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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

That's weird.
Save for some tactile paving what's the difference between North & South?

DaveF

On 10/12/2020 14:08, Tony Shield wrote:
/Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually 
banned?

/

Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295

Quite clear signage - Mapillary - 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.66933432657343=-2.6290113968031967=17=_ir_HmYAIa4H0rnj1JrO8A=photo

//

When I walk there I take my chances on the illegal walking along a 
cycleway rather than the 50 mph dual carriageway where it is legal to 
walk.



Tony Shield - TonyS999

.

On 10/12/2020 12:47, Martin Wynne wrote:
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a 
greater number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2)


Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using it 
than actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways.


Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a public bridleway, in which case 
map it as bridleway. You are mapping the status, not the actual usage.


My feeling is that a highway should be mapped at the highest level of 
permitted usage. The assumption is that pedestrians can go almost 
anywhere anyway. Motorways excepted.


Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually 
banned?


cheers,

Martin.

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



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


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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I believe you're incorrect.

Cycleways can be shared use with pedestrians, & almost always are in the UK.

Cycleway/footway/path tags are not based on usage figures. Cycleway 
allows for two modes of transport, footway allows one.  Likewise 
'bridleway' allows for three modes - horse/bicycle/foot.


The path tag was an invention after contributors got confused by the 
above. It should be removed from the database.


Your 'surface' comment is irrelevant to your problem.

Tagging *incorrectly* to suit the renderer/router should not occur, but 
given it's a part of a NCN route, this is clearly a correct tag.


DaveF

On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote:

I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural
shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as
highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path,
bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply
to it).
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater
number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for
both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore
not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though
so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is
not configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as
highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88,
as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route.
Both of which are very much true, and are tagged with the
appropriate relations to reflect this.

I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask
the community here to see what the consensus is.
I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole
reason being because it renders differently.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759


Thank you,

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:

but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the PROW 
route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new buildings, 
or rivers).


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


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


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


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 12:42, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:

Ah sorry, I shall remove it then Robert. I have drawn it freehand based on
what I'd seen on their site as a right of way. Presumably then, if there's
no established path, I can never add it to OSM because the definitive map
is my only source for this information. Even if I walk it and use my GPS
recording, the source of the path is ultimately the definitive map? How
does that work?



https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg

There you go, free of any supposed copyright infringement.

FYI Wiltshire Council's Rights of Way Explorer is not the 'definitive 
map'. It usually a misnomer. Paths are described with words in a  
definitive statement. Their map is a representation of that data. Many 
authorities add a caveat clarifying that it's not the authoritative 
document.


DaveF
R.jpg
https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 12:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, 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.

Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
for use in OSM.



Do you have evidence of this being the case? Has someone from OS (or 
anyone outside OSM) stated that?



Dave F



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 09:36, 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
track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical
evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen
in other cases on OSM.


Welcome to OSM.

If I come across a non obvious path I attempt to look around for a worn 
way, especially through boundaries. Aerial imagery suggests the edge of 
the field is used. Please check on the ground first to confirm it's 
still used.

http://osmz.ru/imagery/#20/51.12946/-1.79511/bing

I would mark the way as the definitive map alignment & add a note 
describing the direction that's actually used.


It may be words in a book, but definitive statements are physical evidence.

As the access tag is to describe legal use, I'd remove it in this case.

Both bicycle & walking on a bridleway are designated.

The surface tag is a useful addition for paths.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface


Dave F


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

Re: [Talk-GB] electric fences

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Some of the properly installed versions I've tagged as gates - The 
electricity passes through a bungy cable & is connected with a metal 
hook at one end which is encased in a rubber handle allowing the walker 
to unhook it & pass through.


I usually only map the ones where I know, or it looks like, they've been 
installed for a while. With seasonal fences (horse breeder) I don't bother.


DaveF

On 23/11/2020 05:25, Martin Wynne wrote:
There are several instances locally where a footpath across a field is 
crossed by an electric fence.


The farmer usually fits a length of rubber hosepipe over the wire so 
that walkers can safely step over the fence. Sometimes with the aid of 
a couple of concrete blocks.


How to map? Technically it is probably a form of stile. But the 
problem is that the location isn't fixed. Electric fences are moved 
about according to which area of the field the livestock are currently 
grazing. In a large field the position could change significantly.


But walkers with restricted mobility do need to know that there is one 
somewhere in the field. The position might be important if there is an 
alternative gate or other access which could be used.


Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 21/11/2020 18:35, Edward Bainton wrote:
Thanks all for these ideas. The path is marked as shared, but only in 
the middle of the park 
 
- it's a bit odd. (It's even on a cross-city cycle route.)


It's the actual highway=* tag that I was most puzzled over, but it 
sounds like with the access tags this is academic for routing purposes.


In which case it would seem the 'looks like a footway, rides like a 
footway' criterion would be best?


Given the signage, I think the tags I listed are appropriate.



Not relevant here, but like Tony I also would love a tag that means 
'everyone cycles here, even if it's technically illegal'. I think it 
was SK53 who suggested some use 'tolerated', which seems pretty good 
to me.




That's a whole load of subjectivity, that OSM  /really/ shouldn't get 
involved with.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

HI

There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic 
authority over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of 
the number of different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, 
highway=residential permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & 
pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to certain locations.


If it's definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in 
GSV) then I'd tag it as


highway=cycleway
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
surface=asphalt  (in this case)
width=*

If you know it's a public footpath add:
designation=public_footpath

If you know the footpath's reference add:
prow_ref=*

Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?

The only place a rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.

Cheers
DaveF

On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:
Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but 
designated foot and cycles shared?


Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974

There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it 
doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's 
the best tag nonetheless?


Thanks.



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] featdesc & featcode

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 19/11/2020 20:57, Brian Prangle wrote:

Dump for external databases? Surely not!



FHRS?


Well that's why I've been trying to clean up FHRS tags.
The only tag that should really exist is the ID code which refers /back/ 
to the external database.




UPRN? USRN?


I'm struggling to see the benefit of these ATM, & given some of the 
comments, I'm reminded of the US Tiger dump.



Edubase?


A reference to an external database, not a dump.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] featdesc & featcode

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Thanks for that.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this in OSM, & given only one 
contributor has added them I presume I'm not alone.
The codes appear to be another company's database reference system, of 
which OSM has its own.
OSM should not become a dump for external databases. Anyone with valid 
reasons for not removing these tags?


DaveF

On 19/11/2020 16:49, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 19/11/2020 16:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
>
> Anybody know what featdesc & featcode refer to? Local authority
> references?

Hi Dave,

Sorry about poor formatting, copied from:


https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/os-vectormap-district-product-guide.pdf 





OS VectorMap District technical specification feature codes  v1.8 – 
09/2016   © Crown copyright   Page 51 of 56


  Feature Codes


Feature Codes represented in the vector product

FeatureType  classification   featureCode
Building    25014
Glasshouse    25016
Road  Motorway  25710
  Primary Road  25723
  A Road  25729
  B Road  25743
  Minor Road  25750
  Local Street  25760
  Private Road Publicly Accessible  25780
  Pedestrianised Street  25790
  Motorway, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25719
  Primary Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25735
  A Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25739
  B Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25749
  Minor Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25759
RoadTunnel    25792
MotorwayJunction    25796
Roundabout  Primary Road  25703
  A Road  25704
  B Road  25705
  Minor Road  25706
  Local Street  25707
  Private Road Publicly Accessible  25708
SurfaceWater_Line    25600
SurfaceWater_Area    25609
TidalWater  High Water Mark  25608
TidalBoundary  High Water Mark Low Water Mark  25604
  Low Water Mark  25605
Foreshore    25612
AdministrativeBoundary  National  25204
  Parish Or Community  25200
  District Or London Borough  25201
  County Or Region Or Island  25202
RailwayTrack  Multi Track  25300
  Single Track  25301
  Narrow Gauge  25302
RailwayTunnel    25303
RailwayStation  Light Rapid Transit Station  25420
  Railway Station  25422
  London Underground Station  25423
  Railway Station And London Underground Station  25424
OS VectorMap District technical specification feature codes  v1.8 – 
09/2016   © Crown copyright   Page 52 of 56

  Light Rapid Transit Station And Railway Station  25425
  Light Rapid Transit Station And London Underground Station 25426
FunctionalSite  Education Facility - School  25250
  Police Station  25251
  Medical Care  25252
  Place Of Worship  25253
  Leisure Or Sports Centre  25254
  Air Transport  25255
  Education Facility - Higher  25256
  Water Transport  25257
  Road Transport  25258
  Road Services  25259
Woodland    25999
Ornament    25550
ElectricityTransmissionLine    25102
NamedPlace  Populated Place  25801
  Landform  25802
  Woodland Or Forest  25803
  Hydrography  25804
  Landcover  25805
SpotHeight    25810




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



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

[Talk-GB] featdesc & featcode

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/10kw

Anybody know what featdesc & featcode refer to? Local authority 
references? Appears to be only rivers & woods.These are the only 
examples in the UK

The contributor who added them hasn't responded.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Service road with private locked gate and routing apps

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I wouldn't have mapped that as any kind of road at all. From aerial 
imagery the west end is blocked by a container & vegetation suggests 
it's not been used for years.


On 16/11/2020 11:18, Mat Attlee wrote:
There is a service road in Homerton that I noticed several different 
routing apps including Cycle Streets, Komoot and Citymapper were 
taking me down eg https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/72171728/


Upon surveying this service road it is very much closed to the public 
with locked gates which I marked as thus 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93935943


However these routing apps still use this service road. Have I missed 
something or does it take a while for the changes to propagate?


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Q4 2020 Quarterly Project: Defibrillators

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 14/11/2020 12:39, Donald Noble wrote:


Firstly, I have seen a few buildings that have an AED pictogram sign 
outside, suggesting that there is a defibrillator inside. Is this 
considered sufficient 'on the ground' evidence to add to the map.


I'd say yes. Add access &/or note tag to clarify its accessibility & 
location. One I mapped was on the outside of a cricket pavilion, but you 
would probably have to climb a gate to get to it.


