Re: [OSM-talk] Should we be mapping transformers and powerlines?
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 17:41, john whelan wrote: > I accept powerlines are fine and visible on other maps but the case for > transformers isn't quite so strong. In the UK, the location of major transmission lines and substations is freely available on the National Grid website (well, it's under a restrictive license but that's not going to stop an attacker): https://www.nationalgrid.com/electricity-transmission/network-and-infrastructure/network-route-maps The location of major distribution substations is openly published by all the electricity distribution network operators in the UK. Some of them now openly publish highly detailed data on their networks. This approach is increasingly common across Europe - if anything, the UK is lagging behind the rest of Europe. In the USA, the Department for Homeland Security publishes similar data on substations and transmission lines (it's not as accurate) along with a whole lot more geospatial data on critical infrastructure: https://hifld-geoplatform.opendata.arcgis.com/ It's clear that all these countries have accepted that security by obscurity doesn't work - transmission substations and transmission lines are extremely obvious and would be very straightforward to identify from aerial imagery. -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-gb-london] Update on TfL CID conflation plans
If these edits are going ahead then I think the wiki page should list the usernames which are performing these edits. The OSM user page should also have a description linking back to that page. Russ On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 23:50, Robert Skedgell wrote: > > Is @AyushS183 one of yours? Apologies if not. > > I'm less than delighted with an import of TfLCID data where in at least > one location no attempt was made to check the imported data against > available imagery or infrastructure mapped in OSM. > > Chobham Road (w10818748) no longer has cycle lanes on both sides, which > I have fixed. How many other errors have been blindly imported in recent > changesets by this user? > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/12263258 > > On 14/06/2022 17:13, Whittaker, Ed via Talk-gb-london wrote: > > Hello, > > > > To keep you updated, a few cosmetic changes have been made to: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database > > > > I'd particularly like to draw your attention to the very careful and > > limited plan to use the openstreetmap API. As noted: > > - This approach only applies to adjusting tags where they are determined as > > incomplete or incorrect. No geometry changes involved. > > - Changes will be manually validated > > - The script has been tested in the dev server > > > > We're really keen to get thoughts and feedback to the approach. We will be > > presenting the plan at the geomob session tomorrow (a bit late notice - but > > it would be wonderful if you're able to make it to discuss) > > https://thegeomob.com/post/june-15th-2022-geomoblon-details > > Thanks, > > > > Ed Whittaker > > Senior Transport Planner > > Sweco UK Limited | Solihull > > Telephone 0121 711 6600 > > ed.whitta...@sweco.co.uk > > www.sweco.co.uk > > > > LinkedIn | Instagram > > Reg. No.: 2888385 | Reg. Office: Leeds (Registered in England and Wales) > > Reg. Office Address: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive, > > Leeds, LS7 4DN > > For more information on how Sweco processes your personal data, please read > > here. > > > > > > ___ > > Talk-gb-london mailing list > > Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london > > > ___ > Talk-gb-london mailing list > Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-gb-london mailing list Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
Re: [Talk-gb-london] Anyone up for the task of mapping the new Lambeth electoral ward boundaries?
My controversial opinion is that these shouldn't be in OSM. The definitive boundaries are freely available as open data in OS Boundary Line (although they won't usually appear there until after the boundaries take effect). The current UK-wide coverage of ward boundaries in OSM is pretty minimal, although it looks like most of the old Lambeth wards are in OSM: http://overpass-turbo.eu/?q=W291dDpqc29uXVt0aW1lxIHEgzI1XTsKKAogIG53clsiYsSBbmRhcnkiPSJwb2xpxItjYWwixInEqMSqxKxpxK5sX2RpdmlzacSHxKYid8SjZMSxKHt7YsSfeH19KcSUxY8KxI8gxJ9kecSUPsSUxZNza2VsIHF0Ow=BJp6-ioHTL As someone who uses this boundary data relatively frequently, there's no reason why I should use OSM when the data is incomplete, and boundaries in OSM may have been altered (accidentally or otherwise). They're not surveyable, the data is freely available elsewhere - I don't see why it's worth spending our time making sure it's replicated in OSM. Cheers, Russ On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 11:27, David Davis via Talk-gb-london wrote: > > Hello, > a complete revamp of the electoral wards in Lambeth borough comes into effect > in May 2022, with 25 new wards. > (See > https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/a-new-political-map-for-the-2022-lambeth-borough-council-elections/ > for info). > > I'm guessing the boundaries are available as open data, > and some bright spark on this list will know how to import it into OSM in a > hugely more efficient way that me trying to manually draw and tag the new > boundaries...? > (Amusingly, on the map on Lambeth Council's page about it, someone literally > has just drawn the boundaries by hand on top of a screengrab from OSM!) > > Anyone interested this task? > > (A few of the existing Lambeth wards were tagged on OSM already, but the > majority actually weren't. But every existing ward boundary is changing in > any case...) > ___ > Talk-gb-london mailing list > Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-gb-london mailing list Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
Re: [Talk-GB] Newbie damage alert in West Midlands
