Re: [OSM-talk] Should we be mapping transformers and powerlines?

[Nick Whitelegg via talk]

Even still, the location of major substations (e.g the 400-132kv type) isn't 
really a secret. I could reel off quite a few in the UK without even looking at 
a map.

Nick



From: john whelan 
Sent: 19 January 2023 17:38
To: Nick Whitelegg 
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Should we be mapping transformers and powerlines?

I accept powerlines are fine and visible on other maps but the case for 
transformers isn't quite so strong.

Cheerio John

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 12:15 Nick Whitelegg via talk 
mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

I thought the whole point of OSM was to map the ground truth?

Power lines are there, and they are an important navigational aid when out 
walking or hiking.

And besides, just about every commercial mapping provider that I've used shows 
them. The OS does, as do maps that I've seen in a range of continental European 
countries.

Nick



From: john whelan mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 19 January 2023 03:03
To: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: [OSM-talk] Should we be mapping transformers and powerlines?

Apparently you can do a lot of expensive damage by firing a rifle bullet 
through them as happened more than once in the US and given the situation in 
Europe at the moment is there a risk that something similar could happen there?

Should we have a process that says some things should not be mapped?

I seem to recall that the location of the pipeline that supplies aviation fuel 
to airports is considered an official secret in the UK.

Thoughts?

Thanks John
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk=05%7C01%7Cnick.whitelegg%40solent.ac.uk%7C976f4ceec26941fdf68a08dafa43f19b%7Cd684e4cd491a4577bf33546478d72e3c%7C0%7C0%7C638097466969506677%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=Wnt8Dqlivd%2F9kn3Npf%2BfPSCc2w8ZSGkGBI1hNvtsuRc%3D=0>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we be mapping transformers and powerlines?

[Nick Whitelegg via talk]

I thought the whole point of OSM was to map the ground truth?

Power lines are there, and they are an important navigational aid when out 
walking or hiking.

And besides, just about every commercial mapping provider that I've used shows 
them. The OS does, as do maps that I've seen in a range of continental European 
countries.

Nick



From: john whelan 
Sent: 19 January 2023 03:03
To: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
Subject: [OSM-talk] Should we be mapping transformers and powerlines?

Apparently you can do a lot of expensive damage by firing a rifle bullet 
through them as happened more than once in the US and given the situation in 
Europe at the moment is there a risk that something similar could happen there?

Should we have a process that says some things should not be mapped?

I seem to recall that the location of the pipeline that supplies aviation fuel 
to airports is considered an official secret in the UK.

Thoughts?

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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22

[Nick Hocking]

Anthony wrote

"Creating new Bus Stop nodes
Is the consensus to remove the plaform tags from new nodes?"


I'm not sure I understand.

If you are creating a new bus stop node, then there won't be any tags to
remove, platform or otherwise.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of Australia.

[Nick Hocking]

Hi Anthony,

One reason I can see for discussing this edit here, before doing it, is in
regard to the cases where the platform tag already exists on an area close
to the bus stop node.

If this edit had not been reverted then the question would be, who will
clean up the mess of the duplicate tags.

If you do get consensus to redo this edit then one question will be, How
are you going to handle the cases where the tag is already present on an
adjacent object?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths downtime

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello everyone,

I have updated mapthepaths.org.uk's DNS record to point to a different server. 
When this is done I will need to obtain a new HTTPS certificate. It's possible 
that interruptions may occur over the next 24 hours or so but once updated it 
will be up without further interuption.

Thanks,
Nick


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello Adam,

OK - that's great, thanks!

Does the AWS hosting include full shell access? We'll need that to install the 
relevant software.

Let me know if/when the server space is available.

In the meantime I will create a Hetzner server to start experimenting, this 
will be around EUR4/month which I am prepared to meet in the short term, I will 
also give accounts to trusted members of the community on request to work on 
the project should they wish.

Nick





From: OSMUK 
Sent: 13 December 2020 18:36
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Cc: Nick Whitelegg 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

Hey Nick,

This sounds like a great project and so I’m sure OSMUK can help with server 
space. We have just migrated hosting to AWS due to our previous host shutting 
down, so one option is to provide some space on there.

Best,

Adam

--
Adam Hoyle
[m] 07973 428 333
On 11 Dec 2020, 15:02 +0000, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB , wrote:

Hello Andy,

Thanks for this.

My own feeling regarding what server we need is "start small, to get it going" 
and then as soon as OSMUK can commit to funding (*if* they can, of course) 
and/or several people share the cost, then scale up. Hetzner's model is very 
flexible in this regard, for instance I started with an 8GB RAM VM before I 
found it wasn't quite adequate for my needs and upgraded the same VM to the 
16GB version (and added some disc space, I think, too). For now I am willing to 
spend a small amount (below EUR/GBP 5) for a month or two to get things going 
if there's sufficient interest.

I'd broadly agree to an extent about going the Mapnik route although I would 
prefer another person with more experience in the niceties of current Mapnik 
stylesheet development to do large-scale tweaks;  I would be happy to do small​ 
tweaks on such things as, for example, making designations appear in a similar 
style to Landranger which might be an idea for familiarity purposes. On the 
other hand, vector rendering would have some advantages for the aims of this 
project - an interactive map of the countryside in which POIs and paths can be 
clicked to add/retrieve information. I believe Tangram can do this quite 
easily; I have dabbled in Tangram and it's quite easy to setup a simple 
stylesheet though haven't tried it with anything complex. Tangram also has some 
nice things like being able to be rendered in both isometric and (via A-Frame 
components, https://aframe.io) even in 3D. I have to admit having a personal 
like for the vector approach,   it shifts more processing onto the client, good 
in a world where standard client hardware, desktop and mobile, is pretty 
powerful while powerful server hardware is expensive.

I wouldn't personally be so fussed about things like minutely updates until it 
becomes a 'production' map, while in development mode I think the best approach 
is to keep it simple and cheap to run. In terms of my own projects I do quite 
rigorous filtering of the OSM data before populating the DB, to reject things 
mostly of interest to urban areas which only use up space and resources in a 
walking-oriented map. Another way of keeping initial costs down would be to 
concentrate on one or a few counties, ideally well-mapped ones with many ROWs, 
hills, water features etc.

So I'd be quite happy - if​ there's interest - to setup a cheaper Hetzner 
server for now. If we want to go the mapnik route I'd be happy to do a basic 
setup there as well, as in, get mod_tile working and use your style unmodified. 
My main personal contribution to the project would be to work on the server- 
and client-side scripting necessary to develop an interactive POI map. We'd 
also of course need people with strong web design and UX skills - alas, mine 
are not so great!

As for other points - things like https cert renewal seem easy with Let's 
Encrypt; have been using that succesfully for a while now.

Nick



Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>

From: Andy Townsend 
Sent: 11 December 2020 13:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server



On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to those in the OSM community. I use Hetzner for my hosting 
(OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay around EUR 19/month but that is for 
a larger system that has to deal with the whole of Euro

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello Martin/Nick,

Perhaps the combination of highway, surface and designation will cover many of 
these use-cases?

e.g. a service road that looks like a track but is a service road, and has 
bridleway rights, could be tagged as:

highway=service; surface=unpaved; designation=public_bridleway

For rendering, if one rendered tracks or unpaved service roads as dashed black 
lines, and designations as coloured lines, you could render the designation 
layer as a coloured transparent line above the track/service road layer. This 
is what I do in my own projects.

Nick



From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 13 December 2020 14:01
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 13/12/2020 13:45, Nick wrote:

> what do people think of Overlapping ways i.e. one is a road and
> a duplicate is a bridleway? Not elegant and something I would not
> normally suggest but...

Hi Nick,

When I've tried that in the past I've been jumped on for breaking a
fundamental rule of OSM that one feature should have only one entry in
the database.

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] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick]

I will throw something in the pot, apart from using the "Cycle map" 
solution what do people think of Overlapping ways i.e. one is a road and 
a duplicate is a bridleway? Not elegant and something I would not 
normally suggest but...


On 13/12/2020 13:00, Martin Wynne wrote:
As the OP on this, all I can say is that in this part of the world, 
which includes that farm, that roadway would be called a "farm drive" 
(not "driveway") with double gates and a nameboard where it leaves the 
public road.


If you referred to the "track leading to the farm" the farmer might 
take offence after laying and rolling hardcore along it to make it 
suitable for all vehicles. A "track" is a narrow muddy lane between 
fields, and a farm at the end of one would typically be an old-time 
tumbledown affair, not one ready to receive delivery vans from Amazon.


However, my post was not about the naming, but about the rendering on 
the standard OSM map. Where at zoom level 15 driveways are not 
rendered, but lower-grade tracks and bridleways are. It doesn't make 
sense to a user of that map, although I can see the intended logic 
behind it.


The simplest solution would to remove the driveway tag and simply 
leave it as "service road". But that then causes it to be rendered on 
the standard map at the same width and colour as a minor public road, 
which is equally confusing to a map user. However, I notice that the 
entry gates have not been mapped, so adding those to a basic service 
road may be the best solution, and I will do that.


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] map styles on osm.org; other sites (was: Re: driveway-becomes-track)

[Nick]

Totally agree that openstreetmap.org isn't supposed to be a "general 
public" map destination but without knowing user journeys, I assume that 
is where most people land.


Options could be that openstreetmap.org provide alternative links based 
on locality and/or develop robust (N.B. tiles from opencyclemap.org 
seems to have security issue) local solutions that are found by search 
engines (i.e. good search engine optimisation)


On 13/12/2020 12:12, Andy Townsend wrote:



On 13/12/2020 11:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:

Note that someone who wants to show their map style at OSM website can
be included, though they must sponsor hosting

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers 



As far as I know, the main blocker seems to be
"Capable of meeting traffic demands. The proposed tile layer 
server/server farm
must be capable of accepting the traffic volume from the 
OpenStreetMap website."


ÖPNVKarte is map style that joined recently.

Dec 13, 2020, 12:08 by n...@foresters.org:

Seems to me that apart from the tagging, the issue highlighted
here is with how the general public can easily use OSM? Going to
the OSM map, the layers on offer are Standard, Cycle Map (which
does show the driveway connected) etc. but if a user wants a more
specific use this is not easy to find. To my mind this is where
more options from the worldwide map fail to deliver and is a
bigger issue that can be resolved by understanding the 'customer'
journey better?

The main blocker for a map that shows public footpaths etc. would 
actually be the "Global scope and coverage" requirement on that page, 
since public footpaths only exist in England and Wales.


It used to be possible to easily replace tiles from one of the map 
styles at osm.org with another one, but since the move to https-only 
tiles that's now much harder to do.  You can replace (say) 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/hot/9/253/166.png with 
https://tile-a.openstreetmap.fr/hot/9/253/166.png at the hosts file 
level, but need to click through a "scary browser warning" every few days.


More generally openstreetmap.org isn't really designed as a "general 
public" map destination, which is fair enough (it can't do 
everything).  It's easy to make suggestions like "it should do X as 
well" - the tricky bit is actually doing it and maintaining it.  I'd 
definitely prefer a project landing page that's closer to the German 
one https://openstreetmap.de/ , but I don't have the skills, energy, 
time or enthusiasm to make that happen.  I particularly like the 
"showroom" there - a link to lots of different map styles, separate 
from the main openstreetmap.de map.


Another example that is surely worth mentioning here is 
https://cycle.travel - that's designed for a particular use case.  I 
suspect that most people become aware of OSM by seeing the name at the 
bottom-right of a completely different site that someone sent them to 
because it was useful.  Another indication of this is the number of 
help questions that we see where people are having problems with "the 
openstreetmap app" or "the site gives an error" (and that site clearly 
isn't openstreetmap.org).


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] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick]

Seems to me that apart from the tagging, the issue highlighted here is 
with how the general public cab easily use OSM? Going to the OSM map, 
the layers on offer are Standard, Cycle Map (which does show the 
driveway connected) etc. but if a user wants a more specific use this is 
not easy to find. To my mind this is where more options from the 
worldwide map fail to deliver and is a bigger issue that can be resolved 
by understanding the 'customer' journey better?


On 13/12/2020 10:28, Nick Allen wrote:

Hi,

I tend to think of tagging more in terms of 'who will use this?' I 
know my local area extremely well, so I map it as best I can using 
tags that will make sense to anyone visiting the area. When I'm away 
from home I use OSM extensively to find things, and hope that the 
local mappers are using a universal scheme so that it will work for me.


I've travelled on roads in Portugal, Spain an parts of Africa which 
dont have a surface such as tarmac (tarmacadam / asphalt) or concrete, 
but instead have been built with a top coating similar to clay, which 
is compressed and then smoothed using a grader. Particularly in 
Portugal, at the time I drove on them, these 'unsurfaced' roads were 
so good that they were better than the (at that time) M25 which was 
full of pot-holes and difficult to drive safely on.


Although https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways> is the obvious choice 
to look at, I actually find that 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa> explains it 
better.


Regards & Happy Mapping / Surveying

Nick
(Tallguy)

On Sun, 2020-12-13 at 10:08 +, Edward Bainton wrote:
>  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg 
<https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg>

>
> It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
> I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
> the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
> means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.

I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland 
lights, I'd probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly 
once it passes the farm buildings (since I see a driveway as implying 
car-worthy access to a building).


Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?

I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer 
is what we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging 
it for the renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this 
case, I'd say track is a valid choice - I think even for the whole 
length, if by "driveway" we infer something, short, tidy, and suburban.


But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I 
await correction by my olders.


On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

>Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

 >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg 
<https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg>



Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) 
sounded familiar.


A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  
long distance walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following 
ordinary footpaths (planned using OS maps) and went through this 
area, the Teme Valley. It was very nice *but* the footpaths were in 
an appaling state of disrepair, I remember on several occasions that 
day having to scramble through dense shrub cover and attempt to 
negotiate barbed-wire fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as 
being the site of some particularly badly-maintained footpaths.


As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted 
to illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not 
permit it, which is how I started Freemap and then later got 
involved with OSM. I still haven't illustrated this walk 
incidentally, but...


Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..

Nick



*From:* Martin Wynne mailto:mar...@templot.com>>
*Sent:* 12 December 2020 14:30
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>

*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:

>
> Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.
> Perhaps that someone is you?

Hi Andy,

Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus,
Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction 

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hi everyone,

I notice I'm being CCed in quite a bit here.

Just to make it clear, there are at least two "Nick"s on the thread. I just 
made the comment about Noverton Farm - it's another Nick who has made most of 
the contributions.

It's an interesting thread but just want to make sure that I am not being 
attributed to posts I didn't make.

Thanks,
Nick



From: Peter Neale 
Sent: 13 December 2020 10:44
To: Nick Whitelegg ; Edward Bainton 

Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but 
could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else.

The Wiki says that a driveway is (with my bold for emphasis),

" ... a minor service road leading to a residential or business property. It 
typically branches from a bigger road and leads toward an entrance to a 
specific destination (building, etc.). It may end at or pass the entrance, but 
either way, it gets close to its destination. It is rare for a driveway to be 
the way to access another roadway (but see Pipestems below)."

(pipestems allow a driveway to be shared between several properties)

So if, in this case, it leads on to another way (e.g. a bridleway, or a track), 
it is not a driveway.  Does this solve the problem?

Regards,
Peter

Peter Neale
t: 01908 309666
m: 07968 341930
skype: nealepb


On Sunday, 13 December 2020, 10:25:46 GMT, Edward Bainton 
 wrote:


Sorry, I joined this thread late and I see the initial query was, How to ensure 
tracks don't just pop up nowhere'. So driveway first then track doesn't solve 
the problem.

That makes me say track all the way, as someone else has said. The different 
surfaces can be caught in the attributes.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 10:08, Edward Bainton 
mailto:bainton@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>
> It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
> I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
> the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
> means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.

I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland lights, I'd 
probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly once it passes the farm 
buildings (since I see a driveway as implying car-worthy access to a building).

Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?

I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer is what 
we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging it for the 
renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this case, I'd say track is 
a valid choice - I think even for the whole length, if by "driveway" we infer 
something, short, tidy, and suburban.

But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I await 
correction by my olders.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

  >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg


Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded 
familiar.

A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long distance 
walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary footpaths (planned 
using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme Valley. It was very nice 
but​ the footpaths were in an appaling state of disrepair, I remember on 
several occasions that day having to scramble through dense shrub cover and 
attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as 
being the site of some particularly badly-maintained footpaths.

As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to 
illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it, which 
is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I still haven't 
illustrated this walk incidentally, but...

Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..

Nick



From: Martin Wynne mailto:mar...@templot.com>>
Sent: 12 December 2020 14:30
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:

>
> Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.
> Perhaps that someone is you?

Hi Andy,

Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus,
Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick Allen]

Hi,
I tend to think of tagging more in terms of 'who will use this?' I know
my local area extremely well, so I map it as best I can using tags that
will make sense to anyone visiting the area. When I'm away from home I
use OSM extensively to find things, and hope that the local mappers are
using a universal scheme so that it will work for me. 
I've travelled on roads in Portugal, Spain an parts of Africa which
dont have a surface such as tarmac (tarmacadam / asphalt) or concrete,
but instead have been built with a top coating similar to clay, which
is compressed and then smoothed using a grader. Particularly in
Portugal, at the time I drove on them, these 'unsurfaced' roads were so
good that they were better than the (at that time) M25 which was full
of pot-holes and difficult to drive safely on.
Although https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways is the obvious
choice to look at, I actually find that 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa explains it
better.
Regards & Happy Mapping / Surveying
Nick(Tallguy)
On Sun, 2020-12-13 at 10:08 +, Edward Bainton wrote:
> >  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
> >
> > It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the
> hardcore. If
> > I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded
> tagging for
> > the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world
> "track"
> > means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.
> 
> 
> I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland
> lights, I'd probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly
> once it passes the farm buildings (since I see a driveway as implying
> car-worthy access to a building). 
> 
> 
> Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?
> 
> 
> I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer
> is what we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging
> it for the renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this
> case, I'd say track is a valid choice - I think even for the whole
> length, if by "driveway" we infer something, short, tidy, and
> suburban.
> 
> 
> But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I
> await correction by my olders.
> 
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >Getting back to this
> >  case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
> > 
> > >cattle-grid the public
> >  bridleway continues left through the farm
> > 
> > >buildings, and the surface
> >  deteriorates to the usual farm mud:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm)
> > sounded familiar.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a 
> > long distance walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following
> > ordinary footpaths (planned using OS maps) and went through this
> > area, the Teme Valley. It was very nice
> > but the footpaths were in an appaling state of disrepair, I
> > remember on several occasions that day having to scramble through
> > dense shrub cover and attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I
> > seem to recall Noverton Farm as being the site of some particularly
> >  badly-maintained footpaths.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted
> > to illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not
> > permit it, which is how I started Freemap and then later got
> > involved with OSM. I still haven't illustrated this walk
> > incidentally,
> >  but...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Nick
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: Martin Wynne 
> > 
> > Sent: 12 December 2020 14:30
> > 
> > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths downtime next weekend Dec 19/20

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello everyone,

A warning that the MapThePaths site (www.mapthepaths.org.uk) and also perhaps 
Freemap will be unavailable next weekend, Dec 19/20, and possibly into the 
early part of next week.