DaveF

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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 30/10/2020 15:28, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:

Hello,
It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967 in 
NLS is available freely.


Link to this on NLS?

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

About the only change I've made in years of mapping 'non-mini' 
roundabouts is to split the oneway=yes flare 'V' into two segments. 
JOSM validation started flagging the junction node of the V as too 
tight a bend, which I suppose makes sense.


This is a good example of how routing is misunderstood.

A continuous way does not imply it should be the preferred route. 
Likewise, splitting a way doesn't inhibit routing that direction either; 
it would still be a "sharp angle".


I've just tested in JOSM. It flagged no such validation warning.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3403352

DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

There is a lot of garbage in OSM due to those creating routers being too 
lazy to write a few lines of code, or even use common sense.


However, in this case I believe it's other contributors who think, for 
reasons that escape me, routers require it.


Routing software must be of a poor standard if it returns the commuter 
to the roundabout after just 10 metres or so after leaving it.


 I partially agree with Phil's suggestion that they're harmless, if 
turn restrictions are by themselves. However if there are  multiple at 
one junction it can become error prone. Any that aren't required are 
best removed.


DaveF


On 03/10/2020 14:05, Brian Prangle wrote:

Hi

There seems to be a predilection for adding turn restrictions , either 
no right rurns or no U turns at the exit flares of roundabouts to 
prevent turning back into the entry flares where there are no explicit 
signed restrictions. I suspect this is "rendering for routers". Do 
routers actually need this data?  I'm tempted just to delete them all 
wherever I meet them, but I suspect there are thousands of them and 
there'll be howls of complaint.


Regards

Brian

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Blocked / overgrown / inaccessible footpaths and bridleways

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

All
The most important thing to do in situations like this is to contact the 
LA responsible & ask them to clear it.


As I said on the preceding discussion of this topic in Talk, many of 
these descriptions are subjective. What you or I may consider completely 
impassible, others could be willing to hack/wade their way through.


Adding tags to inhibit routing/rendering is not the accurate way to 
proceed,


Use tags which accurately detail the physical conditions & leave it up 
to the user to decide if they wish to traverse  the path.


Even though i suggested Overgrown=yes as an example, it is subjective - 
Is it that the grass hasn't been mown for a few weeks or is it a Bornean 
rainforest?


DaveF

On 29/09/2020 13:51, Andy Townsend wrote:

Hello,

How do people normally map things like "I know there is a public 
footpath that goes through here but it is currently inaccessible"?


A taginfo search finds a few candidates:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=overgrown#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=inaccessible#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=blocked#values

So far https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/overgrown seems the 
nearest (it's undocumented but mentioned on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking ).  However, I'm sure that 
there are examples that I've missed.  Most seem to be used within note 
tags which can of course contain any old text - are there any actual 
non-note tags and values that are used for this that I'm missing?


Best Regards,

Andy




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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 28/09/2020 17:53, Dan S wrote:

Hi Rodrigo

I think Loomio is designed
for the purpose of making good decisions together:


Come again? Why do you think "good decisions" can't be made here? What 
do those who don't wish to join yet another off-shoot do?


DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 28/09/2020 15:29, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:

Thanks all of you for your messages.

As a new joiner, I could not ask for more than other members engaging 
in such a passionate way :)


It's fair to say that there is no clear consensus of whether the 
proposal, in its current form, is acceptable or not. So, I am going to 
create a voting section on the wiki page to help us visualise what 
people think


However, before I do that I would like to reply to a point that was 
made by Andy


Andy,

/I'm not actually convinced that's a problem - as others have said, 
*web browsers are perfectly capable of converting "www.mypub.com 
" into either "https://www.mypub.com; 
or ""http://www.mypub.com; 
as appropriate*, so this doesn't really add any 
value. "Letting the browser sort it out" is a great approach as it can 
deal with now/near future things such as removal TLS 1.0 and 1.1 
support as well./


This is not true based on my experience. I just tested on the latest 
version of Chrome and Firefox and, if the URL scheme is not specified, 
they both open the the URL using http even if https is also available 
for it.


An example is Overpass Turbo which has three different pages:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/
http://overpass-turbo.eu/
www.overpass-turbo.eu/

If you've previously run different routines on each you'll see it 
displays them for each URL (tested on Firefox latest)


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Three things to note:
SO3166-1=GB is misnomered & includes Northern Ireland. (As I found out, 
some contributors there get annoyed with UK wide edits). You may want to 
use area(id:3600058447,3600058437,3600058446); // England Wales Scotland 
instead.


Many pubs are mapped as ways/relations so node won't return the full 
amount. Use nwr instead.


If you need the output to be as individual nodes use 'out center' option.

area["ISO3166-1"=GB];
rel(pivot)->.UK;
nwr(area)[amenity=pub][website][website!~"http"];
out center;
.UK out geom;

DaveF

On 27/09/2020 16:28, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:

Hi all,

First of all, I would like to introduce myself on this email list and 
to thank you all for your contributions to OSM. Great work!


After some time using OSM as a user, I decided to make my first step 
as a contributor, hence this email and the proposal inside.


Please bear in mind that this is my first attempt to contribute with a 
proposal and, although I have done my best reading the community 
conventions and best practices, I am sure I have made some mistakes on 
the way. Be merciful! :P


To the point now.

I am importing a subset of nodes from UK (those tagged with 
amenity:pub) for a pet project.


When analysing the data I realised that some of these nodes contain a 
website: tag that does not contain an appropriate URL schema (http/https).


Ie: www.mypub.com  rather than 
http://www.mypub.com or https://www.mypub.com


This goes in contradiction with the Wiki documentation for website. 



I created a proposal for a one-off, scoped, automated edit for these 
nodes to find the appropiate scheme for the existing URL and retag the 
nodes.


I added the proposal to the Automated edits log. You can read it here 
.


Just wanted to share the proposal with the UK community, gather your 
feedback, comments and advises on how to proceed from here


Thanks in advance!








--
Rodrigo Díez Villamuera

w: http://rodrigodiez.io
t: @rodrigodiez_pro
p: 00 44 7513 638225


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 28/09/2020 10:56, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 10:10 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 28/09/2020 10:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:


Remember: OSM is not an IT project.

Indeed not. But this is also a good example of the truism that OSM
is
not a map, it's a database. Having the right data in the database
matters. Fixing clear and obvious errors, such as invalid URLs in a
"website" tag, seems to me to be a worthwhile project if someone is
prepared to put the time and effort into doing it.


Although in my experience the concept of pubs having websites is kind
of dated, typically online communication with customers is via facebook
these days.


Anything other than your experience, as mine is the opposite. Facebook 
is for short lifespan messages not information which needs to be 
repeatedly accessed (menus, opening times etc)

Simply fixing invalid urls is not really a solution, the question needs
to be asked is this data still valid and rather than a mechanical fix
these entries need to be visited and checked.


Two, separate endeavours.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 28/09/2020 10:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Rodrigo,

On 27.09.20 17:28, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:

After some time using OSM as a user, I decided to make my first step as
a contributor, hence this email and the proposal inside.

If your first idea of "how to contribute to OSM" is "how to write a
script that runs an automated edit on the body of OSM data", then
something is amiss!


Anyone can contribute to OSM in ways that best suits them.
He's here asking for advice & guidance & appears to be following the 
rules..



The change you plan to execute is of limited use. Yes, it ensures more
conformity in the data, but it will be a temporary fix (since new
"wrong" URLs can be added at any time).


Moot. Your claim applies to all tags, all the time. By your logic we 
might as well not amend anything.



Anyone consuming OSM data must
be able to work with URLs that miss a schema, and indeed today any
browser can do that.


I noted links without http or www. ie zonzorestaurant.com isn't 
recognized by OSM website, but is interpreted by web browsers.



So what your edit does is, it "touches" lots of objects and adds no
meaningful information whatsoever.


Conformity, accuracy.


  It creates load on the database;


Seriously? For how long?


it creates a new version of every object you touch which, informationally
speaking, is identical to the old version. It produces larger diff
files, larger history files, and on top of that runs the risk of making
data look more current than it is ("oh, this pub has last been changed
by someone two months ago, so surely it will still be in business" when
in fact the last OSMer who saw that pub with their own eyes did so five
years ago).


These are nit-picking excuses, that occur with all edits.

Unsure why some are against improving the quality of the database, 
especially by automated/mass edit*. Having one user amend hundreds of 
tags is the same as have hundreds of contributors amending individual 
tags, except there're all  checkable within one changeset & can *easily* 
be reverted if required.


* Please remember those who conceived this anti mass edit ruling were 
the ones who messed up the US TIGER import & couldn't be bothered to fix it.




There are many, many better ways to contribute to OSM than runnning a
useless automated conformity edit. Take a notebook or mobile editor, go
outside, check if the phone booths on OSM are still there on the ground,
add a few opening times, or even trees for that matter - a single hour
of such original work is more useful to OSM that what you are proposing
here.


This is my retort to the requests to join OSMF & sit through long, 
tedious committee meetings.

Again, we contribute to OSM in the way which best suits us.


Remember: OSM is not an IT project.


Tell that to the organisers/speakers at State of the Maps


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 27/09/2020 19:35, Andrew Hain wrote:

Keep Right flags web links that have gone offline.


Unfortunately it doesn't really do that. After a discussion with the 
developer I found out it tests whether a server in central Europe has a 
link to the UK URLs not if the actual link is current. I was coming 
across far too many time consuming false-positives for it to be useful.


Anyone know if there's a way to at least use a UK based server or to 
conveniently ping multiple websites directly?


DaveF




--
Andrew

*From:* Philip Barnes 
*Sent:* 27 September 2020 18:49
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: 
Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

On Sun, 2020-09-27 at 16:28 +0100, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:

Hi all,

First of all, I would like to introduce myself on this email list and 
to thank you all for your contributions to OSM. Great work!


After some time using OSM as a user, I decided to make my first step 
as a contributor, hence this email and the proposal inside.


Please bear in mind that this is my first attempt to contribute with 
a proposal and, although I have done my best reading the community 
conventions and best practices, I am sure I have made some mistakes 
on the way. Be merciful! :P


To the point now.