Ah I ran into his work this afternoon by pure chance and reverted one of these changesets (95506246) and left a comment - no reply as yet. It looked like vandalism to me. Russ On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 19:51, Colin Smale wrote: > > A new user, TL5100, is causing a bit of damage in the Midlands, deleting > loads of things for no obvious reason. A couple of their changesets have > comments to this effect already. Could someone have a word? > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TL5100/history#map=11/52.0822/-2.4818 > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 10:53, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > Looking at https://maps.nls.uk/copyright.html#exceptions am I right in > thinking that the non-commercial contract restriction also applies to > some other NLS layers (e.g. OS 1:25k and 7th series scans) which have > been available (and being used) in popular OSM editors for some time > now? Do we have some specific permission to use those layers, and if > so does that permission apply to the new house number layer as well? The wiki appears to imply that specific permission has been granted in some cases, although the wording is a bit vague and could probably do with being clarified: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 18:38, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > What are its licensing terms? > > "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland NLS maps (except for the ones where the copyright of the scans lies with other parties, which does not seem to be the case in this instance) are acceptable for use in OSM. -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 15:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > Link to this on NLS? I think it's the "OS 1:1,250/1:2500 1944-1969" layer: https://maps.nls.uk/os/national-grid/ -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Solar tagging app
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 16:42, Lester Caine wrote: > I've just spent a couple of days working on Vale Park, Evesham and many > of the units have panels on the roofs, so I think that is next on my > list to do ... problem is I've not mapped these before, so what is my > best starting point re adding them. All the info you need is (hopefully) here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom/Rooftop_Solar_PV Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Solar tagging app
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 at 15:41, Russ Garrett wrote: > Once we have panel counts that multiple people have agreed on, I'll > batch insert the data into OSM using a new account - I will update > this list once that is happening. We now have around 1500 nodes with agreed module counts. I've started submitting these to OSM and an example changeset on 20 nodes is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92055795 (The "imagery_used: Bing" and "bot: yes" changeset tags will also be added to future changesets.) I will pause for a few hours in case anyone spots any issues with this, but it should be fairly straightforward. I have also added the appropriate wiki page to document these automated edits: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/solartagger Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Solar tagging app
Thanks! We've got about 1000 agreed module counts now, which I'm now working on batching up and submitting as an edit. On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 17:13, Gregory Williams wrote: > - A "Are you sure that's a PV system?" option -- I've seen perhaps a > couple where I'm not sure whether it's actually a PV system. Perhaps a > check from another imagery source, or a ground survey, could clear > things up? I was originally planning to add multiple "skip" options but I decided to keep it simple. I have the data on which generators are being consistently skipped though, so we can potentially go through those later to try and find nonexistent/mistagged things. > - Click twice to measure the orientation (although perhaps more suited > to using on a computer, rather than a mobile / tablet?) Orientation is next on my list when I get a moment (probably not imminently). It'll likely be a separate task from the module-counting one. Location is also another task which I could potentially add. Russ -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Solar tagging app
Hi folks, I got annoyed with tagging the number of modules in solar generators, so I put together a quick crowdsourcing app to collect this data: https://solartagger.ru.dev/ It's definitely a lot quicker than trying to do this in an editor! Once we have panel counts that multiple people have agreed on, I'll batch insert the data into OSM using a new account - I will update this list once that is happening. Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Flatholm Island Boundary Problem
Yeah, I assume what happened is that the City of Bristol ended up, at some point, as a statutory port authority (which I think they were until 1991), and somehow the boundary from that has remained as their local authority boundary. But it's still a fairly unique situation as there are many other harbours with statutory port authorities where this anomaly doesn't exist. I'm fairly sure that Bristol boundary does not coincide with the current limits of the Port of Bristol. Aberdeen has a small seaward extension which also doesn't appear to coincide with their current port authority limits either. So it's not clear what these seaward extensions currently achieve. I'd love to find the actual legislation which created this... Russ On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 at 22:24, Mark Goodge wrote: > > > > On 12/09/2020 21:23, Russ Garrett wrote: > > I've foolishly now decided to try to get to the bottom of it - the > > beating of the bounds still doesn't explain why exactly it covers that > > area (although I'm impressed that the Lord Mayor managed to commandeer > > a warship to do so!) > > AIUI, it's because it's the historic maritime navigation route into > Bristol and Avonmouth. The simplified constituency boundary map is, > possibly a little bizarrely, one of the best visualisations of that: > > https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3368/location > > See also this Admiralty chart for the Bristol Channel - you can see that > the "Bristol Deep" channel passes between the two islands and leads into > the harbour: > > https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0278/1529/products/OCB-1179.jpg > > Mark > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Flatholm Island Boundary Problem
I've foolishly now decided to try to get to the bottom of it - the beating of the bounds still doesn't explain why exactly it covers that area (although I'm impressed that the Lord Mayor managed to commandeer a warship to do so!) Incidentally, the OSM wiki page for Wales claims that the sea boundary between Wales and England is not well-defined: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wales#Boundary Cheers, Russ On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 at 21:12, Rob Nickerson wrote: > > "extremely stupid reasons" in this case relates to an very old tradition > where the Lord Mayor of Bristol 'beats the bounds' of the city by > rowing/sailing out to the islands. > > As a consequence a small wedge of the city of Bristol bounds lies within > Welsh water. > > You get a similar situation with Denny Island which lies within English > waters but is part of Monmouthshire. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7019663.stm > > https://web.archive.org/web/20071012220607/http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/content/press-releases/2007/sep/beating-bristols-water-boundary.en > > Best regards > Rob > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Flatholm Island Boundary Problem