The reason is that I am updating the OSM data on the server next weekend.

I have decided to create a smaller Hetzner server for my UK-specific OSM 
projects, notably MapThePaths, and leave the current server to focus on the 
Europe-wide (and potentially worldwide, but my funds don't stretch to this) 
Hikar and OpenTrailView projects.

This new server may, dependent on time and interest, also be used for 
experimenting with creating an OSM UK walkers' map. I will be willing to give 
shell accounts to trusted members of the OSM UK community (people I know 
personally or mailing list regulars). More on that later.

Nick



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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

>Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

  >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg


Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded 
familiar.

A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long distance 
walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary footpaths (planned 
using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme Valley. It was very nice 
but​ the footpaths were in an appaling state of disrepair, I remember on 
several occasions that day having to scramble through dense shrub cover and 
attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as 
being the site of some particularly badly-maintained footpaths.

As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to 
illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it, which 
is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I still haven't 
illustrated this walk incidentally, but...

Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..

Nick



From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 12 December 2020 14:30
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:

>
> Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.
> Perhaps that someone is you?

Hi Andy,

Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus,
Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory space
and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, possibly
by hosting something from OSM.


 >  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the
 > standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/
 > (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the
 > logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as
 >
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475



Thanks. I have been looking at https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ but
I have a lot to learn. I can do Windows programming, but on stuff for
the web I'm only a dabbler. I looked at Mapnik and saw interfaces only
for Python and C. If that had been Pascal, I would have dived in by now.

I will have another look and see where I might start. The idea of
creating my own map does appeal to me.

Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg

It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.

This is where the farm drive leaves the road - this is definitely more
than a "track" - note the double gates:

  https://goo.gl/maps/XEs4XKs5UUHNBt8E8

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] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick]

Hi Andy

Yes I understand the tag that has been used (i.e. designation) although 
I was suggesting the tag "Bridleway", the question that Martin posed was 
that "at zoom level 15, driveways are not shown", so the work around in 
this case might be to make a way with feature type = Bridleway?


Cheers

Nick

On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 12/12/2020 13:59, Nick wrote:


I had to check the Council GIS - so the designation is Bridleway. 
Because of the complexity, if this was tagged something like 
'Bridleway=Yes' and get that displayed on maps of footpaths, surely 
that would solve the problem?



Hi Nick,

Yes that is pretty much what is already happening here.  One of the 
ways here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/661519636 has a tag on it 
"designation=public_bridleway".  That describes the legal status of 
"bridleway" (rather than what it actually looks like on the ground).  
That allows maps such as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=52.28208=-2.42987 
to display it as a public bridleway (in blue)


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] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick]

Hi Martin

I had to check the Council GIS - so the designation is Bridleway. 
Because of the complexity, if this was tagged something like 
'Bridleway=Yes' and get that displayed on maps of footpaths, surely that 
would solve the problem?


Nick

On 12/12/2020 13:41, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 12/12/2020 13:03, Nick wrote:
For this particular example it is clearly complex as it was shown as 
a 'permissive' footpath (other non vehicular access was along the 
designated bridleway). As this is in England and given that the 
driveway seems to have just been changed to 'designated', I assume 
the change made to the map allowing 'other access' along the private 
driveway could be contested by the landowner?




Hi Nick,

I'm not clear what you are saying there?

The driveway is a public bridleway which subsequently passes through a 
farmyard. The farmer has provided a permissive by-pass footpath for 
walkers to avoid the farmyard.


The driveway has been broken into 3 sections and given separate 
pro-ref numbers (not by me).


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] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick]

For this particular example it is clearly complex as it was shown as a 
'permissive' footpath (other non vehicular access was along the 
designated bridleway). As this is in England and given that the driveway 
seems to have just been changed to 'designated', I assume the change 
made to the map allowing 'other access' along the private driveway could 
be contested by the landowner?


On 12/12/2020 12:44, Martin Wynne wrote:

p.s. here's a screenshot of that. It looks silly:

 https://85a.uk/missing_driveway_zoom15.png

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] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick]

Would changing this to Tag:highway=bridleway be a starting point?

On 12/12/2020 13:03, Nick wrote:
For this particular example it is clearly complex as it was shown as a 
'permissive' footpath (other non vehicular access was along the 
designated bridleway). As this is in England and given that the 
driveway seems to have just been changed to 'designated', I assume the 
change made to the map allowing 'other access' along the private 
driveway could be contested by the landowner?


On 12/12/2020 12:44, Martin Wynne wrote:

p.s. here's a screenshot of that. It looks silly:

 https://85a.uk/missing_driveway_zoom15.png

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello Seán,

Thanks for that, sounds a great idea! Would be a great addition to any UK 
countryside map once you have opened your API.

Nick


From: Seán Lynch 
Sent: 11 December 2020 21:03
To: Nick Whitelegg 
Cc: Andy Townsend ; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

Hi all,

As people enjoy their walk, we would love if you could consider uploading any 
plastic / litter data into OpenLitterMap<http://openlittermap.com>

Right now the only way to add data is using our platform, but we will open our 
API hopefully next year and allow uploads from other developers.


github.com/openlittermap<http://github.com/openlittermap>

TeamLitterUK is currently in 1st place globally for uploading the most data

Litter mapping has a remarkably low barrier to entry, allowing for potentially 
many more people to get involved with data collection and mapping

Cheers,

Seán

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 15:05, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hello Andy,

Thanks for this.

My own feeling regarding what server we need is "start small, to get it going" 
and then as soon as OSMUK can commit to funding (*if* they can, of course) 
and/or several people share the cost, then scale up. Hetzner's model is very 
flexible in this regard, for instance I started with an 8GB RAM VM before I 
found it wasn't quite adequate for my needs and upgraded the same VM to the 
16GB version (and added some disc space, I think, too). For now I am willing to 
spend a small amount (below EUR/GBP 5) for a month or two to get things going 
if there's sufficient interest.

I'd broadly agree to an extent about going the Mapnik route although I would 
prefer another person with more experience in the niceties of current Mapnik 
stylesheet development to do large-scale tweaks;  I would be happy to do small​ 
tweaks on such things as, for example, making designations appear in a similar 
style to Landranger which might be an idea for familiarity purposes. On the 
other hand, vector rendering would have some advantages for the aims of this 
project - an interactive map of the countryside in which POIs and paths can be 
clicked to add/retrieve information. I believe Tangram can do this quite 
easily; I have dabbled in Tangram and it's quite easy to setup a simple 
stylesheet though haven't tried it with anything complex. Tangram also has some 
nice things like being able to be rendered in both isometric and (via A-Frame 
components, https://aframe.io) even in 3D. I have to admit having a personal 
like for the vector approach,   it shifts more processing onto the client, good 
in a world where standard client hardware, desktop and mobile, is pretty 
powerful while powerful server hardware is expensive.

I wouldn't personally be so fussed about things like minutely updates until it 
becomes a 'production' map, while in development mode I think the best approach 
is to keep it simple and cheap to run. In terms of my own projects I do quite 
rigorous filtering of the OSM data before populating the DB, to reject things 
mostly of interest to urban areas which only use up space and resources in a 
walking-oriented map. Another way of keeping initial costs down would be to 
concentrate on one or a few counties, ideally well-mapped ones with many ROWs, 
hills, water features etc.

So I'd be quite happy - if​ there's interest - to setup a cheaper Hetzner 
server for now. If we want to go the mapnik route I'd be happy to do a basic 
setup there as well, as in, get mod_tile working and use your style unmodified. 
My main personal contribution to the project would be to work on the server- 
and client-side scripting necessary to develop an interactive POI map. We'd 
also of course need people with strong web design and UX skills - alas, mine 
are not so great!

As for other points - things like https cert renewal seem easy with Let's 
Encrypt; have been using that succesfully for a while now.

Nick



Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>

From: Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 11 December 2020 13:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server



On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to 

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello Andy,

Thanks for this.

My own feeling regarding what server we need is "start small, to get it going" 
and then as soon as OSMUK can commit to funding (*if* they can, of course) 
and/or several people share the cost, then scale up. Hetzner's model is very 
flexible in this regard, for instance I started with an 8GB RAM VM before I 
found it wasn't quite adequate for my needs and upgraded the same VM to the 
16GB version (and added some disc space, I think, too). For now I am willing to 
spend a small amount (below EUR/GBP 5) for a month or two to get things going 
if there's sufficient interest.

I'd broadly agree to an extent about going the Mapnik route although I would 
prefer another person with more experience in the niceties of current Mapnik 
stylesheet development to do large-scale tweaks;  I would be happy to do small​ 
tweaks on such things as, for example, making designations appear in a similar 
style to Landranger which might be an idea for familiarity purposes. On the 
other hand, vector rendering would have some advantages for the aims of this 
project - an interactive map of the countryside in which POIs and paths can be 
clicked to add/retrieve information. I believe Tangram can do this quite 
easily; I have dabbled in Tangram and it's quite easy to setup a simple 
stylesheet though haven't tried it with anything complex. Tangram also has some 
nice things like being able to be rendered in both isometric and (via A-Frame 
components, https://aframe.io) even in 3D. I have to admit having a personal 
like for the vector approach,   it shifts more processing onto the client, good 
in a world where standard client hardware, desktop and mobile, is pretty 
powerful while powerful server hardware is expensive.

I wouldn't personally be so fussed about things like minutely updates until it 
becomes a 'production' map, while in development mode I think the best approach 
is to keep it simple and cheap to run. In terms of my own projects I do quite 
rigorous filtering of the OSM data before populating the DB, to reject things 
mostly of interest to urban areas which only use up space and resources in a 
walking-oriented map. Another way of keeping initial costs down would be to 
concentrate on one or a few counties, ideally well-mapped ones with many ROWs, 
hills, water features etc.

So I'd be quite happy - if​ there's interest - to setup a cheaper Hetzner 
server for now. If we want to go the mapnik route I'd be happy to do a basic 
setup there as well, as in, get mod_tile working and use your style unmodified. 
My main personal contribution to the project would be to work on the server- 
and client-side scripting necessary to develop an interactive POI map. We'd 
also of course need people with strong web design and UX skills - alas, mine 
are not so great!

As for other points - things like https cert renewal seem easy with Let's 
Encrypt; have been using that succesfully for a while now.

Nick



Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>

From: Andy Townsend 
Sent: 11 December 2020 13:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server



On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to those in the OSM community. I use Hetzner for my hosting 
(OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay around EUR 19/month but that is for 
a larger system that has to deal with the whole of Europe rather than just the 
UK.

 https://www.hetzner.com/cloud?country=gb

The second-lowest spec of these, the CPX11 is giving you 2GB RAM and 40GB disc 
space for EUR 4.19 a month. OK we'd need more than that long term, but I 
suspect that would get us going in the early stages.


That'll depending on what you want the server to do, I think.  For an OSM Carto 
Map style with automatic updates and reasonable performance you'll probably 
need > 6Gb memory for the whole of the UK these days.  Maybe a CX31 at €11 per 
month (i.e. about the price of a couple of pints and a "substantial" pork pie 
for those in tier 2)?  https://map.atownsend.org.uk is a CX41 I believe, and 
renders Mapnik / Carto CSS map tiles that cover UK and Ireland.  It could 
probably include another "medium sized OSM country" in the same map style as 
well without too many problems.


On the question of "could we show feature X" (e.g. "cycleways with foot=yes" 
different to "cycl

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

>Hi


Hello Tony,


>I like the idea.

>Can it be extended to be a UK based map which is has greater prominence to 
>aspects such as the >recent discussion about cyclists and paths?


Potentially, yes - I don't see why not.

I have to admit I personally haven't had much experience in recent years with 
creating mapnik stylesheets (I've been working with client-side renderers such 
as Kothic and have played with Tangram), hence my suggestion earlier of 
starting with Andy Townsend's style.


>Does anyone have an idea of how it could be made to happen - could we (OSM UK) 
>fund and >maintain it with commitment for say 2 years? Using volunteers or 
>donated equipment or personal >funding commitments? Do we know the size of 
>server required to support a given load? Can we >manage the required 
>operations and security?

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to those in the OSM community. I use Hetzner for my hosting 
(OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay around EUR 19/month but that is for 
a larger system that has to deal with the whole of Europe rather than just the 
UK.

 https://www.hetzner.com/cloud?country=gb

The second-lowest spec of these, the CPX11 is giving you 2GB RAM and 40GB disc 
space for EUR 4.19 a month. OK we'd need more than that long term, but I 
suspect that would get us going in the early stages.

I'm quite happy to create the server and pay the initial costs, but it would be 
good if funds could be found from OSMUK longer term if possible.

I'm also happy to do some dev work (client and server side). I can tweak the 
cartography and add contours (I have experience doing this) but I'll leave it 
up to others to do serious cartography work, and of course web design.

Or, we could even use client-side rendering, Tangram is pretty powerful, have 
had a play with it.

Would be a great project for the community to work on.

Nick



From: Tony Shield 
Sent: 10 December 2020 17:36
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server


Hi

I like the idea.

Can it be extended to be a UK based map which is has greater prominence to 
aspects such as the recent discussion about cyclists and paths?


Does anyone have an idea of how it could be made to happen - could we (OSM UK) 
fund and maintain it with commitment for say 2 years? Using volunteers or 
donated equipment or personal funding commitments? Do we know the size of 
server required to support a given load? Can we manage the required operations 
and security?


Tony Shield - TonyS999




On 04/12/2020 15:40, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:
Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com  - the right of way reference could be sourced from this if it's 
not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk) once had the facility to add path problems, but now we have 
the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a semi-official OSMUK walkers' map 
with added functionality would have greater traction and it's something that 
could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>



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

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

[OSM-talk] Advanced warning: temporary shutdown of OpenTrailView and Hikar, weekend of Dec 19/20

[Nick Whitelegg via talk]

Hello everyone,

For those of you who might use https://opentrailview.org or https://hikar.org, 
or the Hikar app, I'm posting an advanced warning that these sites will be 
unavailable on the weekend of December 19/20.

This is because I am updating the underlying database of Europe OSM data, which 
I have not updated in more than a year now.

Thanks,
Nick


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

This reminds me a bit of this location, also in Wiltshire:

https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/?lat=51.06209564615185=-2.0421791551466137=3=0

Note the orange diagonal line. That is the line of a bridleway according to the 
Wiltshire ROW data as sourced on rowmaps.com (so not necessarily the definitive 
map). Contrast that to the brown line a bit to its north and west which is the 
bridleway as mapped on OSM, using bridleway signs apparent on the ground plus a 
bit of assumption. The brown line is a well-defined and easily-navigable (on 
horse and bike as well as foot) track, but there are no actual bridleway signs 
on the bit which diverges from the orange  line so it 'may not' be an actual 
bridleway - even though ground evidence suggests it 'probably' is. I first 
mapped this in 2010 from a ground survey,, but lacking any legal source for it 
not being a bridleway, it's remained an OSM bridleway ever since even though 
part of it technically isn't.

The orange line is a random line across a field with no evidence on the ground 
whatsoever. No signs, no gates, no stiles, no nothing - and therefore not 
mappable.

Wiltshire seems to be like this quite often, incidentally: its signposting can 
be a bit inconsistent and I've noticed quite a few divergences between 
web-based council data and ground evidence. We need the definitive data to be 
legally used in OSM in these cases; though maybe the council should really be 
trying to actually divert the path to the on-the-ground route that people 
actually use!

Nick



From: nathan case 
Sent: 08 December 2020 15:11
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

That's a fair viewpoint and I'm open to changing my method.

But what would you suggest in the situation where a PROW runs through a 
building(s)? Map through it as a fully-fledged footway? Doesn't matter what 
your abilities are, you won't be able to go through there - well unless you can 
pass through walls...  At what point does a completely inaccessible, or even 
re-rerouted path (just not in the PROW data), become disused?

I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to 
cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic 
in this case): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676

-Original Message-
From: Dave F via Talk-GB 
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:10 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:
> but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the 
> PROW route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new 
> buildings, or rivers).

IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph taken 
thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.

Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.

Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't 
mean it's been declared disused.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

... Just to follow up on this - if it helps explain what I thought would be 
nice for OSMUK to have - something like https://freemap.sk/, which I was 
introduced to by one of the lead developers several years ago at State of the 
Map Europe in Vienna.

This is an OSM-based map site specific for Slovakia, which comes with many 
features such as information about POIs, route-finding, elevation profiles, and 
so on. I've always thought that of all the local OSM sites, this one is 
particularly nice.

It could eventually use our own rendering but for now could use something like 
Andy Townsend's style combined with contours and hillshading.

On another matter, what's the status of whether OSMUK has its own server? (I've 
lost track of this, I have to admit). Do we have a development server where we 
could begin developing something like this, initially on a small scale (e.g. 
one county)?

Thanks,
Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
Sent: 04 December 2020 15:40
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com  - the right of way reference could be sourced from this if it's 
not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk) once had the facility to add path problems, but now we have 
the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a semi-official OSMUK walkers' map 
with added functionality would have greater traction and it's something that 
could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

>Some councils insist that problem reports only come through their own
>web sites, or reluctantly, by phone, and will ignore emails (which is
>the default presentation for FixMyStreet).

>The web sites generally provide structured input, whereas FixMyStreet is
>generally free text, and also, the web site sometimes bypasses the
>council contact centre, and goes direct to the out sourced contractor.

A while back I did build an app to send problem reports to Hampshire county 
council specifically, as Hampshire had a very keen and enthusiastic staff 
member. However I contacted other local councils asking for details on whether 
they had any APIs to send the data to, but either heard nothing or a response 
(as you said) that they were not so keen on input from other sources.

A shame really, an open, standard API - and accompanying open source clients to 
the API - adopted by all councils for problem reporting would be a great thing 
to have.

Nick



From: David Woolley 
Sent: 04 December 2020 16:49
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

On 04/12/2020 16:38, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:
> However as you say council take up could be problematic. Maybe we could
> provide a link to FixMyStreet?

