Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:15:47PM +, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 20:57, ael via Talk-GB > wrote: > > > I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles > > to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways. > > I favour the definitions used on the English Wikipedia, which make it > clear that vandalism is deliberate harm, and that any well-intentioned > edit, even if incorrect, is not vandalism, because: I am probably oversensitive because I have had cases where I have surveyed repeatedly with gps & photography and noted that in source tags, only to have armchair mappers "correct" the mapping. Although I suspect that in most cases they have just ignored the existing mapping. In this case, I only skimmed the changeset and failed to notice who had made the change. I regularly map not far from this area, and know that bridleways are often obstructed here (and elsewhere). I must say that in situations where I suspect a problem like that, I do usually contact the original mapper to discuss the situation rather than take unilateral action. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 08:30:01PM +, Neil Matthews wrote: > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways -- > pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're a > potential anomaly but should they really be a mechanical edit (even if by > hand)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95739504 > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways. Perhaps I have misunderstood? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 09:11:32PM +, Martin Wynne wrote: > On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote: > > > What I'm wondering is how the typical recreational country walker would find > that map, or get it on their mobile phone app in place of the awful Google > maps? It's a lot of work to create if no-one ever uses it? Just to mention that I use navit on my satnavs, and that has a good "POI" feature which would show benches in the vicinity. I understand that there is a Android version, so presumably it works on those types of smartphone. https://github.com/navit-gps & https://www.navit-project.org/ etc. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:44:24AM +, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: > 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. FWIIW, I would very definitely tag that as a service road. Driveway seems quite inappropriate. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:54:54PM +, ael via Talk-GB wrote: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 09:11:32PM +, Martin Wynne wrote: > > On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote: > > > > something about myself, is to map and provide rendering for the area:highway > > tag: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway > > > > Country walkers often need to include a stretch of public road in a planned > > walk, and it is very difficult to discover whether a road will be safe to > > walk along. > > > What might work in practice is to invent a tag along the lines > of walker_friendly = yes|no|maybe although some may complain that it > is subjective. I am not seriously suggesting that "walker_friendly" > is a good choice for a name, but something along those lines is > the only thing that I think the majority of mappers could reasonably > use widely. Following up on myself, I see a problem when faced with a narrow lane which is barely used by traffic. Normally very safe for walkers. But occasionally unsafe when an vehicle decides to use it at high speed. If someone had actually tagged the area, that might be inferred. But that is extremely unlikely. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 09:11:32PM +, Martin Wynne wrote:
> On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> something about myself, is to map and provide rendering for the area:highway
> tag:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway
>
> Country walkers often need to include a stretch of public road in a planned
> walk, and it is very difficult to discover whether a road will be safe to
> walk along.
The trouble with this is that someone has to map those areas. I map
a fair few country lanes, but I can seldom estimate their width, let
alone an accurate area. I do try to record any pavements or paths
("sidewalk = left|right|both", yuk): that is precisely with walkers in
mind. I very much appreciate your point, but how is the mapping
on-the-ground to be done? Even when there is properly aligned high
resolution imagery, that is not going to work under tree cover which is very
common, of course.
What might work in practice is to invent a tag along the lines
of walker_friendly = yes|no|maybe although some may complain that it
is subjective. I am not seriously suggesting that "walker_friendly"
is a good choice for a name, but something along those lines is
the only thing that I think the majority of mappers could reasonably
use widely.
ael
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field **Do tag for the USER**
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:47:08PM +, David Woolley wrote: > On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote: > > 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 > > In that example, "Cross Bay Walk - DO NOT ATTEMPT" violates "name is only > the name". It may or may not be possible to justify "Cross Bay Walk", but > the "DO NOT ATTEMPT" is not going to be a valid part of the name. Given the recent thread, it is odd that it has "warning=hazard" rather than hazard=yes or something more specific. > Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrinnoans, horses, and > vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag > for the renderer". The wiki specifically says that an official sign is > required before using "access=discouraged". This seems to be taking things far too far. We *should* tag for the user! Equating subjective with "there isn't a sign" is also pushing things too far. We are trying to make OSM the best map we can. Tagging dangerous or non-existant paths in a way that ordinary users/routers cannot distinguish is just plain wrong and irresponsible. I am all in favour of tagging PROWs even where there is nothing on the ground, but in a way distinct from "proper" paths/ways. Agreed: do not tag for the renderer, but do tag for the user. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote: > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway ( > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to walk or ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was presumably once a ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there were large trees blocking access on the river bank, and absolutely no sign of a ford in the river itself. Crossing there looked potentially dangerous. These had been added by armchair mappers from a definitive map. OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways. As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river and added a note. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] "Survey Me" Tool Update
On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 02:21:43PM +, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 13:02, ael via Talk-GB > wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:11:42PM +, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) > > wrote: > > > For anyone who's interested, I've just updated my "Survey Me" tool at > > > https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ . > > > > I took a look and it flagged up > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3149722064 > > as having no name. But it has a perfectly good name? > > It's not flagging https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3149722064 , it's > flagging the building next to it: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/679205532 . That building is tagged > with shop=yes but no has name=* tag. When an issue concerns an > existing OSM object, you'll find a direct link to that object in the > popup bubble when you click/tap on the icon. I thought that I tried that. I clicked on the edit, and that didn't works as I recall. I just tried again and now realize that the "shop=yes" is also a link, and indeed that worked. > > In this case see: https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/#19/51.7885/-1.4833 . > If the building is only that single shop, then you could remove the > shop node and transfer the tags to the building way. If the building > also has other uses (e.g. there's a flat above the shop, or it > contains more than one shop) then it might be better to remove the > shop=yes tag from the building, and move the shop node inside the > bounds of the building instead. A later mapper added the tag to the building without moving the shop node, and duplicating the shop tag hence this problem. I will update. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] "Survey Me" Tool Update
On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:11:42PM +, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > For anyone who's interested, I've just updated my "Survey Me" tool at > https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ . It now includes food retail chains > where OSM mapping doesn't agree with the "Retail Points" dataset from > Geolytix ( https://blog.geolytix.net/tag/retail-points/ ). I took a look and it flagged up https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3149722064 as having no name. But it has a perfectly good name? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q4 2020 Quarterly Project: Defibrillators
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 08:54:28AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 at 16:20, Gareth L wrote: > > The UK quarterly project for Q4 has been selected as Defibrillators. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q4_Project:_Defibrillators > > > > A check on taginfo shows there are 4181 nodes and ways with > > emergency=defibrillator in Great Britain. Reading > > https://cesafety.co.uk/list-of-public-access-defibrillators-across-the-uk > > from August 2019 reports that there are 5304 defibrillators in London alone. > I just checked a couple of areas that I know, and the locations are wildly inaccurate. Most of the "missing" defibs were inside buildings which would not normally be entered by anyone doing OSM surveying. So our coverage of publically visible defibs is probably better than might seem at first sight. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Jewson - is it shop=doityourself or shop=trade?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 02:59:41PM +0100, ael wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:27:20PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > > I encountered https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/issues/4140 > > and it is hard to me how it should be decided. > > I originated the trade tag after discussion here. Correction: on the tagging list. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Jewson - is it shop=doityourself or shop=trade?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 01:32:09PM +0100, Phil Endecott via Talk-GB wrote: > Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I encountered https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/issues/4140 > > and it is hard to me how it should be decided. > > > > Do you have some clear preference? > > As a shopper, the important question for me is whether a > shop will actually sell to me, i.e. whether they are > trade ONLY or not, so that I don't have a wasted journey. > Does our tagging scheme (and default rendering) address > this? If it doesn't do retail, it isn't a "shop"? The trade tag is intended for places that cater in a professional way to trade customers, but also include ordinary retail. I suppose that if there really are "shops" which are trade only one could add a subtag like trade_only = yes. Do we have a tag for wholesalers? They would seem similar... ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Jewson - is it shop=doityourself or shop=trade?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:27:20PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > I encountered https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/issues/4140 > and it is hard to me how it should be decided. I originated the trade tag after discussion here. Note that it explicitly includes places that do ordinary retail/DIY in addition to serving trade customers. So trade. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 05:30:25PM +0100, Mark Goodge wrote: > > > On 21/07/2020 16:57, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote: > > Is the National Chargepoint Registry data open for OSM now? If not > > somebody should write a nice enough letter? > > It is open, it's OGL now. But it's not reliable enough for an unfiltered > bulk import; there are duplicate entries, incorrect coordinates and > incorrect or missing addresses. And missing entries. Two charge points that I have mapped do not appear, at least with a post-code search. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:58:53AM +0100, Mark Goodge wrote: > Do we map electric vehicle charging points? Yes. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:30:00PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote: > > this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented usage of > segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because > I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show > where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a > shared use cycleway. We can't use both. +1 (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Server crash or dns spoofing?