Oh wait, I remember now. This is correct for extremely stupid reasons relating to the boundaries of the county of Bristol including a large chunk of the Bristol Channel. I can confirm the boundary in OSM matches the one in OS Boundary Line. That relation could probably do with a note tag on it, though. Cheers, Russ On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 at 18:48, Russ Garrett wrote: > > I'm pretty sure Flat Holm is part of Cardiff - Steep Holm is in > England but it also isn't in Bristol as far as I know. There's > definitely something weird going on with the boundaries there but it > also looks like nothing has changed around there in a while. Curious. > > On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 at 18:39, Brian Prangle wrote: > > > > This island, in the bristol Channel between Weston super Mare and Barry > > seems to be in two countries at once. It's on the Welsh side of the > > national boundary but also in South West England City of Bristol. This is > > either a map error with the Welsh boundary or a legal anomaly I don't know > > which. If it's one of those legal quirks then wouldn't it be better as an > > exclave of England in Wales? > > > > Apologies if this has come up before. > > > > Regards > > > > Brian > > ___ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > -- > Russ Garrett > r...@garrett.co.uk -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Flatholm Island Boundary Problem
I'm pretty sure Flat Holm is part of Cardiff - Steep Holm is in England but it also isn't in Bristol as far as I know. There's definitely something weird going on with the boundaries there but it also looks like nothing has changed around there in a while. Curious. On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 at 18:39, Brian Prangle wrote: > > This island, in the bristol Channel between Weston super Mare and Barry seems > to be in two countries at once. It's on the Welsh side of the national > boundary but also in South West England City of Bristol. This is either a map > error with the Welsh boundary or a legal anomaly I don't know which. If it's > one of those legal quirks then wouldn't it be better as an exclave of England > in Wales? > > Apologies if this has come up before. > > Regards > > Brian > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 16:00, Colin Smale wrote: > At least it sounds soluble. Given the right transform and corrections a > "definitive" OS point in Easting/Northing format can be translated accurately > to WGS84 lat/long. However you look at it, I would expect a purely > mathematical transformation should have less error than a transformation > involving "tracing" from imagery whose rectification has probably also > involved some of these transformations each with their own error terms. But I > suppose that it at least partly depends on your definition of "perfection." Well, that assumes that OS's locations are perfect, and that their data isn't subject to orthorectification errors and the like. It's still likely to be better than any other source, but I'd be surprised if there weren't similar errors in some of the OS data, especially in more rural & hilly areas. In my experience, once you start trying to go below 5m accuracy you swiftly learn not to trust anyone. Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery
For what it's worth, I feel like Bing has less offset overall. A lot of south London has been aligned to the previous Bing imagery which is almost certainly worse than the current Bing imagery. My impression is that Bing is "more correct" than most other imagery sources. Unfortunately the levels of error we're looking at are approaching the margin of error of most GPS receivers, so GPS tracks, while sometimes helpful, are not the solution to this either. As Alan says, OS StreetView is probably the best reference in most cases. The new Bing imagery seems to have less offset from StreetView in most cases, but it does still have offset (and often in the opposite direction from the old Bing imagery...). Cheers, Russ On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 10:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > > Have you checked whatever > there is an open issue proposing to > support imagery offset database in iD? > > > 19 Aug 2020, 11:11 by scolebou...@joda.org: > > So, I followed the links below and added an offset. But this simply > isn't a viable solution to the problem because it only works for JOSM > and not iD. > > I managed to convince one mapper to type in the offset manually in iD > every time, but that is a horrible thing to ask new mappers to do, > very offputting. And now I can see Amazon mappers using an iD variant > that doesn't have the offset and moving all the roads as a result: > https://osmcha.org/changesets/89549551?aoi=758c7f2b-faca-44e5-acd2-0cb8c33034bd > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89549551 > This is going to keep happening so long as OSM has multiple image > sources and multiple editors. Frankly I'm amazed that this isn't a > solved problem. > > Having done some mapping across the country recently, it seems like > Bing is offset to the previous best imagery across the country, but by > varying amounts. Is there really no solution that can be applied to > the source Bing layer? Or should we all just accept Bing as golden? > > Having added thousands of buildings and fixed roads to align to the > previous best imagery, I don't have a good solution to the problem, > and it is demotivating to think that others are going to come along > and move individual roads/buildings to align without considering the > bigger picture. > > The only solution I can think of is to move all nodes in the area I've > worked on to match the new Bing (ie a mass edit). Any other > suggestions? > > Stephen > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 23:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB > wrote: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Imagery_Offset_Database/Quick_Start > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database > (I think that nowadays it is built in - is plugin installation still > necessary?) > > > No idea about iD support - > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/search?q=imagery+offset > > Jul 13, 2020, 00:21 by scolebou...