Some councils insist that problem reports only come through their own
web sites, or reluctantly, by phone, and will ignore emails (which is
the default presentation for FixMyStreet).

The web sites generally provide structured input, whereas FixMyStreet is
generally free text, and also, the web site sometimes bypasses the
council contact centre, and goes direct to the out sourced contractor.

___
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] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

I was just thinking it might be a nice idea to have a completely open path 
problems API that could be used not only for councils but also third party 
applications.

However as you say council take up could be problematic. Maybe we could provide 
a link to FixMyStreet?

Nick



From: Jon Pennycook 
Sent: 04 December 2020 15:51
To: Nick Whitelegg 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

For reporting problems, maybe FixMyStreet might be interested - see 
https://osm.fixmystreet.com/
They have sold a product to some councils to allow integration between the 
website and the council's (and their contractor's) back end systems.

I think that trying to encourage councils to use another API might be a 
challenge unless you offer them money.


On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, 15:43 Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB, 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com<http://rowmaps.com>  - the right of way reference could be sourced 
from this if it's not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk<http://free-map.org.uk>) once had the facility to add path 
problems, but now we have the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a 
semi-official OSMUK walkers' map with added functionality would have greater 
traction and it's something that could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com  - the right of way reference could be sourced from this if it's 
not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk) once had the facility to add path problems, but now we have 
the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a semi-official OSMUK walkers' map 
with added functionality would have greater traction and it's something that 
could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of 'unsuitable' content from an OSM-related site

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Frederik,

OK - thanks for that. That clears things up quite nicely I think.

I have too many "day job" obligations at the moment to set it up as a
business, but the thought has crossed my mind for the future.

Thanks,
Nick

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:03 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 02.12.20 09:49, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> > As I said I am paying for this out of my own money and do not want the
> > storage space to be used for purposes other than panos of walking trails.
>
> I think you have already done *much* more than can be expected of you. I
> would have removed the data long ago. Or, if you are in a business-y
> mood, offer to keep their images if they pay you some money - depending
> on what their use-case and expertise is, it might be cheaper for them to
> pay you than to run things themselves. If you're lucky, it pays for the
> whole server and then some.
>
> That of course then puts you in a situation where you will have some
> obligations, and you'd need to explain to them that they can't expect
> you to fix a bug on Christmas Eve. Which is likely going to be ok for
> them, since at the moment they rely on a service that could delete their
> images for good any time ;)
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of 'unsuitable' content from an OSM-related site

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Martn,

I believe I 'probably' don't have any obligation, but I am just being
cautious as we do appear to live in a very litigious world and I just want
to be safe. It's a case of whether there is some automatic 'implied rights'
for users when there are no terms of service.

I don't have any terms of service - as a non-profit/research project it's
all quite informal - just some comments that 'unsuitable' panoramas, or
panoramas containing faces and license plates which are not detected by the
screening software I use - may be removed. Recently (after this) I have
added a comment on road panoramas being liable to be removed if unlikely to
be of interest to walkers.

Thanks,
Nick

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 11:44 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> IANAL, but why do you believe you could have any obligation to host their
> content on your server?
>
> Do you have terms of service?
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Removal of 'unsuitable' content from an OSM-related site

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,

Apologies - this is not directly related to OpenStreetMap itself but is
related to a site of mine which uses OpenStreetMap data so I thought I'd
post my question here to get opinions.

I have been developing a site OpenTrailView (https://opentrailview.org) to
collect 360 panoramas of walking and hiking routes. OSM data is used to
connect the panoramas together.

The site has always advertised itself as a site to collect panos of
*walking* routes - however a company has used the site to upload a large
number of panoramas of on-road routes. My problem with this is that it's
using up server space on a server that I pay for out of my own money.

I have contacted the company asking them if it was OK to delete their
panoramas (as the content is arguably 'inappropritate' for a
walking-oriented site) nd they replied to me, in a friendly and cooperative
way, saying they would setup their own 'local' OpenTrailView server by
November 13th. I since contacted them to confirm whether they had done this
(twice) but have not heard back.

With this in mind, given it's my own server (well technically I rent the
space from a hosting provider, but you know what i mean) and given I've
sent several emails to them, will it be OK legally for me to remove their
panoramas?

Likely legislation would be Germany as that is where the server is based,
or possibly UK because that is where I am based most of the time,

As I said I am paying for this out of my own money and do not want the
storage space to be used for purposes other than panos of walking trails.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

[Nick Allen]

Hi Jez,

Try

amenity=recycling

Regards

Nick
Tallguy

On Thu, 26 Nov 2020, 13:08 Jez Nicholson,  wrote:

> I'm planning some work with Household Waste Recycling Centres and
> Recycling Points during the Code The City OSM hack weekend this Sat/Sun
> (which you are very welcome to join
> https://codethecity.org/what-we-do/hack-weekends/code-the-city-21-put-your-city-on-the-map/
> in any capacity you like)
>
> A Recycling Centre being the local 'tip', see
> https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/find-your-nearest-recycling-centre
>
> A Recycling Point being a cluster of recycling containers in, say, at the
> end of your local supermarket car park. Often given a name by the Council,
> see
> https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/recycling-points
>
> Am I missing something, or is there no concept of a Recycling Point in
> OSM? Have you seen/used anything else?
>
> - 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] different post codes within single block of flats

[Nick]

The 'shell' of the building is not normally addressable so it would not 
have a postcode allocated. I guess this has occured as postcode areas 
normally would cover up to 100 properties. I note that the response in 
the discussion seems to have come from a councillor at Peterborough City 
Council so I assume he has checked with the GIS team.
Not elegant but perhaps use somethinig like addr2:postcode= (this has 
been used rarely e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/128457240)


On 01/11/2020 22:30, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2020-11-01 23:09, Kai Michael Poppe wrote:


Hi Colin, Hi BD,
as I live in a country with the maximum "anomality" are different 
5-digit postcodes along a street (or sides of said street) I find 
different codes per building strange to say to least.

I'd go for:
* Remove addr:postcode= from the building's area and add a note=This 
building has two postcodes, X and Y
* Add two new nodes within the area of the building (not connecting 
to the area), add all addr:*= with the respective postcodes and add a 
note=This building (link to way/area of building) has two postcodes, 
this node is for levels A thru B.

* Change the Note in the area to display the links to the Postcode Nodes.
I would recommend leaving this to UK mappers who understand the UK 
postcode system Postcodes don't indicate buildings in the UK - 
they indicate postal delivery points. Don't try and find logic where 
none exists...
The relationship is n:m. You cannot ask "what is the postcode for this 
building" - you have to ask "what postcodes have a delivery point in 
this building". You cannot ask "which building does this postcode 
indicate", you have to ask "which buildings have a delivery point with 
this postcode."




___
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-transit] How to tag bike rule on transit vehicles?

[Phake Nick]

Different bus/train/ferry/other public transit services could sach have
different policies on whether bicycles can be allowed onboard or not. How
should they be tagged?
Off hand I have think of several types of permission:
- Allowed
- Prior notification needed
- Only during some time period (not allowed during peak hour or holiday
only)
- Specific service frequency only
- Only for frequencies using particular behicle
- Folded bike only
- Only if wheels are removed and packed into cycling bag
- Disallowed
Should they be tagged on individual route related or network relation?
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Talk-transit Digest, Vol 104, Issue 1

[Phake Nick]

>From Hong Kong's situation, I don't think it is wise to simply use capacity
to differentiate between minibus and regular bus.
Ithe city, minibus and regular buses are generally two different types of
service, operated by different companies in different mode and according to
different rules. Some bus companies have adopted exactly the same model of
vehicle as minibus companies for rural bus routes, but they still
differentiate against each others in term of which network they belongs to,
boarding/aligning points, seat arrangement inside vehicle cabin, on-board
facilities, and other different details.
I think it'd thus be more appropriate to differentiate between minibus and
regular bus services using information of which brand or network those
routes belongs, instead of the actual capacity onboard of each buses
serving those routes.
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,

Having run Christian's blurrer on around 200-300 images now (not all with 
people and cars) it does seem to be working quite well, it has only failed to 
detect people on one pano with two children partly looking away from the 
camera. Incidentally these were close to the edge of the pano. The faces of the 
children were vaguely visible. I have not allowed access to this.

Would just like to get some input on the acceptability or otherwise of a few 
examples. I have (temporarily if need be) enabled access to these panos which 
are what I'd consider edge-cases.

All are available at
https://www.opentrailview.org/?id=N

where N is a number, detailed below.

People some distance away from the camera. Not clearly visible. Not detected 
with any of the three pieces of software I've used for blurring, even 
Christian's:

N = 9731, 9732, 9771

Several people in a cafe/parking area on the top of a mountain. Some people are 
detected but people looking away/in the distance are not. Note that things are 
complicated a little with these in that the input image had already gone 
through a blurring run.

N = 3068, 3076, 3080

People close by:

N = 3096

Anyway, would be great to get some feedback on these 'edge cases', whether they 
look reasonably 'safe' to release permanently, on the balance of probability.

Thanks,
Nick


From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 10 October 2020 21:38
To: Christian Quest ; talk@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)


..sorry, the photo ID in that URL is incorrect, should be 9728, not 9928.

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 10 October 2020 21:37
To: Christian Quest ; talk@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

... to follow up on this, it works great on the one pano I've tested so far - I 
selected this one because it had a 'not-clearly-visible' face and I wanted to 
see how it would be handled. There was one adult man and two children in this 
pano, they're all effectively obscured. The previous blurring tools I used 
blurred all the faces but they didn't blur the child who was partly looking 
away (with the face not visible)

Christian - thanks once again for this!

e.g. see https://opentrailview.org/?id=9928

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 07 October 2020 17:31
To: Christian Quest ; talk@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

Hello Christian,

This does indeed look very nice, it's providing much more extensive blurring 
than what I've tried so far.

Thanks to everyone also for the replies.

Nick

From: Christian Quest 
Sent: 07 October 2020 09:25
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

Le 06/10/2020 à 22:41, Nick Whitelegg a écrit :
Hi,

Apologies if this is only tangentially OSM related, but I thought I'd ask here 
to try and get some expert advice.

As you may know, Mapillary has been bought by Facebook and there has been 
interest in developing, or at least starting to develop/actively researching 
the possibility of, some sort of open source alternative. I have been 
developing OpenTrailView (opentrailview.org), however I now have a collaborator 
to work on exploring an open source panos platform.

The main question I have relates to the very necessary privacy steps that must 
be taken, in particular face and license plate blurring. I have experimented 
with various libraries using various datasets and models, and have found that 
the understand.ai Anonymizer (https://github.com/understand-ai/anonymizer), 
which advertises itself as something specifically aimed at implementing the 
privacy protections needed to comply with the GDPR, seems to be working the 
best.

It detects faces and license plates in clear view on panoramas, which can then 
be blurred.

My question, then, is what to do about people, or cars, which are further away 
from the camera? In these cases, the algorithm does not necessarily detect the 
face or license plate, but on the other hand in general the faces and license 
plates are not clearly visible, or identifiable, in any case.

So in summary, the tool blurs clearly visible faces or license plates, but in 
general does not blur those which are not clearly visible.

Apologies once again that this is only tangentially related to OSM 
(OpenTrailView uses OSM to connect panos together, so not completely unrelated) 
but it is very much an open geodata issue, so I thought I'd ask to get feedback.

I am in the UK and the server is in Germany (Hetzner), so GDPR would apply.

Thanks,
Nick


We have tested blurring using image segmentation which allows to blur full 
parts of pictures like people and cars, not only faces and license plates.


Here is the result: https://takeitout.cquest.org/photo/cquest/blurred

Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

[Nick Whitelegg]

... to follow up on this, it works great on the one pano I've tested so far - I 
selected this one because it had a 'not-clearly-visible' face and I wanted to 
see how it would be handled. There was one adult man and two children in this 
pano, they're all effectively obscured. The previous blurring tools I used 
blurred all the faces but they didn't blur the child who was partly looking 
away (with the face not visible)

Christian - thanks once again for this!

e.g. see https://opentrailview.org/?id=9928

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 07 October 2020 17:31
To: Christian Quest ; talk@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

Hello Christian,

This does indeed look very nice, it's providing much more extensive blurring 
than what I've tried so far.

Thanks to everyone also for the replies.

Nick

From: Christian Quest 
Sent: 07 October 2020 09:25
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

Le 06/10/2020 à 22:41, Nick Whitelegg a écrit :
Hi,

Apologies if this is only tangentially OSM related, but I thought I'd ask here 
to try and get some expert advice.

As you may know, Mapillary has been bought by Facebook and there has been 
interest in developing, or at least starting to develop/actively researching 
the possibility of, some sort of open source alternative. I have been 
developing OpenTrailView (opentrailview.org), however I now have a collaborator 
to work on exploring an open source panos platform.

The main question I have relates to the very necessary privacy steps that must 
be taken, in particular face and license plate blurring. I have experimented 
with various libraries using various datasets and models, and have found that 
the understand.ai Anonymizer (https://github.com/understand-ai/anonymizer), 
which advertises itself as something specifically aimed at implementing the 
privacy protections needed to comply with the GDPR, seems to be working the 
best.

It detects faces and license plates in clear view on panoramas, which can then 
be blurred.

My question, then, is what to do about people, or cars, which are further away 
from the camera? In these cases, the algorithm does not necessarily detect the 
face or license plate, but on the other hand in general the faces and license 
plates are not clearly visible, or identifiable, in any case.

So in summary, the tool blurs clearly visible faces or license plates, but in 
general does not blur those which are not clearly visible.

Apologies once again that this is only tangentially related to OSM 
(OpenTrailView uses OSM to connect panos together, so not completely unrelated) 
but it is very much an open geodata issue, so I thought I'd ask to get feedback.

I am in the UK and the server is in Germany (Hetzner), so GDPR would apply.

Thanks,
Nick


We have tested blurring using image segmentation which allows to blur full 
parts of pictures like people and cars, not only faces and license plates.


Here is the result: https://takeitout.cquest.org/photo/cquest/blurred/


The code used is on github: https://github.com/tyndare/blur-persons/


We did some tests using TPU to speedup the process.


--
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

[Nick Whitelegg]

..sorry, the photo ID in that URL is incorrect, should be 9728, not 9928.

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 10 October 2020 21:37
To: Christian Quest ; talk@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

... to follow up on this, it works great on the one pano I've tested so far - I 
selected this one because it had a 'not-clearly-visible' face and I wanted to 
see how it would be handled. There was one adult man and two children in this 
pano, they're all effectively obscured. The previous blurring tools I used 
blurred all the faces but they didn't blur the child who was partly looking 
away (with the face not visible)

Christian - thanks once again for this!

e.g. see https://opentrailview.org/?id=9928

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 07 October 2020 17:31
To: Christian Quest ; talk@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

Hello Christian,

This does indeed look very nice, it's providing much more extensive blurring 
than what I've tried so far.

Thanks to everyone also for the replies.

Nick

From: Christian Quest 
Sent: 07 October 2020 09:25
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

Le 06/10/2020 à 22:41, Nick Whitelegg a écrit :
Hi,

Apologies if this is only tangentially OSM related, but I thought I'd ask here 
to try and get some expert advice.

As you may know, Mapillary has been bought by Facebook and there has been 
interest in developing, or at least starting to develop/actively researching 
the possibility of, some sort of open source alternative. I have been 
developing OpenTrailView (opentrailview.org), however I now have a collaborator 
to work on exploring an open source panos platform.

The main question I have relates to the very necessary privacy steps that must 
be taken, in particular face and license plate blurring. I have experimented 
with various libraries using various datasets and models, and have found that 
the understand.ai Anonymizer (https://github.com/understand-ai/anonymizer), 
which advertises itself as something specifically aimed at implementing the 
privacy protections needed to comply with the GDPR, seems to be working the 
best.

It detects faces and license plates in clear view on panoramas, which can then 
be blurred.

My question, then, is what to do about people, or cars, which are further away 
from the camera? In these cases, the algorithm does not necessarily detect the 
face or license plate, but on the other hand in general the faces and license 
plates are not clearly visible, or identifiable, in any case.

So in summary, the tool blurs clearly visible faces or license plates, but in 
general does not blur those which are not clearly visible.

Apologies once again that this is only tangentially related to OSM 
(OpenTrailView uses OSM to connect panos together, so not completely unrelated) 
but it is very much an open geodata issue, so I thought I'd ask to get feedback.

I am in the UK and the server is in Germany (Hetzner), so GDPR would apply.

Thanks,
Nick


We have tested blurring using image segmentation which allows to blur full 
parts of pictures like people and cars, not only faces and license plates.


Here is the result: https://takeitout.cquest.org/photo/cquest/blurred/


The code used is on github: https://github.com/tyndare/blur-persons/


We did some tests using TPU to speedup the process.


--
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Christian,

This does indeed look very nice, it's providing much more extensive blurring 
than what I've tried so far.

Thanks to everyone also for the replies.

Nick

From: Christian Quest 
Sent: 07 October 2020 09:25
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

Le 06/10/2020 à 22:41, Nick Whitelegg a écrit :
Hi,

Apologies if this is only tangentially OSM related, but I thought I'd ask here 
to try and get some expert advice.

As you may know, Mapillary has been bought by Facebook and there has been 
interest in developing, or at least starting to develop/actively researching 
the possibility of, some sort of open source alternative. I have been 
developing OpenTrailView (opentrailview.org), however I now have a collaborator 
to work on exploring an open source panos platform.

The main question I have relates to the very necessary privacy steps that must 
be taken, in particular face and license plate blurring. I have experimented 
with various libraries using various datasets and models, and have found that 
the understand.ai Anonymizer (https://github.com/understand-ai/anonymizer), 
which advertises itself as something specifically aimed at implementing the 
privacy protections needed to comply with the GDPR, seems to be working the 
best.

It detects faces and license plates in clear view on panoramas, which can then 
be blurred.

My question, then, is what to do about people, or cars, which are further away 
from the camera? In these cases, the algorithm does not necessarily detect the 
face or license plate, but on the other hand in general the faces and license 
plates are not clearly visible, or identifiable, in any case.

So in summary, the tool blurs clearly visible faces or license plates, but in 
general does not blur those which are not clearly visible.

Apologies once again that this is only tangentially related to OSM 
(OpenTrailView uses OSM to connect panos together, so not completely unrelated) 
but it is very much an open geodata issue, so I thought I'd ask to get feedback.

I am in the UK and the server is in Germany (Hetzner), so GDPR would apply.

Thanks,
Nick


We have tested blurring using image segmentation which allows to blur full 
parts of pictures like people and cars, not only faces and license plates.