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 09:12:20PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > >> Apparently it was a temporary outrage, > >> see https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/431 Thanks for all the replies. Indeed everything seems to be working again. I am surprised that reverse dns doesn't work. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Server crash or dns spoofing?
Is www.openstreetmap.org down? I am getting an error "We're sorry, but something went wrong". My dns is giving www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.11 www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.13 www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.12 www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:b www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:c www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:d but reverse lookup is a bit suspicious: $ host 130.117.76.11 Host 11.76.117.130.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) Am I the only one seeing this: do I need to investigate further? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:04:50PM +, Brian Prangle wrote: > I echo Richard's comments - best to confine yourselves to new roads in > recently constructed residential developments - and even here you need to > be careful as on the ground some roads will be service roads and some > will be living streets and there will also be gated communities (can you Even then working from imagery can be very problematic. One of the Amazon mappers added a variety of roads to a construction site which were actually muddy tracks being used for the construction itself. A minority were destined to become highways or paths. I had to ask for a reversion. I doubt that an AI system would be any better than Amazon humans. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:01:53AM +, Guthula, Jothirnadh via Talk-GB wrote: > > As you might already know, Facebook released its AI-based detections publicly > on 08/09/2019 > (https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries). > Not quite sure if you are posting from the Facebook team, but I will assume so. If it is only missing roads, I see no objections, although private service roads are often mistagged by armchair mappers. I was more worried by modifications to existing objects, but may this is not planned for the UK. I saw in the FAQ that you intend to add source tags which is excellent. What was not addressed there was what happens when a source tag already exists. In some cases the existing source tag may indicate some sort of ground survey, in which case edits should should be extremely cautious if not abandoned. But where an edit goes ahead for good reason, the previous source tag should usually be expanded rather than overwritten. IMHO. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:45:53AM +1100, Warin wrote: > On 18/3/20 1:42 am, ael wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote: > > > > On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote: > > > The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always > > > seemed like a massive shortcoming of the project to me. Stopping people > > > re-aligning things based on a bad phone GPS or badly aligned aerial > > > imagery is impossible and even realising that things have been > > > incorrectly moved is random at best. > > I agree entirely and have often wished for exactly that. I sometimes use > > source=gps_surveys (plural) to try to convey that this is not just one > > random gps trace. > > "source=average of multiple gps surveys, high accuracy" > > Be really descriptive... the 's' on the end of gps surveys is really easy to > miss. Well, yes, and I do quite often expand the source tag to try to convey more. But in your example "high" accuracy is a problem. If I was using differential gps with cm accuracy, I would call that "high" accuracy. In the present case, the accuracy is not really known, but probably approaching a meter. But I guess that sort of thing could be included in a source tag, although free form text might be better in a note tag. But my impression is that many armchair mappers just don't look. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 03:08:39PM +, ael wrote: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 06:09:26PM +0000, ael wrote: > > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago. > > These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and > > > > I have added a changeset comment. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/81640861 > > The user has reverted the changes to the Hurlers in Cornwall, and > apologised. He has just replied again to the changeset and says that he has reverted all the other embankments. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 06:09:26PM +, ael wrote: > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago. > These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and > > I have added a changeset comment. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/81640861 The user has reverted the changes to the Hurlers in Cornwall, and apologised. However, I had a quick look at some of his other changesets, and he seems to have done similar things at other sites that have not (?yet) been reverted. One I noticed was a "Coffin Stone" which now has an embankment. Is that real? I doubt it. I thought that he had added another embankment at the Rollright Stones, but I couldn't see that just now. But he did remove two tags without explanation. I wonder whether other points with their history were deleted. I haven't looked any further, but it looks as if this is a widespread problem. I haven't formally alerted the DWG as yet: the user might yet revert all the changes, but I hope others will keep an eye on all of this. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote: > > On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote: > > The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always > seemed like a massive shortcoming of the project to me. Stopping people > re-aligning things based on a bad phone GPS or badly aligned aerial imagery > is impossible and even realising that things have been incorrectly moved is > random at best. I agree entirely and have often wished for exactly that. I sometimes use source=gps_surveys (plural) to try to convey that this is not just one random gps trace. In this case, I just had source=gps_survey. I too regret the awful smartphone (and satnav) gps traces which suggest all gps is rubbish. I try not to upload any gps which is not reasonably accurate. And add a note if the gps quality is poor when it still has value, perhaps because there are no other traces in the area. I suppose that we ought to start a discussion on the tagging list to suggest source:accuracy = low|medium|high|differential or some such. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote: > > On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote: > > The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always > seemed like a massive shortcoming of the project to me. Stopping people > re-aligning things based on a bad phone GPS or badly aligned aerial imagery > is impossible and even realising that things have been incorrectly moved is > random at best. I agree entirely and have often wished for exactly that. I sometimes use source=gps_surveys (plural) to try to convey that this is not just one random gps trace. In this case, I just had source=gps_survey. I too regret the awful smartphone (and satnav) gps traces which suggest all gps is rubbish. I try not to upload any gps which is not reasonably accurate. And add a note if the gps quality is poor when it still has value, perhaps because there are no other traces in the area. I suppose that we ought to start a discussion on the tagging list to suggest source:accuracy = low|medium|high|differential or some such. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:08:52PM +1100, Warin wrote: > On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote: > > > > I have only just got around to looking in more detail, and discovered > > that it is much worse than I had realised: vandalism. > > > > I have taken waypoints on nearly all of the individual stones, and then > > refined those positions with waypoint averaging on multiple visits. > > > In cases like this I would use the source tag on the way so that others have > a very good chance of seeing it and respecting the previous work rather than > simply changing it to what they think it should be. Indeed. I nearly always include a source tag for those sorts of reasons. In this case the user did not just move the points, but deleted them, source tag and all. So destroying the history. > It is too easy to over look hard work that may have gone into establishing > data. > A single GPS trace is fine if that is all there is, better to average many > GPS traces, in some locations I have 50+. In this case, I used a "waypoint averaging" function on my Garmin. That collects fixes over long periods and applies statistical algorithms to refine the coordinates. And this can be done on many occasions to refine the position even further. I had done this on many visits, and each averaging took considerable time. Often in pretty nasty weather. So my coordinates should have been very accurate. Hence my anger that they should have been deleted. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:53:07AM +, John Aldridge wrote: > On 17-Mar-20 02:08, Warin wrote: > > A single GPS trace is fine if that is all there is, better to average many > > GPS traces, in some locations I have 50+. > > Though, AIUI, once you've reached this level of precision, remaining errors > are likely to be systematic (e.g. satellites in a particular direction being > generally received via a -- delaying -- reflection rather than directly). No > amount of averaging will help with that. Well, the Garmin averaging goes some way to improve on that. That is one of the reasons that waypoint averaging can be done over several visits: it gives some sort of averaging over reflections, atmospheric changes even satellite calibration. Not up to professional differential GPS, of course, but potentially accurate to maybe a meter. Certainly way better then using imagery with the poor resolution, parallax errors and all the rest, which is probably what the user used. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments? Vandalism.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 04:18:02:PM +, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 16/03/2020 15:36, ael wrote: > > > > There has now been had one short reply essentially admitting tagging for > > the renderer. I haven't replied as yet, but Andy has. > > In this case it looks like the offending data's been removed, though the > tiles haven't rerendered yet (due to the site being busy). If there are I have only just got around to looking in more detail, and discovered that it is much worse than I had realised: vandalism. I have taken waypoints on nearly all of the individual stones, and then refined those positions with waypoint averaging on multiple visits. I now discover that this user has deleted that information and put new points from who knows where. I started replying to the changset comment before I had discovered that horror, and possibly failed to remain polite after it came to light. So it is vandalism. I will see what reply I get. Meanwhile I think everyone should check his other edits to historic sites. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments?