@joda.org: > > Wow, the imagery is really good. But in my area the imagery is about > 3-4m east west and 3-4m north south out of alignment with Esri World > Imagery (Clarity) Beta, which is what I've been using up until now > (for thousands of buildings). > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.39886/-0.24940 > > Is there any way to unify the alignments? > > Stephen > > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 06:41, Gareth L wrote: > > > I’ve noticed patches of vastly improved bing imagery since December, but it > is really patchy. > Gareth > > > On 6 Jul 2020, at 23:21, Cj Malone > > wrote: > > > > I was splitting houses in Portsmouth/Southsea this morning. The imagery > > is great, I don't know if it was part of this update, or if it's been > > like this for a while. > > > > > > ___ > > 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 > > > ___ > 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 -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map
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. -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 11:24, Tony OSM wrote: > 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. I'm fairly sure that's "free as in beer" and not "free as in speech", and the data will still be subject to a restrictive license which is incompatible with OSM. > 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. OpenMap Local is already available on https://os.openstreetmap.org/ and presumably it will percolate down into editors in due course. -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 10:26, Nick wrote: > 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. Even if you ignore the bit about OS copyright, it says "You may retrieve and display Content from the Site on a computer screen, print individual pages on paper and store such pages in electronic form on disk (but not on any server or other storage device connected to a network) for your personal, non-commercial use provided that you acknowledge the copyright owner." This is (definitely) not compatible with OSM. I'm a bit surprised that they claim the link between UPRN and address is not covered by OS copyright. But at any rate, it doesn't matter as their own license is pretty much equally restrictive. > 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. Post codes themselves are not protected. If you get the post code from a company's website, or you ask someone their post code, that's *usually* fair game. The *collection* of post codes in the Royal Mail PAF (or OS AddressBase) is considered a database, and will be subject to the database right. This is what prevents you from copying them from those sources into OSM. There's a bit more info here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_information_for_UK_mappers -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map
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 on > the OSMUK call on Saturday to discuss things further. Best wishes, > > Robert. > > -- > Robert Whittaker > https://osm.mathmos.net/ > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-g
Re: [Talk-GB] Documenting tagging practice for place nodes in London
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 13:20, Andy Townsend wrote: > Quite a lot of stuff of the placename info on OS StreetView probably > _shouldn't_ be in OSM. Leaving aside farm and house names, the where I > used to live in Derbyshire is according to OS StreetView composed of 5 > different "villages". It's actually either 1 or 2, depending on who you > ask. It's probably less of an issue in London (less space for > extraneous names), though. I have noticed a few cases, especially in areas of London I know very well, where OS shows an archaic name which isn't really in general use. This gets a bit tricky because there's not really a way of signalling to other mappers that a place name isn't in use based on local knowledge. Obviously local knowledge is best here but we probably don't have mappers with good local knowledge of all the various corners of London, and I'm pretty sure that there are areas of London where the area names have never been adequately mapped (which is why I started this thread). So I'm not sure how best to solve that conundrum. Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Documenting tagging practice for place nodes in London
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 12:51, Michael Booth wrote: > It seems like a number of those hamlets could be changed to something else. > > Also worth having a look at place=locality nodes, to see if they can be > tagged as another place type (if it's a populated place - e.g. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4678882808) or the name added to a > feature. Yeah, I excluded locality from that search for the moment as I was more concerned with the higher-level place names, but I should take a look at those at some point too. I reckon that "village" and "hamlet" probably shouldn't be present in London, except in the few legitimately rural areas of outer London. (A lot of those hamlets are definitely wrong and I plan to go through them at some point.) Russ -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Documenting tagging practice for place nodes in London
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 09:19, Jez Nicholson wrote: > I take it that these names are used by Nominatim to assist with search. I > know it's another form of tagging-for-the-renderer, but do you know > how/whether changes affect it? I'm not especially familiar with the internals of Nominatim but I think for most purposes it actually prefers the page rank on Wikipedia (discovered via the wikidata tag if provided) for ranking place nodes, rather than the actual value of the place tag (which makes sense as the usage tends to be inconsistent anyway). https://nominatim.org/release-docs/develop/develop/Ranking -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Documenting tagging practice for place nodes in London
