.
> > >
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74103491#map=16/52.0834/-2.3235
> > >
> > > I've responded to that comment on the changeset, but I thought it would
> > > be worth throwing out here as well.
> > >
> > > I do think that tagging showgrounds as landuse=commercial is generally
> > > incorrect; it doesn't match the description of 'commercial' in the wiki
> > > and doesn't reflect the typical uses of showgrounds both when a show is
> > > on and when one isn't.
> > >
> > > The reason I tagged the Three Counties showground as grass is because,
> > > most of the year, that's precisely what it is - an open area of
> > > grassland. Unless there is an event on (which only happens for a
> > > minority of days in a year) it is just an open space.
> > >
> > > Looking at a few other showgrounds across the country, we don't seem to
> > > have any consistency.
> > >
> > > The East of England Showground is tagged as landuse=recreation_ground:
> > >
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.5456/-0.3170
> > >
> > > The Suffolk Showground is tagged as a park:
> > >
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0330/1.2277
> > >
> > > So is the Staffordshire County Showgound:
> > >
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.8255/-2.0643
> > >
> > > The former Royal Showground at Stoneleigh is tagged as commercial, but
> > > in that case that's probably now correct as it's no longer used as a
> > > showground and is gradually being redeveloped as a business park:
> > >
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3435/-1.5220
> > >
> > > The Great Yorkshire Showground isn't tagged as an area at all, just a
> > > network of roads and individual features:
> > >
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.9830/-1.5065
> > >
> > > Similarly with the Norfolk Showground
> > >
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.6490/1.1793
> > >
> > > And the Bath and West Showground:
> > >
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.1552/-2.5265
> > >
> > > So, what do people think? Personally, I think that showgrounds ought to
> > > be tagged as an area, because they do, typically, have clear boundaries
> > > and are distinct from their surrounding context. But I'm less sure what
> > > the area should be tagged as. I think commercial is usually wrong, for
> > > the reasons I've already given, but I can see an argument for either
> > > grass, recreation_ground or even park.
> > >
> > > Thoughts, anyone?
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Talk-GB mailing list
> > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Tagging of the boundaries of special planning areas

[Ken Kilfedder]

There are several special town planning areas - including the London Legacy 
Development Corporation area, and the Old Oak Common area. Both of these are 
Mayor-appointed quango-style organisations that have Town Planning powers for 
defined areas that would otherwise be exercised by local councils.

A new user has recently created a new boundary for each of these two planning 
areas - there is a related changeset here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80157116 

There is no obvious way to tag these areas in the wiki at present - what should 
be advised?

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


On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, at 5:44 PM, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We are pleased to announce the start of a (very) small micro-grant scheme 
> available to members of OSM UK who wish to help us meet our aims but need a 
> little bit of financial support.
> 
> Form to apply:
> https://forms.gle/njsTxkb3NQChob3W7
> 
> More info: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xVLT-mUWPl-zxR4qyZ0PmceFR7HGwNEDsck9e-AsYGk/
> 
> P.S. We're also now looking for a new topic to cover in our February meeting. 
> This could be a presentation of something you've created/seen. Please share 
> ideas here or at 
> https://www.loomio.org/d/a8Yt4B2X/what-should-we-discuss-in-the-3rd-februray-meeting-
>  
> 
> Thank you,
> *Rob*
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Ken Kilfedder]

Is it worth adding this to Osmose and the other QA tools?

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


On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, at 4:31 PM, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing 
> nodes in your area, which may be disrupting routing, the Overpass query is 
> node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"] : https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/P5Y
> 
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:20 PM Edward Catmur  wrote:
>> Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem 
>> is. It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the 
>> presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb 
>> should *not* be used. 
>> 
>> Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki:
>> 
>>>  If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to 
>>> add the kerb=* tag to the highway 
>>> =crossing 
>>>  node, which 
>>> sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right 
>>> if the kerbs differ. 
>> 
>> but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing 
>> node! 
>> 
>> I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake. 
>> Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of 
>> highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable.
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes  wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
>>>  > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
>>>  > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied 
>>> sports 
>>>  > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at 
>>> low 
>>>  > > speed.
>>>  > 
>>>  > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and the 
>>>  > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London. As 
>>>  > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.
>>> 
>>>  Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly 
>>> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles over lowered kerbs to 
>>> access private property. 
>>> 
>>>  Phil (trigpoint)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ___
>>>  > Talk-GB mailing list
>>>  > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>  > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>  >
>>> 
>>>  -- 
>>>  Sent from my Sailfish device
>>>  ___
>>>  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] Neighbourhood/LSOA Names

[Ken Kilfedder]

Flickr used to offer a way to search for folk-tagged place names on photographs 
with their actual GPS location.   I seem to remember maps showing the 
(overlapping) user-reported boundaries of each tag.   But that might have been 
more than 10 years ago, and they've been through a number of owners since 
then...

While looking for it, I found this report, which has maps comparing the 
"vernacular" boundaries of some London wards, with what people mean by 
place-names on twitter, which I guess is the modern equivalent:  
http://www.cs.nuim.ie/~pmooney/VGI-Analytics2017/materials/VGI-Analytics_2017_Clasper.pdf


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

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, at 6:33 PM, Steve Doerr wrote:
> Does anyone recognize this? A few months ago, I remember visiting a 
> website that was looking to crowdsource meaningful names for 
> neighbourhoods. I think it was based on Census Output Areas, probably at 
> the LSOA level. It had a map showing the boundaries of the areas, and 
> they had preloaded suggested names for each one (possibly based on ward 
> names?). You could click on an area and suggest a better name based on 
> your local knowledge.
> 
> I'd be interested to find that website again. Or anything similar.
> 
> Thanks,
> 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] Tagging Mill Races / Leats / Lades

[Ken Kilfedder]

Per the wiki "Use waterway=canal for man-made open flow (free flow vs pipe 
flow) waterways used to carry useful water for transportation, hydro-power 
generation OR irrigation purposes."   E.g. there are a range of purposes for 
which waterway=canal is used.

The access tags could be used to make it clear - access=no and/or boat=no.

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

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, at 12:22 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> "Canal" should surely be restricted to transport functions? Boating apps 
> presumably treat "canal" as a route unless navigation restrictions are 
> added.
> 
> If the stuff that is moving is the water rather than the boats, 
> "aqueduct" would be the correct term.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Martin.
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

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

[Ken Kilfedder]

Thanks for this Chris,

I've just added about 100 addr:postcodes to some of my manor in no time at all. 
It was mostly pretty easy to identify a good match for and existing building. 
Then I went back and added a source tag as an afterthought.

Great stuff all round, I''l try to remember to make at trip to raggedred.net 
part of future mapping exploits.

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


On Wed, 2 Oct 2019, at 2:20 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
> I would not like to see that happen. OSM maps real objects, postcodes are not 
> real and only apply as a part of an object's address. They apply to buildings 
> (delivery points on buildings really). The postcodes in Codepoint Open are 
> centroids derived from a combination of all the delivery points that share 
> the postcode so are not at all real-world objects.

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

> -- 
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

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

>> I'm wondering if it would be feasible and advisable to import the UK 
>> postcode data from OS OpenData Codepoint 
>> .

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

>> I'm happy to do the work, but the import guidelines 
>>  say that imports 
>> should be discussed on the imports@ list and the appropriate local 
>> communities, hence this email.

>> Russ Phillips

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