Here is the result: https://takeitout.cquest.org/photo/cquest/blurred/


The code used is on github: https://github.com/tyndare/blur-persons/


We did some tests using TPU to speedup the process.


--
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

[Nick Whitelegg]

... sorry, this sentence maybe could be misconstrued. "however I now have a 
collaborator to work on exploring an open source panos platform."

This is very much a joint-effort project between myself and the person I'm 
collaborating with, I want to make that clear.

Thanks,
Nick


____
From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 06 October 2020 21:41
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

Hi,

Apologies if this is only tangentially OSM related, but I thought I'd ask here 
to try and get some expert advice.

As you may know, Mapillary has been bought by Facebook and there has been 
interest in developing, or at least starting to develop/actively researching 
the possibility of, some sort of open source alternative. I have been 
developing OpenTrailView (opentrailview.org), however I now have a collaborator 
to work on exploring an open source panos platform.

The main question I have relates to the very necessary privacy steps that must 
be taken, in particular face and license plate blurring. I have experimented 
with various libraries using various datasets and models, and have found that 
the understand.ai Anonymizer (https://github.com/understand-ai/anonymizer), 
which advertises itself as something specifically aimed at implementing the 
privacy protections needed to comply with the GDPR, seems to be working the 
best.

It detects faces and license plates in clear view on panoramas, which can then 
be blurred.

My question, then, is what to do about people, or cars, which are further away 
from the camera? In these cases, the algorithm does not necessarily detect the 
face or license plate, but on the other hand in general the faces and license 
plates are not clearly visible, or identifiable, in any case.

So in summary, the tool blurs clearly visible faces or license plates, but in 
general does not blur those which are not clearly visible.

Apologies once again that this is only tangentially related to OSM 
(OpenTrailView uses OSM to connect panos together, so not completely unrelated) 
but it is very much an open geodata issue, so I thought I'd ask to get feedback.

I am in the UK and the server is in Germany (Hetzner), so GDPR would apply.

Thanks,
Nick

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

[OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,

Apologies if this is only tangentially OSM related, but I thought I'd ask here 
to try and get some expert advice.

As you may know, Mapillary has been bought by Facebook and there has been 
interest in developing, or at least starting to develop/actively researching 
the possibility of, some sort of open source alternative. I have been 
developing OpenTrailView (opentrailview.org), however I now have a collaborator 
to work on exploring an open source panos platform.

The main question I have relates to the very necessary privacy steps that must 
be taken, in particular face and license plate blurring. I have experimented 
with various libraries using various datasets and models, and have found that 
the understand.ai Anonymizer (https://github.com/understand-ai/anonymizer), 
which advertises itself as something specifically aimed at implementing the 
privacy protections needed to comply with the GDPR, seems to be working the 
best.

It detects faces and license plates in clear view on panoramas, which can then 
be blurred.

My question, then, is what to do about people, or cars, which are further away 
from the camera? In these cases, the algorithm does not necessarily detect the 
face or license plate, but on the other hand in general the faces and license 
plates are not clearly visible, or identifiable, in any case.

So in summary, the tool blurs clearly visible faces or license plates, but in 
general does not blur those which are not clearly visible.

Apologies once again that this is only tangentially related to OSM 
(OpenTrailView uses OSM to connect panos together, so not completely unrelated) 
but it is very much an open geodata issue, so I thought I'd ask to get feedback.

I am in the UK and the server is in Germany (Hetzner), so GDPR would apply.

Thanks,
Nick

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Nick Whitelegg]

Thanks for the replies, will probably go with something like overgrown=yes.

The path concerned has not been closed - it looks like a forestry track which 
was formerly used by vehicles but hasn't for many years. However, unlike many 
of the paths in the same area it doesn't appear to be popular as a 'desire 
path' and is definitely less pleasurable to negotiate than many of the others 
in the area. Just wanted some way of distinguishing this path from others in 
the area in active use, so that those seeking a 'nice walk in the woods' could 
avoid it!

Nick


From: Andrew Harvey 
Sent: 26 September 2020 03:58
To: Talk Openstreetmap 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

Abandoned is a tricky concept for a path, what make is abandoned? If there is a 
sign up saying track closed or keep out for re-vegetation it's clear, but 
otherwise it's less clear.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 01:36, Andy Townsend 
mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Once it's definitely disappeared, I'd have no qualms about deleting it 
altogether.  Sometimes I update the tags on a path before deleting it to 
something like "note=nothing on this alignment any more".

If there is still some evidence on the ground, I think using the lifecycle 
prefix is preferable because usually it takes a few years for a path to be 
completely revegetated and provides a more accurate picture of what's happening 
on the ground and helps data consumers track the it through the different 
states.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 02:06, Mike Thompson 
mailto:miketh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I use:
disused:highway=path/footway/etc
or
abandoned:highway=path/footway/etc

I have used that too where it really is closed via signage, but if it's just 
overgrown from lack of use, it could still be in active use.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 02:55, Andy Townsend 
mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Indeed - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/overgrown has some usage

I didn't know about that, usually I've just been adding description=overgrown, 
but that tag is better. It's in need of some discussion and documentation 
though to make it not subjective.

I suggest overgrown=yes would apply if you're constantly brushing against the 
vegetation (not just occasionally but to the the point that you're almost 
always in contact with the vegetation for the whole segment).

Then light if it has negligible affect on walking pace, dense if it slows you 
down considerably.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

That is a good point and if the councils agree to publish under OGL, 
that would be ideal. Perhaps need to consider what data should be 
requested as a standard submission? For example, apart from the UPRN 
related data (i.e. whether parent/child, historic, provisional) the 
request could perhaps justifiably ask for a list of council land and 
property with addresses?


On 26/09/2020 14:27, Lester Caine wrote:

On 26/09/2020 13:46, David Woolley wrote:
OS are in a funny position, in that they are in the public sector, 
but are expected to be self funding. To the extent that they succeed 
in the latter, they don't owe a duty to the taxpayer.


But since the vast majority of the UPRN data is actually collected and 
managed by the relevant councils, the question is do they have the 
right to restrict access when it is council taxes that pay for the 
management of that data and not OS! SHOULD we perhaps be asking the 
various councils for direct access to the raw data under the open data 
umbrella?




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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

The update on the FOIA request 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr 
is worth a read!! Makes you wonder at the value of releasing open data 
that has limited value to the public?


On 01/08/2020 20:24, Nick wrote:


As a follow up, Robert Whittaker also submitted an FOI asking for "... 
a list of all UPRNs that are classified as 'historic', and a separate 
list of all those classified as a 'parent' ". the logicto me was 
that this would help users of Open Data to then filter these out. The 
response that this was "exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the 
FOIA" - if you are interested follow the link to 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr


I was also interested regarding the details of the batch allocation to 
each custodian. So apart from the commercial value, this is unlikely 
to be published as apparently this might be misleading due to the 
randomness of the data and likely to be out of date quickly.


So much for the potential for collaboration with the various authorities.

On 06/07/2020 15:10, Nick wrote:


Hi Jez

To clarify, what I did was to find a 'suspicious' UPRN (two pins on 
one building with different address details). I then looked up the 
address on an online system (e.g. OneScotlandGazetteer or the local 
authority online Planning system) to check the details (UPRN and 
address). That allowed me to have details, which in this instance I 
then checked property sites (e.g. ESPC) to verify the 'likely' error.


If you want more details of the example, let me know and I can put a 
bit more detail together.


Cheers

Nick

On 06/07/2020 12:34, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Sorry, i mean 'findmyaddress'.

Also, from this Twitter thread 
https://twitter.com/jnicho02/status/1279821108783579139?s=20 I note 
that some streets have a UPRN. Existing services filter them out.


On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:29 Jez Nicholson, <mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Do you mean that you looked up the UPRN on findmystreet and it's
supposedly in a different location to the latlon in the file?

    On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:26 Nick, mailto:n...@foresters.org>> wrote:

So I have just started with my crude system and already
found one UPRN
that looks as if it is in the wrong location (wrong postcode
6BT > 6ST ~
and wrong county). If I am correct, then this demonstrates
the value of
opening up data to more 'eyes'. Not sure how we could
collate all lists
of anomalies to demonstrate this to government.

On 06/07/2020 12:09, Nick wrote:
> I went for the crude approach as my computer is not that
powerful, so
> I split the CSV into chunks and imported batches into QGIS
with
> county/postcode boundaries as my interest is trying to
understand how
> the UPRNs have been batched. Not elegant but means that I
now can
> focus on our area and identify those UPRNs that are most
useful to me
> for plotting missing rural properties. I can then write a
script to
> only give me those UPRNs of interest. As I say, crude but
useful to me
> as I can now start to match addresses to UPRN when I add
properties.
>
> On 05/07/2020 20:56, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>> On 05.07.2020 18:45, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>>> On 05.07.2020 17:51, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>>> Naive question - can that be added as a layer in JOSM?
If so, how?
>>> I'll have to check whether I can manage that anyway with
the new server
>>> now. Will come back to this.
>> Meh. 3 hours in, every possible lead I had didn't bring
me closer to
>> setting up the UPRN data in the same way.
>>
>> Having 6 GiB of GeoPackage or 2 GiB of MySQL data doesn't
make working
>> with the data any easier.
>>
>> I will look out for help from the GeoServer people during
the week,
>> watch this space :)
>>
>> K
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mail

[OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,

Wondering if there was a consensus on tagging an abandoned, no longer very 
usable path (e.g. a path which has become overgrown or is unclear and prone to 
flooding in wetter periods). Something like "path=abandoned"?

There's a case like that near where I am in which a path was mapped in the 
early days of OSM but has now fallen into disuse. It isn't an official path, 
just a minor path through some woods on land with public access. My gut feeling 
would be to tag as "path=abandoned" to signal that it isn't really usable as a 
path anymore (so that renderers and routers can warn the user about it or even 
ignore it, for instance) but just wondering if anyone else has come across this 
situation.

Thanks,
Nick



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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

[Nick Whitelegg]

Yes - that's absolutely fine! Just wanted to clarify it here so that the 
wording could be altered (I'm quite happy to do this myself).

Thanks,
Nick



From: Mateusz Konieczny via talk 
Sent: 16 September 2020 11:01
Cc: osm 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page




Sep 16, 2020, 10:59 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where you 
pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Like Martin, I 
would expect these to be completely acceptable to map.
Not a native speaker, not a lawyer. I would describe such areas as public 
(possibly privately owned).
I think the intention is to deter people from mapping _fully private_ gardens 
which can be viewed from public roads, is this correct?
I am not sure about other, but for me it is about discouraging mapping fully 
private garden in detail.

For example mapping garden area itself and trees (maybe even with their 
species), but
micromapping area where someone planted strawberries seems something that
is out of scope of OSM for privacy reasons.

Nick





From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Sent: 16 September 2020 08:51
To: Mateusz Konieczny 
Cc: OSM Talk 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page



sent from a phone

On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk  
wrote:

Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?


There are some points I would like to comment on:

-

  *   OpenStreetMap is not a property registry, thus do not map individual 
ownership of buildings or plots. There is no need to split residential landuse 
into individual plots. (Compare 
Parcel<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel>.)


Yes, we do not map individual ownership of land and buildings generally, but 
unless the owner is a person, we could and privacy regulations would not 
prevent us from doing it. It also isn’t an argument for refraining from mapping 
property divisions, because these are interesting regardless of _who_ is the 
owner


“some structure of a semi-public garden appear to be the borderline of being 
acceptable.“

IMHO exaggerated, semi-public objects can be mapped in all detail and aren’t 
borderline cases

Well, at least according to my understanding of the term semi-public


Cheers Martin




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

[Nick via Talk-GB]

Hi Gareth

It was just a thought if that might have been the source

Cheers

Nick

On 16/09/2020 10:12, Gareth L wrote:

Hi Nick,

Not in the example I cited.

Gareth


On 16 Sep 2020, at 10:03, Nick  wrote:



Just out of curiosity, were these all mapped with the new version of 
the RapiD OSM editor https://mapwith.ai/rapid-esri?


On 16/09/2020 08:18, Gareth L wrote:


Morning Mateusz,

You’re right, it’s not encountered in edit mode.

4:

 1. “en-GB en”
 2. “en-GB”
 3. System Locale: en-us;English (United States)*

Input Locale: en-gb;English (United Kingdom)

*damn, i’m normally better at keeping it en-gb!

Gareth

Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for 
Windows 10


*From: *Mateusz Konieczny <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>
*Sent: *16 September 2020 08:09
*To: *Gareth L <mailto:o...@live.co.uk>
*Cc: *Paul Berry <mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>; Talk GB 
<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>

*Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

1) it is not a bug of default style at all - what is displayed in 
tiles is not related


(both are using OSM data and here similarities end)

2) it is not a Mapnik bug - it is a library used by OSM Carto 
(default map style)


3) it is not in edit mode, so it is likely not an iD bug (maybe it 
uses an iD


presets that have some bug)

Is it still visible in edit mode? The it may be an iD bug.

4) Which exactly language settings you have?

(a) In OSM settings

(b) In browser

(c) In OS

For me this is not present,

I see Polish description ("Budynek przemysłowy itp group 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/414437370>") as I selected


Polish as preferred language in OSM settings.

Sep 16, 2020, 08:57 by o...@live.co.uk:

Hi Paul,

I’m not sure if the fault is with the ID viewer, mapnik, or
overpass-api really. ID bugs can be reported/tracked through its
GitHub repo https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD
<https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD>

For others curious, an example is go to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.37824/-1.23676 and
right click> query features on say, the ITP building or air
ambulance. It will show “Индустриална сграда itp group” on the
results where you choose which element you want more detail on.

I’m not that familiar with the codebase but it looks like there
has been quite a lot of activity in the localisation section, so
it is possibly a recently introduced bug.

Gareth

*From: *Paul Berry <mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>

*Sent: *16 September 2020 00:21

*To: *Talk GB <mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>

*Subject: *[Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

Hi all,

Not sure who to direct this to so apologies for targeting the
mailing list. However, I hope the right people can be found this
way.

If you use the query feature within iD (which uses the Overpass
API) and point at a commercial building you get a Bulgarian
label in the results set instead of an English one: Търговска
Сграда, which translates as "commercial building" - there might
be other cosmetic bugs out there.

Regards,

/Paul/


___
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: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

[Nick Whitelegg via talk]

I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where you 
pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Like Martin, I 
would expect these to be completely acceptable to map.

I think the intention is to deter people from mapping _fully private_ gardens 
which can be viewed from public roads, is this correct?

Nick



From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Sent: 16 September 2020 08:51
To: Mateusz Konieczny 
Cc: OSM Talk 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page



sent from a phone

On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk  
wrote:

Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?


There are some points I would like to comment on:

-

  *   OpenStreetMap is not a property registry, thus do not map individual 
ownership of buildings or plots. There is no need to split residential landuse 
into individual plots. (Compare 
Parcel<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel>.)


Yes, we do not map individual ownership of land and buildings generally, but 
unless the owner is a person, we could and privacy regulations would not 
prevent us from doing it. It also isn’t an argument for refraining from mapping 
property divisions, because these are interesting regardless of _who_ is the 
owner


“some structure of a semi-public garden appear to be the borderline of being 
acceptable.“

IMHO exaggerated, semi-public objects can be mapped in all detail and aren’t 
borderline cases

Well, at least according to my understanding of the term semi-public


Cheers Martin



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

[Nick]

Just out of curiosity, were these all mapped with the new version of the 
RapiD OSM editor https://mapwith.ai/rapid-esri?


On 16/09/2020 08:18, Gareth L wrote:


Morning Mateusz,

You’re right, it’s not encountered in edit mode.

4:

 1. “en-GB en”
 2. “en-GB”
 3. System Locale: en-us;English (United States)*

Input Locale: en-gb;English (United Kingdom)

*damn, i’m normally better at keeping it en-gb!

Gareth

Sent from Mail  for 
Windows 10


*From: *Mateusz Konieczny 
*Sent: *16 September 2020 08:09
*To: *Gareth L 
*Cc: *Paul Berry ; Talk GB 


*Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

1) it is not a bug of default style at all - what is displayed in 
tiles is not related


(both are using OSM data and here similarities end)

2) it is not a Mapnik bug - it is a library used by OSM Carto (default 
map style)


3) it is not in edit mode, so it is likely not an iD bug (maybe it 
uses an iD


presets that have some bug)

Is it still visible in edit mode? The it may be an iD bug.

4) Which exactly language settings you have?

(a) In OSM settings

(b) In browser

(c) In OS

For me this is not present,

I see Polish description ("Budynek przemysłowy itp group 
") as I selected


Polish as preferred language in OSM settings.

Sep 16, 2020, 08:57 by o...@live.co.uk:

Hi Paul,

I’m not sure if the fault is with the ID viewer, mapnik, or
overpass-api really. ID bugs can be reported/tracked through its
GitHub repo https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD

For others curious, an example is go to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.37824/-1.23676
 and
right click> query features on say, the ITP building or air
ambulance. It will show “Индустриална сграда itp group” on the
results where you choose which element you want more detail on.

I’m not that familiar with the codebase but it looks like there
has been quite a lot of activity in the localisation section, so
it is possibly a recently introduced bug.

Gareth

*From: *Paul Berry 

*Sent: *16 September 2020 00:21

*To: *Talk GB 

*Subject: *[Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

Hi all,

Not sure who to direct this to so apologies for targeting the
mailing list. However, I hope the right people can be found this way.

If you use the query feature within iD (which uses the Overpass
API) and point at a commercial building you get a Bulgarian label
in the results set instead of an English one: Търговска Сграда,
which translates as "commercial building" - there might be other
cosmetic bugs out there.

Regards,

/Paul/


___
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] man_made=survey_point

[Nick]

Thanks Jass - I was not aware of this excellent piece of work by Greg - 
do we know if the proposals "Possible import" were followed through?


I wonder if OS have other data for the 'benchmarks i.e. more precise 
than the data currently available.


On 23/08/2020 15:26, Jass Kurn wrote:
Gregrs has provided converted data for trig points, with the data 
obtained from a FOI request. They created a page to explain the 
process, and made available the converted data as a gpx file 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_triangulation_stations .


Jass

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 15:13, Nick <mailto:n...@foresters.org>> wrote:


My thinking was that most people surveying would not use accurate
and precise systems such as differential GPS and/or RTK. So if
these systems were used to accurately and precisely locate
distinct local markers (i.e. trig points, benchmarks etc.) then
local surveys could potentially use these to refine/check their
own surveys. This approach would still be based on community input
but could be used as an approach to education (e.g. local schools
involved) as to how surveying works in practice.