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 04:08:45PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > Mar 15, 2020, 22:36 by witwa...@disroot.org: > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 09:18:59PM +, David Woolley wrote: > > > >> On 14/03/2020 18:09, ael wrote: > >> > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago. > >> > These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and > >> > have extensively surveyed. There is no trace of any embankments. No > >> > source was given and the user does not appear to be local. > >> > >> I suspect this is a case of tagging for the renderer, which is, of course, > >> wrong. > >> > > > > That is what I thought, and mentioned in the changeset comment. I have > > had no response as yet from the user. > > > > A *very* brief look at those recent edits suggests this might be a world > > wide problem, and may need a mass revert. There are other changes with > > no source given, and I wonder if copyright material has been used. > > > > Given no reply and confirmed tagging for renderer reverting all similar edits > should be acceptable (and likely - desirable). There has now been had one short reply essentially admitting tagging for the renderer. I haven't replied as yet, but Andy has. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments?
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 09:18:59PM +, David Woolley wrote: > On 14/03/2020 18:09, ael wrote: > > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago. > > These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and > > have extensively surveyed. There is no trace of any embankments. No > > source was given and the user does not appear to be local. > > I suspect this is a case of tagging for the renderer, which is, of course, > wrong. That is what I thought, and mentioned in the changeset comment. I have had no response as yet from the user. A *very* brief look at those recent edits suggests this might be a world wide problem, and may need a mass revert. There are other changes with no source given, and I wonder if copyright material has been used. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments?
I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago. These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and have extensively surveyed. There is no trace of any embankments. No source was given and the user does not appear to be local. I have added a changeset comment. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/81640861 I looked at the user's recent changesets, and saw similar additions to other ancient monuments: the top of the list was the Rollright Stones. I don't know the Rollright stones well enough to know whether there is a real embankment there. But I suspect this is tagging for the renderer to make ancient monumnets more obvious on the standard map. I suggest that every one check their local historic sites for any unjustified modifications. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Saltash/Plymouth
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 01:53:50PM +, Devonshire wrote: > I might have some traces for the straight through Devon to Cornwall route so > probably the same as what you already have. It would be better if someone > more local took a look. I have many pretty accurate traces and fairly good geotagged dashcam video of maybe a dozen or so of passes through the new layout. But just on the main road straight through, so of limited use for the surrounding area & roads. But I had a reply off list from another mapper who knows the area, although he has now moved away. He has already done some updating, but I have only just now had a quick glance at what he has done. He has cleaned up the A388 to the NW which is now dual carriageway. > It's a shame that the state of aerial photography for the SW that is > available to mappers is now so poor. The Esir photography looks as if it was taken while the work was still underway, but it is not bad. But I always prefer my own gps & video when I have it. As far as I can tell, there are no more than 4 or 5 people including you, of course, who map in East Cornwall, and noone seems to be regular. Although I do spend several months each year in the area so I am getting close to being regular. ael/messpert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Saltash/Plymouth
Are there any local mappers in Plymouth or Saltash? The Carkeel roundabout and surrounding area has undergone major changes in the last couple of years. I drive through there occasionally and have made a few updates mainly based on gps and video, but that only covers just one through route. The whole area really needs a thorough survey. I have just done some very rough and ready changes to the roundabout based on gps/video but mainly Esri which seems to be the only imagery which is reasonably up to date. But I have left it in a bit of a mess, although nearer reality than before. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.41900/-4.23429 ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Features which move...apparently spurious edits: iD bug or "finger trouble"?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 03:41:40PM +, Andy Townsend wrote: > > Has anyone seen something similar? Presumably this could happen to nodes > generally, there is no reason to think amenity=post_box is a factor. The threading here seems to be odd. Anyway, when I was new to OSM and using an old slow machine with josm, it was easy to drag nodes and ways by accident without noticing. I once moved part of a major road by several kilometers: I noticed about a week later and corrected it. I was very surprised that no one else picked it up earlier. Maybe other editors produce the same problems when run on slow limited machines? Developers may not notice because they are usually using fairly powerful systems. An accidental drag may not show up for a second or more and can be overlooked. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 06:14:44PM +, Martin Wynne wrote: > If you enjoy country walking off the beaten track, it's often difficult to > find somewhere to leave the car for several hours without it getting in > anyone's way. Country lanes can be narrow with passing places or field gates > which would be obstructed if a car is left there for long periods. > > So it's great to find unofficial parking places such as these -- wide verges > with solid ground, unused corners at junctions, odd bits of unused land, > etc. > > https://goo.gl/maps/XrjmrV8eSgRr76U49 > > https://goo.gl/maps/cM4HZycSEvWiCHCNA > > It would be even better to be able to locate them on a map in advance. > > But how to tag them? It's hardly a Car Park. Nor a Lay-By in the usual sense > -- even if it is, highway=layby appears to be an abandoned proposal: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lay-by Well, I call them (informal) laybys, and they are far too important to miss off the map. Layby is the obvious UK term, so I use highway=rest_area rest_area=layby. Just because some people don't like the term layby for some unfathomable reason doesn't mean that it is not useful and the right term. But if anyone has a better idea fine. An example:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7164280481 I did wonder about attaching a screenshot from the gps-dashcam footage of that road, but it is nearly 300K and would probably be rejected by the list software, and maybe a bit antisocial for those with limited bandwidth... ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:49:35AM +0100, Russ Garrett wrote: > 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. I have visited and mapped a few of the passive stations which are usually small pillars a few cm high. Most (all?) are now "legacy" but they ought to be much more accurate than the much older trig points. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Solar Panels Quarterly Project: 39 days to go
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 04:33:17PM +0100, Dan S wrote: > In particular, it might be helpful for at least someone to focus on > *Cornwall*. That's an area with a lot of solar installations, and the > National Grid know it as an area that often gives a lot of "reverse flow", > i.e. a large amount of small-scale generation feeding back into the grid. > I've had a bit of a look at Cornwall and various imagery looks really nice > and clear there. I am often in East Cornwall, and have mapped the odd Solar Farm when out surveying - and also wind farms. But I haven't had time to do much armchair imagery mapping. There are maybe around 3 fairly active mappers in East Cornwall. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 12:49:47PM +0100, Andy Townsend wrote: > > Maybe a compromise might be (assuming the licence is suitable) importing only > the "designation" tag for entirely new footways (i.e. without a highway tag > at all)? An excellent idea, but will it happen? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 11:05:44PM +0100, Neil Matthews wrote: > In light of some recent edits in South Gloucestershire -- is it ok to > import unsurveyed footpaths based simply on rowmaps data? Apart from the licensing issue, many of these sorts of edits are simply wrong. I had to correct several "ficticious" footways in my local area which simply didn't exist on the ground, and sometimes crossed rivers at alleged fords. It was simply dangerous to direct people to try to walk what was perhaps an historic right of way. Ground survey nearly always needed. I concede that good imagery evidence can sometimes do if there are no local mappers. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tintagel bridge