Hi folks, By way of lockdown procrastination, I started looking at place nodes in London. The main things which were annoying me are: * The presence of a few archaic place names which were presumably derived from NPE or other historic maps but are generally out of use now. * A surprisingly large number of place names present in OS StreetView are unmapped on OSM. * Most places in London are tagged as place=suburb, regardless of their size/importance. This issue especially is annoying me quite a lot now I've started noticing it. I started demoting some place=suburbs to place=quarter, and promoting one or two of them to place=town (as this seems to be almost universally used as the next level up from suburb in London), when it was pointed out that it's probably worth discussing this. These place tags are quite subjective, especially because they frequently get used for reasons which don't really tie in with their name, and wiki is pretty vague about their definition, so I don't think we can avoid some level of tagging for the renderer here. I think it would be useful to document which of these tags we want to use in London, and ideally some kind of heuristic for where to use them. I've generated a list of all place nodes within Greater London and the City, by type: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ru/London_Place_Nodes Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rockall
I'm still a bit confused about this, because the circle rendered around Rockall on OpenStreetMap is the 12nm limit of territorial waters, not the 200nm EEZ. We don't render the EEZ on OpenStreetMap, but as you point out, it is not in dispute that Rockall does not extend the UK's EEZ. So I'm a bit confused why we're talking about the EEZ at all here. If you want to see a map of EEZ claims, I believe this is the best one: https://www.marineregions.org/eezmapper.php Russ On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 22:14, barry b wrote: > > Hi Folks, I made the below changes to rockall. > > The changes i've made are > 1) Changed Rockall from Island to Rock > 2) Removed the Administration boundary > > 1) Rockall is not a island. You could debate its a rock or islet but it cant > sustain human life. > References: > 1) Wikipedia calls it a islet > 2 https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2011-03-24.365.0 Irish Government > call it a rock > 3)https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/97923/response/262438/attach/html/3/0109%2012.pdf.html > - Uk Government call it a islet > 4) The hint is in its name > > > 2) The reason for removing the administration boundary is i wanted to remove > the EEZ around rockall.( The big circle) > From a visual point of view this looks off. it implies there is an island or > county there. But more importantly it is incorrect > > Firstly even according the the UK. The EEZ wouldn't be 200nm, it would be 12 > - > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/97923/response/262438/attach/html/3/0109%2012.pdf.html > > Secondly. No country accepts the EEZ and is considered international waters. > Several countries claim it Iceland, Denmark , UK and Ireland. > > In the coming months this rock in the middle of nowhere could potentially > turn into a larger issue with the UK exit from the EU as Iceland, Ireland and > other EU country all fish here > Last summer there was a standoff with the UK Navy and fishing boats. The > Irish Navy have also regularly patrol the area in protection of fishery > > I can give a list of references to show the EEZ recognized, but i don't think > that helpful > > I don't know the exact procedure here. I feel i didn't do it right. > > Happy to discuss further. > Cheers > Barry > > > From: Colin Smale > Sent: Monday 15 June 2020 21:39 > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Rockall > > > I just pointed the user concerned to the signup page to this mailing list, so > he should be here soon! Further to my earlier message I will not make any > changes to Rockall until we have had the discussion. > > Colin > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the > physical and usage characteristics. First I would tag the legal > status, using the designation=* tag (which was set up for such > purposes) i.e. designation=town_green. Once that's done you can add > whatever other tags you think best describe the actual land and the > way it is used. That might be leisure=park, landuse=recreation_ground, > or whatever, depending on the nature of the Town Green in question. By > using two (or more tags) you can correctly capture the UK legal > status, while also ensuring the area renders in an appropriate way > based on it's on-the-ground characteristics. I was just about to suggest this. The legal status should be tagged separately from the landuse. We created designation=common for common land. However it looks like town greens and village greens are legally identical under the Commons Act. Maybe designation=green might be best, although it looks a little weird. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation=common -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 21:37, Alan Mackie wrote: > On a completely unrelated note. Does any software actually support site > relations? openinframap.org does, for power plants (wind farms etc). I suspect it may be the only one. -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map with AI comes to the UK
Given the obvious flaws in the data, I'm actually quite surprised how good it is at spotting unmapped service roads in London - including those which pass beneath buildings. Most of them probably deserve a survey though. Russ On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 15:04, Rob Nickerson wrote: > > Thanks Jerry. > > I'd also subsequently discovered the data dump but had not yet got around to > looking at it. What are you using here to view and work with the data? Is > QGIS and 6GB RAM sufficient? > > I would be interested in Warwickshire if you can extract that. > > And yes, we probably are not expecting much for the UK given how well we > already have most roads mapped. It's a shame it only shows missing roads as I > suspect it has better geometry of some rural roads in poorly mapped areas > than us - I still find jagged roads with source=npe. > > Nevertheless, the AI stuff is an interesting one to keep an eye on. If > improvements can be made and additional datasets incorporated, it could > become a significant aid in the future. For example I wonder if it could be > good at building detections when combined with other data such as LiDAR > height data. There is also the prospect of using AI to help find solar panels. > > Best regards, > Rob > > > On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 14:07, SK53 wrote: >> >> Perhaps more useful is that one can download the UK data as a geopackage >> from >> https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries. >> It's 147Mb zipped in a tar which unpacked is around 400Mb. >> >> I've had a very quick look and notice quite a few