On 23/08/2020 12:27, SK53 wrote:

This approach has been advocated in other European countries, and
the Spanish community imported all the points of the national
geodesic network (e.g., for Extremadura
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/6041229#map=7/39.254/-6.124>).
They more or less violate the idea of OSM as something which is
community contributed (IIRC each point has "DO NOT MOVE") and
often interfere with objects which do need mapping (churches are
a particular point). It's not clear that this import has assisted
improved accuracy of mapping in Spain.

Many trig pillars are now way out of alignment and mainly of
interest as an artefact. Even benchmarks might not have much
relevance as OS surveying mainly uses differential GPS with
reference to their own base network (OS Net

<https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/tools-support/os-net/positioning>).
(From the OS website "Ordnance Survey (OS) benchmarks and their
heights haven't been regularly maintained for over 40 years.").

OS Net is effectively proprietary, there are a limited number of
open base stations for differential GPS in the UK. I do believe
differential GPS (RTK) has a role to play in OSM surveying,
although for specific purposes rather than generic improvement of
feature alignment.

Regards,

Jerry

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 10:05, Nick mailto:n...@foresters.org>> wrote:

I have been looking at what is recorded under this tag in my
area. I see
that there aren't that many and those that are on OSM refer
to trig
points (see also http://trigpointing.uk/). My thinking is
that if these
are accurate and precisely marked on OSM then perhaps they
could be used
for resolving issue such as aerial imagery offsets.

I therefore wondered if it was worth using other data under
this tag -
specifically benchmarks
(https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/benchmarks/)
as there are huge numbers in the UK. If these were marked on
OSM and
their accuracy and precision verified (OS open data is to the
nearest
10m square and transforming that adds errors), they could be
helpful in
local surveys where they are less than accurate but also for
ensuring
that moving all nodes in an area is valid (not just to match
aerial
imagery). A possible linked organisation with data is
https://www.bench-marks.org.uk/

Incidentally, the benchmarks can be helpful if you need to align
historical maps which have benchmarks shown.

Any thoughts?


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


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] man_made=survey_point

[Nick]

My thinking was that most people surveying would not use accurate and 
precise systems such as differential GPS and/or RTK. So if these systems 
were used to accurately and precisely locate distinct local markers 
(i.e. trig points, benchmarks etc.) then local surveys could potentially 
use these to refine/check their own surveys. This approach would still 
be based on community input but could be used as an approach to 
education (e.g. local schools involved) as to how surveying works in 
practice.


On 23/08/2020 12:27, SK53 wrote:
This approach has been advocated in other European countries, and the 
Spanish community imported all the points of the national geodesic 
network (e.g., for Extremadura 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/6041229#map=7/39.254/-6.124>). 
They more or less violate the idea of OSM as something which is 
community contributed (IIRC each point has "DO NOT MOVE") and often 
interfere with objects which do need mapping (churches are a 
particular point). It's not clear that this import has assisted 
improved accuracy of mapping in Spain.


Many trig pillars are now way out of alignment and mainly of interest 
as an artefact. Even benchmarks might not have much relevance as OS 
surveying mainly uses differential GPS with reference to their own 
base network (OS Net 
<https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/tools-support/os-net/positioning>). 
(From the OS website "Ordnance Survey (OS) benchmarks and their 
heights haven't been regularly maintained for over 40 years.").


OS Net is effectively proprietary, there are a limited number of open 
base stations for differential GPS in the UK. I do believe 
differential GPS (RTK) has a role to play in OSM surveying, although 
for specific purposes rather than generic improvement of feature 
alignment.


Regards,

Jerry

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 10:05, Nick <mailto:n...@foresters.org>> wrote:


I have been looking at what is recorded under this tag in my area.
I see
that there aren't that many and those that are on OSM refer to trig
points (see also http://trigpointing.uk/). My thinking is that if
these
are accurate and precisely marked on OSM then perhaps they could
be used
for resolving issue such as aerial imagery offsets.

I therefore wondered if it was worth using other data under this
tag -
specifically benchmarks
(https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/benchmarks/)
as there are huge numbers in the UK. If these were marked on OSM and
their accuracy and precision verified (OS open data is to the nearest
10m square and transforming that adds errors), they could be
helpful in
local surveys where they are less than accurate but also for ensuring
that moving all nodes in an area is valid (not just to match aerial
imagery). A possible linked organisation with data is
https://www.bench-marks.org.uk/

Incidentally, the benchmarks can be helpful if you need to align
historical maps which have benchmarks shown.

Any thoughts?


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Forest Panorama Mapping Party - September 13th 11.00

[Nick Whitelegg]

Sorry, got Dave's email wrong - damn typo!

dgreenw...@trekview.org

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 23 August 2020 13:43
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: New Forest Panorama Mapping Party - September 13th 11.00


Hello everyone,

Some of you are aware of this, but we (David Greenwood of TrekView and myself) 
are organising a Panorama Mapping Party on September 13th (Sunday) 11.00 
meeting at Ashurst New Forest station (hourly trains from Waterloo assuming no 
engineering work or other disruption).

This is a postponed event originally due to take place in May. The idea is to 
capture 360 panoramic imagery of all (or as many as possible in the time-frame) 
the footpaths in the Ashurst area, of which there are many. If you have your 
own 360 camera or phone capable of taking 360 photos (e.g. Photo Spheres with 
the Google Camera installed) then bring it along, otherwise there will be a 
limited number of 360 camera packs available to borrow for the event.

This imagery will be used in the Trek View project (trekview.org) and will also 
be uploaded to OpenTrailView, my own 100% open-source project to capture 360 
panoramas of walking trails (see e.g. https://www.opentrailview.org/?id=9900); 
source code https://gitlab.com/nickw1/opentrailview.

In order to allow social distancing, we're looking at a max of 10-12 at the 
event and to split up into groups of between 1 and 3.

I myself hope to be there, but may need to travel abroad in September, but if 
not, Dave will be on hand to help!

You need to book a place; see
https://campfire.trekview.org/t/new-forest-pano-party-rescheduled-sunday-13th-september/325
for more details, or email myself or David at dgreemw...@trekview.org for more 
details.

Thanks,
Nick


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

[Talk-GB] New Forest Panorama Mapping Party - September 13th 11.00

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,

Some of you are aware of this, but we (David Greenwood of TrekView and myself) 
are organising a Panorama Mapping Party on September 13th (Sunday) 11.00 
meeting at Ashurst New Forest station (hourly trains from Waterloo assuming no 
engineering work or other disruption).

This is a postponed event originally due to take place in May. The idea is to 
capture 360 panoramic imagery of all (or as many as possible in the time-frame) 
the footpaths in the Ashurst area, of which there are many. If you have your 
own 360 camera or phone capable of taking 360 photos (e.g. Photo Spheres with 
the Google Camera installed) then bring it along, otherwise there will be a 
limited number of 360 camera packs available to borrow for the event.

This imagery will be used in the Trek View project (trekview.org) and will also 
be uploaded to OpenTrailView, my own 100% open-source project to capture 360 
panoramas of walking trails (see e.g. https://www.opentrailview.org/?id=9900); 
source code https://gitlab.com/nickw1/opentrailview.

In order to allow social distancing, we're looking at a max of 10-12 at the 
event and to split up into groups of between 1 and 3.

I myself hope to be there, but may need to travel abroad in September, but if 
not, Dave will be on hand to help!

You need to book a place; see
https://campfire.trekview.org/t/new-forest-pano-party-rescheduled-sunday-13th-september/325
for more details, or email myself or David at dgreemw...@trekview.org for more 
details.

Thanks,
Nick


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

[Talk-GB] man_made=survey_point

[Nick]

I have been looking at what is recorded under this tag in my area. I see 
that there aren't that many and those that are on OSM refer to trig 
points (see also http://trigpointing.uk/). My thinking is that if these 
are accurate and precisely marked on OSM then perhaps they could be used 
for resolving issue such as aerial imagery offsets.


I therefore wondered if it was worth using other data under this tag - 
specifically benchmarks (https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/benchmarks/) 
as there are huge numbers in the UK. If these were marked on OSM and 
their accuracy and precision verified (OS open data is to the nearest 
10m square and transforming that adds errors), they could be helpful in 
local surveys where they are less than accurate but also for ensuring 
that moving all nodes in an area is valid (not just to match aerial 
imagery). A possible linked organisation with data is 
https://www.bench-marks.org.uk/


Incidentally, the benchmarks can be helpful if you need to align 
historical maps which have benchmarks shown.


Any thoughts?


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Nick]

I am using the UPRN data in QGIS and checking each manually on 
https://osg.scot/portal/ (e.g. UPRN: 137090388). That of course does not 
identify if it is historic and what it is assigned to (the UPRN open 
data is a point not polygon)


On 13/08/2020 15:52, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 13/08/2020 15:30, Nick wrote:
On delving deeper, it looks as if my comment is a load of rubbish. 
UPRNs that are listed do include huge numbers of adopted roads - so 
if we could have a list of these and other 'non-addressable' UPRNs, 
it would help users identify relevant ones


How are you identifying that the UPRNs in question are current (ie, 
not "historic") and are actually assigned to the street as a whole and 
not some specific artifact on it?


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] Street-name toids

[Nick]

On delving deeper, it looks as if my comment is a load of rubbish. UPRNs 
that are listed do include huge numbers of adopted roads - so if we 
could have a list of these and other 'non-addressable' UPRNs, it would 
help users identify relevant ones


On 13/08/2020 14:08, Nick wrote:
Lester makes a very valid point - the UPRNs relating to roads/streets 
are probably not adopted (certainly the example that I cited in Fife 
is not adopted)


On 13/08/2020 11:21, Lester Caine wrote:

On 13/08/2020 10:55, SK53 wrote:
That was me too, I would have added the USRN if I'd had it 
immediately accessible. My understanding is that UPRNs do apply to 
roads, but have much to learn about them. I've added them to a 
couple of others at Cinderhill which is housing built on open fields 
so no historical properties there.


This is a case of establishing what the UPRN actually relates to in 
terms of the parcel of land covered by it. There WILL be a UPRN for 
either the parcel of land, or even for the individual fields, but 
those will be superseded by the new UPRN's for each of the subdivided 
parcels in the new development. It is MY take on things that 
publically adopted roads only have a USRN and the historic UPRN is 
simply that - an historic record. But I believe ( and stand to be 
corrected ) that private roads do require a UPRN covering the 
ownership of the land? The UPRN is in essence the reference to the 
land registration showing ownership, and it may be today that 
councils are registering the publically adopted roads as has been 
seen recently with their claiming ownership of land people thought 
was part of their gardens but which the council want to sell them ... 
even where land registry records show a different situation?




___
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] Street-name toids

[Nick]

Lester makes a very valid point - the UPRNs relating to roads/streets 
are probably not adopted (certainly the example that I cited in Fife is 
not adopted)


On 13/08/2020 11:21, Lester Caine wrote:

On 13/08/2020 10:55, SK53 wrote:
That was me too, I would have added the USRN if I'd had it 
immediately accessible. My understanding is that UPRNs do apply to 
roads, but have much to learn about them. I've added them to a couple 
of others at Cinderhill which is housing built on open fields so no 
historical properties there.


This is a case of establishing what the UPRN actually relates to in 
terms of the parcel of land covered by it. There WILL be a UPRN for 
either the parcel of land, or even for the individual fields, but 
those will be superseded by the new UPRN's for each of the subdivided 
parcels in the new development. It is MY take on things that 
publically adopted roads only have a USRN and the historic UPRN is 
simply that - an historic record. But I believe ( and stand to be 
corrected ) that private roads do require a UPRN covering the 
ownership of the land? The UPRN is in essence the reference to the 
land registration showing ownership, and it may be today that councils 
are registering the publically adopted roads as has been seen recently 
with their claiming ownership of land people thought was part of their 
gardens but which the council want to sell them ... even where land 
registry records show a different situation?




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Nick]

UPRNs are applied to street records (e.g. 320276457 is a street record 
in Fife, I am sure there are many more).


Perhaps all these non-addressable UPRNs should be identified as part of 
the open data?


Related to this is the FOI request that Robert Whittaker made re "list 
of all UPRNs that are classified as 'historic', and a separate list of 
all those classified as a 'parent',,  " - see the ongoing battle 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr


On 12/08/2020 20:36, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 12/08/2020 16:54, SK53 wrote:
OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the 
toid for the street name. I wonder if we should include these 
alongside usrn & uprn. They may be more useful than either for 
gathering complex roads which share a name.


Experimentally I have added this 
 toid to a street in 
Glossop.


I think adding toids is worth it, if we can unambiguously link them.

However, I'm a little concerned that someone has added a UPRN to that 
way. UPRNs are not, generally, applied to streets, and looking at the 
ESRI satellite view I suspect that that's actually a legacy UPRN which 
applied to the property before it was redeveloped for housing.


The street does have a USRN, which is 17326392. If you compare this:

https://uprn.uk/usrn/17326392

which is Foundry Close, with this:

https://uprn.uk/usrn/17301086

which is Surrey Street (that Foundry Close connects to), you'll see on 
the latter a single UPRN on top of Foundry Close. But switch to the 
satellite view on that page and you'll see that it's appears to be the 
UPRN of what was, at the time the image was taken, some empty land 
that had been cleared for redevelopment.


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] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

Hi Jez

You can limit the number of requests to a specific URL (or set of URLs) 
by IP address - so polling "every available UPRN" would not be an issue 
(e.g. can limit the number of requests from a given IP over a given time 
period).


Cheers

Nick

On 02/08/2020 11:58, Jez Nicholson wrote:

My initial thought was also "conspiracy!". Licence problem is more 
likely, or perhaps they were concerned that someone might poll the URL 
with every available UPRN.


On Sun, 2 Aug 2020, 11:38 Nick, <mailto:n...@foresters.org>> wrote:

I have no problem with licencing but the UPRN and related data is
managed by Authority custodians - do they not retain ownership of that 
data?


If the authorities sell it to OS, then should this be raised with The Rt
Hon Alok Sharma MP (he owns 100% of the shares of OS)?

N.B. there are some aspects to address data that is subject to other IP
rights but the remainder. is surely of public interest and value.

On 02/08/2020 10:34, Russ Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 10:20, Andy Mabbett <mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>> wrote:

>> Do you have a plausible hypothesis to explain the removal of UPRNs
>> from the flood warning pages, that also gives us a reason to trust the
>> organisation that enacted that change?
> It's almost certainly because some lawyer or other spotted that it's a
> violation of the PSGA (formerly PSMA) license under which the
> AddressBase data is made available to the Environment Agency.
>
> 
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/licensing/psga-member-licence.pdf

>
> There's no conspiracy here beyond OS zealously protecting its data, as
> it always has done.
>

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

I have no problem with licencing but the UPRN and related data is 
managed by Authority custodians - do they not retain ownership of that data?


If the authorities sell it to OS, then should this be raised with The Rt 
Hon Alok Sharma MP (he owns 100% of the shares of OS)?


N.B. there are some aspects to address data that is subject to other IP 
rights but the remainder. is surely of public interest and value.


On 02/08/2020 10:34, Russ Garrett wrote:

On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 10:20, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

Do you have a plausible hypothesis to explain the removal of UPRNs
from the flood warning pages, that also gives us a reason to trust the
organisation that enacted that change?

It's almost certainly because some lawyer or other spotted that it's a
violation of the PSGA (formerly PSMA) license under which the
AddressBase data is made available to the Environment Agency.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/licensing/psga-member-licence.pdf

There's no conspiracy here beyond OS zealously protecting its data, as
it always has done.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

Personally, I don't think that classifying UPRNs (e.g. historic, parent, 
non-addressable etc.) nor publishing dynamically the allocations to the 
custodians of batches of UPRNs would detract from the commercial value 
derived by Ordnance Survey (OS). I fully understand that as a limited 
company, OS is perhaps less motivated to collaborate with the public. 
However, public bodies such as the Environment Agency surely have a 
broader responsibility to the public?


Why I get on my high horse about this is the knowledge that UPRNs and 
related data have errors but perhaps even more tragically, the lack of 
openness can lead to direct impact to people's lives. I also realise 
that the OSM Foundation is a non-profit organisation whose purpose is to 
support the OSM project - my reading is that this is technical rather 
than political. I also re-read Owen Boswarva's blog 
https://www.owenboswarva.com/blog/post-addr1.htm and end up feeling that 
the publishing of Open Data is a bit like the comment "When information 
is missing, we speculate about what the government might be hiding, or 
fill in the gaps with anecdotes." 
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/02/government-publish-data-coronavirus-deaths]


I therefore believe that the current situation regarding openness leads 
to speculation and as Mark so clearly states to "deliberately minimise 
the utility of the Open UPRN database" - the risk is that this sort of 
speculation leads to a lack of trust


On 01/08/2020 21:19, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 01/08/2020 20:24, Nick wrote:
As a follow up, Robert Whittaker also submitted an FOI asking for 
"... a list of all UPRNs that are classified as 'historic', and a 
separate list of all those classified as a 'parent' ". the 
logicto me was that this would help users of Open Data to then filter 
these out. The response that this was "exempt from disclosure under 
section 21 of the FOIA" - if you are interested follow the link to 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr


In another move, the Environment Agency flood risk website no longer 
allows you to link directly to a property by UPRN. You used to be able 
to construct a link in this format:


https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/risk?address=[uprn] 



But that no longer works. Now, you have to search by postcode, and 
when you select an address the site then sets a cookie which 
determines which property details you will be shown. And, checking the 
source of the postcode page, it no longer has the UPRN as a variable 
for each property. Instead, it's a simple sequential number. For 
example, if there are ten properties in a postcode, then the variables 
will be numbered 0 to 9.


I'm pretty certain this is deliberate, in order to stop people using 
their site as a way to look up addresses from a UPRN. And I suspect 
it's part of the same attempts by GeoPlace to deliberately minimise 
the utility of the Open UPRN database.


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] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

As a follow up, Robert Whittaker also submitted an FOI asking for "... a 
list of all UPRNs that are classified as 'historic', and a separate list 
of all those classified as a 'parent' ". the logicto me was that 
this would help users of Open Data to then filter these out. The 
response that this was "exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the 
FOIA" - if you are interested follow the link to 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr


I was also interested regarding the details of the batch allocation to 
each custodian. So apart from the commercial value, this is unlikely to 
be published as apparently this might be misleading due to the 
randomness of the data and likely to be out of date quickly.


So much for the potential for collaboration with the various authorities.

On 06/07/2020 15:10, Nick wrote:


Hi Jez

To clarify, what I did was to find a 'suspicious' UPRN (two pins on 
one building with different address details). I then looked up the 
address on an online system (e.g. OneScotlandGazetteer or the local 
authority online Planning system) to check the details (UPRN and 
address). That allowed me to have details, which in this instance I 
then checked property sites (e.g. ESPC) to verify the 'likely' error.