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 07:23:00AM +0100, Jez Nicholson wrote: > Has anyone prepared Tintagel bridge? Opening on Sunday. As far as I can see, we don't have any local mappers. Perhaps I may have missed some. I am in Cornwall just now, and *might* be able to do a proper survey but it is fair distance and it probably won't happen. Anyone in that area? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:34:53PM +0100, Borbus wrote: > looks like the new Maxar imagery is quite recent in that area and, Just a quick comment. Parts of the Maxar imagery seem to have significant offsets. At least I have noticed that it often does not match my (fairly accurate) gps tracks. And its offsets don't match those for Maxbox. I think it is marked "beta" presumably in case of these sorts of problem. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:12:24PM +0100, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > > Trades will occasionally have small items delivered, especially if > specialized or in an emergency. A foreman I know had his kid's Christmas > present sent to site to keep the surprise. > > Please provide an OSM link to the site. Already given in another reply: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71388804#map=16/51.7817/-1.5188 Having refreshed my memory, they explicitly stated that it was from Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta). If you look at that imagery, it is pretty obvious that those roads are no more than construction tracks as yet. Nearly the whole of that site was mapped before any imagery was available from multiple visits with fairly accurate gps. Those gps tracks are public and can be inspected. It is overdue for another visit. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:20:31PM +0100, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote: > On 29/07/2019 11:21, ael wrote: > > In the case that I mentioned, it was certainly not from their own GPS > > logs. > > A few examples I came across while looking at these with a DWG hat on were > also not from GPS logs. In one case Amazon would have had to have been > delivering by tractor; in another the actual building they would have been > delivering to was first mapped in 2013 and was derelict then. > > What I suspect that they were doing was "doing other mapping while they were > in the area" (which to be fair is pretty much what nearly everyone else does > too). Indeed. My case was https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71388804#map=16/51.7817/-1.5188, and as I said Amazon replied and adjusted. They said explicitly that it was from "Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta)". ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 09:42:27AM +0100, Dan S wrote: > "stinks of armchair mapping" - that sounds rather derogatory. My > understanding is that these are organised edits informed in > significant part by Amazon's own GPS logs from their delivery staff. In the case that I mentioned, it was certainly not from their own GPS logs. The construction area was inaccesible, even on a bicycle. It was definitely armchair mapping. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 09:35:36AM +0100, Andy Robinson wrote: > I've just looked at a number of Amazon Logistics in my local area. A lot of > service roads are getting added which on face value look perhaps to be > [snip] > Anyone else have concerns over benefits? I noticed a similar problem in a area that I regularly survey. I contacted them and someone else from Amazon logistics replied and corrected the mistakes. Had the original Amazon armchair mapper looked at the history and the source tags, he/she should have realized that the area was being actively mapped with regular gps surveys. Sadly, it is not only Amazon armchair mappers who neglect to do basic checks before changing things. So, yes, I have some concerns. But maybe they are doing useful work in area without local mappers. Perhaps they should be encouraged to be more careful? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 06:49:10PM +0100, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > > > On 04/07/2019 16:59, Silent Spike wrote: > > > > My understanding is that `public_transport=platform` is any place where > > public transport can be accessed > > Same as bus_stop/tram_stop, you mean? > > > and should not literally be interpreted as > > a physical platform > > then why hi-jack the word 'platform' which has a clear, specific meaning? > Yet more confusion > > > If anything `highway=bus_stop` is redundant data, > > It's is a well established, popular tag far exceeding any PT tags > > > however it's necessary > > for render compatibility (violating the "don't tag for the renderer rule" > > I think your logic got a bit twisted around. bus_stop is the original & no > PT tag adds anything extra to improve the database. > > > and (in my opinion) should not impede mapping progress. > > Existing tags work, Changing for the sake of change is irrelevant. PTv2 > needs to be rescinded. +1 ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New Bridge Gunnislake
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:49:04PM +0100, Neil Matthews wrote: > Add a note on the main OSM site - maybe with expected finish date of > road works -- might help as a reminder. Oh yes. I ought to do that. I seldom generate notes, so I forget about them. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New Bridge Gunnislake
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 08:38:25PM +0100, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: > There is also the temporary affix: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/temporary_(conditional)#Example_4:_Temporary_highway_bridge Oh. I missed that. It would be perfect. Except, as you say :- > I'm not entirely sure how well supported that is by routers etc though. If I was confident that routers handled it, I would update the tagging. Anyone know how widely it is supported? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New Bridge Gunnislake
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 09:33:22PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > It is closed for repairs, so maybe highway=construction construction=primary > would be better? I thought about that. But changing from primary seemed more problematical if it was forgotten. > It seems that it will be more likely to be caught if forgotten, really old > highway=construction > is far more suspicious that old access=no. That also crossed my mind, but as I have alerted this list, and at least one other mapper with an interest in the area who isn't on this list, I doubt that it will be forgotten. > There is also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_date > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_date> > that allows to specify opening date - what makes possible to > run query detecting objects that are supposed to be open now. Yes, I guess that is a good idea. I was looking for an end-date, but 'negating' the tag - switching to construction - and the using opening_date as the negation of "end_date" is neat. Hope routers parse that sort of thing. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New Bridge Gunnislake
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:59:12PM -0400, Devonshire wrote: > Saw this on the local news last night. A 30+ mile diversion is going to cause > a few problems over Easter if they can't get it sorted. I am not that close > but have mapped this area a bit in the past. Personally. I like the Horsebridge crossing, but we don't want to encourage too many people who aren't used to small lanes to go that way. > No real view either way on adding the restriction to OSM. Good for users who > keep their data up-to-date but potentially not so good for people who update > infrequently. Of course, that was one of my concerns. We really need some sort of lifetime tagging with an end-date. I have asked another mapper who maps in this area, but like me isn't very local, to keep on eye on the restriction in case I forget or whatever. Please also keep a watch and remove the access tag as soon as the bridge re-opens if you get there first. ael ___ 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, Apr 03, 2019 at 05:23:03PM +0100, Dan S wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose that for OSM in the UK we have a project to map > solar electricity panels (photovoltaics or "PV"). > > Why? In brief: > > * We can do this! It involves a nice mix of aerial imagery, local > on-the-ground observation, etc; and anyone can do it, in the town and > in the countryside. The solar farms that I have tried to map on the ground with gps usually have very restricted access. I don't know if they are scared of people stealing the panels, or other equipment. The panels themselves are quite low potential, I think, but maybe if they are strung together in series, there can be hazardous voltages. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] New Bridge Gunnislake
With some hesitation, I have just added access = no to New Bridge in Gunnislake. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/608610775 This is one of only two major routes across the lower Tamar, so it is of major importance for routing applications. The bridge has been closed after an accident damaged the structure, and it has been suggested that may be shut until 1st May. I know the area fairly well, and I believe that I had edited the bridge several times in the past, although the history now only seems to go back for around a year with edits from non local (armchair?) mappers. The relevance of that comment is that I am not aware of any very local mappers. Anyway, have I overlooked a way to tag a temporary restriction like this? I have put a note in my dairy to remind me to check the tagging in a week or two, but I could still forget ... which would be unfortunate :-) ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Notes (Was: We're missing changes...)