concentrations of features >> which are obviously tractor lines in farmland. See this area around Colston >> Bassett >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Colston_basset_fb_rapid.png. >> Apparently such false positives can be marked as such in the editor which >> ought to improve detections next time round. My suspicion is that things >> which are actually roads are mainly driveways to outlying houses & farms or >> farm tracks. Using OS OpenRoads is more likely to help find significant >> missing adopted roads. >> >> Jerry >> >> I can potentially provide extracts for individual LAs if people want them, >> send me an email. I personally found it easier to look at the data as a >> whole rather than scanning around in the editor. >> >> >> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 22:09, Rob Nickerson wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I just spotted that Facebook have pushed an update to their map with AI >>> project: >>> >>> "For our final release of 2019, we have released 84 new countries for our >>> AI road data with new coverage in the remainder of Europe, Asia, and >>> Oceania! AI roads are now available nearly globally." >>> Source: >>> https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/blob/master/WHATSNEW.md >>> >>> For those who don't know what MapWithAI is check out https://mapwith.ai >>> >>> And to try it out in their RapID version of the iD editor: >>> https://mapwith.ai/rapid#background=Bing_features=boundaries=18.60/53.40625/-2.13801 >>> >>> Just roads at the moment and not that easy to find a suggestion that is >>> worth adding (at least near me where roads are well mapped) but this does >>> demonstrate what is possible. Let us know if you have a good or bad >>> experience with this. >>> >>> Would be great to see this extended to buildings but we may have to wait >>> for Microsoft for that. >>> >>> P.S. A happy new year to all! >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Rob >>> ___ >>> Talk-GB mailing list >>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 12:57, Simon Ritchie wrote: > However, that still leaves the fundamental problem: I can (and will) > publish the kit of parts for making your own base station. You could use > something similar to build a rover or you could buy one off the shelf. > According to the ads this will give you an accuracy of 2 cm, but how will you > check that you really are getting that accuracy? At its heart, that's quite a complex question of metrology, geodesy, and maths. But really I'm not sure you need to worry about it too much with GPS. GPS receivers don't really exhibit constant errors (as I mentioned before, the antenna may introduce some but I suspect they'll be in the order of centimetres at worst), and the variable errors they exhibit are well-characterised. Any GPS fix you get will have error values provided with it, and you should be able to broadly trust those numbers. I'm sure there are commercial services which will give you a calibration result against a known receiver, but they will likely be expensive. Centimetre-level precision is close to the state of the art in GNSS/GIS and so services will be priced accordingly. The real question, really, is why you're aiming for that level of precision. Relative accuracy (i.e. consistency of measured points within a reasonably sized area) is much easier to achieve than absolute accuracy (which is not even an especially well-defined concept in this case). If you're just making these measurements to put into OSM, you have to realise that it's pointless to aim for accuracy better than 1m or so in OSM, as it will degrade over time due to the use of the WGS84 coordinate system which doesn't take plate tectonics into account. (Of course precision for precision's sake is a completely valid endeavour in my opinion. But, as I mentioned before, that rabbit hole can go extremely deep and is probably off topic here. I hope I've given you a flavour of that though!) Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 12:31, Simon Ritchie wrote: > > You're not going to find a (publically-accessible) physical location which > > has better location error than 1m or so. > That was the kind of conclusion that I was coming to. There's the meridian > line at Greenwich, but that only gives one coordinate. It's a pity that they > don't have a crosshair with a published position. Sadly I have to be the bearer of bad news there as well: the marked meridian line at Greenwich no longer corresponds to a fixed coordinate in any modern coordinate system! The WGS84 zero degree meridian is approximately 100m to the east but that too will move due to continental drift and other esoteric gravitational factors. > I think that the only way forward may be to get hold of another accurate GPS > device and compare results. Unfortunately, the others tend to be quite > expensive. Trimble have a cheap deice called the Catalyst, but you still > have to buy their correction service at £300 per month. Getting to 2cm accuracy will be tricky by any mechanism, but there are cheaper solutions if you're willing to do some work. Broadly: You'll need a GPS receiver with the capability of outputting carrier phase data (u-blox receivers will do this) and ideally a well-characterised external antenna (these are quite expensive). You can then fix this antenna somewhere and record several days worth of data. This data can be post-processed with RTKLIB (http://www.rtklib.com/) using the RINEX atmospheric correction data from OS (https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/gps/os-net-rinex-data/) - this data is free for historical use, it's the realtime atmospheric corrections which cost the money. The combination of averaging, phase measurement, and atmospheric correction should at least get you sub-20cm. -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:47, Gareth L wrote: > Are you including the continental drift? That will make etrs89 gps coords be > about 60-70cm off by now That's the total net error since ETRS was established, but the ETRS reference frame moves with the Eurasian plate and corrections are issued, so presumably the GPS receiver has some of those incorporated. I think for the highest accuracy it's probably worth taking the position as WGS84 rather than doing the coordinate system transformation on-device, but I'm not 100% sure on this. -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS
red plus b squared plus c squared) by Pythagoras > > If you have two points in a different coordinate system representing the same > two positions, the distance between them should be the same. > > So I can test the accuracy of the conversion from OS map references to > Cartesian. In the table below, on the left, we have the trig points at Box > Hill and Leith Hill in OS map reference form, the difference along each axis > and below that the resulting distance. On the right we have the same > calculation but using the Cartesian coordinates from the OS conversion page. > > Below that I do the same comparison, this time using the trig point at > Mickleham Down and the one at Leith Hill. > > In both cases, the distances are out by over two metres. > > So, I'm trying to test equipment which is supposed to be accurate to two cm > using data that is out by at least two metres. That's not going to work. I > need something more accurate to compare my results with. > > > OS Map Ref >Cartesian > > Box Hill Leith Hill Difference Box Hill Leith Hill > Difference > easting517971.06 513949.28 4021.78 x 4000676.63 4006902.33 > -6225.70 > northing 151163.16 143161.71 8001.45 y -21724.35 -25963.72 > 4239.37 > height above 171.97 307.00 -135.03 z 4950992.32 4946141.89 > 4850.43 > sea level > > distance8956.35 8958.70 > > > Mickleham Leith Hill DifferenceMickleham Leith Hill > Difference > easting 517891.74513949.28 3942.46 x 3998820.07 4006902.33 > -8082.26 > northing153518.13143161.7110356.42 y -21739.43 -25963.72 > 4224.29 > height above 142.73 307.00 -164.27 z 4952444.39 4946141.89 > 6302.49 > sea level > > distance 11082.66 11085.53 > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:40, Andy Robinson wrote: > Are you using trig points that are also OS Net station locations? > https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/legacy/docs/gps/OSNet_GPSWebSite_Coordinates_File.txt Pretty sure that all those OS Net locations are actually fixed GPS receivers rather than trig points, and so not something you can go and plonk your GPS receiver on. The file definitely seems to list the model of receiver at each one. Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 13:59, David Woolley wrote: > Although I don't have a primary source for this, my understanding is > that the median is snapped to the nearest actual delivery point within > the postcode. I was also under the impression that they were mathematical centroids of the postcode area but the user guide [1] indeed says: "The point is given the coordinates of the nearest delivery point to the calculated mean position of the delivery points within the postcode unit." (Although this may not be true for all entries - the PQI will provide that info.) So I guess it would technically be possible to use Code-Point Open to add at least one address location to OSM for most postcodes. I'm still uneasy about doing this automatically though. Cheers, [1] https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/product-support/user-guide/code-point-open-user-guide.pdf -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing "WikiProject" prefix
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 12:32, dcapillae wrote: > WikiProject Power networks/Great Britain (redirect) > --> United Kingdom/Power networks FWIW, I'm responsible for this page and it has "Great Britain" rather than "United Kingdom" in the title for a valid (pedantic) reason: the power network in Northern Ireland is different and explicitly not covered by that page. I think I'd be happier renaming the whole "WikiProject Power Networks" namespace to "Power Networks" and keeping the structure within that. I can check if this is acceptable with the infrastructure mappers I know (I suspect it will be). Russ -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tools to support solar panel mapping?
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 11:22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > To fit StreetComplete it must be > > - refining existing objects, not adding new ones > - be solvable by any normal human by answering a simple question One option for this is turning generator=solar nodes into areas. -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 13:39, Martin Wynne wrote: > Thanks Russ. That's what I was getting at when I started this topic. How > many houses make a residential area? Does it make sense to apply it to a > single isolated house? I reckon it does, although it depends on your level of patience. The ideal is that everywhere is covered by a landuse/natural tag. Stuff like gardens, buildings, etc, are a higher level of detail which live inside the broad landuse areas. Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 12:40, Martin Wynne wrote: > I don't know anyone who would say "I see a residential area". Or "I see > a plot of land with planning class C3 or C4". From a zoomed-out perspective, landuse= (and natural=) is the main thing you see on the map (especially if buildings aren't mapped), so I think it's pretty useful from a cartographic point of view. It's not just about what you see on the ground, but how you can turn that into a useful map when you're looking at a large area. There are still chunks of the UK which look empty at medium zoom levels (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/50.4437/-4.8581) due to lack of landuse mapping. -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC: Solar panel mapping in the UK
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 11:36, Jez Nicholson wrote: > BTW...shouldn't the points on the map reduce when I filter? They should but I'm still working on that feature. -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC: Solar panel mapping in the UK
> SOLAR FARMS: >> >> I'll defer to Russ's tagging advice about solar farms: power=plant >> polygon (or sometimes multipolygon) as the outline of a solar farm, >> with power=generator areas contained within it for the blocks of >> panels. Previously, I was mapping solar farms as relations, but I'm >> easily persuaded! >> >> I don't have any advice about landuse/landcover other than that it's a >> fairly separate issue, since those tags are not essential to the solar >> power mapping. >> >> I've been adding some solar farms that are listed in the REPD list on >> the wiki. For those ones I've used a tag "repd:id=*" which I hope >> makes it easy to identify them using the ID number in that database. >> Some solar farms have more than one entry in the REPD (they submit a >> new application form when they have an expansion). >> >> ROOFTOP SOLAR: >> >> For various reasons, if we can get solar installations mapped as areas >> not just nodes, that'll be helpful. Areas will be more useful than >> module-counting. However, I've noted that the imagery doesn't always >> make this easy for rooftop solar: clarity is variable per region. >> >> Is there any good way to tag the vertical tilt of a panel? I know in >> many cases we won't be able to measure it well, but I thought I'd ask. >> For example, there's roof:angle=* for the slope of a roof, which is a >> mildly related concept. >> >> Cheers >> Dan >> >> ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Solar data