If you want more details of the example, let me know and I can put a 
bit more detail together.


Cheers

Nick

On 06/07/2020 12:34, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Sorry, i mean 'findmyaddress'.

Also, from this Twitter thread 
https://twitter.com/jnicho02/status/1279821108783579139?s=20 I note 
that some streets have a UPRN. Existing services filter them out.


On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:29 Jez Nicholson, <mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Do you mean that you looked up the UPRN on findmystreet and it's
supposedly in a different location to the latlon in the file?

    On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:26 Nick, mailto:n...@foresters.org>> wrote:

So I have just started with my crude system and already found
one UPRN
that looks as if it is in the wrong location (wrong postcode
6BT > 6ST ~
and wrong county). If I am correct, then this demonstrates
the value of
opening up data to more 'eyes'. Not sure how we could collate
all lists
of anomalies to demonstrate this to government.

On 06/07/2020 12:09, Nick wrote:
> I went for the crude approach as my computer is not that
powerful, so
> I split the CSV into chunks and imported batches into QGIS
with
> county/postcode boundaries as my interest is trying to
understand how
> the UPRNs have been batched. Not elegant but means that I
now can
> focus on our area and identify those UPRNs that are most
useful to me
> for plotting missing rural properties. I can then write a
script to
> only give me those UPRNs of interest. As I say, crude but
useful to me
> as I can now start to match addresses to UPRN when I add
properties.
>
> On 05/07/2020 20:56, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>> On 05.07.2020 18:45, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>>> On 05.07.2020 17:51, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>>> Naive question - can that be added as a layer in JOSM?
If so, how?
>>> I'll have to check whether I can manage that anyway with
the new server
>>> now. Will come back to this.
>> Meh. 3 hours in, every possible lead I had didn't bring me
closer to
>> setting up the UPRN data in the same way.
>>
>> Having 6 GiB of GeoPackage or 2 GiB of MySQL data doesn't
make working
>> with the data any easier.
>>
>> I will look out for help from the GeoServer people during
the week,
>> watch this space :)
>>
>> K
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Nick]

Save the file as an XML file on your computer or wherever then in JOSM: 
Edit>Preferences>Map Display>Tagging presets - then click the + sign and 
add the file.


On 30/07/2020 16:08, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 15:36, Tony OSM  wrote:


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


http://josm.openstreetmap.de/tagging-preset-1.0; >

[...]



Where/ how do I need to save that, to use it in JOSM?



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Nick]

Hi Tony

I had contacted one of the authors but also did wonder if it was better 
to make my own - thank you so much for sharing your version :-)


Cheers

Nick

On 30/07/2020 15:36, Tony OSM wrote:


Hi

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


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

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

            
            
            
            
            
   


to produce tags

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

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

Tony

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


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


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


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


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


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


Hi

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



/National Heritage List for England (Historic England)/

//

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


//

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

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


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

On 15/07/2020 10:18, Tony OSM wrote:

Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled
Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage
Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number.

Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I,
II*, II) and a list entry number.


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

Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence Agreement

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

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

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

© Historic England [year]. Contains Or

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Nick]

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


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


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


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


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


Hi

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



/National Heritage List for England (Historic England)/

//

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


//

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

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


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

On 15/07/2020 10:18, Tony OSM wrote:

Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled
Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage
Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number.

Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I,
II*, II) and a list entry number.


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

Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. This licence does not giv

Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings

[Nick Whitelegg]

Re a "UK walking style" there is Freemap, my own (long-standing) project, which 
has gone through a number of ups and downs (mostly due to hosting difficulties 
and lack of time to work on it) but has had a number of style improvements this 
year due to having more time than expected to work on it. It's at 
https://www.free-map.org.uk.

It aims to distinguish between the different types of walking routes, in 
particular public rights of way and permissive paths.

It doesn't use the standard Mapnik approach, but kothic.js, which is a 
client-side rendering library which takes GeoJSON data and MapCSS compiled into 
JavaScript.

Nick


From: Mark Goodge 
Sent: 24 July 2020 14:41
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings



On 24/07/2020 13:20, Martin Wynne wrote:
>   > but most people I know aren't aware of OSM.
>
> I've been trying to persuade country-walking groups to use OSM. There is
> a lot of useful stuff there not shown on OS Explorer -- stiles, kissing
> gates, benches, bus stops, all pubs, cafes, etc. It's a lot more
> up-to-date, and if they find anything missing they can add it themselves
> for the benefit of others.
>
> Most of them go back to OS Explorer when they find UK public rights of
> way are not shown in different colours on the OSM standard map.

Yes; this is an issue specifically for map users on foot. With roads,
the question of legality is much less of an issue - almost all roads of
any significance are public highways, and those that are not are usually
clearly marked as such. But with footpaths and farm tracks in open
countryside, there is often no obvious visual distinction, and yet the
legality is a critical factor to users. This is an area in which OS maps
are much more useful to walkers.

On the other hand, one of the areas where OSM is better than OS is that
we map permissive paths, which OS tends not to unless they are big
enough to also be usable by vehicles (and even then, it doesn't have any
means of indicating permission).

This is one of the reasons why it would be nice to have a UK-specific
stylesheet for OSM. The data is there, so there's no reason why it cant
be rendered. Or, alternatively, a dedicated "outdoors" stylesheet which
focusses on hiking, biking, etc.

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] Surveying rural buildings

[Nick]

My thanks to Mateusz and Dave for their comments, which I would like to 
try to summarise as I see it:


 * the purpose of OSM mapping in the UK of rural buildings is primarily
   to provide a general location of properties i.e. accuracy and
   precision are unnecessary.
 * 'armchair' mapping therefore meets the needs, predominantly using
   aerial photos or other tools/data

If so, I guess I was missing the point as I kind of thought that in the 
future there might be the potential for collaboration with Ordnance 
Survey e.g. filling in the gaps with high quality surveys, sharing 
'other' data (based on local knowledge) that is not on OS maps etc.


I also thought that there might be scope for collaboration with 
construction developers - after all they do detailed surveys of their 
building sites which could be added to OSM. For some developers that 
would mean they could have free plans (site/location etc.) for their 
planning applications. The data  in turn could be of value to the Local 
Authorities e.g. creating UPRN and BLPU data - with a collaborative 
approach OSM 'volunteers' could also be checking data quality.


Hmm..  the potential for real collaboration between OSM 'volunteers', OS 
and other agencies strikes me as a possible win-win?.. but I suppose 
that is me going 'a step too far'


On 23/07/2020 10:55, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:




Jul 23, 2020, 11:49 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk:

On 23/07/2020 10:12, Nick wrote:

Do we actually know what the general public use OSM for?


My impression is that the target for a lot of the material in OSM
is professional users of maps, rather than the general public.

I would say that most of use by general public is indirect - from 
location

maps in a bus, through maps on mapy.cz/Osmand/FB/Snapchat/Uber/Maps.me
to indirectly benefiting from use of OSM data in various 
plans/analysis/scientific research.


I would say that direct use by general public is going to be fairly 
rare, though still

happening, like with nearly all resources.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Nick]

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


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


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


Hi

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



/National Heritage List for England (Historic England)/

//

/The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (commonly 
known as //Historic England //) has 
given permission for the //National Heritage List for England 
//(NHLE) 
to be used in OSM under the terms of the //Open Government Licence v3 
//. 
//[10] 
//No 
specific attribution was requested, so the default: "Contains public 
sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0." 
applies. The NHLE includes the following heritage listings: /


//

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

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


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

On 15/07/2020 10:18, Tony OSM wrote:

Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled
Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage
Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number.

Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I,
II*, II) and a list entry number.


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

Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. All intellectual proprietary rights in this Historic England GIS
Data and the documentation remain vested in Historic 

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Nick]

My apologies, I have just realised this discussion only relates to 
english tags.


Is it worth discussing in tandem what happens in other parts of GB 
(separate thread)? for example, in Scotland the "Garden & Designed 
Landscape" designation don't have individual grades (category) but are 
generally designated ("Status: Designated") and given a unique reference 
e.g. GDL00351


On 23/07/2020 09:00, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 22/07/2020 23:02, Dave Love wrote:

On Wed, 2020-07-15 at 10:18 +0100, Tony OSM wrote:


For a building or similar I presently use

HE_ref=1072653
heritage=2
heritage:operator= Historic England
historic= heritage
listed_status=Grade II
name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park
barrier=gate
start_date= mid C19
website=
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653


I forgot to comment before:  From a maintenance point of view, is it a
good idea to add redundant data (that I assume are implied by HE_ref)?


The HE_Ref is probably the important one, as that links back to the 
original data source. But the rest of it seems a reasonable way of 
tagging listed buildings.



Also:

On Thu, 2020-07-16 at 14:10 +0100, Tony OSM wrote:

Yes, maintenance when things change is an issue.

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

I plan to do several things if there are no objections

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


What happens to, say, a park/garden with a grade, then?


Parks and Gardens are, typically, not listed buildings and don't have 
grades in the same way.



Straying a bit from the topic a bit, perhaps it's worth adding
something about adding listed things that may not be obvious to
everyone.  If you find in the HE listings a building (say) you don't
already know and want to tag it, presumably it's a problem that you
can't just match the position on their OS maps to OSM.  I assume you
need to take the listed grid reference and just use that (which you
probably can't with curtilages etc. or a monument like an ancient
ditch, though that's likely on NLS 1:1).  The wiki could use info
about converting grid references too, unless I missed it.


The re-usable data for listed buildings only contains a point, so 
that's the only useful geographic data for them even if the map on the 
HE website shows the curtilage. Some of the data for monuments 
includes a polygon, but not all, and you can't tell from the website 
which does and which doesn't - you have to download and convert the 
shapefiles.


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] Surveying rural buildings

[Nick]

I have not tried Vector Map Local (seems pricey if you want to cover 
large rural areas and I am not running a business).


As far as I know, OSMAI only covers England (not Scotland?)

Re purpose - in Scotland there are sites (e.g. https://osg.scot/portal/) 
that enable you to find a property easily. So the purpose here may need 
to be different (e.g. more detailed mapping,  link to other local data)? 
Do we actually know what the general public use OSM for?


On 22/07/2020 22:13, Dave Love wrote:

On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 11:29 +0100, Nick wrote:

Dear all

I have been mapping a few properties using Bing maps with local
knowledge supplemented by some physical measuring (tape measure or
simply pacing). I now want to ramp up my mapping but the challenge
especially in rural areas is that sometimes the outline of a building
is
not clear - either obscured (e.g. trees) or unclear (e.g. decking or
car
ports). Also some aerial imagery is offset. Also, most of the
properties
are not along public roads. So my question is what are the preferred
methods for surveying that others are using?

I don't know about preferred, and it sounds as if you want something
better, but is OS VectorMapLocal any use?  It gives the impression of
being machine-derived from imagery (probably not as well as "osmai" in
JOSM), and needs significant tidying up using good imagery if you care
to do it, but it generally gives a good indication of buildings'
presence, at least.  It definitely won't help with car ports etc.  It
would be interesting to know if it does show buildings that are
obscured in imagery.  I've used it in built-up areas, and I don't
remember relevant cases; in one with trees that I remember checking, it
wasn't recent enough anyway.

I don't think VectorMapLocal is actually listed on the wiki, and it
could do with some notes on using it.  It's definitely made adding
buildings in urban areas easier since I discovered it (from a reference
on a web site using it, not OSM info!).  Then UPRN and land registry
data seem to be useful for splitting building outlines plausibly to aid
address surveys.


I guess at the back of my mind is what do people perceive as the
purpose of mapping (hope I have not opened a can of worms).

I see the purpose of adding buildings and then address information
(especially postcodes) as allowing you to find them using the map for
navigation.  Your mileage may vary, so to speak.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings

[Nick]

Hi Mateusz

Many thanks for your comments.

It would also be good to hear from others, particularly around the 
question of the purpose of mapping. I was thinking that my purpose was 
to provide other people (OSM mappers and the general public) with the 
information that meets their needs. The problem is that without knowing 
how people use the maps, identifying the quality of the data is tricky. 
The other challenge for people using the maps is not knowing what the 
quality is ~ e.g. how comprehensively properties are mapped, precision 
in terms of location etc. I also wonder if the quality is good, that 
people might use OSM as the map to go to e.g. for Planning applications?


Cheers

Nick

On 22/07/2020 13:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:




Jul 20, 2020, 12:29 by n...@foresters.org:

Dear all

I have been mapping a few properties using Bing maps with local
knowledge supplemented by some physical measuring (tape measure or
simply pacing). I now want to ramp up my mapping but the challenge
especially in rural areas is that sometimes the outline of a
building is not clear - either obscured (e.g. trees) or unclear
(e.g. decking or car ports). Also some aerial imagery is offset.
Also, most of the properties are not along public roads. So my
question is what are the preferred methods for surveying that
others are using?

Nobody replied so far so...

I am not worried too much about geometry offset, especially in rural 
areas where

moving building to fix offset is usually not problematic.

Supplementary question, do you include or exclude conservatories,
car ports etc. from the main structure of the property?

It depends. I usually include them in case of armchair mapping of 
aerial images (unless there is
a visible gap). In mapping during survey it depends whatever car port 
is part of a building structure

or a separate structure standing next to house.

I guess at the back of my mind is what do people perceive as the
purpose of mapping (hope I have not opened a can of worms).

In my case I map what is useful for projects that I use/like or is 
very simple to map

(=available as StreetComplete quest).

So right now I map parking lanes for 
https://github.com/dabreegster/abstreet

and in rural areas I tend to map hiking routes rather than buildings.

___
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] Electric vehicle charging points

[Nick]

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN tag proposal page

[Nick]

Hi Lester

Rob has suggested a matching USRN tag

You make a good point regarding upper and lower case. Perhaps the tag 
should be ref:GB:UPRN in line with normal convention of referring to 
UPRN in upper case?


Nick

On 21/07/2020 10:34, Lester Caine wrote:

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

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

Looks sensible to me but will there be a matching usrn tag?

I see the occasional use of :gb: on other tags and any 'convention' on 
upper or lower case is possibly an international one, but I'm not sure 
anything actually says the country code being upper case trumps the 
convention of tags being lower case? I'm a long time PHP user where 
the case is agnostic anyway in many cases but again that is not 
specified here either ...




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

[Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings

[Nick]

Dear all

I have been mapping a few properties using Bing maps with local 
knowledge supplemented by some physical measuring (tape measure or 
simply pacing). I now want to ramp up my mapping but the challenge 
especially in rural areas is that sometimes the outline of a building is 
not clear - either obscured (e.g. trees) or unclear (e.g. decking or car 
ports). Also some aerial imagery is offset. Also, most of the properties 
are not along public roads. So my question is what are the preferred 
methods for surveying that others are using?


I had thought perhaps a) simply sketches coupled with approximate 
geolocation (GPS assuming I can get a decent fix on a mobile phone) but 
perhaps b) using GPS linked to a laser rangefinder (e.g. identify 
corners of buildings from a distance) or c) sophisticated cameras (3D)? 
I realise that different mappers will be happy with different levels of 
precision but wonder if in the UK how we can balance cost, time and 
accuracy by selecting the best approaches.


Supplementary question, do you include or exclude conservatories, car 
ports etc. from the main structure of the property?


I guess at the back of my mind is what do people perceive as the purpose 
of mapping (hope I have not opened a can of worms).


Any thoughts/suggestions gratefully received

Nick

P.S. I am aware of some documentation e.g. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Accuracy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Nick]

Just wondering how this links to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:heritage - I was planning to use 
the tags detailed there together with the combinations.


On 16/07/2020 14:10, Tony OSM wrote:


Yes, maintenance when things change is an issue.

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


I plan to do several things if there are no objections

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


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

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

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


Tony

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


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


On 16/07/2020 10:51, SK53 wrote:
It looks that for listed gardens we've used a combination of 
listed_status & listed_status_register (so each type belongs in a 
separate register): see Bagthorpe Gardens 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30805101#map=18/52.97843/-1.15535>.


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


Jerry

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


I use listed_status =Scheduled Monument

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 10:19 Tony OSM, mailto:tonyo...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found
Scheduled Monuments. They are described in the Historic
England list as Heritage Category: Scheduled Monument and
has a List Entry Number.

Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building ,
Grade: (I, II*, II) and a list entry number.

I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not
for Scheduled Monument or for any of the other Heritage
Categories (Protected Wreck Site,
Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site,
Certificate of Immunity, Building Preservation Notice)

Can someone point me to the correct place for English
guidelines?

I have looked at:

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

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

For a building or similar I presently use

HE_ref=1072653
heritage=2
heritage:operator= Historic England
historic= heritage
listed_status=Grade II
name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park
barrier=gate
start_date= mid C19

website=https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653

Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions?


Tony Shield -  TonyS999

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

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


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


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Nick]

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


On 16/07/2020 10:51, SK53 wrote:
It looks that for listed gardens we've used a combination of 
listed_status & listed_status_register (so each type belongs in a 
separate register): see Bagthorpe Gardens 
.


Mapping listed sties was a particular interest when Will & Richard 
Phillips created Evesham Mapped 
, 
so buildings and gardens are covered at least.


Jerry

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 11:17, Brian Prangle > wrote:


I use listed_status =Scheduled Monument

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 10:19 Tony OSM, mailto:tonyo...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found
Scheduled Monuments. They are described in the Historic
England list as Heritage Category: Scheduled Monument and has
a List Entry Number.

Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building ,
Grade: (I, II*, II) and a list entry number.

I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not
for Scheduled Monument or for any of the other Heritage
Categories (Protected Wreck Site,
Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate
of Immunity, Building Preservation Notice)

Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines?

I have looked at:

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

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

For a building or similar I presently use

HE_ref=1072653
heritage=2
heritage:operator= Historic England
historic= heritage
listed_status=Grade II
name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park
barrier=gate
start_date= mid C19

website=https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653

Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions?


Tony Shield -  TonyS999

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
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] Scheduled Monument

[Nick]

Just a thought, is there any value aligning with Wikidata ('heritage 
designation') https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1435 or at least 
have links?


On 15/07/2020 11:16, Brian Prangle wrote:

I use listed_status =Scheduled Monument

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 10:19 Tony OSM, > wrote:


Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found
Scheduled Monuments. They are described in the Historic England
list as Heritage Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry
Number.

Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade:
(I, II*, II) and a list entry number.

I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not for
Scheduled Monument or for any of the other Heritage Categories
(Protected Wreck Site,
Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of
Immunity, Building Preservation Notice)

Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines?