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:40:23PM +, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > I think we should be encouraging those who add notes to contribute directly > to the do-ocracy that is OSM. Quite a few notes take longer to type than > actually editing the problem they are highlighting. > I think that you underestimate the problem for someone who knows little of computers, has no knowledge of coordinates and trigonomentry, and has minimal understanding of maps. I strongly suspect that most OSM contributers have far more education than average. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Boundary-Line --- Sharing nodes
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:16:34PM -, Andy Robinson wrote: > If you are using JOSM you can use the "Unglue Ways" from the Tools menu. This > will duplicate the nodes to make the two overlapping ways independent. Don't > know if this functionality is available in other editors. I use josm and use the "Unglue ways" as my primary tool when encountering these problems. But, as I said originally, it is still a huge pain :-) I hit this sort of thing when updating rivers and streams which are usually very poorly mapped. I find a boundary running along the waterway, with some external source tag. It is quite likely the the boundary is defined as following the stream/river, but how do I know? And how should I update the source tag on the boundary if I have moved it? It is a great time sink and makes me think that there are better things to do. Another frequent problem is where hedges and fields share nodes with roads. Again, something that is just plain wrong when one has reasonably accurate survey data. And very painful to correct. Likewise for wooded areas that others have mentioned. Maybe editors should by default never share nodes, and require explicit actions surrounded with warnings, to allow coincident ways to share nodes - apart from the obvious exceptions like junctions ? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 06:10:24PM +, Rick Bowlby wrote: > Hello, I quite recently imported Ordnance Survey Boundary-Line data > (October 2018, OGL v3) for recently changed electoral wards in > Manchester (changeset > 65101926 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65101926>). I hope this > isn't controversial - these boundaries are useful to me and potentially > others as well, and I understand that the OGL is compatible with OSM. > > But I've now noticed that the outer boundary of the wards is not coincident > with the current administrative boundary for Manchester City Council in OSM > (relation 146656 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/146656>) - as far > as I can see, the discrepancies are up to about 5m or so. However it is > consistent with the city boundary in the same OS dataset. The sources for > the existing OSM data seem to be mixed - there are references to Ordnance > Survey sources (without dates), in some places the boundary ways are > rivers, there are also references to the "historic course" of a river and > so on. This is perhaps slightly off topic, but this habit of some of sharing nodes causes me many problems. When I am updating roads and other features from fairly accurate gps surveys, I often find the I have all these tangled boundaries about which I know little. It is a huge pain to duplicate nodes to separate ways before I can adjust just the feature that I have surveyed. I confess that my patience often runs out, and I just drag the other stuff along with my updates, thinking that the mappers who shared the nodes in the first place get what they deserve :-). So I may be responsible indirectly for some minor inaccuracies of certain boundaries, although nowhere near Manchester. I am normally extremely respectful of other mappers' work, but this is one area where I find that it is just too difficult to avoid possible minor damage. Maybe I just haven't found the right tools. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 05:17:56PM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > We're now one month in to the current Quarterly Project, which aims to > use some official Post Office Ltd. branch data released under the OGL > to help improve the mapping of Post Offices in OpenStreetMap. I am confused :-) How should a Royal mail local delivery office be tagged? It seems that it is not amenity=post_office. I notice that I have used post_depot once some time ago, but that doesn't seem to be in the wiki (or in the presets for josm). Yet I am sure that I got it from somewhere. Not that it seems very natural. I would have thought that this a common situation, so I am a bit bemused that it doesn't seem to be covered anywhere. Or am I missing something blindingly obvious? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 01:59:17PM +0300, Ilya Zverev wrote: > 3 нояб. 2017 г., в 13:21, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> написал(а): > > > > On 03/11/2017 09:55, Ilya Zverev wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> You might remember a few months ago I discussed here importing of Shell > >> fuel stations. The data provider is Navads, which has a contract with > >> Shell for putting their stations on the map. They asked me to proceed with > >> the import and sent an updated list of the stations. I have also done a very quick check on a couple of stations. The import have "ref_coords" that differ from the existing OSM nodes which are in good locations. If this implies that the exiting nodes be moved, then that seems wrong. The current nodes have proper source tags. The import appears to leave them unmodified rendering them incorrect. They should append ";navads_shell" or some such if the import goes ahead. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map railway bridges
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 01:02:13PM +, Dave F wrote: > > of dismantled railways, and also possibly abandoned ones, > > I agree with removing all of the above, except where they're co-tagged with > objects which still exist ie disused bridges: > https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=18=51.344207=-2.344501 Oops. Sorry. I didn't scroll down far enough to notice that the point was already made! ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map: abandoned railways may still have bridges.
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 01:02:13PM +, Dave F wrote: > > > > o Another is railways - I'm guessing you'd want to remove the rendering > > of dismantled railways, and also possibly abandoned ones, But please render existing bridges: these are quite common in Cornwall and are highly significant particulary where they cross roads. Just because the railway is dismantled or abandoned does not mean the bridges have magically evaporated. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:51:18PM +0100, Kevin Peat wrote: > >Anyway, I take it that no one is objecting to my changes and wanting to > >revert them? > > > >ael > > > > > >___ > >Talk-GB mailing list > >Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > This was discussed in a thread here a number of years ago. There is a lot of > upland heath on the moor: > > http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/wildlife-and-heritage/habitats2/moorland/upland-heathland > > I think it would be better if it was kept as heath with a sub type. Just > changing it to moor doesn't add anything useful. Thanks for the link: interesting. Now the question is: what subtype? heath=upland perhaps? I am not sure that all the areas that I modified were all "upland", although I suppose pretty well all of Dartmoor is high. I agree that moor doesn't add anything: indeed it was intended to remove incorrect information on my original narrow understanding of "heath". ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:04:32PM +0100, Elizabeth Oldham wrote: > On 25/09/17 17:13, ael wrote: > > > Well, surely this make the tag so general as to be pretty useless. The > > original meaning was pretty specific and useful. "Moor" or something > > equivalant is well understood (in the UK, at least) and is useful as > > a broad description where detailed mapping is absent. > > > > Anyway, I take it that no one is objecting to my changes and wanting to > > revert them? > > No objection here. Descriptive word is moor, everyone and his dog recognises > it for what it is. The use of heath to describe moors is simply bizarre. > IMHO/YYMV. That was exactly my feeling, but the link to http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/wildlife-and-heritage/habitats2/moorland/upland-heathland given by Kevin suggests that perhaps some variety of heath is not too wrong after all. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 01:36:22PM +0100, SK53 wrote: > Moor (or possibly fell) covers a decent amount of Corine data imported > across Europe as natural=heath. In effect natural=heath on OSM no longer > means heath. It may mean any of the following: > >- Upland vegetation in its broadest sense: unimproved upland grassland, >drier blanket bogs (covered by heather), Racometrium heath, Bilberry >dominated heath, Shrubby vegetation dominated by brooms (at least in France >& Spain), and no doubt a few others I've missed. >- Moorland in Britain, which is probably a slightly smaller subset of >the above >- Lowland heathland: places like the Surrey Heaths, Suffolk Sandlings, >Norfolk Brecks etc. >- Other less obvious lowland areas known as heaths: particularly with >large swathes of bracken and patches of birch. > > When this thread first started I thought we could work to remove these > multiple meanings, but having seen what places with natural=heath from > Corine imported-data in the Cevennes, suspect that this is an unrealistic > objective. Well, surely this make the tag so general as to be pretty useless. The original meaning was pretty specific and useful. "Moor" or something equivalant is well understood (in the UK, at least) and is useful as a broad description where detailed mapping is absent. Anyway, I take it that no one is objecting to my changes and wanting to revert them? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 10:10:07AM +, SK53 wrote: > than anything they reflect that OSM as a project lacks good tags for many > of these boreo-temperate upland features, and whilst that is true there I have been changing some "heath" areas of Dartmoor to "moor". But I notice that the wiki claims that this is deprecated. Since most of these are large areas which really cover a variety of vegetation, I can't see that any of the "established" tags are really appropriate. "Moor" is exactly right. If forced to use the documentated tags, I would go for natural = grassland;wetland as the best approximation despite the fact that not everything is wet nor is grass. Of course, it only makes sense for coarse-grained approximate mapping, and more localised accurate tags are the ideal. Should "moor" or something similar be restored and supported by renderers? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OpenStreetCam or Mapillary?