I am importing a subset of nodes from UK (those tagged with 
amenity:pub) for a pet project.


When analysing the data I realised that some of these nodes contain a 
website: tag that does not contain an appropriate URL schema 
(http/https).


Ie: www.mypub.com  rather than 
http://www.mypub.com  or https://www.mypub.com


This goes in contradiction with the Wiki documentation for website. 



I created a proposal for a one-off, scoped, automated edit for these 
nodes to find the appropiate scheme for the existing URL and retag 
the nodes.


I added the proposal to the Automated edits log. You can read it here 
.


Just wanted to share the proposal with the UK community, gather your 
feedback, comments and advises on how to proceed from here


One issue I can think of with pubs and websites is that they need 
checking to ensure they are still current.


The defacto method most pubs use to communicate with customers is 
facebook.


A more general fix of urls missing http(s)://, why only pubs?.  is 
probably a maproulette quest.


Phil (trigpoint)


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


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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I think highway should be reverted to cycleway. There's a 
misunderstanding that highway=cycleway implies priority to bicycle 
riders, when it actually relates just to the number of transport modes 
which can use it. Bridleway equates to three modes: walkers, bikes & horses.


DaveF

On 03/09/2020 11:02, Robert Skedgell wrote:

Rather than reverting, I restored access and left the top-level
highway=* tag alone.

I only noticed these changes when plotting a route in Komoot and
noticing that I needed to create/drag a lot of extra waypoints in order
to get the expected behaviour. Hopefully Komoot will behave responsibly
and warn me that I'll need to dismount in a few places. Repairing
routing as quickly as possible was my priority, although it could take
weeks for some routers to restore functionality.

In this case, I think that if there is any tagging for the renderer, the
target renderer was OpenCycleMap rather than OSM Carto.

On 03/09/2020 10:40, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

These changes should be reverted in my view.

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

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

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

[...]


It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing
cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed
line to a red dashed line.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] How closely do we map lamp posts?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I already answered your last point.
Good to see the give way is against the motor vehicles.

On 02/09/2020 22:37, Lester Caine wrote:

On 02/09/2020 19:00, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
I don't know the area. but they look like the existing posts to me. 
Has the cycle path been realigned around them to provide better 
vision splays/ stopping room to motorists?


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7730673,-1.2396435,3a,56.4y,188.18h,85.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCSZk4LPVkVJecufviv4kzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 

I believe it's something to do with building regs. Existing posts 
have to be one of the last items to be decommissioned, usually by 
newly installed ones. Similar happened on one of the London CS ways, 
where everyone got their knickers in a twist over it.


The fact that a neatly finished cycleway surface now has to be dug up 
so that the electric supply can be moved to a new location and the 
lamp pole moved is just another example of the complete waste of money 
many of these 'improvements' result in? Actually another question is 
just why the kerb to the footpath and the cycleway had to be moved at 
all? It no longer lines up with the next section anyway.





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

Re: [Talk-GB] How closely do we map lamp posts?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I don't know the area. but they look like the existing posts to me. Has 
the cycle path been realigned around them to provide better vision 
splays/ stopping room to motorists?


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7730673,-1.2396435,3a,56.4y,188.18h,85.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCSZk4LPVkVJecufviv4kzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I believe it's something to do with building regs. Existing posts have 
to be one of the last items to be decommissioned, usually by newly 
installed ones. Similar happened on one of the London CS ways, where 
everyone got their knickers in a twist over it.


DaveF

On 02/09/2020 18:27, Lester Caine wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-53999106
One does wonder about the competence of builders at times?




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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

If your wishing to socially distance, Sunday lunchtime/afternoon seems a 
strange time to do it.


On 23/08/2020 13:43, Nick Whitelegg wrote:


Hello everyone,

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


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


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


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


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


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


Thanks,
Nick



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Eat out to help out data

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Too transient/inaccurate for me, personally. Even my local LA can't 
publish an accurate list.


Anyway, I'm too busy mapping garden fences in the hope of upsetting 
sensibilities.


DaveF

On 19/08/2020 21:10, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

Anyone considered using the Eat out to Help out data that HMRC have 
published to aid with mapping efforts?


https://github.com/hmrc/eat-out-to-help-out-establishments

Prior to this, there was a scraper that collated the data:
https://github.com/svenlatham/eatout-scraper

Thank you,
*Rob*

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


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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 13/08/2020 15:41, Simon Still wrote:


So my understanding is that OSM normally only maps what’s actually on 
the ground rather than what might be shown on a map (and there was 
some discussion recently about this - 
https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg19303.html)


This is slightly untrue. Boundaries aren't marked across fields as 
dashed lines, but stored in documentation, usually electronically these 
days. As long as they're published under a compatible licence OSM can, & 
do, use them.




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


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


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

What is it?

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


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


Jerry

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 21/07/2020 17:30, 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.


Can you post the link?

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 21/07/2020 12:10, Chris Hill wrote:
Leccy car drivers need to know if the point is working. Apps from the 
charge point suppliers and from others such as Zapmap try to keep 
drivers informed about the availability and condition of the point. 
OSM doesn't have that info and can't update it in real time. Some 
leccy cars have this live info built into their satnav.


There's nothing wrong with adding charging points. I expect people 
wanting to actually use them will look elsewhere for more info than 
OSM can reasonably supply.


That's a moot point.
That's the equivalent of saying drivers needs to know if a car park is 
full or a commuter wants to find out if the 08:12 to Oxford has been 
cancelled.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

1538 nationwide.

Use this to see what other tags contributors are adding.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Wia

DaveF


On 21/07/2020 11:58, Mark Goodge wrote:

Do we map electric vehicle charging points? If not, should we?

None of the ones in my town are on OSM, at the moment. I could add 
them, but it seems a bit pointless if they're not generally mapped.


Mark

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] POI files of Pub/Restaurant chain

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi
Did you obtain them from their website? If so, could you post the link?
What's the content? Just location co-ordinates?

DaveF

On 15/07/2020 14:00, o...@poppe.dev wrote:

Hey all,

I just accidentally found that the Pub next to "curious 20602512" is operated 
by a chain with quite a few places. They provide four different POI file formats with all 
their locations.

As this data is pretty much openly accessible, I think there'd be no major 
issue with asking them if this data could be used to check all the places 
against OSM data and, if needed correct and/or create them, right?

K

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I'm getting this after selecting the Search Entry option:

https://snipboard.io/7J6Eb0.jpg

Latest JOSM version

Any ideas?

On 26/06/2020 10:45, o...@poppe.dev wrote:

Hey Tony,

as I'm from the other side of the Channel, I doubt that there's 
someone from the UK community that knows me well enough to reassure 
you about my person (I could always ask people from the German 
Telegram group to tell you I'm not a lunatic *g*)


You could always take a look at the GitHub repository ( 
https://github.com/kmpoppe/fhrsPlugin) and check what's going on in 
the code - which heavily relies on the JOSM core source.


Regards

Kai

> Hi Kai
>
> I'd like to help as its a good idea - however I don't know you, so 
could

> you get some community people who are well known to vouch for you, its
> just that I don't want strange software on my machine.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Shield
>
> TonyS999

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

As the OSM entity has to already contain the FHRS:ID tag it limits the 
usefulness of this plugin. Won't most have address data added when 
contributors initially add the FHRS tag? I certainly do.


What would be useful is a way to search the LA's database for retailers 
which don't have a FHRS tag.


DaveF.

On 26/06/2020 05:58, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:

Good morning everyone,

I built a plugin for JOSM that allows you to merge data from the FHRS
API into OSM with a few clicks. I'd love to find some people that would
be willing to test the 0.1.2 version and report bugs they found and/or
comment on the user experience.

Just throw me a line at o...@poppe.dev and I'll send you the download link.

Thanks in advance!

Kai


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Are you sure it's upto date?:

Page last reviewed: 15 December 2016
Next review due: 15 December 2019


The 'GPs' is corrupted with Chines symbols.



On 16/04/2020 17:18, Mike Baggaley wrote:

The data at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies looks like 
an out of date copy of the NHS data to me. You can use the data at 
https://www.nhs.uk/about-us/nhs-website-datasets/ which is regularly updated. It even includes an 
opening hours file which can be linked to the pharmacies. You will need to use "¬" as the 
column separator. Instead of double clicking on the csv file, open Excel with an empty spreadsheet 
and use import file. You can then choose the column separator. If you follow the "About our 
data downloads" link it tells you how to import the data.  I assume the data is combined from 
various regions which use their own systems, hence the variety of ways of holding the address data.

Regards,
Mike


Yes, the first two links at
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies
are broken for me as well. For the third link, it looks like they
tried to do CSV, but didn't understand how to escape commas within the
fields, and so opted to use a different character "¬" instead. If you
import this into a spreadsheet, and tell it to use just "¬" as the
column separator, I think it works out fine, with all the entries in
the right place. (You can certainly do this with LibreOffice; I'm not
sure about Excel.) The address lines seem to be used inconsistently,
but everything is back aligned when you get to the postcode field.



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Why country codes? OSM is geospatially aware.

On 09/04/2020 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM  wrote:

If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging.
Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data?
What should they be?

[snip]

So I'd propose that we use either ref:uprn and ref:usrn, or
ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn. What does everyone else think?

Oops. If we were to use the ISO Alpha-2 country codes, it should of
course be GB rather then UK. So that would make the keys ref:GB:uprn
and ref:GB:usrn .

Robert.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Anybody in the Dunstable/Luton area?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Thanks. Useful.
From your data can you confirm if it has a 3-digit/CRS code?

On 22/03/2020 15:05, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

Hi Dave,

I maintain the electronic timetable and stops data for Central Bedfordshire, 
which includes Dunstable.

According to my data, that road (and the associated bus stop) are used by 
Arriva services F70 and F77 between Luton and Milton Keynes.

The road is indeed one way - it is the exit from the westbound busway. The 
entrance back onto the busway is Church Street.

As to the location, the NaPTAN data is correct, using coordinates supplied to 
my by Central Bedfordshire, and is on the left hand side of the road, 
orientated for buses heading NW along Station Road as they come off the busway. 
So yes, it is incorrect in OSM.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

On 22 Mar 2020, at 14:17, Dave F via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hi
If you're in the Dunstable/Luton area would you be able to clarify if this way 
is used as a regular bus route and if the bus stop at the Western end exists?

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218924564

The only routes I've located so far, continue along the Busway.

There's a contributor who claims there a service, run by Govia Thameslink, 
which goes to Luton, which is a bit surprising as it's oneway. It also means 
the bus stop is located on the wrong side of the road.

Cheers
DaveF


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





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

[Talk-GB] Anybody in the Dunstable/Luton area?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi
If you're in the Dunstable/Luton area would you be able to clarify if 
this way is used as a regular bus route and if the bus stop at the 
Western end exists?


 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218924564

The only routes I've located so far, continue along the Busway.

There's a contributor who claims there a service, run by Govia 
Thameslink, which goes to Luton, which is a bit surprising as it's 
oneway. It also means the bus stop is located on the wrong side of the 
road.


Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cheers Drive, Bristol

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 15/02/2020 12:08, Borbus wrote:

I've long suspected that local councils and other government bodies are
giving data directly to Google.


They're given to everyone. Look at the planning applications. They often 
have street names in the documents. Many OSMers are sensible enough not 
to add 'proposed' data, as developments are often severely amended or 
cancelled. It's much better to wait until there's ground evidence. Much 
rather be accurate than first.


DaveF



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 06/02/2020 16:49, Phillip Barnett wrote:

And here is the email from the guy who did the original mapping, the last time 
this came up, including his reasoning for the amenity Tag rather than building 
tag https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017457.html


Note the time it took to write just that one post was longer than it 
would have taken to convert the OSM data & a few lines code to rectify 
the problem.


There isn't constant change. In this instance is was created incorrectly 
& needs to be fixed once.


His claim about building=university is moot. 'One feature, one OSM 
element' has been long established.


DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 06/02/2020 15:48, Brian Prangle wrote:

"OSM is not beholden to data consumers.
They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments

My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason.
Upsetting CU isn't one"

  Not a great way to build a community when the data user in question put in
a lot of resource in order to create the OSM data in the firstplac
e


CU wanted a new site map. They paid someone to provide it for them. 
Which is fine, but please don't suggest they're contributions are 
superior to those of any anybody else. Especially when they decided to 
knowingly go against accepted tagging procedures. Many of us "put in a 
lot of resource".


They should expect their incorrect data to be rectified just as any of 
contributor should. I'm mildly irritated that these corrections have to 
be done by those who didn't create the errors in the first place.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 31/01/2020 23:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi
Over the past few months I've been sorting & adding detail to the UK's 
National Rail railway stations so that OSM has the correct amount.


As it's been a week, with no objections, I'm proceeding with the 
amendments. I'm keeping a copy of the stations.so they can be reverted 
in the unlikely event they require reverting.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

198-county-hall-cambridge#.Xjr8Fm52u01>,
built around 1910 and Grade II listed, the S part is a 17th century house

<https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101332167-christs-college-x-staircase-cambridge-market-ward#.Xjr7yG52u00>
(formerly 'X' staircase), also Grade II. The two buildings form a single
unit of student accommodation which presumably reflects the mapping.

Cheers,

Jerry




On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 15:15, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:


On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:

Hi Dave,

I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?

That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query
into JOSM:
[bbox:{{bbox}}];
nwr[amenity=university][building=university];
out meta geom;

plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.


(Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)

There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH

These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be
rectified at a later date..

Cheers
DaveF

Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
:

Hi
There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html

Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance
with the wiki.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.

The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time
to rectify.  I think this should be performed now.

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


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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:

Hi Dave,

I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?


That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query 
into JOSM:

[bbox:{{bbox}}];
nwr[amenity=university][building=university];
out meta geom;

plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.


(Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)


There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH

These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be 
rectified at a later date..


Cheers
DaveF

Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
:

Hi
There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html

Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance
with the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.

The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time
to rectify.  I think this should be performed now.

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



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

[Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi
There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html

Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance 
with the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.

The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time 
to rectify.  I think this should be performed now.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 01/02/2020 12:40, Tony OSM wrote:

Hi

Great to see your station work.


Thanks



I agree they should all be station.

If DfT classifies stations as A-F or whatever then a tag to indicate 
that would be useful. These DfT classifications seem to be used by the 
rail industry to indicate roughly importance by passenger numbers, 
from which they base some decisions/discussions as to whether they 
should be staffed or unstaffed or the hours of staffing. There was a 
recent discussion about Chorley which from the publicly reported 
discussion I believe to be class C.


This would be a useful addition. The last publication date was 2009, 
however & missing about of the 50 newest stations.


Are you aware of a later issue? Has another organization squired 
responsibility?


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 01/02/2020 10:39, Gareth L wrote:

Just to throw in some awkward cases, there are stations which are request stops 
in one direction only. E.g. Llanwrda is request stop southbound but always 
stops northbound.

Basing use of this tag on service pattern, which changes every 6 months seems 
not so easy to maintain.


Hi
Your first point is true, but it's still classed as a request stop. 
Basic variations in when trains don't stop can be dealt with in other 
secondary tags if really required.


I'm unsure twice a year is frequent enough to consider updating as 
difficult.


DaveF.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 01/02/2020 00:05, Martin Wynne wrote:

The traditional distinction was that Halts were unstaffed.


These are now classed as DfT F, which is also worth adding.

DaveF


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

[Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi
Over the past few months I've been sorting & adding detail to the UK's 
National Rail railway stations so that OSM has the correct amount.


I'm unsure of the benefits of tagging some of them as 'halts'. I'm 
proposing they should all be 'station'.


All 2567 NR Stations with 96 halts in blue: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qik

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dhalt
Determining based on size, as the wiki suggests, is too subjective IMO.  
How is 'size' determined? The number of platforms? Tracks? Passenger 
usage (which fluctuates)? Note, OSM doesn't have an equivalent tag to 
distinguish really big stations..


Another factor is if they're request stops. This is a much more 
appropriate criteria. I've now added them with the more explicit tag 
'request_stop=yes'.


All 137 Request Stops in blue: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qil
65 of these are already tagged a stations.

British Rail remove all references to halts (1974?)
There are only two which have since been renamed to include halt. It 
appears to be for purely cosmetic reasons. (The locals probably think 
it'll increase property values).


I've contacted Thunderforest and OpenRailMap. Neither make a distinction 
between halts & stations in their renders.
Carto label them the same but display halts at a higher zoom level, 
which personally, I find irritating.


Opinions/Suggestions?

Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 31/01/2020 11:41, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 31/01/2020 11:13, ael wrote:


OK. I agree that parking=layby is much better.


Thanks for the comments.

But the places I was asking about can't really be called laybys, or 
car parks. Somewhere that a car could be left for a few hours out of 
anyone's way on an otherwise long narrow lane:


 https://goo.gl/maps/nSTAbnE4nYXTBAz59



But that's not a parking spot. Because a  vehicle just happens to be 
there, it doesn't make it one. By your logic we should be tagging 
pavements as such, because lazy drivers think they're entitled to break 
the law.


DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I forgot to mention that linear ways do have an implied width. It can be 
explicitly declared with the width tag. Although, other than waterways I 
don't /think/ any renderers take advantage of it.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width

DaveF

On 01/01/2020 00:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Yes I *know*, Martin

I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing 
with mapping every *square inch* of land.
Each to there own, of course, map as you see fit, but I find most 
renderings of areas obscure thin centre lines.
Adding surface tags enhances the opacity of tracks/footpaths o the 
'standard' rendering.


On 31/12/2019 18:45, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 31/12/2019 18:10, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way.


Thanks Dave.

But a way is a *line*.

I want to tag the *area*. I've got 3 ways - 2 fences and a track. 
Tagging ways is easy. Finding a meaningful tag for areas seems to be 
much more difficult.


If the landuse is the same on both sides, a field of cabbages on the 
left and a field of potatoes on the right, I can just let "farmland" 
flow across the track area. But if it is a wood on the right, where 
is the boundary between the wood and the cabbages? The track? 
Stitching things to highways is frowned on. Or one of the fences? 
Which one?


cheers,

Martin.


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



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Yes I *know*, Martin

I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing with 
mapping every *square inch* of land.
Each to there own, of course, map as you see fit, but I find most 
renderings of areas obscure thin centre lines.
Adding surface tags enhances the opacity of tracks/footpaths o the 
'standard' rendering.


On 31/12/2019 18:45, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 31/12/2019 18:10, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way.


Thanks Dave.

But a way is a *line*.

I want to tag the *area*. I've got 3 ways - 2 fences and a track. 
Tagging ways is easy. Finding a meaningful tag for areas seems to be 
much more difficult.


If the landuse is the same on both sides, a field of cabbages on the 
left and a field of potatoes on the right, I can just let "farmland" 
flow across the track area. But if it is a wood on the right, where is 
the boundary between the wood and the cabbages? The track? Stitching 
things to highways is frowned on. Or one of the fences? Which one?


cheers,

Martin.


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way.

DaveF

On 31/12/2019 16:38, Martin Wynne wrote:

Here is a track/public bridleway:

 http://85a.uk/coffin_way_960x520.jpg

which I can easily map as such.

But that is just a *centre-line*. If I add the fences, what is the 
correct landuse tag for the area between them? I can't find any tag 
which seems to apply.


Everywhere I look on OSM such areas are left blank. But it can 
represent a significant area, sometimes 20 feet wide -- much larger 
than other areas on OSM which are mapped in great detail. If it was a 
canal for example, its banks could be separately mapped and the area 
between them mapped as water. Tracks and fences/hedgerows don't seem 
to have anything comparable.


Thanks.

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Entertainment venue - what tags?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

In your example they're all different companies with different addresses 
& contact details, FHRS etc Tony's is one company, one address etc, so I 
think it should be one node, or if mappable, a building part area.. The 
facilities should be listed in sub tags - bar=yes, restaurant=yes  etc


On 29/12/2019 11:20, Chris Fleming wrote:

On 29/12/19 at 10:40am, Tony OSM wrote:

   Hi

   In Chorley a new entertainment business has opened -
   https://www.escapeentertainmentvenue.co.uk/

   It's primary offering is TenPin bowling, Gator Adventure golf (a form
   of indoor golf) and a bar & restaurant.

   What is the best way to tag? One node or three nodes?

   The new building is multi-tenanted and includes M Food and a cinema
   (already tagged).

I would tend to map these all as individual nodes. An example is here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/55.94187/-3.21604=N

Sometimes, it makes sense to tag the building with the main occupant
then add any cafe's or restaurants as nodes, in your case this would be
the bowling then add the others as nodes. I would also tend to do this
for a big store which may also have a cafe or restaurant.

Cheers
Chris



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


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

[Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/
This OS map render only shows a selection of paths. Does anyone know 
what criteria OS used to decide which to render? Initially, it appears 
random.


I've a contributor who says it's evidence that some PROWS don't exist 
any more. They're still shown in Bing's OS Explorer map & in the local 
authority's digital database.


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabouts one piece or segregated

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 23/12/2019 18:28, David Woolley wrote:

On 23/12/2019 18:15, Nick Allen wrote:
I may be missing something here, but 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477263099 looks okay to me.




The OP was proposing that 
, 
, and 

Re: [Talk-GB] No Through Road Ahead

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

The advice to tag the tight corner is correct. There's no requirement to 
tag the whole road as any router/sat nav worth their salt should search 
well ahead for any such restrictions.


Are there chevron signs at the corner?

You can always map the actual sign, but personally I don't bother as 
I've yet to see how any routers can make use of it.


Cheers
DaveF


On 19/12/2019 14:06, Martin Wynne wrote:

How to tag this road?

 https://goo.gl/maps/B4kUxoR83ej9JXWQ8

There is no actual barrier, just a very sharp corner.

Thanks.

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 19/12/2019 02:09, Warin wrote:

On 19/12/19 13:01, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 19/12/2019 01:41, Andy Townsend wrote:
Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that 
happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" -


I'd rather the mapper make a clear choice as they know what is there, 
the render makes a 'best guess'.




Not really. pub & hotel are synonymous but building=yes (which 
indicates it's operational) is antonymous to disused:building



Some pubs are not hotels - no accommodation.


I was referring to Andy's example where both tags are on the same object



I have taken to mapping the building as a close way with building=* 
and then adding separate nodes for pub and another for the hotel if it 
has that.

Note I am not consistent in this (but I should be)!


I have done similar, but never felt it an ideal situation. it ends up 
with three detached objects representing one establishment. Where would 
you add the FHRS:ID tag?


I try & do 'the duck test'. I ask 'what is it most known for' If it's a 
pub, which happens to have a few rooms, then amenity=pub, 
accommodation=yes, & alternatively tourism=hotel, bar=yes


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 19/12/2019 01:41, Andy Townsend wrote:
Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that 
happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" -


Not really. pub & hotel are synonymous but building=yes (which indicates 
it's operational) is antonymous to disused:building


Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 14/12/2019 16:08, Martin Wynne wrote:

I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.


Thanks Dave.

But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two?


I would have said farmland=arable/livestock, but it doesn't appear to be 
that popular.Have you searched the wiki or 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=livestock#values ?




It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous 
detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts 
of land which visually look very different are classed as one and the 
same?


You can map in as much detail as you like. northing's really stopping 
you. Others haven't, I'd suggest, because it's 'over there' - Cities, 
where most benches are, are also where the most mappers are. People will 
almost always map what's on their doorstep as a priority.


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:


Is this "farmland"?

 http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg


I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.

I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially 
when joined to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few 
mappers were keen to fill in the gaps rather than map accurately. 
Personally I think there should be one polygon per field, but I admit 
that makes for a lot more work.


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 26/11/2019 12:01, Tony OSM wrote:

 to the preferred prow_ref format  Adlington FP 5.


As previous, this is not the preferred format. The format should be as 
supplied by the LA, the organisation which has the *authority* to name 
PROWs.
Creating a reference unique to OSM doesn't improve the database's 
quality. The whole point of references (for anything) is that they are 
communicable between all other parties. This 'preferred format' creates 
an echo chamber within OSM where only a few within OSM comprehend its 
meaning.


This 'preferred format' is the equivalent of renaming all UK road 
references (M1, A40 etc) to something like 'Oxford AR 40/5' which, of 
course, no one would suggest doing as it's a really silly idea.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM-UK misunderstands the British Isles

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 13/11/2019 15:42, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Hi Dave,

There was a long and detailed discussion about where is covered by OSMUK.

Hi
Where/when was this discussion held?

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM-UK misunderstands the British Isles

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Here's OSM-UK's page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Guidelines

On 13/11/2019 15:08, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi

Someone involved with OSM-UK may wish to check the definition of The 
British Isles:

https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Isles

They may also wish to have a read of this:
https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/cabinet-office/external-relations/constitution/ 




What is the size of OSM-UK's membership?


Cheers
DaveF


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



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

[Talk-GB] OSM-UK misunderstands the British Isles

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

Someone involved with OSM-UK may wish to check the definition of The 
British Isles:

https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Isles

They may also wish to have a read of this:
https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/cabinet-office/external-relations/constitution/


What is the size of OSM-UK's membership?


Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Name Suggestion Index

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 06/11/2019 14:22, SK53 wrote:

Personally I'd prefer retaining confectionery & perhaps using some kind of
sub-tag for the chocolate bit: although chocolate only/dominated shops are
much commoner than some other kinds of sweet shop.


Yes.
shop=confectionery
confectionery= chocolate/fudge etc

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

As long as all sections have junction=roundabout it will work fine, if 
those creating routers are worth their salt. OSM is geospatially aware. 
Any router should be know it's in the UK & drive on the left & go 
clockwise around a roundabout.


DaveF

On 06/11/2019 07:40, Edward Bainton wrote:

Thanks both

@Andy - you're right it certainly doesn't!
As the hospital access road (running ENE-WSW) is merely wide with islands
rather than formally a dual carriageway, should it be shown as two ways
like that?

@Dave F   When you say roundabouts need
splitting, will they still get interpreted as roundabouts by routers, ie,
inferring the direction without a oneway tag, or do I tag the roundabout
segments as one-way in a circle? (or something else!)

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 00:54, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:



http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=2580522=true&_noCache=on

Click on 'Analysis on map'

All bits with a marker need looking at, plus roundabouts require splitting
as the bus doesn't go all the way around.

This one looks like a right mess given the loop with the bus stop is one
way.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=19/52.58839/-0.21216

DaveF

On 05/11/2019 22:51, Edward Bainton wrote:

What do I do about a fixme on a relation?

A bus route near me says fixme=check relation plus members - appears 
brokenhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=14/52.5823/-0.2418=N

Presumably 'broken' means the route has gaps in it?

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 21:18, Rob Nickerson  

wrote:


So far I have looked at two regions in the UK for fixmes: Warwickshire and
the North West.

In Warwickshire it can be difficult to resolve the fixmes as most (but not
all) require a lot of work. I found a completely different story in the
North West. I found a good number of fixmes there which had already been
resolved and therefore all I had to do was remove the redundant fixme=*
tag. I also found a lot of fixme tags that could be resolved just by using
the latest aerial imagery and/or GPS traces. Once again it has been a
reminder of the differences between places within a few hours of each other.

As for adding new fixme tags, I personally haven't needed to do this yet.
I am curious as to where "peak fixme" lies. If we had 10% more contributors
would we end up with 10% more fixme tags or do you eventually get to a a
point where you turn the corner and start ticking off all these quality
assurance issues?

P.S. The number of Notes is on the up again as well. There are a lot of
good descriptions in the Notes that can be used to update the map. Check
them out athttp://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20Kingdom

Best regards,
*Rob*
___
Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=2580522=true&_noCache=on

Click on 'Analysis on map'

All bits with a marker need looking at, plus roundabouts require 
splitting as the bus doesn't go all the way around.


This one looks like a right mess given the loop with the bus stop is one 
way.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=19/52.58839/-0.21216

DaveF

On 05/11/2019 22:51, Edward Bainton wrote:

What do I do about a fixme on a relation?

A bus route near me says fixme=check relation plus members - appears broken
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=14/52.5823/-0.2418=N

Presumably 'broken' means the route has gaps in it?

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 21:18, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:


So far I have looked at two regions in the UK for fixmes: Warwickshire and
the North West.

In Warwickshire it can be difficult to resolve the fixmes as most (but not
all) require a lot of work. I found a completely different story in the
North West. I found a good number of fixmes there which had already been
resolved and therefore all I had to do was remove the redundant fixme=*
tag. I also found a lot of fixme tags that could be resolved just by using
the latest aerial imagery and/or GPS traces. Once again it has been a
reminder of the differences between places within a few hours of each other.

As for adding new fixme tags, I personally haven't needed to do this yet.
I am curious as to where "peak fixme" lies. If we had 10% more contributors
would we end up with 10% more fixme tags or do you eventually get to a a
point where you turn the corner and start ticking off all these quality
assurance issues?

P.S. The number of Notes is on the up again as well. There are a lot of
good descriptions in the Notes that can be used to update the map. Check
them out at
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20Kingdom

Best regards,
*Rob*
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding buildings and addresses

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Sorry, I completely missed your reply.

The only OS layer, OS Streetview, which OSM can used is included as a 
baselayer in the main editors, but isn't being updated.


MasterMap isn't an OpenLayer.

OS's 'stance' will be "No."

On 19/09/2019 08:11, Jez Nicholson wrote:

http://maps.welhat.gov.uk/GIS/CMFindIt/ using the "Innogistic Community
Map". I'm having trouble finding a product page. Innogistic were bought by
Civica, a UK public-services focussed company, in 2011 and renamed it
Civica GIS.

It uses OS mapping with detailed property outlines (that's MasterMap, no?)

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:43 AM Dave F via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:


Could you clarify/give an example of what you mean by 'Community Maps''?

DaveF

On 16/09/2019 00:02, Luciën Greefkes via Talk-GB wrote:

Hello everyone,
I'm currently working on mapping the neighbourhoods of Welwyn Garden City.
For that I'd like to use an accurate resource, also not to miss out of any 
(parts of) buildings.The standard aerial imagery provided in JOSM is in parts 
not good to work with, too many shadows which make it literally impossible to 
see contours of buildings.
The open data of Ordnance Survey is, as has been pointed out on the forums, too 
global to work with.
On the other hand, there are the Community Maps. They contain very decent 
shapes/contours of buildings. I would like to work with a layer like that to be 
able to compare with aerial imagery.The community map of Welwyn Hatfield gives 
Ordnance Survey as the source. I have sent a request to OS if they'd be willing 
to share the data used for the community maps, because that will be a massive 
aid in my current mapping project.
Has anyone had any experience with this, and what OS's stance on this is?
Cheers,
Luciën aka Lachgast




___
Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 25/10/2019 12:04, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 25/10/2019 11:43, Jez Nicholson wrote:

+1 for a bot edit


Perhaps Maproulette would be a better option?  Zebra markings would 
often be visible on aerial imagery, and a comparison of newer vs older 
imagery might allow people to identify recent changes*.


crossing=marked as a solo sub-tag should also be verified

* Somewhat offtopic, with almost all of the wood/forest edits I've 
been doing recently I've used surveys to confirm which imagery is 
latest (and around 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/54.2593/-1.2397 it's Maxar 
Premium), but using Bing for extra clarity and better alignment, and 
also using OS OpenData waterway and road centreline data for alignment.


I've found that not only location, but editor can affect the quality of 
aerial imagery. I find it frustrating Bing is displayed at the same high 
zoom levels as others in Potlatch.


General:
I've updated crossing=zebra to crossing=uncontrolled where 
crossing_ref=zebra exists (OP+JOSM, 220 objects). I used uncontrolled as 
it's much more popular than 'marked'


DaveF



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Reference numbers for UK admin areas?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Try this:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Nor

area(3601608485); // Sutton
//node[amenity=grit_bin]
nwr[building](area);
out meta center;

As you want a specific area, the way I do it is to get the relation 
boundary's id (from the link you gave in the forum)   & add it to 
36 (which is the start of the databases numbering for relations 
so they don't overlap with ways & nodes).


DaveF

On 23/10/2019 16:32, Edward Bainton wrote:

This is Sutton the parish within the City of Peterborough unitary authority
(there is another in Beds and another in Norfolk).

OP here: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67698

The challenge was to get Overpass to return grit bins in *this *Sutton, and
not in all places called Sutton.

The context (not in OP) was a query from someone who works with parish
councils asking whether OSM is a feasible GIS for their asset management -
because (1) parish councils are third parties to the Public Sector Mapping
Agreement and (2) they have just had a lot of  assets (or should that be
liabilities?) devolved to them from higher tiers of government.

Edward

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 16:25, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:


Which Sutton?

Could you post the OP?

DaveF





On 23/10/2019 15:49, Edward Bainton wrote:

Hi all
On the forum marczoutendijk gave me an Overpass query to find grit-bins in
Sutton.

He added an admin-level to distinguish the parish of Sutton from the London
borough.

The only issue is, there are at least three Suttons at admin_level=10 (as
it happens, not far from each other).

They have ref numbers thus: ref:gss=E04001120 (for example)

Does anyone know what these are? There is a webpage in the wiki here, but I
can't make sense of it.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2647

Thanks,

Edward




___
Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Reference numbers for UK admin areas?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Which Sutton?

Could you post the OP?

DaveF





On 23/10/2019 15:49, Edward Bainton wrote:

Hi all
On the forum marczoutendijk gave me an Overpass query to find grit-bins in
Sutton.

He added an admin-level to distinguish the parish of Sutton from the London
borough.

The only issue is, there are at least three Suttons at admin_level=10 (as
it happens, not far from each other).

They have ref numbers thus: ref:gss=E04001120 (for example)

Does anyone know what these are? There is a webpage in the wiki here, but I
can't make sense of it.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2647

Thanks,

Edward



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fixmes and Notes

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

I've amended the OP query to return more on topic results:

Restrict it to footways & paths
Find fixme values which include, but aren't solely either 
incomplete,stub, longer than this or continue"

Add 'survey' value.

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/N5N

DaveF


On 13/10/2019 13:57, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi,

We've just started the next quarterly project on fixmes and notes. The wiki
page has some ideas - do you have any other ideas?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2019_Q4_Project:_Fixmes_and_Notes

It strikes me that a large proportion of the fixmes relate to incomplete
paths. So in effect tacking this would be an extension of our previous
quarterly project on paths. Here is an overpass turbo query to show those
fixmes:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/N56

Happy mapping!
*Rob*



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Oh, is /that/ what he's doing?

On 10/10/2019 17:47, Jez Nicholson wrote:

*Ahem* no offence to Simon, obviouslyhe's just trying to check out a
manufacturer's claims and opening a can of worms in the process.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:18 PM Dave F via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:


On 09/10/2019 23:12, Warin wrote:

I'd think to get that level of accuracy you 'd need readings over some
considerable time... days?

Otherwise you get bias from, as you hint, the atmospheric conditions,
the satellites in view - their bias, angles ..
Unless you have access to correction data, say from a local fixed GPS.


Indeed.
For Simon to assume he got a single 2cm "accuracy" let alone
consistently is naive. To believe it usurped OS's reading is silly.

DaveF

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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 09/10/2019 23:12, Warin wrote:


I'd think to get that level of accuracy you 'd need readings over some 
considerable time... days?


Otherwise you get bias from, as you hint, the atmospheric conditions, 
the satellites in view - their bias, angles ..

Unless you have access to correction data, say from a local fixed GPS.



Indeed.
For Simon to assume he got a single 2cm "accuracy" let alone 
consistently is naive. To believe it usurped OS's reading is silly.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans & OSM

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

(Could you please ensure replies are sent to the forum. Thanks)

Roughly upto around 3-4 years ago, which is why I'm uncertain if a 
sponsorship arrangement is in place.


DaveF

On 10/10/2019 07:41, Edward Bainton wrote:

Thanks for that.

I will ask re any formal sponsorship etc

May I ask how long ago it is that you were in discussion with them?
On 10 Oct 2019 00:26, "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
wrote:


I've had the occasional limited discussions on social media. Arguments
against using OSM fall into

1. Claim of no cost to use OS data as it's via local authority licensing.
Unsure if it's all LAs
2. They "wanted to use mapping that had 100% reliable data for the users
benefit."
3. Mild resentment at being informed they may not be using the best
solution.

Can you check if they have a sponsorship agreement with OS?

DaveF

On 09/10/2019 17:31, Edward Bainton wrote:

Hi all

I'm meeting the local Sustrans office next week as they've asked me to
compile a 'map' of the NCN mileposts in my area (I think they really mean
an inventory with locator maps).

Obviously I'll be using OSM, and trying to get them to see the benefits of
doing the same. OSM seems to be largely unknown in the local office.

1. Does anyone know *any history of engaging with Sustrans*, to inform my
lobbying?
There's mention on the 
wiki<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network#Tagging_information>
 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network#Tagging_information>
of
them making milepost locations available for mapping - but that's a long
time ago now.

2. Here's a sample 
page<https://www.dropbox.com/s/c3d686qnu77t0mz/Millennium%20milepost%20Compilation.doc.pdf?dl=0>
 
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/c3d686qnu77t0mz/Millennium%20milepost%20Compilation.doc.pdf?dl=0>
of what they sent me as a precedent.
*Any suggestions for how to leverage OSM's capabilities to improve it?*
I ask as a non-techie. My own thoughts: put it online & wikify; 'live'
locator maps updating as OSM changes; filterable by NCN route.

Thanks as ever

Edward / eteb3




___
Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



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





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 10/10/2019 00:11, Warin wrote:

On 09/10/19 21:21, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.


"Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under 
its own brand with immediate effect."


"planed' "are to be" "talks with individual landlords" 'rebranded"

That looks to me to take time ... so not immediate. And it may not be 
all shops.

Certainly the name will be different.


The cynic on my shoulder is whispering that it sounds too good to be 
true. I'm wondering how tightly bound into TC's other business ventures 
their retail outlets are.


And as has been stated the state of all shops is currently closed.
A USP of OSM is how quickly we can, or at least, should, be able to 
react to these sorts of changes, but as I said previously, there's a lot 
of faffing.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans & OSM

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I've had the occasional limited discussions on social media. Arguments 
against using OSM fall into


1. Claim of no cost to use OS data as it's via local authority 
licensing. Unsure if it's all LAs
2. They "wanted to use mapping that had 100% reliable data for the users 
benefit."
3. Mild resentment at being informed they may not be using the best 
solution.


Can you check if they have a sponsorship agreement with OS?

DaveF

On 09/10/2019 17:31, Edward Bainton wrote:

Hi all

I'm meeting the local Sustrans office next week as they've asked me to
compile a 'map' of the NCN mileposts in my area (I think they really mean
an inventory with locator maps).

Obviously I'll be using OSM, and trying to get them to see the benefits of
doing the same. OSM seems to be largely unknown in the local office.

1. Does anyone know *any history of engaging with Sustrans*, to inform my
lobbying?
There's mention on the wiki

of
them making milepost locations available for mapping - but that's a long
time ago now.

2. Here's a sample page

of what they sent me as a precedent.
*Any suggestions for how to leverage OSM's capabilities to improve it?*
I ask as a non-techie. My own thoughts: put it online & wikify; 'live'
locator maps updating as OSM changes; filterable by NCN route.

Thanks as ever

Edward / eteb3



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

2cm? I'm intrigued, what model are you using?
What were the atmospheric conditions on the day you took your reading?

DaveF

On 09/10/2019 11:05, Simon Ritchie wrote:

I've been working with some GPS equipment that claims to be accurate to
2cm.  To test it, I've been visiting local OS trig points, taking position
measurements and checking if they are correct.

Unfortunately I've discovered that the data I'm getting from the OS is not
nearly as accurate as my equipment claims to be, which is wrecking my
testing.

We tend to assume (well, I do anyway) that OS trig points are very accurate
position markers, but compared with modern equipment, that's no longer so.
I thought people might be interested in knowing how accurate they are.

A related issue is this:  GPS devices don't work in terms of OS map
references.  If your tracker device gives you a position in that form, it's
done a conversion.  How accurate is that?

The GPS device in a typical tracker is accurate to maybe three metres, so
the position you see on the screen will always be a bit wrong.  If you get
it to display your position in OS map reference form, it will need to do a
conversion, which introduces an extra error, so the result will be even
more wrong.  Not good if you are trying to produce an accurate map.

The OS published a spreadsheet giving the positions of their trig points in
OS map references.  This is available from them as a spreadsheet and Ian
Harris has used that data to create the web site:http://trigpointing.uk

The OS also offer a web page that can convert this to other forms including
Cartesian, which is one of the forms that my GPS device gives me:
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/gps/transformation/

To test my equipment, I take the OS map ref of a trig point, convert it to
Cartesian form,  visit the trig point, get the position in Cartesian form
from my device and compare the two.

The results are typically out by at least half a metre.  Is my equipment
faulty, or is the OS data wrong.  How accurate is the published position of
the trig point and, when I use the OS web page to convert that to Cartesian
form, how accurate is thatt?

This OS document was very enlightening:
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/legacy/docs/gps/updated-transformations-uk-ireland-geoid-model.pdf
It explains how the Cartesian coordinates work, which is useful.  It
reminds me that OS maps pretend that the Earth is flat, which introduces an
error, but that's tiny, and for my purposes itcan be ignored.  It explains
how accurate you can expect the published measurements of trig point
positions to be - they can be out by as much as 60 cm!  In general, the
document stresses that there is no sure-fire way to convert a position from
one system to another.  The result will always be inaccurate.

So now I know that the published positions of the trig points are a bit
wrong, but how accurate is the conversion from OS map ref to Cartesian form?

OS map references plus height above sea level and Cartesian coordinates
both specify a position using a 3D coordinate system.  The origin and the
direction of the axes are different in each system so you can't compare thm
directly.  However, the distances between two points should be the same
regardless of which system you use.  If you have two points in the same
coordinate system (a1,b1,c1) and (a2,b2,c2) and the difference along each
axis is a,b and c then the distance between them is

 the square root of (a squared plus b squared plus c squared) by
Pythagoras

If you have two points in a different coordinate system representing the
same two positions, the distance between them should be the same.

So I can test the accuracy of the conversion from OS map references to
Cartesian.  In the table below, on the left, we have the trig points at Box
Hill and Leith Hill in OS map reference form, the difference along each
axis and below that the resulting distance.  On the right we have the same
calculation but using the Cartesian coordinates from the OS conversion page.

Below that I do the same comparison, this time using the trig point at
Mickleham Down and the one at Leith Hill.

In both cases, the distances are out by over two metres.

So, I'm trying to test equipment which is supposed to be accurate to two cm
using data that is out by at least two metres.  That's not going to work.
I need something more accurate to compare my results with.


  OS Map Ref
   Cartesian

 Box Hill Leith Hill   Difference   Box Hill  Leith Hill
Difference
easting517971.06  513949.28  4021.78   x 4000676.63  4006902.33
   -6225.70
northing   151163.16  143161.71  8001.45   y  -21724.35   -25963.72
4239.37
height above  171.97 307.00  -135.03   z 4950992.32  4946141.89
4850.43
sea level

distance8956.35 8958.70


 Mickleham  Leith  Hill  DifferenceMickleham  Leith
  Hill 

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.

On 09/10/2019 11:00, Martin Wynne wrote:

The advantage of turning them all to disused: is that they are done.

The disadvantage is that there is no local confirmation. However .. I 
think most will agree that even without a local survey .. the shop is 
closed.


Not so fast -- see:

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49985369

Martin.

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



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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 04/10/2019 01:52, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote:

On 04/10/2019 00:26, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
I think you're missing the point. Most contributors believe postcodes 
on buildings or property nodes, add quality to the OSM's database, 
but object to the import of codepoint as it's just not accurate 
enough as stated in this, & numerous other threads.


This is incorrect. CPO/ONSPD postcodes _are_ accurate, up to date and 
include all postcodes in the UK except NI. 


Please note: "not accurate *enough*"

They are not complete (contain one and only one delivery point per 
postcode), 


No. The centre point is not associated with *any* delivery point. It is 
an arbitrary mean, calculated mathematically. it could, in theory, be 
located in the middle of a park.
Even postcodes unique to one property/business aren't accurate as their 
positions are misaligned by the effect of adjacent areas.


which is pity, but that's not a reason not to use the ones that are 
available, which is still _far_ more that what we have in the database.


Quantity does not equate to quality.



This may not be a perfect solution but the information CPO/ONSPD 
contains is still extremely useful for geocoding. Search for a 
postcode and you are _guaranteed_ to get an address in a close 
vicinity to a place you are looking for. 


No. With an import of the centroids points you're only guaranteed to be 
given the location of the node with the postcode.



How about not needing to start Google Maps when searching for a 
location on the go?


There's no point in importing to stand alone nodes as deliveries are 
destined for buildings. Adding to streets is also pointless for the 
same reason plus they can have multiple postcodes.


Addresses on nodes are commonly used in the UK OSM. Many mappers 
prefer them over placing addresses on buildings. There are also many 
cases (POIs) where nodes are objectively better than buildings. So, 
no, there right and wrong solution here.


Allow me to clarify. I should have maybe said 'properties' which can be 
represented by nodes instead of 'buildings'.
My objection, which I thought was clear, was to "standalone nodes" with 
just a postcode tag.





Besides, the main reason for importing these data is that we can get 
_all_ postcodes in the database.


Again quantity /= quality. If you can't manipulate data then it's 
useless. These standalone postcode nodes will relate to nothing.


This gives users confidence that when they search for a postcode they 
will reliably get a result they are looking for. This is not possible 
when merging postcodes with buildings simply because we still have 
only a small fraction of buildings in the database.


By the way, I'm not against merging addr:postcode with buildings, 
that's exactly what I was doing myself when adding postcodes manually. 
However, this is not a process that can be automated (lack of 
buildings, single OSM buildings having more than one address/postcode).


Then add buildings.

Based on my experience with mapping postcodes with CPO, I would 
recommend starting with an import and merge postcodes and buildings 
later.


Experience has shown that doesn't happen. I'm thinking US TIGER imports, 
but I'm sure there are other examples.


DaveF

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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I think you're missing the point. Most contributors believe postcodes on 
buildings or property nodes, add quality to the OSM's database, but 
object to the import of codepoint as it's just not accurate enough as 
stated in this, & numerous other threads.


There's no point in importing to stand alone nodes as deliveries are 
destined for buildings. Adding to streets is also pointless for the same 
reason plus they can have multiple postcodes.


DaveF

On 03/10/2019 01:40, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote:

On 02/10/2019 13:43, Russ Phillips via Talk-GB wrote:
I'm wondering if it would be feasible and advisable to import the UK 
postcode data from OS OpenData Codepoint 
. 




I support it. From my own experience, requests like this tend to 
attract objections, so it is important for people who agree with such 
proposals to speak out.


The key and, in my opinion, sufficient reasons for importing postcodes:

- Objectively, postcodes are an important type of addressing and 
geocoding data in the UK. We've had two quarterly projects encouraging 
adding postcodes to the OSM database. Some people (including myself) 
don't like the fact the postcodes are proprietary to Royal Mail but we 
are here to map the world, not to judge it.


- They are accepted in the OSM database and there is no tagging 
ambiguity. Their place is _in_ the OSM database, not in external 
overlays. They are searchable in most applications (OsmAnd, Maps.me), 
the exception is Nominatim, which uses an outdated overlay but this is 
more a workaround for lack of such data in the database, than a solution.


- Code-Point Open is a legal and open source of postcode data. In fact 
it is the _only_ legal source of such data in bulk. All other sources 
are either derived from CPO or are based on local knowledge.


All reasons _against_ the import I've seen so far are based on 
personal preferences. People are objecting because they don't like the 
idea of proprietary address data, do not find them important enough, 
do not find them comprehensive enough. These views are useful in 
establishing the context but are not a reason to block the import of 
what _is_ available.


Talking about technical aspects:

- The key (and deliberate) limitation Code-Point Open is that it 
doesn't distinguish between residential postcodes and postcodes 
assigned to "large users". This is not ideal but still useful - we 
know the postcode exists at a given location, we just can't be sure if 
it is the only postcode there.


- Quality of building in OSM database. Large buildings, especially in 
town centres, are often not partitioned correctly. Different parts may 
have different street names and postcodes. Code-Point Open may in fact 
be helpful in finding and correcting such issues.


- Some postcodes are for PO boxes (usually collocated with post 
offices) are are best left out.


My recommendation: import missing postcodes "as is" (as points) with 
extra tags denoting the import, import date and an accuracy metric 
from CPO. Keep it searchable and easy to remove or update, if 
necessary. Code-Point Open is updated quarterly and sometimes 
centroids move to another building. Filter out PO boxes and postcodes 
which are already in OSM (I usually check if there is an OSM object 
with a matching addr:postcode within a 10m radius of the code point). 
Do not attempt to merge them with buildings as it is not guaranteed to 
work in all cases. This is best done manually and in some cases it may 
require a survey.


Best regards,

ndrw6



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



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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I think this is a Win/JOSM problem - After pasting the URL If I move the 
cursor using the arrow keys the TMS URL is created.


Thanks
DaveF

On 02/10/2019 17:19, Chris Hill wrote:
Thanks for reporting a problem - I'll always try to respond if I can. 
The installation process has changed in the past but it looks familiar 
now.


I've just tested the installation instructions on JOSM version 15390 
and it worked as expected. The Okay button enabled when the URL (with 
https) and a name for the layer are both input, a max zoom can be 
added too.


I tried this on Mac OS and Linux and both worked. I don't have an easy 
access to Windows, but Java stuff should be cross platform I think.


You can use HTTP or HTTPS for the overlay as both are provided, I just 
think it's better to use HTTPS whenever possible.





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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

FYI in JOSM (latest) https wont generate a TMS URL. I had to change the 
pasted URL to http & then back again. then it generated & 'ungreyed' the 
Okay button. Is this expected behaviour?


On 02/10/2019 15:37, Chris Hill wrote:

Thanks,

I've just updated with August 2019 data, the next update is due in 
November I think.




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - schema mapping

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Bike riders may like to read about  the latest mess concerning cycle lanes:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/underhand-law-change-undermines-mandatory-cycle-lanes?fbclid=IwAR1oqOMvD9XjMFrLwKAr65Jw-8ifm0qXSNshRe7yhbKiZ2h7-sVlxsXLbyU

DaveF

On 22/09/2019 15:45, Mike Baggaley wrote:

I would prefer not to see cycleway:lane=mandatory as this suggests that 
cyclists have to use the lane when set. In the UK, the significance of the 
solid white line separating a cycle lane and main carriageway is that motor 
vehicles are not allowed to use the cycle lane, but cyclists can use either the 
cycle lane or main carriageway. I would only want to see mandatory used if 
there is also a separate sign prohibiting cyclists from the road (and I am not 
sure whether any of these exist). I suggest cycleway:lane={exclusive|advisory} 
which are existing tags according to the wiki. Note that UK cycle lanes can 
also be used by pedestrians, so are not strictly exclusive to cyclists.

Cheers,
Mike

• Mandatory/Advisory Cycle Lane: OSM has no differentiation between
mandatory (solid white line) and advisory (dashed white line) lane,
probably because this distinction is rare elsewhere in the world. A new tag
cycleway:lane={mandatory|advisory} is proposed as a backwards-compatible
addition that elaborates on cycleway=lane. This would be useful for routing
engines, who could infer a level of commitment to cyclists at each such
location.
https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#clt_mandat



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 29/09/2019 14:30, David Woolley wrote:


I think too much effort goes into these big changes.


The actual change is dead easy in JOSM. It's all this faffing about 
having to discuss it that takes up all the time.
As I said in another thread this increasing reluctance to 
removing/updating data while allowing _anyone_ to add data is 
detrimental to the OSM database. Take the new quarterly project as an 
example - anonymous users are allowed to add notes, but are unable to 
delete.


The real problem with business directory mapping on OSM is that people 
like doing the first time mapping of shops on a high street but no one 
likes maintaining them.


This thread is *specifically* about maintaining.

The number of shops that are wrong because of churn or small 
businesses, or individual closures of chain shops is probably orders 
of magnitude more than the ones that get lots of publicity.


Preventing the mass (hardly "mass" though) edit of Thomas Cook & instead 
relying on individuals to update *will* guarantee more shops will be 
"wrong".


The benefit of a one changeset edit is that it would be extremely easy 
to update if there's an (unlikely) change in the firms fortunes.




I doubt that many people are going to get misled by a Thomas Cook or 
Maplins store that remains mapped, but many may be misled by the loss 
of a specialist store that didn't make the national press.


Unsure what you mean by "misled", but surely if any shop that's 
incorrectly tagged will inconvenience someone if they use OSM to plan 
their visit?


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 29/09/2019 14:03, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Re: my comment about shop=vacant. I may have been convinced to use
disused:shop=travel_agent + name=Thomas Cook.


* travel_agency


  Not sure whether a vacant
shop with no ghost signage would still be a shop=vacant or a
disused:shop=yes.
As those two tags have the same meaning, whether there's still a name 
tag make no difference. (Although as I said, I prefer disused:shop).



I'm not keen on bulk automated closing everything called Thomas Cook
because the world is more complicated than it first seems to be. I favour
visual confirmation.


I consider multiple national/regional media reports of liquidation & 
mass redundancy as visual



Is there a case for automated addition of OSM Notes or Fixmes to
stores/locations to ask people to check?

My OP asked people to check. No ones come back.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Because shop=* indicates it is still open for business.
disused:shop=* indicates it not being used for it's previous purpose.

On 25/09/2019 13:24, Andy Mabbett wrote:


"Closed for business" does not equate to "vacant".

Why not some thing like

opening_hours = none




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

My OP should indicate I'm aware of variants.
There's the head office, which I believe is still functioning as a part 
of Matterhorn, a bus stop & a statue


DaveF

On 24/09/2019 15:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:


Just don't take the lawnmower over the database and assume that
everything that is called Thomas Cook is now closed without even looking ;)





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Something has happened. The company went into liquidation (not 
administration under which, I believe, they could still operate) & the 
shops have closed.


If your local chippy closed would you leave it mapped as still open for 
business?


On 24/09/2019 14:47, Chris Hill wrote:
Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the public 
today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in the future and 
that may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if the administrator 
sells some or all of them to another company. In the mean time they 
are still branded and still a landmark of sorts.


If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change that one 
otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see what happens.


cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:

I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself

You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell, > wrote:


    I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent
    since I wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case. Not
    all of them had the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?






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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Re: shop=vacant. This is a popular alternative tag, but removes the 
previous usage from the latest version. I found knowing this helpful 
when a new shop replaces it - "There's a new café opening in what used 
to be the flower shop"

How is the name tag dealt with if disused: isn't used?

Tony.
If the shops are closed tagging them as such improves the quality of the 
database. If they are bought out lock, stock & barrel a mass swap over 
edit can be easily executed.


Cheers
Davef

On 24/09/2019 14:20, Tony OSM wrote:
I think this is all premature. The shops still have the branding, they 
could be taken over by a new company operating as Thomas Cook. I Think 
that nothing should be done until there is greater clarity.


Tony Shield

TonyS999

On 24/09/2019 14:10, Tadeusz Cantwell wrote:
Thanks, I have used once shop=vacant before, now that you mention it. 
Will read up on the wiki to see the different intended uses for them. 
The old_name is an interesting option.


On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:00, Jez Nicholson > wrote:


    I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself

    You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe

    On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell, mailto:t4d...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent
    since I wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case.
    Not all of them had the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better
    way?

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


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




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding buildings and addresses

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Could you clarify/give an example of what you mean by 'Community Maps''?

DaveF

On 16/09/2019 00:02, Luciën Greefkes via Talk-GB wrote:

Hello everyone,
I'm currently working on mapping the neighbourhoods of Welwyn Garden City.
For that I'd like to use an accurate resource, also not to miss out of any 
(parts of) buildings.The standard aerial imagery provided in JOSM is in parts 
not good to work with, too many shadows which make it literally impossible to 
see contours of buildings.
The open data of Ordnance Survey is, as has been pointed out on the forums, too 
global to work with.
On the other hand, there are the Community Maps. They contain very decent 
shapes/contours of buildings. I would like to work with a layer like that to be 
able to compare with aerial imagery.The community map of Welwyn Hatfield gives 
Ordnance Survey as the source. I have sent a request to OS if they'd be willing 
to share the data used for the community maps, because that will be a massive 
aid in my current mapping project.
Has anyone had any experience with this, and what OS's stance on this is?
Cheers,
Luciën aka Lachgast



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

Bullet point replies:

 * Under the PROW section why are the 'yes' values not 'designated'?
 * byway_open_to_all_traffic - Why is motor vehicle 'private/no'?
 * Clarify which tags are optional (ie horse for Footpaths)
 * Designated ways aren't limited to
   footway/bridleway/cycleway/track/path/service/steps. Many are on
   residential roads & above
 * Access rights unknown - Can NT inform OSM of the rights?
 * The use of 'discouraged' should be discouraged. It's far too subjective.

Plus Frederik's first two paragraphs.

What data is NT providing to aid the additions of these paths? Boundary 
& water features would be useful.


I note on this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Byways

The legalese 'vehicle' tag is incorrectly suggested to indicate the 
subjective ability:


"some byways may deteriorate and become no longer passable by any 
vehicle. If this is the case consider using vehicle=no"


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at 
least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it distracts 
drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide the 
information instead.


What evidence have you of this "trend"?
If anything, I believe resistance to sat-navs is on the increase, given 
the number of news stories of juggernauts stuck down country lanes.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils
. While there's nothing listed there, it's definitely not ok to use
the data in OSM.


Rubbish.

Just because one person isn't aware of a fact, it doesn't make it untrue.
No one person has authority over other OSM contributors.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi Neil.

I contacted SG recently regarding as updated dataset under OGL v3. A 
Nicola Chidley from SG said I should use their set on rowmaps. An IT 
officer also said they were given OS copyright exemption in 2016.


As it's designated paths being added other tags as well as highway 
should be added as appropriate

foot/bicycle/horse=designated
designation=public_footpath/public_bridleway/restricted_byway/byway_open_to_all_traffic
prow_ref=* (This should be as given by the Local Authority & not some 
made up concoction which is useful to none.)

surface=*

If the contributor's adding a an unwalked path, a fixme=survey required 
tag would be useful.


I will try to obtain a more up to date version than 2013, but I won't 
hold my breath


DaveF


On 08/08/2019 23:05, Neil Matthews wrote:

In light of some recent edits in South Gloucestershire -- is it ok to
import unsurveyed footpaths based simply on rowmaps data?

Thanks,
Neil

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

It would be good if they could add address data. Probably not postcodes 
- I assume they're a customer of Royal Mail's PAF, but house numbers & 
names.


DaveF

On 29/07/2019 13:32, Gregory Marler wrote:

I've exchanged a number of messages with the Amazon mappers and their team
lead Jothirnadh. First of all, if anything isn't quite right then I would
encourage the person who spots it to...
a) contact the editor about it (or better if you post a comment on the
changeset)
b) add tags yourself to further clarify the way (OSM is a wiki).
c) a combination of the above.

Amazon are using OpenStreetMap (great) and they are putting in some work to
improve it (great).
They've been a bit behind on widely communicating with the community, but
they are slowly getting better. They're also working in a number of
countries, where similar concerns are coming up, and they're replying in
similar ways. They are keen to learn and do better.

Communication certainly helps people get better. Most (all?) of us have had
something we've learnt from other mappers. Often we don't know a tag is
used, or we don't know the map data is used in a certain way.

Amazon obviously have their specific interests in mapping, but so do all of
us. You're unlikely to see me adding tags for voltage of an electricity
line, but you may see me add the pylon.


Happy mapping everyone,
Gregory.



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