I have looked at:

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

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

For a building or similar I presently use

HE_ref=1072653
heritage=2
heritage:operator= Historic England
historic= heritage
listed_status=Grade II
name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park
barrier=gate
start_date= mid C19
website=https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653

Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions?


Tony Shield -  TonyS999

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Nick]

Not sure if this is of help - in Scotland there is this link 
https://www.historicenvironment.scot/advice-and-support/listing-scheduling-and-designations/scheduled-monuments/types-of-scheduled-monument/ 
which translates to 'Category' (e.g. Roman: camp) in the gis data set.


On 15/07/2020 10:18, Tony OSM wrote:


Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled 
Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage 
Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number.


Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I, 
II*, II) and a list entry number.


I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not for 
Scheduled Monument or for any of the other Heritage Categories 
(Protected Wreck Site,
Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of 
Immunity, Building Preservation Notice)


Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines?

I have looked at:

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

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

For a building or similar I presently use

HE_ref=1072653
heritage=2
heritage:operator= Historic England
historic= heritage
listed_status=Grade II
name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park
barrier=gate
start_date= mid C19
website=https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653

Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions?


Tony Shield -  TonyS999


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Nick]

That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. Scotland 
and England).


A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, 
farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that it 
is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would certainly 
help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid 
restrictions.


Nick

On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote:

Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
consensus? It would be super helpful

Dan

Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
:


.. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse 
is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way 
(except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths 
are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a 
permissive path' notice.

Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations.

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common


I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, 
or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are 
not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 
'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the 
landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use.

I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' 
to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive 
use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'.

I tend to use:
designation for rights of way;
foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths;
foot=yes for urban paths;
access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign.

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an 
error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the 
tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, 
indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to 
an implied value.

OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end 
user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly 
stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut 
from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and 
housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as 
likely to be closed as the nearby highways.

Kind regards,

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

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Nick Whitelegg]

.. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse 
is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way 
(except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths 
are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a 
permissive path' notice.

Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations.

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common


I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, 
or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are 
not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 
'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the 
landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use.

I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' 
to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive 
use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'.

I tend to use:
designation for rights of way;
foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths;
foot=yes for urban paths;
access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign.

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an 
error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the 
tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, 
indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to 
an implied value.

OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end 
user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly 
stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut 
from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and 
housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as 
likely to be closed as the nearby highways.

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Nick Whitelegg]

I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, 
or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are 
not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 
'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the 
landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use.

I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' 
to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive 
use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'.

I tend to use:
designation for rights of way;
foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths;
foot=yes for urban paths;
access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign.

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an 
error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the 
tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, 
indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to 
an implied value.

OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end 
user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly 
stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut 
from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and 
housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as 
likely to be closed as the nearby highways.

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Nick]

Hi Lester

I think there needs to be some thought as to the "proper channel to feed 
corrections to the 'data officer' responsible". It took me months to get 
a 'data officer' to correct the location of a single UPRN, so my thought 
is that this needs to be a 'public' (open) channel that shows a) the 
number of issues identified (the rationale for making data open) and b) 
how long it takes for these to be investigated and resolved (if 
appropriate).


On 10/07/2020 14:21, Lester Caine wrote:

On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
This is, of course, one of the problems with proprietary data. It can 
be difficult to spot errors, because the people who are most likely 
to spot errors - members of the general public with local knowledge - 
tend not to have easy access to the data.


Spot on ...
The 'proprietary data' is however the input from the relevant officer 
at the council covering the area. Probably originally tacked on to 
another job description and someone who probably had no training is 
this 'new' function? I was receiving NLPG updates for many years and 
the vast majority of 'updates' were corrections to data rather than 
additions. The problem has always been not allowing public access to 
what has always been public data and now we do have access there needs 
to be a proper channel to feed corrections to the 'data officer' 
responsible for the relevant slice of raw data. I don't think THAT has 
changed since the requirements for councils to provided the raw NPLG 
data passed into law? I'm fairly sure the street data is part of the 
same legal framework ...




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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Nick]

Hi Mark

Brilliant comment - "because the people who are most likely to spot 
errors - members of the general public with local knowledge - tend not 
to have easy access to the data". Now we need the evidence (errors) 
collated centrally (OSM?).


On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
Apologies for the long read, but this may be interesting to some folk. 
This follows on from my earlier response to Kai Michael Poppe about 
"Fairfield Road" in Ealing.


On 04/07/2020 12:02, I wrote:


To find the USRN of the path, you need to use the lookup tables 
supplied by OS. Doing that, we find that the associated USRN is 
20602512.


Now, there's no open data source which will directly tell you the 
name of a USRN (at least, not until we start putting them into OSM). 
The long way of doing so is to find the matching LineString in OS 
OpenMap Local, and see what name it has there.


However, it can be done directly via a non-open source. If you go to 
https://www.findmystreet.co.uk/map and zoom in on the location, then 
click the street to bring up the USRN details, it will give the name 
(and also confirm that the USRN from the OS lookup table is correct). 
Or use the search box and search for USRN 20602512.


 From an OSM point of view, that would normally be a dead end. Even 
if you can view the information on a non-open source, you can't 
incorporate it into OSM. However, in this case, we already have an 
abbreviated name from an open source. So all we are learning from the 
closed source is the full text of the abbreviation. Whether that 
makes it acceptable to include the full name into OSM is a matter of 
debate. I'll leave that decision up to others, but, for reference, 
the name of the street is Fairfield Road.


I've been doing a bit more research in this, as it piqued my interest. 
And the results are a little surprising.


For a start, USRN 20602512 doesn't match Fairfield Road in OS LocalMap 
Open. In fact, there's no Fairfield Road anywhere near there in OSLMO. 
Matching the coordinates indicates that, as far as OS is concerned, 
it's a part of Southdown Avenue. That's not particularly unusual, 
access roads off named streets often don't have a name of their own, 
they're either completely unnamed or share the name of their parent 
street.


However, I did wonder whether this might just be a limitation on OS 
Open Data, and whether MasterMap might actually include the name. 
That's not reusable in OSM, of course, but it might help point to an 
open source that does contain it.


But it seems that even MasterMap doesn't have that name. You can check 
that by looking at Ealing's online GIS website:


http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Planning/Planning.html

This is a planning application map, but it's just a window into their 
GIS system and you can turn off the planning layers. Anyway, zoom all 
the way in to the street in question - I can't give you a persistent 
link, but it's just above the LA boundary in the bottom middle of the 
map - and... it still has no name. At the highest zoom level, this is 
MasterMap, and every named object has its name displayed. But there's 
no name here.


Google, also, knows nothing of a Fairfield Road here. Using the Maps 
API to query the coordinates of USRN 20602512, we either get Southdown 
Avenue, again, or Boston Gardens, which is the postal address of 
buildings facing Boston Road. You can see that name on the road sign 
via Google Streetview:


https://goo.gl/maps/KGLbRC75mQw43PCV6

So, it seems that Fairfield Gardens isn't known to either OS or 
Google. It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at 
that zoom level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps 
rather than OS.


Given that, we can't include the name "Fairfield Road" in OSM as it's 
only available from non-open sources. But even those non-open sources 
don't agree on the name. That seems to me to lead to two possibilities:


1. It doesn't exist at all. It's just a map trap designed to catch out 
unwary copyright infringers. That's certainly a possibility, and A-Z 
maps are known to use those. But that doesn't explain its presence in 
the USRN database.


2. The USRN name is wrong, but that error has propagated to the A-Z maps.

Personally, I think that the second option is the most likely. And, if 
so, it wouldn't be the only error in USRN. One of the things I had to 
deal with a few years ago, in my capacity as a district councillor, 
was a country lane in my ward that had the wrong name assigned to it 
in USRN. After a bit of investigation, we concluded that it had simply 
been a transcription error back in the late 90s when the local 
gazetteer was first digitised, but it had gone unnoticed for a couple 
of decades simply because the wrong name never appeared anywhere in 
public until it eventually cropped up on a planning application. 
Getting the name corrected wasn't an easy task, because of the length 
of time it had been wrongly recorded, but we did eventually 

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

Hi Jez

To clarify, what I did was to find a 'suspicious' UPRN (two pins on one 
building with different address details). I then looked up the address 
on an online system (e.g. OneScotlandGazetteer or the local authority 
online Planning system) to check the details (UPRN and address). That 
allowed me to have details, which in this instance I then checked 
property sites (e.g. ESPC) to verify the 'likely' error.


If you want more details of the example, let me know and I can put a bit 
more detail together.


Cheers

Nick

On 06/07/2020 12:34, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Sorry, i mean 'findmyaddress'.

Also, from this Twitter thread 
https://twitter.com/jnicho02/status/1279821108783579139?s=20 I note 
that some streets have a UPRN. Existing services filter them out.


On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:29 Jez Nicholson, <mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Do you mean that you looked up the UPRN on findmystreet and it's
supposedly in a different location to the latlon in the file?

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:26 Nick, mailto:n...@foresters.org>> wrote:

So I have just started with my crude system and already found
one UPRN
that looks as if it is in the wrong location (wrong postcode
6BT > 6ST ~
and wrong county). If I am correct, then this demonstrates the
value of
opening up data to more 'eyes'. Not sure how we could collate
all lists
of anomalies to demonstrate this to government.

On 06/07/2020 12:09, Nick wrote:
> I went for the crude approach as my computer is not that
powerful, so
> I split the CSV into chunks and imported batches into QGIS with
> county/postcode boundaries as my interest is trying to
understand how
> the UPRNs have been batched. Not elegant but means that I
now can
> focus on our area and identify those UPRNs that are most
useful to me
> for plotting missing rural properties. I can then write a
script to
> only give me those UPRNs of interest. As I say, crude but
useful to me
> as I can now start to match addresses to UPRN when I add
properties.
>
> On 05/07/2020 20:56, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>> On 05.07.2020 18:45, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>>> On 05.07.2020 17:51, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>>> Naive question - can that be added as a layer in JOSM? If
so, how?
>>> I'll have to check whether I can manage that anyway with
the new server
>>> now. Will come back to this.
>> Meh. 3 hours in, every possible lead I had didn't bring me
closer to
>> setting up the UPRN data in the same way.
>>
>> Having 6 GiB of GeoPackage or 2 GiB of MySQL data doesn't
make working
>> with the data any easier.
>>
>> I will look out for help from the GeoServer people during
the week,
>> watch this space :)
>>
>> K
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

So I have just started with my crude system and already found one UPRN 
that looks as if it is in the wrong location (wrong postcode 6BT > 6ST ~ 
and wrong county). If I am correct, then this demonstrates the value of 
opening up data to more 'eyes'. Not sure how we could collate all lists 
of anomalies to demonstrate this to government.


On 06/07/2020 12:09, Nick wrote:
I went for the crude approach as my computer is not that powerful, so 
I split the CSV into chunks and imported batches into QGIS with 
county/postcode boundaries as my interest is trying to understand how 
the UPRNs have been batched. Not elegant but means that I now can 
focus on our area and identify those UPRNs that are most useful to me 
for plotting missing rural properties. I can then write a script to 
only give me those UPRNs of interest. As I say, crude but useful to me 
as I can now start to match addresses to UPRN when I add properties.


On 05/07/2020 20:56, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:

On 05.07.2020 18:45, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:

On 05.07.2020 17:51, Andy Mabbett wrote:

Naive question - can that be added as a layer in JOSM? If so, how?

I'll have to check whether I can manage that anyway with the new server
now. Will come back to this.

Meh. 3 hours in, every possible lead I had didn't bring me closer to
setting up the UPRN data in the same way.

Having 6 GiB of GeoPackage or 2 GiB of MySQL data doesn't make working
with the data any easier.

I will look out for help from the GeoServer people during the week,
watch this space :)

K

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


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

I went for the crude approach as my computer is not that powerful, so I 
split the CSV into chunks and imported batches into QGIS with 
county/postcode boundaries as my interest is trying to understand how 
the UPRNs have been batched. Not elegant but means that I now can focus 
on our area and identify those UPRNs that are most useful to me for 
plotting missing rural properties. I can then write a script to only 
give me those UPRNs of interest. As I say, crude but useful to me as I 
can now start to match addresses to UPRN when I add properties.


On 05/07/2020 20:56, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:

On 05.07.2020 18:45, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:

On 05.07.2020 17:51, Andy Mabbett wrote:

Naive question - can that be added as a layer in JOSM? If so, how?

I'll have to check whether I can manage that anyway with the new server
now. Will come back to this.

Meh. 3 hours in, every possible lead I had didn't bring me closer to
setting up the UPRN data in the same way.

Having 6 GiB of GeoPackage or 2 GiB of MySQL data doesn't make working
with the data any easier.

I will look out for help from the GeoServer people during the week,
watch this space :)

K

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

Hi Mark

I was wondering in the future if street names etc. could be derived from 
Mapillary (attribution source=Mapillary) where images exist?


Cheers

Nick

On 04/07/2020 12:02, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 04/07/2020 06:16, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:


So, a few months ago I stumbled upon a note
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2158104#map=19/51.49829/-0.32762)
that StreetComplete left saying, that the street couldn't be given a
name because there's none shown.

Back then, I used streetmap.co.uk
(https://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=516161=179063=Y=106) in
hopes to finding something - but only got "FAI RD." which - to me -
makes no sense.

Also, using https://os.openstreetmap.org/ makes it look like that's just
an access path to houses around it, which is (IMHO) not entirely true as
the way directly linking Southdown Av. and Boston Rd. clearly is
publicly accessible.

Now, using the above mentioned map
(https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/#19/51.4983/-0.3279) I now know,
that this street has the UPRN ID 12145988.


That may not be the UPRN of the path or street. It may be the UPRN of 
the open space that the path runs through. The path is more likely to 
have a USRN (unique street reference number) than a UPRN.


To find the USRN of the path, you need to use the lookup tables 
supplied by OS. Doing that, we find that the associated USRN is 20602512.


Now, there's no open data source which will directly tell you the name 
of a USRN (at least, not until we start putting them into OSM). The 
long way of doing so is to find the matching LineString in OS OpenMap 
Local, and see what name it has there.


However, it can be done directly via a non-open source. If you go to 
https://www.findmystreet.co.uk/map and zoom in on the location, then 
click the street to bring up the USRN details, it will give the name 
(and also confirm that the USRN from the OS lookup table is correct). 
Or use the search box and search for USRN 20602512.


From an OSM point of view, that would normally be a dead end. Even if 
you can view the information on a non-open source, you can't 
incorporate it into OSM. However, in this case, we already have an 
abbreviated name from an open source. So all we are learning from the 
closed source is the full text of the abbreviation. Whether that makes 
it acceptable to include the full name into OSM is a matter of debate. 
I'll leave that decision up to others, but, for reference, the name of 
the street is Fairfield Road.


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] UPRN & USRN Tagging

[Nick]

Hi Mike

I tend to agree in terms of consistency. Looking at the results for 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=usrn - the key 'ref:usrn' 
dominates so to me makes sense to use 'key:uprn'. Searching on UPRN 
reveals the lack of clarity.


Cheers

Nick

On 03/07/2020 17:47, Mike Baggaley wrote:

I note that ref:usrn was added to the Key:ref wiki in May 2017 and I can see no 
real reason to add GB into the key, especially if it is upper case. There are 
lots of examples of other country specific tags which do not include a country 
code on that page, in fact I can't see a single one that does include a country 
code.

Regards,
Mike


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


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

Hi Tony

Thanks for that - my thinking have been that when I run my query on a 
single UPRN, I am retrieving the contents of the page as text on my 
personal computer and then processing the data for non-commercial use. 
If I then use that data to create or verify the address on a property 
plotted on OSM is that the issue? To be honest, my personal interest is 
a) getting address data on maps so that it will save lives (I speak from 
personal experience) and b) to check and correct errors in the public 
gazetteer (e.g. OneScotlandGazetteer but also Royal Mail).


It will be interesting if in the future, if calling for emergency 
services people will be asked to give their UPRN.


I actually think that at the root of the problem is the "philosophy of 
what is an address" so that I know how I can add address data to OSM - I 
am happy to acknowledge the source on OSM.


Cheers

Nick
On 03/07/2020 11:23, Tony OSM wrote:
I spent part of yesterday navigating the relevant OS and LandRegistry 
sites and trying to figure out what we can do.


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


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


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


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


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



Regards

TonyS999




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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Other objects also appear to have UPRNs. Likely things I've noticed so
far include: car parks, post boxes, telephone boxes (even after
th

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

Hi Russ

I was wondering about that - I checked on https://osg.scot/portal/ to 
check licensing and could not see anything relevant when searching for 
individual UPRNs.


This introduces an interesting debate regarding addresses. As far as I 
know the PostCode is under license from Royal Mail - if so does that 
mean we should not put that on buildings plotted in OSM? From personal 
experience, I know that Local Authorities do make mistakes and UPRNs 
with associated data (address etc.) can be incorrect, including UPRNs in 
the wrong location. The tool I developed was to enable me to verify 
address data - I do that by also checking the Roayl Mail address finder.


Perhaps you can shed some light on the tangle of relevant licensing?

Cheers

Nick

On 03/07/2020 10:07, Russ Garrett wrote:

Just to emphasise that the output from your script is not suitable for
use in OSM - the osg.scot license forbids it.

Russ

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 23:17, Nick  wrote:

Hi Peter

re: "I am still not clear how best to use the data available" - I have written 
a simple bit of VBA that enables address data to be retrieved for a given UPRN (I attach 
the VBA used in a form for Excel) - this only works for Scotland but may be available 
elsewhere. Using the concept you can use Python (a friend has done some preliminary work) 
or similar. This is not elegant but is perhaps a first step in enabling a whole lot of 
development?

Cheers

Nick


On 02/07/2020 18:38, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi Robert,

Many thanks for producing that map.

I was able to look at my street and see a blue pin in each of the building 
outlines that I had mapped from aerial imagery, so that gave me a warm, smug 
feeling :)

I too noticed some not-yet-there properties in a nearby development that had UPRNs 
assigned - Not a problem really (IMHO).  There is also one allocated to a pond near me; I 
didn't know that was "addressable"!

However, I am still not clear how best to use the data available, if you can't use it to 
look up the address of the property.  Similarly, I am not sure how a data consumer could 
use the data, if we laboriously edited every property in OSM to include a 
"ref:GB:UPRN=" tag (or similar; other tags are available.).