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:26:53AM +0200, Marc Gemis wrote: > > I use a DSLR to take pictures, then georeference them, and then upload > them via a Jython script to OpenStreetCam. I use the Mapilary website > to upload them there as well. They have scripts to upload pictures as > well. I also do that (use geo tagged photographs) as well as use georeferenced dashcam video. But neither OpenstreetCam nor Mapillary seemed to allow me to contribute such material which is generally of far higher quality than Smartphone video. So I, for one, would be interested in the details: I didn't find anything on a quick search of the OpenStreetCam site. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The "heath mapper in Wales" is back
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:08:17AM +0100, Andy Townsend wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Back in February there was a discussion here about problems by large heath > areas added by a "new" user - > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-February/019895.html > . > > The same problem is happening again. It's a different user account, but > their mapping and the way that they do it is similar enough to suggest that > it may be the same person (as the previous account was also - > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-February/019903.html > ). I do hope that this can be stopped sooner rather than later. It caused huge problems around Bodmin Moor. By the time people had noticed, the large changes were entangled with later edits and it was really difficult to correct things without destroying later useful work. There are still wrongly tagged portions. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Spammer "Digital Torque Wrench" on OSM
Not sure this is the right list, but I guess admins are on this list. We have a spammer: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Digital%20Torque%20Wrench who just "added me as a friend". Can someone remove and block the account? Thanks, ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Birmingham Tree Import
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 04:53:12PM +0100, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 13/04/2017 16:12, Brian Prangle wrote: > > > > precipitated by my not participating in changeset discussions of which I > > still remain oblivious because apparently the automatic email > > notification system breaks randomly and it seems I'm one of its victims. > > I've seen a few different ways that emails can "not be delivered"; the good > news is that they're all user-fixable. Although very few of my changesets have provoked discussion, so my memory could be at fault, I am fairly confident that I only discovered them by accident. And none of the 3 suggested causes applies in my case. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Layby restricted to abnormal loads
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 08:12:36AM +0100, Adam Snape wrote: > As bicycles are vehicles (and not all other vehicles are motorised) that > can be tagged as vehicle=no hgv=yes. Given that the exclusion likely > includes more than just vehicles (eg. horses) , access=no foot=yes hgv=yes > is maybe a better option. > That sounds much better, although maybe there is a need for a new restriction tag. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Layby restricted to abnormal loads
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:00:15AM +0100, David Woolley wrote: > On 29/03/17 21:32, ael wrote: > > and, for good measure, hgv=permissive. > > Permissive sounds wrong to me. Permissive basically reflects the rights of > the land owner, and for users is the same as yes. Well, yes, but looking down the list of values offered on the presets in josm, that seemed the nearest. After all the landowner is giving permission if there is an abnormal load. We seem to be missing a restriction value for this sort of thing. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Layby restricted to abnormal loads
I have just tagged a layby provided for abnormal loads (on the approach to a toll bridge) with highway=rest_area rest_area=abnormal_load and, for good measure, hgv=permissive. But I am not sure that conveys that only "abnormal loads" may park there. And a data consumer that has no knowledge of my invented rest_area value might direct other vehicles there. I think these restricted parking lanes are fairly common. I not very comfortable with using rest_area for laybys, anyway, but that seems to be the current recommendation on the wiki. Is there a better way? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Countryside access map
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 06:57:58PM +, Chris Hill wrote: > On 24/03/2017 17:58, ael wrote: > > I have just noticed a newish mapper who has added many footpaths around > > Oxfordshire apparently using Bing but with changset comments > > "from countryside access map". > > > > Is this copyright free? I have sent a polite message welcoming to OSM, > > but pointing out that rural footpaths usually need a visit, and asking > > about that map. > > > > Is this likley to be legitimate? > > > > ael > > > A quick search came up with this > https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/countrysidemap/ > > That matches the name exactly and it is copyright. Well, the mapper has now replied, saying that indeed thatwas the map, but that it is open data: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/sites/default/files/folders/documents/environmentandplanning/countryside/access/os-opendata-licence.pdf which seems to be right? I have some video of the alleged end of one of the footpaths that he added and it doesn't seem to be there. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Countryside access map
I have just noticed a newish mapper who has added many footpaths around Oxfordshire apparently using Bing but with changset comments "from countryside access map". Is this copyright free? I have sent a polite message welcoming to OSM, but pointing out that rural footpaths usually need a visit, and asking about that map. Is this likley to be legitimate? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 03:07:38PM -0700, Dyserth wrote: > > With regards to deleting the areas mapped by Sam888 all over Wales I frankly > did not want to block out or delete these areas as I felt it would have > meant modifying the map data too extensively, been very time consuming, and This is very unfortunate. I am surprised to hear that you did not receive any private messages. As I said in an earlier email, the only mapper whose contributions were problematical in my area was Sam88, and I contacted him/her *and* had a polite reply. It seems that you were just caught as a side effect after you had also tried to clean up, but again you should have had a message at the very least. After you have suffered this unwarranted criticism, I am hesitant to say this, but your habit of not commenting on most of your changesets did contribute to people's suspicion. I really would urge you to make some sort of comment, even if brief, and maybe repetitive where you are doing similar things. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:35:05PM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > I think it's very unlikely, however, that these users are editing OSM for a > company. Probably the majority of edits in the UK are done by what you might > call "lone mappers". Generally this works well and people plough their own > furrows successfully, happily modifying their practice if particular issues > are pointed out to them. But occasionally we have people who (perhaps > because of limited social skills) find it difficult to follow established > practice and co-operate with other contributors. To be fair to Sam888, when I sent him a private message about "heath" he replied acknowledging that "moorland" was more accurate than heath. He said that he had used Bing originally, but after my message had used streetview to confirm "moorland". So he was communicating back then (Feb 2016) at least once. He didn't comment on the fact that I knew the area rather well and had extensively surveyed with gps and photography ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 06:30:03PM +, Brian Prangle wrote: > Be bold! If you know the area and in your opinion it's junk then delete > it. I've done a couple of areas in Shopshire I know. I don't know what the > consensus is for tagging so I added a placeholder of > landuse=unimproved_grassland. What should we be tagging with? > I have used natural=moor for some parts of Bodmin Moor. I know that it isn't rendered as yet, but that seems by far the most appropriate description. As for being bold, I am normally very reluctant to throw away other people's work, but I think it is justified in this case. But it will be hit and miss without a systematic trawl through the user's (users') changesets. And if I delete stuff outside the region I have surveyed, I may be trampling on areas where there are active local mappers who might reasonably be upset. Not sure when I will have time to do a thorough job any time soon. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:22:30AM +, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 08/02/2017 10:49, Brian Prangle wrote: > > It would be great in my opinion if we moved on as a community and > > actually decided to act on our discussions. I agree that at least those changes that have not been subsequently modified by a "legitimate" mapper should be reverted. I thought something like that was going to happen. As I have noted before, I have encountered this rubbish in the South West and have partly corrected some areas where I have directly surveyed, but it was still problematical. I didn't touch adjacent areas although I was sure they were wrong. In the light of these discussion, I now feel more bold about perhaps just deleting more of this junk unless someone/ some group undertakes bulkish reversion. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:53:51AM +, SK53 wrote: > Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons > tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. I have just found the message to the mapper who changed area on Bodmin Moor to heath: that was almost 1 year ago, so this has been going on for a long time. The mapper replied politely saying that he had used Bing imagery, but conceded that "moorland" was more accurate. But added that moorland was not rendered. I commented back then on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36605141 ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:53:51AM +, SK53 wrote: > Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons > tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. I too have encountered at least one armchair mapper who (in my view) incorrectly tagged large areas of Bodmin moor with this nonsense. I changed this rubbish in the areas that I have directly surveyed, but did not think that I should override another mapper who clearly had spent a lot of effort in adjacent areas without consultation. I first noticed this problem several months ago: I cannot remember whether I tried to contact the mapper to ask what was happening. I have had other instances of armchair mappers adding what I regard as very dubious landuse tags to areas that I have extensively surveyed. When I contacted one of the main offenders; I didn't get a very helpful response. Anyway, I suspect that this is a problem over large areas. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:12:22PM +, Stuart Reynolds wrote: > > At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also > available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance at satellite > mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will also highlight > that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the roundabout (and > likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly dangerous. You have to > cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort, either > from the A1 or from the side roads. > So far no one has mentioned the hazard tag. Surely that is the obvious and flexible solution here? I have tagged some dangerous open mine shafts in Cornwall with hazard=yes. Being too strict about what is "subjective" can get silly. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project
On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 02:11:58PM +, Greg wrote: > Hi all, > > The FHRS/OSM comparison tool <http://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhrs/> is > updating correctly again. Unfortunately I didn’t get a response from the FSA > but did manage to code a workaround, and the update script has run > successfully this morning. > > I did however notice another issue; the way the update script interacts with > the FHRS API means that currently a maximum of 5000 FHRS establishments are > returned for each FHRS authority (N.B. these don’t necessarily tally with the > OS Boundary Line districts used to create a page per district). This could > cause problems in Birmingham, Glasgow and Leeds, although these areas don’t > seem to have many FHRS IDs matched anyway. See > <https://github.com/gregrs-uk/python-fhrs-osm/issues/22> for updates in due > course. I not at all sure that this is related but I have found that I can't match certain establishments with the fhrs search tool or find them in their xml file, yet your comparison tools is finding them. An example is Hyvue House which is a Bed & breafast in Liskeard Cornwall. The address is Coldstyle Road, but searching the fhrs data for the name with or without the street name returns no results. Perhaps I misunderstand osm-unmatched-no-postcode-379.gpx ? Am I wrong in assuming this only includes places with an FHRS rating? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Contact with Food Standards Agency
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:09:03PM +, Jez Nicholson wrote: > I mentioned the quarterly project to Dr Sian Thomas, Head of Information > Management at Food Standards Agency. Her reaction was, "how exciting! When > is it and how can we help?" > https://twitter.com/drsiant/status/778887195432194048 > > The FSA are keen advocates of open data and I imagine would be happy to be > involved. I'm not sure how exactly, but the door is open. I have discovered a few local places displaying incorrect ratings. I have just found a particularly bad example displaying a "5" when their actual rating (if the FSA website is correct) is actually "2". The lastest inspection was only a month ago, so I suppose that it is just possible that they used to be a "5", and haven't "got around" to removing the sticker for the 5 rating. Perhaps we should have something like "notname", "wrongdisplay" perhaps, to alert the FSA in such cases? I am not too serious since we are only providing the id rather than the absolute value of the rating, and we don't want to alienate companies, even when they may not be the most honest. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Copyright and MAPS.ME android 6.2.5-Google
I have just found a local cafe added to OSM by "MAPS.ME android 6.2.5-Google", at least that was the "created by" tag. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41346334#map=19/51.78621/-1.48443 The mention of Google suggested that Google maps might have been used, although I suspect it just means that the App is available on the Google store. A quick skim of the website http://maps.me/en/home didn't seem to throw any light on this. I have sent a message to the mapper asking if he/she was sure that the information was copyright free/original and haven't had a reply as yet. Is anyone familiar with this App and whether the mapping is legitimate? The user has not uploaded any gps traces which may or may not be relevant. I have my own gps Waypoint for the cafe (I was about to add the fhrs:id) so I can remap it the current version is illegitimate. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright and MAPS.ME android 6.2.5-Google
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:49:32PM +0100, ael wrote: > I have just found a local cafe added to OSM by "MAPS.ME android 6.2.5-Google", > at least that was the "created by" tag. I think that I may now have answered my own question. Digging into the Knowledge base on the app website, it does look as if the data does come from the user so should be legitimate. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possible use of OS triangulation stations to determine aerial imagery offset
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:16:42PM +0100, Greg wrote: > Hi all, > > I believe it may be possible to import/merge this data at some point in > the future so I'd be grateful if you could take a look. It is a pity that the gps passive stations are not included. Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2513244479 ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Tag for a scrap yard?
I have just searched on the wiki looking for a tag for a (metal) scrap yard. I tried scrap yard, recycling and waste disposal among others. What is the right tag (for an area)? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Text entry option vanished when uploading traces?
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 09:09:00PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 27/06/16 20:27, ael wrote: > > > Nothing in the GPX upload page has been changed for years. > > > I have just had to waste time clicking up and down a tree of stupid > > (sorry) icons instead of just entering the file name. It is very > > irritating and demotivating :-( Editing OSM already takes too much of my > > time. > > I think it is your browser that has changed, not us. Ah. Apologies. It did occur to me that it might be a browser change. I guess that I jumped too fast after recent josm versions have appeared buggy in similar circumstances. I wonder if there is a common library change somewhere behind all of that. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Text entry option vanished when uploading traces?
Has the option to enter the name of a gpx file textually for trace upload been removed from www.openstreetmap.org? I have just had to waste time clicking up and down a tree of stupid (sorry) icons instead of just entering the file name. It is very irritating and demotivating :-( Editing OSM already takes too much of my time. Apologies for being grumpy: or maybe I have just overlooked something? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Crediting OSM (was Birdtrack using OSM maps)
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 08:39:31PM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > I noticed recently that it was using OpenStreetMap data; at my > instigation, it now also prominently credits OSM. I noticed that my local library was using OSM but with no accreditation. When I looked (as I recall, on the wiki) for a link to send them, I had to dig deep and just found this: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/48/can-i-use-these-maps-on-my-website I seem to remember that the request to credit OSM used to be prominent, but that no longer seems to be the case, so I could understand how it might be overlooked. I sent an polite email on 24th Feb asking them to add the credit, but have had no reply. So perhaps the request for credit needs to be more prominent? Meanwhile, perhaps others might also complain? The offending site is https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/witney-library As you can see there, their email address is witney.libr...@oxfordshire.gov.uk . ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New users and P2
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:23:34AM +, David Woolley wrote: > On 25/02/16 17:04, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > >User can also enter relevant POIs like stiles, gates etc when they are > >encountered. > > This might have been a good idea in the early days, when most mapping used > GPS and most mapping was onto an empty map. These days, I think it would > just cause problems as it would probably delay the proper association of the > GPS tracks with, more accurate, aerial imagery data, and would not properly > account for features that had already been mapped, but possibly on a > different, or more accurate datum. While there are many pretty awful gps devices out there, some consumer gps units can be fairly accurate if used with an understanding of the technology. I am not happy with the suggestion that aerial imagery is more accurate for all the well known reasons of alignment and parallax. I keep having armchair mappers fouling up accurately surveyed data with near nonsense, and it is very demotivating. I sometimes wonder if a source tag indicating some notion of accuracy would help, although I am not sure how that could be objective unless it was using diffferential gps. But my experience of many armchair mappers is that they just ride roughshod and ignore source tags and the like. To be fair, the editors don't help with this, and it can be tedious and time consuming to review the history of everything before modification. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] User dataone: "splitting into 2 way to tag restriction "
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:01:16PM +0100, Dave F. wrote: > Adding accurate data is, of course, improving OSM, but only if it's from an > allowable source. > > The lack of communication implies there's something to hide. Personally, I think that they should be blocked until they provide a proper explanation. The sheer scale is highly suspicious. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tracks key in UK
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 11:25:34PM +0100, Antje wrote: > Hi, > > I came across this page by chance this evening: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracks > > Given that a majority of UK railways now have individual tracks mapped, do we > really need to plan some sort of phase out this tag in the country soon? It > also appears that definition appears vague. Yes, but... If I travel along an new section of a railway with a gps on one track and look out of the window to note there are other tracks, surely it is a reasonable initial mapping to use the tag to record that there are other tracks. I agree that this is not going to be common, but it still seems to have utility. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now available
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 06:41:23PM +0100, Phil Endecott wrote: > > How would people find this for tracing compared to photo imagery? It looks excellent, at least at first glance. Thanks so much for all the work. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 08:53:57AM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote: The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970 does not render on our default map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3914/-0.5433 despite being a significant and very visible landmark: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_opulentfish/2870819874/ I started a thread about this sort of thing on the tagging list last spring: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-March/022606.html There were some rather bad tempered posts from the railway lobby:-( I *thought* that the outcome was that the problem was acknowledged and that there were moves to amend the mapnik default style to render bridges again. But nothing happened. Having stirred up a hornets' nest once, I decided to leave it. But as I said there, it was embarrasing when showing openstreet(map) to newbies to have to explain that the many significant (often low) bridges in the area carrying abandoned mining railways over roads were mapped, but not visible. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Issue with Changeset
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 05:22:53PM +0100, ael wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:22:48AM +0100, Jason Woollacott wrote: Looks like there has been an issue with changeset 30821940 Which seems to have added the A30 through the whole of Cornwall on an incorrect route. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30821940 I am often in East Cornwall and contribute to the map. The above changeset is out of the area I know well, but I was looking along the A30, prompted by this thread, and have just noticed http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23301911 I wondered why there had been no response to the above. On checking the link I see that it points to something else: it looks as if my cut and paste dropped a trailing 0. That should have been http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/233019110 with changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28521212 ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Issue with Changeset
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:22:48AM +0100, Jason Woollacott wrote: Looks like there has been an issue with changeset 30821940 Which seems to have added the A30 through the whole of Cornwall on an incorrect route. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30821940 I am often in East Cornwall and contribute to the map. The above changeset is out of the area I know well, but I was looking along the A30, prompted by this thread, and have just noticed http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23301911 which seems to be mapping a planned change and not what is on the ground. The user is new and has only contributed two edits. However, there is a tag 'proposed:highway=no' which I don't understand, so perhaps that is just a mistake and it should be proposed:highway=yes? I suggest that someone who knows the area should check and maybe contact the mapper to clarify. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Projects Update
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 01:43:35PM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: For anyone interested in mapping Royal Mail Post Boxes, or Post Office Ltd Post Office branches, you may find the tools I run at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postboxes/ useful. Amongst other things, This seems to be quite misleading because it requires ref keys. I looked at my local area, and found OSM had 0% coverage. Digging in further, I found that OSM had *all* of the post boxes that I checked already mapped. I had mapped many of those. I seldom include a ref key partly because I hadn't seen any point in the past, and partly because I usually take a quick geotagged photograph when mapping and the reference (to be honest, I am not quite sure I know what it is) is seldom visible or resolved. I suspect this area actually has something close to 100% coverage. This also maybe explains why a nearby mapper a while ago suggested this area hadn't been mapped fully because he had noticed missing post boxes. He couldn't identify a missing box except one which I very strongly suspect is spurious having a position in the middle of private fields with no access... Still it is useful to have the list and if and when I remember or have time I may check properly. Casting my eye down the list, I can only see one that I don't immediately recognise as something I have mapped. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Retail chains
I have made a large update to the UK retail chain page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Retail_Chains I am not sure that this is on topic here, but I didn't see the Post Office there. Presumably it now counts now as a private business, although perhaps not quite retail. Our local main office has just closed and moved to a shop within a shop (W H Smith in this case). A quick wiki search didn't get a hit on how to tag this sort of sub shop, although I know, of course, that this is a common situation with department stores. Is there an agreed way to tag this? Just add amenity=post_office to the to the same node as the shop tag? Or add a second node? Or something else? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Retail chains
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Dan S wrote: 2014-10-25 17:48 GMT+01:00 ael law_ence@ntlworld.com: I have made a large update to the UK retail chain page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Retail_Chains I am not sure that this is on topic here, but I didn't see the Post Office there. Presumably it now counts now as a private business, although perhaps not quite retail. Our local main office has just closed and moved to a shop within a shop (W H Smith in this case). A quick wiki search didn't get a hit on how to tag this sort of sub shop, although I know, of course, that this is a common situation with department stores. Is there an agreed way to tag this? Just add amenity=post_office to the to the same node as the shop tag? Or add a second node? Or something else? Hi - I certainly would not add it to the same node. It's only coincidence that the tag is a different key so it lets you do that - and after all it may have different name=*, different opening_hours=*, etc. A second That's true. I would have noticed when I tried to do it :-) However two nodes with standard tags don't distinguish W H Smiths inside Post office from the inverse. That seems a useful distinction. sub_shop=yes is ugly, but perhaps something along these lines already exists or is needed? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Retail chains
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 08:19:25PM +0100, Dan S wrote: However two nodes with standard tags don't distinguish W H Smiths inside Post office from the inverse. That seems a useful distinction. sub_shop=yes is ugly, but perhaps something along these lines already exists or is needed? This may have been discussed heavily elsewhere, I don't know. My own opinion is that if you need something to be _inside_ something else, there's no point trying to do that just with nodes, since areas are perfect for the job! Agreed, but it breaks the symmetry and requires more careful survey. In my case, gps is a bit poor among tall buildings, and the shops are all in one big building. I can get a rough outline from Bing, but the inner walls would be guesswork. I don't want to introduce spurious accuracy into the database, so nodes seem appropriate here. I suppose a relation might capture the semantics, but I don't think that would be very obvious to the average user, who may not be a mapper at all. He/she needs to know he has to go inside WHS to find the Post Office. I suppose the obvious rendering would be as you suggest: WHS as an area containing the PO. Ho hum... ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