Hey Rob, On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 22:30, Rob Nickerson wrote: > As the image (linked to below) from a WPD public webinar shows it is not easy > to map separate solar sites based in a single location. No way to tell which > panels belong to which site from aerial imagery alone. Hah! That's a particularly pathological case, and I think it's a situation where an extension project has been given a different name from the original farm. A quick glance at the REPD indicates that Copley Wood doesn't appear as an installation - I suspect it might be down as "Higher Hill" and "Higher Hill (extension)" which would make more sense. If that's the case I'd be inclined to map the entire area as "Higher Hill" with the combined output of both. What we don't have at the moment is any accepted way of dealing with extensions and other sub-divisions of power plants. This is especially problematic with some solar farms (especially older ones), which started out as a very small installation but were significantly extended later. I think they should be represented as a single entity - at least at the top level - as the distinction between various phases/extensions is really only of academic interest. > The Renewable Energy Planning Database is one source of info. The government > have outsourced the task of tracking the growth of renewables to the company > listed on the file. They look at planning applications and speak with > developers. The capacity data is not always right as a developer may change > their plans. Also there are cases where some Wind sites are split into 2 as > the cross an admin boundary. In reality it is one Wind Farm site. I'm trying to massage the REPD data into a more easily browsable format (with clear licensing) at the moment - I'll see if I can get some of those other datasets in there as well. Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC: Solar panel mapping in the UK
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 16:18, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Why not? If area is covered by solar panels then it is used for power > generation. > And power generation seems clear case of industrial use I guess it is. I just think "industrial" carries a number of connotations which solar power doesn't have. Also, in some cases the land under/around solar farms is used for grazing, or at any rate it's still mostly grass. I'm not too bothered either way, though. Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC: Solar panel mapping in the UK
Hi Dave, On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 14:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > This would be a great project, however I think there's some confusion in > the tagging which requires agreeing/clarifying. Solar farms should have a power=plant covering the whole perimeter as an area or multipolygon. I agree with you that relations shouldn't be used because they're unnecessary. The output of the farm should be the "plant:output:power=" tag on that object. The use of power=plant for this was enshrined in the approved Power Generation Refinement tagging proposal back in 2013 [1]. It also makes sense by analogy to wind farms (where we do use power=plant on relations). I would argue landuse=industrial is not appropriate in this case, notwithstanding what the wiki says, and perhaps landuse=grass is appropriate here. As a rule of thumb, 1 MW is probably a good initial threshold to use when deciding whether to use the power=plant tag for solar, if only to focus our tagging energy on larger plants to start with. The power=generator tag should represent the arrays of panels as closely as you can be bothered. I generally tag contiguous blocks of panels as one power=generator, rather than every individual row. With OpenInfraMap I'm now starting to estimate the output of solar generators by their area, so I have a preference towards seeing them tagged as closely as possible. However, I have little patience for micro-mapping so I feel like each block of panels is a good compromise. Cheers, [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_generation_refinement -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Replacement of leisure=common
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 13:29, Edward Catmur wrote: > I note that you've linked > https://data.gov.uk/dataset/05c61ecc-efa9-4b7f-8fe6-9911afb44e1a/database-of-registered-common-land-in-england > - as this is OGL, I assume it's suitable for incorporation into OSM? Could > we pick that up as a small OSM UK project? Yes, to my knowledge (as neither a lawyer nor a LWG member) it's kosher to use in OSM. I've added an acknowledgement to the contributors page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Database_of_registered_common_land_in_England I've been doing some exploratory retagging of leisure=common and, at least in London, the majority are small areas which would be better tagged as landuse=grass. In urban areas any remaining larger areas of leisure=common are usually best tagged as leisure=park or landuse=recreation_ground, but I also found a few nature reserves. In rural areas, tagging of grassland is a much-debated subject which is outside the scope of this thread, but I will not judge. I suspect there are far more leisure=common areas which are not legally commons than which are, but it definitely looks like a good cleanup project in general. Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Replacement of leisure=common
Hi folks, (Inexplicably I haven't joined this list until today. Hi. I've been around for a while, ask me about power infrastructure sometime.) We've been chatting about the leisure=common issue in IRC, and I saw there was some discussion about this here. (Sorry I can't reply to that thread - I've just joined the list.) I think common land is one of those legal intricacies we love so much in the UK, which generally live in the designation= tag, so I've gone ahead and documented designation=common which already had some use: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation%3Dcommon I'm going to email the tagging list about marking leisure=common as deprecated, seeing as it's not a great tag anyway, and it's been removed from the map. Cheers, -- Russ Garrett r...@garrett.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