Sorry not to be able to contribute something more useful... :(

Regards,
Peter



On Thursday, 2 July 2020, 17:40:51 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I hope some of this is useful / interesting. I hope to be

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

Hi Peter

re: "I am still not clear how best to use the data available" - I have 
written a simple bit of VBA that enables address data to be retrieved 
for a given UPRN (I attach the VBA used in a form for Excel) - this only 
works for Scotland but may be available elsewhere. Using the concept you 
can use Python (a friend has done some preliminary work) or similar. 
This is not elegant but is perhaps a first step in enabling a whole lot 
of development?


Cheers

Nick


On 02/07/2020 18:38, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi Robert,

Many thanks for producing that map.

I was able to look at my street and see a blue pin in each of the 
building outlines that I had mapped from aerial imagery, so that gave 
me a warm, smug feeling :)


I too noticed some not-yet-there properties in a nearby development 
that had UPRNs assigned - Not a problem really (IMHO).  There is also 
one allocated to a pond near me; I didn't know that was "addressable"!


However, I am still not clear how best to use the data available, if 
you can't use it to look up the address of the property.  Similarly, I 
am not sure how a data consumer could use the data, if we laboriously 
edited every property in OSM to include a "ref:GB:UPRN=" tag (or 
similar; other tags are available.).


Sorry not to be able to contribute something more useful... :(

Regards,
Peter



On Thursday, 2 July 2020, 17:40:51 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:



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

https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ 
<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 <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Private Sub CommandButton1_Click()
On Error GoTo ErrorHandler

 Dim wBk As Workbook
 Dim wSht As Worksheet
 Dim r As Long
  Set wBk = ActiveWorkbook
  Set wSht = wBk.Worksheets("UPRN")
  r = wSht.Range("A" & wSht.Rows.Count).End(xlUp).Row
  r = r + 1

Dim UPRN As String
 If IsNumeric(Me.TextBox1.Value) = False Then
  MsgBox "UPRN must be numeric"
  Exit Sub
 End If
 
 If Len(Me.TextBox1.Value) > 12 Then

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

[Nick]

Hi

I have just joined this list so apologies. I am really interested in the 
issue of UPRNs (Unique Property Reference Number) having worked for a 
local authority but also aware of the risks of not sharing quality data. 
So if possible I would like to join in any discussion - Saturday would 
work well for me but happy to fit in with others.


Cheers

Nick


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary

[Nick Whitelegg]

.. sorry, perhaps I was not clear there in my description of the proposed 
TrekView software ('TrekView Explorer') and its relationship with imagery 
providers. It will allow users to upload sets of 360 panoramas, refine them 
(e.g. correct the orientation, adjust their position), tag them, and then 
submit them to providers such as StreetView, Mapillary and OpenTrailView. It 
will also provide general information such as how to make the best use out of 
the various brands of 360 camera (e.g. which ones  include bearing and which 
ones do not).

Users will also be able to save their panorama sets for later use.

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 29 June 2020 10:03
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary


Something else which might be of interest to contributors to this thread, from 
the software side of things:

For OpenTrailView I am collaborating with the TrekView project (trekview.org) 
which aims to make it easy for people to take 360 panoramas of all walking 
trails, and other off-road locations, in the world.  It's a separate project to 
OpenTrailView: the aim of TrekView is not so much to collect the data itself, 
but rather, to make it easy to collect and make avaiable as many 360 panoramas 
of the natural world as possible, and to submit them to a range of sources, 
including StreetView, Mapillary and also OpenTrailView.

Nonetheless, it's relevant here because TrekView is aiming to develop a highly 
user-friendly and open source upload interface which could be adapted for 
road-based 360 photography too.

Perhaps, if there is any interest in taking this forward, it's worth starting a 
wiki page showing all the possible software which could be used? Including, but 
not limited to: the first (open source) version of OpenStreetCam; 
OpenTrailView; the TrekView upload system when it's ready; and any open source 
image blurring software out there.

Nick

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary

[Nick Whitelegg]

Something else which might be of interest to contributors to this thread, from 
the software side of things:

For OpenTrailView I am collaborating with the TrekView project (trekview.org) 
which aims to make it easy for people to take 360 panoramas of all walking 
trails, and other off-road locations, in the world.  It's a separate project to 
OpenTrailView: the aim of TrekView is not so much to collect the data itself, 
but rather, to make it easy to collect and make avaiable as many 360 panoramas 
of the natural world as possible, and to submit them to a range of sources, 
including StreetView, Mapillary and also OpenTrailView.

Nonetheless, it's relevant here because TrekView is aiming to develop a highly 
user-friendly and open source upload interface which could be adapted for 
road-based 360 photography too.

Perhaps, if there is any interest in taking this forward, it's worth starting a 
wiki page showing all the possible software which could be used? Including, but 
not limited to: the first (open source) version of OpenStreetCam; 
OpenTrailView; the TrekView upload system when it's ready; and any open source 
image blurring software out there.

Nick

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary

[Nick Whitelegg]

Just another thought on this (and it is just a thought) but reflects my current 
thinking on OpenTrailView but could also apply to an open source StreetView-lie 
app:

Start small, cover a relatively small area (a historic town or national park 
including the footways?)  - maybe a group of people could get together to fund 
the server for this.

If the end product is then genuinely useful to people and has features that 
StreetView and Mapillary do not offer - then maybe it will attract interest, 
and thus funding.

If not, then at least you have created a potentially useful bit of open-source 
software that others could also use in small-scale situations.


Nick

From: Marc M. 
Sent: 25 June 2020 16:25
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary

Le 25.06.20 à 16:16, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> Mapillary themselves say on their web pages that they already
> have 1,199,363,907 images. Thats 3515625 GB or 3.5TB Data
> assuming 3MByte per image.

3 500 000 GB ~ 3 500 TB ~ 3.5 PB ?
~100k€ ~100k$ hardware cost for the storage.
or 1000 people sharing a 6TB disk on a distributed system

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Florian,

Yes - I have to admit that's partly why I've been focusing on walking trails 
only in my own project (aside from the fact that I have a particular interest 
in waling trails), the storage requirements are not going to ramp up so quickly.

I have to admit I haven't considered how exactly a fully open source StreetView 
would be funded - other people would be better-placed than myself to think of 
solutions to this - but was just floating the idea as a nice-to-have.

Nick



From: Florian Lohoff
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 22:45
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: OSM Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary


Hi Nick,

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:47:01AM +, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
> (Disclaimer: I am the developer of said project)
>
> You can login using your OSM account.

The issue is that once you start pushing stuff into any projects your
storage expenses will kill you pretty fast.

https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html

Thats 0.005$ per GB and Month. Thats *12 *1024 for a Terrabyte. Thats
something like 60$ per Year per Terrabyte which sounds reasonable
concerning disk costs. Costs per disk per lifetime and infrastructure to
connect it to the IP Network.

Since late May i have produced:

flo@p4:/scratch/local/mapillary$ du -sh .
285G.
flo@p4:/scratch/local/mapillary$ find . -type f -iname "*.jpg" | wc -l
97407

So just pushing worth like 2 Weeks of taking street imagery will cost the
Hoster about 20$ per year from now on. And i have pushed multiple terrabytes
to Mapillary since 2014.

And thats just me. Put that to a global OSM perspective and you need
serious funding for storing all that imagery, let alone the CPU cycles
for your compute vision to blur faces and number plates.

And as i have done something like OpenStreetcam 10 years ago for my personal
imagery without the fancy blurring stuff. And i have worked for Hosting
companys so i know the deal.

This is why I think personally that the Facebook deal is the only
viable option for getting long term funding for storage. Somebody
has to pay for it. And i dont see a real businesscase which will pay
up for all the random Dashboards people store into your Dataset.

So either Facebook supports this service or we are toast.

The only option would then be OSMF funding but you may have a glimpse
at the Mapillary numbers and prepare some fundraising.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test The  ran after a , but the  ran away
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary

[Nick Whitelegg]

>One of the key functionalities required for such a project to be useable in 
>countries with developed privacy regulation is the >ability to automatically 
>pixelate relevant parts of the images with a high degree of reliability. It 
>took Mapillary literally years >to get that nailed down and bring it to the 
>level of functionality it is at now.


>Which is one of the reasons why, way back when Mapillary started, I was 
>sceptical about the sustainability because the >part of the product the 
>detection is required don't have a real associated revenue stream (except if 
>you a google, or ... and >can use it in one way or the other to sell ads).


>In any case doing that from scratch would be a real pain. I believe the OSC 
>stack is now actually all OSS which would be a >far better starting point -if- 
>sustainable funding could be built around the whole thing.

I've looked at the OSC github repo from time to time. Bit hard to see exactly 
what's happening but I understand it's now owned by someone other than Telenav, 
It _looks_ like the latest commit is client-side only. Strugging to find any 
server-side code there.

However, if you go back to commit 1, there appears to be a fully open-source 
application with a PHP back end, though I haven't analysed the code in any 
detail - I can just see it's got database interaction in there.

OSC I think only allows you to navigate along an uploaded set of photos, or at 
least it did last time I looked.

Maybe the way forward (particularly given both projects are PHP-based) would be 
to merge some of the stuff I've been working on in OpenTrailView with the first 
commit of OSC. The main question that needs to be asked for now I think is: is 
there sufficient interest in developing a fully open-source StreetView-like 
application within the OSM community, and elsewhere, to make such a project 
worthwhile?

In terms of the critical privacy issues, there are some interesting projects on 
GitHub regarding number plate and face blurring, for example
https://github.com/understand-ai/anonymizer

No idea how good it actually is, but I have a number of panoramas with both 
faces and number plates so I have material to test it with.

Maybe OSC have done some stuff here, haven't looked I have to admit.


Nick










From: Simon Poole 
Sent: 19 June 2020 15:06
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary



Am 19.06.2020 um 13:47 schrieb Nick Whitelegg:

(Disclaimer: I am the developer of said project)

One of the key functionalities required for such a project to be useable in 
countries with developed privacy regulation is the ability to automatically 
pixelate relevant parts of the images with a high degree of reliability. It 
took Mapillary literally years to get that nailed down and bring it to the 
level of functionality it is at now.


Which is one of the reasons why, way back when Mapillary started, I was 
sceptical about the sustainability because the part of the product the 
detection is required don't have a real associated revenue stream (except if 
you a google, or ... and can use it in one way or the other to sell ads).


In any case doing that from scratch would be a real pain. I believe the OSC 
stack is now actually all OSS which would be a far better starting point -if- 
sustainable funding could be built around the whole thing.


Simon


PS: naturally the whole reason for OSC was a business dispute that is now moot 
because Mapillary is opening up its images for commercial use too.


Those of you looking for 100% FOSS software and who are focused on 360 degree 
photography of off-road routes (walking trails and so on) might want to 
consider OpenTrailView (https://opentrailview.org). Do bear in mind that it is 
in the early stages of development, so don't expect Mapillary-style UX just 
yet, and there is only a small amount of imagery (largely southern England at 
the moment plus a few around Heidelberg for probably obvious reasons) but it is 
in active development and I do have a possible collaboration with another 
project (more on that later).

OpenTrailVIew also uses underlying OpenStreetMap data to auto-connect 
panoramas, using GeoJSON Path Finder 
(github.com/perliedman/geojson-path-finder), though, due to server capacity 
constraints, this only works at present in Europe and Turkey (though requests 
for other countries welcome, though note that if they are for large and/or 
highly-populated countries countries such as the USA, China or Brazil I would 
have to restrict it to a region).

You can login using your OSM account.

Nick

From: Florian Lohoff <mailto:f...@zz.de>
Sent: 19 June 2020 07:58
To: Niels Elgaard Larsen <mailto:elga...@agol.dk>
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> 
<mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
Subje

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Martin,

In theory, it could work in urban areas as well as off-road. There's nothing 
technically preventing it doing so, it's just that up to now I have chosen to 
focus on off-road.

However if there's a real interest an alternate fully-FOSS StreetView like 
application as an alternative to Mapillary and others, then I'm quite happy to 
take street panoramas.

Nick



From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Sent: 19 June 2020 12:56
To: Nick Whitelegg 
Cc: OSM Talk 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary



sent from a phone

> On 19. Jun 2020, at 13:51, Nick Whitelegg  wrote:
>
> Those of you looking for 100% FOSS software and who are focused on 360 degree 
> photography of off-road routes (walking trails and so on) might want to 
> consider OpenTrailView (https://opentrailview.org).


has it a general scope, or is it only suitable for pictures “off road” as its 
name suggests?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary

[Nick Whitelegg]

(Disclaimer: I am the developer of said project)

Those of you looking for 100% FOSS software and who are focused on 360 degree 
photography of off-road routes (walking trails and so on) might want to 
consider OpenTrailView (https://opentrailview.org). Do bear in mind that it is 
in the early stages of development, so don't expect Mapillary-style UX just 
yet, and there is only a small amount of imagery (largely southern England at 
the moment plus a few around Heidelberg for probably obvious reasons) but it is 
in active development and I do have a possible collaboration with another 
project (more on that later).

OpenTrailVIew also uses underlying OpenStreetMap data to auto-connect 
panoramas, using GeoJSON Path Finder 
(github.com/perliedman/geojson-path-finder), though, due to server capacity 
constraints, this only works at present in Europe and Turkey (though requests 
for other countries welcome, though note that if they are for large and/or 
highly-populated countries countries such as the USA, China or Brazil I would 
have to restrict it to a region).

You can login using your OSM account.

Nick

From: Florian Lohoff 
Sent: 19 June 2020 07:58
To: Niels Elgaard Larsen 
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook acquires crowdsourced mapping company Mapillary

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 01:21:59AM +0200, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
> Paul Johnson:
> > Great.  How's this affect those of us who trust Facebook about as far as we 
> > can throw it?
>
>
> Use openstreetcam

Openstreetcam is pretty much "disfunct" from my perspective. There are
tons of bugs people opened because of their tracks not beeing
processing. Same for me. Twitter feed dead for a year. It looks pretty
much abandoned since end of 2019 - Since early June serious problems
processing tracks and uploads.

And for the me focus on Car driveable streets makes it useless.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] name=Ireland | Re: name=Éire / Ireland

[Nick Burrett]

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#part2

For those that don't trust Wikipedia

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020, 12:38 Karl Newsletters,  wrote:

> Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland, gives the state its two official
> names, Éire in Irish and Ireland in English. Each name is a direct
> translation of the other. From 1937, the name Éire was often used even in
> the English language.
>
> copy from wikipedia, so usual precautions apply
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:05, Rory McCann  wrote:
>
> > I think `name=Ireland` is best. For `name`, the most commonly used name
> > in the place for the thing is what it should be. And, whatever one
> > things /should be/ the most common name, I think we can all agree that
> > what /is/ the most common name is “Ireland”.
> >
> > `int_name` is a silly tag. I haven't heard of a good definition of that
> > aside from “Name of the country in English”, which wronly prioritises
> > English. Why not `int_name=جزيرة أيرلندا`?
> >
> > On 07/06/2020 16:24, Neil O'Byrne wrote:
> > > The Irish euro coins just have Éire.  So maybe name=Éire and
> > int_name=Ireland
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Colm Moore [mailto:colmmoor...@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday 7 June 2020 14:56
> > > To: talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> > > Subject: [OSM-talk-ie] name=Éire / Ireland
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/62273
> > >
> > > Someone has set the name of the (Republic of) Ireland to "Éire /
> > Ireland". Whatever about Irish constitutional nuances, OSM usually uses
> one
> > field=one piece of data. I'm inclined to change it to name=Ireland, given
> > that Ireland is the name that most people use.
> > >
> > > Separately, there is the matter of lots of the international
> > translations are of "Republic of Ireland" instead of "Ireland". Does
> anyone
> > have thoughts on how to deal with potential grammatical issues in
> > rationalising these?
> > >
> > > Colm
> > >
> > >
> >
> ---
> > > Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
> > change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret
> Mead
> > ___
> > > Talk-ie mailing list
> > > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-ie mailing list
> > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
> >
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [Talk-GB] Updated MapThePaths app - with tagged GPS traces

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello Roger,

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed this now. It wasn't actually supposed 
to show the access area polygon at all; the server was returning anything with 
a 'designation' tag. I overlooked the fact that 'designation' might be used for 
things other than rights of way, hence the polygon was appearing.

I have now fixed this so only ways with specified values for the 'designation' 
tag, i.e. the allowed values for rights of way, are retuened.

Nick



From: Roger Calvert 
Sent: 23 May 2020 13:07
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Updated MapThePaths app - with tagged GPS traces

Nick,

I have noticed an anomaly in the MapThePaths site. Normally, clicking on a PROW 
shows its designation. But in my area, it does not seem to work if the path is 
within an access area. For example, footpath 505 008 (Blawith, Cumbria) crosses 
the access area boundary. Clicking outside the access area shows the reference. 
Inside the access area does not. If you close the OSM footpaths layer, the 
click then works.

Thanks,

Roger

On 23/05/2020 12:28, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Hello everyone,

To follow up an email of just over a week ago, I have now updated the 
MapThePaths Android app (https://mapthepaths.org.uk/app.html; 
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.org.mapthepaths.android) so 
that tagged GPS traces can be created. You can record a GPS trace, and tag each 
segment (GPX ) with the current path designation and path type (grass 
path, dirt track, paved service road, etc) by means of drop-down lists.

The GPS traces can be uploaded to OSM and to the MapThePaths server. The 
high-level designation and path types are converted to OSM highway, designation 
and surface tags, and each track segment tagged with these three tags.

It will shortly be possible to view the uploaded GPS traces on the MapThePaths 
website as a selectable layer.

As I said in my original email, one of my aims is to provide a way for OSM 
beginners to easily survey rights of way. The UI is still very rudimentary; I 
am not a UX expert so what would be really nice is for someone with good UX 
skills to come up with a better UI aimed at allowing beginners to easily use 
the app. My general idea is that users can select high-level, unambiguous 
designations (public footpath, etc) and path types (grass path, dirt track etc) 
via the UI. If I get some nice designs, which the community is happy with as a 
whole, plus some nice graphics, I'm quite happy to then use those designs and 
graphics in code.

The other component then needed is the JOSM plugin (either a new one or, 
probably bettter, a modification of an existing one -  I'm thinking of the KML 
plugin that was mentioned - as we discussed last week) to allow the tagged 
traces to be imported into JOSM for use by experienced mappers to actually 
create the OSM ways. An alert system would be nice also, to alert experienced 
users of any new traces in their area.

I have also added a new option to turn off the 'snap map to current GPS 
location' feature, allowing users to pan the map around.

Any further thoughts, please let me know.

Thanks,
Nick




Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>



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


--


Roger Calvert

www.rogercalvert.me.uk<http://www.rogercalvert.me.uk>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb