Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[Mike Evans]

Hi David

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 09:09:58 +
"David Groom"  wrote:

 
> >>There is no consensus.
> >>
> >>Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which 
> >>is
> >>tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.
> >>
> >>Reasons for this
> >>
> >>1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the
> >>coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside 
> >>a
> >>river, so surely our data should reflect that. I think this probably 
> >>is
> >>what you mean by "seems more natural"  
> >Well if they're in Central London then it is an estuary at that point 
> >so they'd be incorrect. Hence the expression "estuary English", and not 
> >"river English".  
> Both the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries define as estuary as part of 
> a river.

Dictionaries are written for writers and are not necessarily useful as a 
mapping resource.
There's more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary


> >
> >Perhaps "A History of the Foreshore and the Law Relating Thereto", 
> >published 1888 would be a useful reference.
> >https://archive.org/details/ahistoryforesho00hallgoog
> >
> >  
> >>
> >>2) In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal
> >>water areas as coastline  
> >Examples?
> >  
> Baltic , Caspian & Black Seas
>
All are tidal to small extent, see:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2016.00046/full

But none of this helps us draw an arbitrary line across a 
river/estuary/tidal/non-tidal water body.

Regards Mike 

-- 
GPG Key fingerprint = 0D8A 33A8 F7F8 733C 7519  2A56 DB8F 7CF1 C67B BC0F


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[Mike Evans]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:09:47 +
"David Groom"  wrote:

> There is no consensus.
> 
> Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which is 
> tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.
> 
> Reasons for this
> 
> 1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the 
> coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside a 
> river, so surely our data should reflect that.  I think this probably is 
> what you mean by "seems more natural"
Well if they're in Central London then it is an estuary at that point so they'd 
be incorrect. Hence the expression "estuary English", and not "river English".
To quote Wikpedia "The district of Teddington a few miles south-west of 
London's centre marks the boundary between the tidal and non-tidal parts of the 
Thames". 

Perhaps "A History of the Foreshore and the Law Relating Thereto",  published 
1888 would be a useful reference.
https://archive.org/details/ahistoryforesho00hallgoog


> 
> 2)  In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal 
> water areas as coastline
Examples?

> 
> 3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be 
> tagged "tidal = yes"
But then the decision has to made as to where to draw the line and tag one side 
as "tidal = yes" and the other side not tagged but assumed to, in fact, be 
tidal. This just introduces an extra arbitrary boundary the inner end of which 
again becomes non-tidal.

The American Submerged Lands Act of 1953 does appear to define the line at 
which the coastline extends into estuaries etc., but this does not apply to the 
UK.  That act seems to been precipitated as a result of disputes over oil 
drilling rights.

Mike


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

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Mike Evans]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 18:09:53 +0100
Martin Wynne  wrote:

> the point of adding it to the database? If I put landuse=ufo_landing_pad 
> who would ever know that it is in there?

I'm sure that an actual on-the-ground verified UFO landing pad really would be 
a valuable addition.  

Mike E

-- 
GPG Key fingerprint = 0D8A 33A8 F7F8 733C 7519  2A56 DB8F 7CF1 C67B BC0F


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

[Mike Evans]

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:46:34 +
Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> Mike wrote:
> 
> > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1"  
> 
> Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans
> on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format Barry
> made.

Indeed so. ON the PDF it's referenced as  "SP29/4"

> 
> PB is "Pembrokeshire"!
> 
> As Pembrokeshire don't use parish names I'd go for prow_ref="FP SP29/4/1"
> assuming this is a footpath.
The FP part seems redundant as it's already tagged as a footpath elsewhere 
however, "FP SP29/4" would be correct I guess.

Cheers
Mike 
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> On 6 Nov 2017 12:30 p.m., "Rob Nickerson"  wrote:
> 
> > Dave,
> >
> > I think the point was that nobody has a common format. Some LAs use a
> > different style when they refer to the same path in the definitive
> > statement when compared to the GIS data.
> >
> > Of course we can manipulate OGL data. That's included in the licence. If
> > we do change then it should be obvious to the LA what we mean if we speak
> > with them.
> >
> > I will be sticking with the wiki for any I map as this has been previously
> > discussed and has therefore grown traction according to taginfo.
> >
> > For Leicestershire it seems to be an obvious change: they don't include
> > Parish so just don't include it. So I'd map prow_ref="FP J16" as an example.
> >
> > P.s. I thought folks usually don't like to add third party database
> > references to OSM. Hence we came to an agreement of how prow_ref should be
> > *constructed* based on OGL data (not just a copy of one of the third party
> > attribute values).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >  


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

[Mike Evans]

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 11:51:48 +
Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:

> On 6 November 2017 11:13:23 GMT+00:00, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> 
> wrote:
> >
> >On 05/11/2017 10:42, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:  
> >> On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com wrote   
> 
> >Are any LAs, that you've looked at, not including parish codes within 
> >their refs?  
> 
> Leicestershire don't use parish codes, they use a letter number format i.e. 
> J93. 
> 
SNIP


> 
> Phil (trigpoint) 

Pembrokeshire doesn't either. A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" No parish, just a 
code representing...something.

Mike Evans (lostmike)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Edits in Wales

[Mike Evans]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:31:08 +0100
Miguel Sevilla-Callejo  wrote:

> El 14/8/2017 14:42, "Andy Townsend"  escribió:
> 
> Hi Miguel,
> 
> A question.  Many places in Wales are predominantly Welsh- or predominantly
> English-speaking.  For somewhere like https://www.openstreetmap.org/
> node/3378387351 , if "name" was a compound of both the Welsh and English
> names rather than the more frequently / locally used version, how would I
> know what the preferred name actually was?
> 
> 

> 
> Saludos
> 
> Miguel
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
I'm a Welsh mapper, born here, in an English speaking part of Wales, south 
Pembrokeshire.

I must admit that I hadn't even thought about the Welsh/English thing, since it 
never was an issue for me. I've always just mapped what was there.

As far as the dominance/superiority of English, we're (or at least I am, in my 
late 50's) used to it and pretty much ignore it. Personally I don't care. But 
I've also encountered some people in Aber who cared intensely. Let them; life 
is short.

I agree the WIKI is mostly a guide, (like the pirate) code). and I've often 
tried to reference it and sometimes been more confused after than before. 
Mostly, I've been informed though.

I map what I know, locally. I don't seagull (which is really annoying, as 
there's really no such thing as a "seagull" species, but I guess you knew that. 
Right?) map, or, Bing map, unless it's bloody obvious. (Re: Pokemon).

Anyway, that's my view as a Welsh mapper.

That said. People wanting to improve the map should be given all the help 
available and a confusing WIKI is of no help at all.

Feel free to contact me for other random thoughts.

Lostmike
Wales
Saludos

Being Welsh doesn't make me special. Or does it?...


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

Re: [Talk-GB] the steepest residential street in England

[Mike Evans]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:06:32 +
Paul Berry  wrote:

> I always thought Harlech laid claim to this at ~40%
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffordd_Pen_Llech
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/71230443
> 
> Regards,
> *Paul*
> 
But the question states *England* and since Harlech is in Wales in doesn't 
qualify. :)

Lost(in Wales)Mike


-- 
PGP key:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get=0xDB8F7CF1C67BBC0F 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ramblers app

[Mike Evans]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:06:14 +
p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:

 On Wed Jul 15 09:37:19 2015 GMT+0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:
  Looks interesting. Anyone know more information about this?
  
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33532041
  
 The big pathwatch runs until October,  is open to both the general public and 
 ramblers members alike. The aim is to survey paths with a 1km grid square and 
 upload the results either through the app, or on the website. 
 
 Any square can be chosen,  however there are key squares that must be 
 completed based on a sample of 200 per highway authority.  I'm not convinced 
 by this as rural areas have sparse coverage,  and urban areas have complete 
 coverage. Telford,  semi rural has the same number of squares as Shropshire 
 and Leicestershire, and the lax planning rules caused by the new towns act 
 will, I am sure, bring up some interesting results.
 
 I have downloaded the app, not too sure yet, can only highlight a bad stile, 
 not a good one.
 
 More here
 http://www.ramblers.org.uk/get-involved/join-the-big-pathwatch.aspx
 
 Key squares here, only visible if not logged in
 https://bigpathwatch.ramblers.org.uk/map-of-sample-squares
 
 Please do sign up, and complete some squares and add to OSM at the same time.
 
 Phil (trigpoint )
 
 

The app doesn't work on my 'phone, Samsung Galaxy Ace, too old, like me.  I 
wanted to report presence of hogweed on the web reporting pages, seems to be no 
(obvious) means to do so.  Does that come under Intimidating-Other or 
Obtructions-Other?

Not really looking for answers here, just saying.

Mike (lostmike)

-- 
Use PGP.
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x00CDB13500D7AB53  

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

[Mike Evans]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:40:26 +0100
ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 08:53:57AM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
  The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston:
  
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970
  
  does not render on our default map:
  
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3914/-0.5433
  
  despite being a significant and very visible landmark:
  
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_opulentfish/2870819874/
  
 I started a thread about this sort of thing on the tagging list last
 spring:
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-March/022606.html
 
 There were some rather bad tempered posts from the railway lobby:-(
 
 I *thought* that the outcome was that the problem was acknowledged and
 that there were moves to amend the mapnik default style to render
 bridges again. But nothing happened. Having stirred up a hornets' nest
 once, I decided to leave it.
 
 But as I said there, it was embarrasing when showing openstreet(map)
 to newbies to have to explain that the many significant (often low)
 bridges in the area carrying abandoned mining railways over roads were
 mapped, but not visible.
 
 ael
 

It seems to me that the viaduct and the railway are two separate entities and 
should mapped as such. Just because an abandoned railway happens to run on the 
top of the viaduct is irrelevant in my opinion.

Mike Evans


-- 
Anti NSA?  Use PGP.
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x00CDB13500D7AB53  

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Post boxes!

[Mike Evans]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 14:24:05 +0100
Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote:

  Royal Mail grid reference every post box 
 Erm, a request made under the Freedom of Information Act only returned
 textual descriptions (usually names of roads, often a side road it is
 'near'). I believe Hull has been very hard to find postboxes from this
 list. If there is grid reference data for every post box, then Royal
 Mail may have broken the FoI Act. Although my information may be out
 of date, or slightly wrong.
 
 Mr Willis photographs the base to record the manufacturer’s name and
 logs a grid reference on a map
 Hmm, maybe he is making the grid referenced database?
 
 I wrote this blog post a while back, which is good to reference if
 you talk to someone about OSM  Postboxes.
 http://www.livingwithdragons.com/2009/06/my-postbox-obsession
 
 
 On 11 May 2012 13:49, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Heard about this on the radio. See link below:
 
  Here's a guy who is photographing post boxes in the UK - could be
  of real help for OSM. Anyone have contact with him or any other
  members of the 'Letter Box Study Group'?
 
 
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142313/Retired-postman-embarks-epic-mission-photograph-115-000-Britains-post-boxes.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
 
  Rob
 
  ___

There is this website for documenting postbox locations
http://www.dracos.co.uk/play/locating-postboxes/

Mike Evans

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