Re: [Talk-GB] Weight restrictions

[Paul Berry]

Just so you know, bulk addition/editing/deletion of tags is now a feature
of iD.

Regards,
*Paul*



On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 19:21, Edward Bainton  wrote:

>  hmm thank you
>
> This is probably one more occasion where I should graduate to JOSM rather
> than sticking with iD - just guessing a bulk edit of all roads in a given
> area would be possible?
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020, 09:05 Philip Barnes,  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 08:32 +, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I've been reading the wiki here
>>  on
>> conditional restrictions.
>>
>> Should these be along the whole length of the relevant road, or can they
>> be on a fragment of way near the restriction sign?
>>
>> Eg, the whole of Stanwick
>> ,
>> Northants, is off-limits to 7-tonners. Presumably I don't have to tag every
>> street; but maybe the access/through routes should be tagged all along
>> their length?
>>
>> Hi Edward
>> These restrictions are quite common in Leicestershire and are intended to
>> prevent lorries using residential areas as a through route.
>>
>> They are generally 7.5t and only apply to goods vehicles, not buses or
>> coaches.
>>
>> They allow access for deliveries, loading.
>>
>> We usually use hgv=destination.
>>
>> You do need to tag every road within the boundary, not just the main
>> roads otherwise you will end up with some very strange routing.
>>
>> 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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Jewson - is it shop=doityourself or shop=trade?

[Paul Berry]

Note also that some of the larger Screwfix stores have physically separate
general and trade counters (the latter usually carrying sub-brands Plumbfix
and Electricfix) and with separate entrances (the first will list prices
with and without VAT, the second only without). Could be mapped as two POIs
if you feel the need.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 15:23, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 18/09/2020 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
> > but B, Wilko and Wickes are consumer
>
> My impression is that Wilko is genuine consumer, but B, is mix of
> consumer and informal economy trade (aka handymen) and Wickes is mainly
> a mix of formal and informal economy trade.
>
> (I'm not sure to what extent handymen are really in the informal
> economy, or simply do properly taxed small B2C jobs.)
>
> ___
> 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] Overpass query strangeness within iD

[Paul Berry]

Sorry, I wasn't in edit mode so nothing to do with iD. I'm using the
latest version of Chrome on Windows 10 and browsing to the standard
https://www.openstreetmap.org site with Standard Layer selected and the
Query tool used. You can see that everything's in en-gb (as I have set it),
excepting the one search result in question, by viewing the screenshot
here: http://pberry.me.uk/osm/osm_query.png

I've double-checked on other devices, operating systems, and browsers but
the issue remains. I hope this helps to narrow down the problem.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 11:04, Nick via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> Hi Gareth
>
> It was just a thought if that might have been the source
>
> Cheers
>
> Nick
> On 16/09/2020 10:12, Gareth L wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> Not in the example I cited.
>
> Gareth
>
> On 16 Sep 2020, at 10:03, Nick  
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Just out of curiosity, were these all mapped with the new version of the
> RapiD OSM editor https://mapwith.ai/rapid-esri?
> On 16/09/2020 08:18, Gareth L wrote:
>
> Morning Mateusz,
>
>
>
> You’re right, it’s not encountered in edit mode.
>
>
>
> 4:
>
>1. “en-GB en”
>2. “en-GB”
>3. System Locale: en-us;English (United States)*
>
> Input Locale:  en-gb;English (United Kingdom)
>
>
>
> *damn, i’m normally better at keeping it en-gb!
>
>
>
> Gareth
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Mateusz Konieczny 
> *Sent: *16 September 2020 08:09
> *To: *Gareth L 
> *Cc: *Paul Berry ; Talk GB
> 
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD
>
>
>
> 1) it is not a bug of default style at all - what is displayed in tiles is
> not related
>
> (both are using OSM data and here similarities end)
>
> 2) it is not a Mapnik bug - it is a library used by OSM Carto (default map
> style)
>
> 3) it is not in edit mode, so it is likely not an iD bug (maybe it uses an
> iD
>
> presets that have some bug)
>
>
>
> Is it still visible in edit mode? The it may be an iD bug.
>
>
>
> 4) Which exactly language settings you have?
>
>
>
> (a) In OSM settings
>
> (b) In browser
>
> (c) In OS
>
>
>
> For me this is not present,
>
> I see Polish description ("Budynek przemysłowy itp group
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/414437370>") as I selected
>
> Polish as preferred language in OSM settings.
>
>
>
> Sep 16, 2020, 08:57 by o...@live.co.uk:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
>
>
> I’m not sure if the fault is with the ID viewer, mapnik, or overpass-api
> really. ID bugs can be reported/tracked through its GitHub repo
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD
>
>
>
> For others curious, an example is go to
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.37824/-1.23676 and right click>
> query features on say, the ITP building or air ambulance. It will show 
> “Индустриална
> сграда itp group” on the results where you choose which element you want
> more detail on.
>
>
>
> I’m not that familiar with the codebase but it looks like there has been
> quite a lot of activity in the localisation section, so it is possibly a
> recently introduced bug.
>
>
>
> Gareth
>
>
>
> *From: *Paul Berry 
>
> *Sent: *16 September 2020 00:21
>
> *To: *Talk GB 
>
> *Subject: *[Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Not sure who to direct this to so apologies for targeting the mailing
> list. However, I hope the right people can be found this way.
>
>
>
> If you use the query feature within iD (which uses the Overpass API) and
> point at a commercial building you get a Bulgarian label in the results set
> instead of an English one: Търговска Сграда, which translates as
> "commercial building" - there might be other cosmetic bugs out there.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Paul*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> 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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

[Paul Berry]

Hi all,

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

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

Regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] TPT / NCN62 (was: Re: National Cycle Network removal/reclassification)

[Paul Berry]

>  It'd be a lot of work for relatively little reward though - presumably
that's why no-one's stepped up to tidy things up yet.

Andy,

I'm quite happy to pick this up as I've been mapping parts of the route
local to me anyway so assessing what is and isn't the TPT shouldn't be that
arduous. It's at least wholly or partly the NCN 56, 62, 627 and there are
probably more bits and pieces out there...

Thanks for the tips. I'll start there.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:18, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 18/07/2020 17:06, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> On the subject of overlapping relations. I've recently noticed that the
> NCN 62 relation has been named Transpennine trail which is true for much,
> but not all of the route. The TPT ends at Southport, yet NCN 62 continues
> further North. At the eastern end of the TPT goes far beyond the end of NCN
> 62 which ends at Selby. They need to be two separate relations.
>
> The Trans-Pennine Trail is a bit confusing, both on the ground and in
> OSM.  A quick query in OSM south of Selby turns up this:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12763
>
> "ref=62; name=Trans Pennine Trail"
>
> and this:
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1761919#map=10/53.7874/-0.6265=H
>
> "ref=TPT; name=Trans Pennine Trail"
>
> and also this:
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10521621#map=10/53.6371/-1.2158=H
>
> "name=Trans Pennine Trail (Wombwell to Selby)"
>
> It essentially goes all over the place, and doesn't correspond to one
> particular NCN (see
> https://www.transpenninetrail.org.uk/?doing_wp_cron=1595095458.735897064208984375
> ).  The Chesterfield end has two braids and partially corresponds to what
> is or was NCN 67.
>
> The superroute I believe is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4139041
>
>
> If NCN 62 isn't properly called the Transpennine Trail I'd remove that
> name from it and explain in a note on the relation why.  My recollection is
> that NCN62 and TPT signage is separate, but it's a while since I've seen
> any so I may be wrong.
>
> The best approach for tidying would I think be to:
>
>- Find anything not in the superroute and figure out what the status
>actually is.
>- Ensure that routes in the superroute are split where tags change
>(e.g. bits with NCN 62 signage and bits without)
>
> It'd be a lot of work for relatively little reward though - presumably
> that's why no-one's stepped up to tidy things up yet.
>
> 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] Tagging showgrounds

[Paul Berry]

Not sure about the tagging/proposal politics but since there are a small
number of showgrounds, is there anything to stop a UK-specific page being
set up on the Wiki for visibility? Then if anyone wants to harmonise the
tags they can use that as a guide to do so.

There's nothing to say we can't tag in any way we want—and again for this
small collection of entities which are clearly all the same fundamental
object—it's only if we want people to be consistent, or to adopt our tags,
that we would need to go through the process of proposed tag adoption.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 10:10, nathan case  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just to drag this back up - I encountered an unmapped showground
> (Chipping, Lancashire) whilst adding PROWs and don't know the best way to
> tag. It appears to hold a several large shows each year (well presumably
> not this year!) but doesn't appear to be a recreational site.
>
> I found this abandoned proposal for amenity=show_grounds:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/show_grounds It's a
> shame it never got traction as it might enable us to come to some consensus
> on these sites. Can an abandoned proposal be re-opened or does it have to
> be re-proposed?
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Townsend 
> Sent: 25 February 2020 00:23
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds
>
> Since I was going through these anyway to see what ought to be rendered at
> map.atownsend.org.uk, I thought I might as well list them here too. These
> are things "tagged a bit like showgrounds, excluding bus stops and car
> parks", sorted by one of the main tags.
>
> I suspect that the ones tagged just "place", "landuse=grass" or
> "tourism=attraction" only probably need some other tag to say "this is a
> showground".   "events_venue" might be a misunderstanding of what that tag
> was for.  "recreation_ground" may be correct in some cases but I suspect
> isn't in many others. "park" I'd be similarly surprised if it was often
> correct.  In most or all cases it probably needs a local to make the call,
> though...
>
> place:
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2382298440
> name Mannsfield Showground
> place locality
> source OS OpenData StreetView
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3416147963
> name Great Harwood Showground
> place neighbourhood
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4347790541
> addr:postcode BS37 8QZ
> addr:street Westerleigh Road
> name The Windmill Fisheries Showground place locality
>
>
> events_venue only:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5849512782
> alt_name Royal Cornwall Event Centre amenity events_venue name
> Royal Cornwall Showground
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6938439833
> amenity events_venue
> name Hertfordshire County Showground operator Hertfordshire
> Country Council
>
>
> tourism=attraction only:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283445694
> name Devon County Showground
> tourism attraction
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/91401877
> name Kent Showground
> source Bing
> tourism attraction
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40942963
> barrier fence
> name Norfolk Showground
> tourism attraction
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/316706558
> name Great Yorkshire Showground
> tourism attraction
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104155888
> barrier fence
> name Royal Bath and West of England Showground tourism attraction
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/239487854
> name Hennock Showground
> tourism attraction
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/178396540
> addr:city Newark
> addr:postcode NG24 2NY
> addr:street Lincoln Road
> alt_name Newark Show Ground
> name Newark Showground
> operator Newark & Nottinghamshire Agricultural Society phone +44
> 1636 705796 tourism attraction website
> http://www.newarkshowground.com/ wikidata Q15262122
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/274093728
> name Lincolnshire Showground
> tourism attraction
>
>
> recreation_ground only:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/603746353
> alt_name Briscwm Fields
> description Normally farmland,  Used to hold events such as the
> Cardigan County Agricultural Show.
> landuse recreation_ground
> name Cardigan County Showground
> note Located from information on Coflein.
> phone +44 1545 570501
> recreation_ground showground
> website https://cardigancountyshow.org.uk/
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34993687
> landuse recreation_ground
> name Mirfield Showground
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89151502
> addr:city Peterborough
> addr:housename Peterborough Arena
> addr:postcode PE2 6XE
> addr:street East of England Showground landuse recreation_ground
> name East of England Showground phone +44 1733 363500 website
> 

Re: [Talk-GB] New map of parcel postboxes

[Paul Berry]

Much respect to Matthew. This is really useful.

>From a mapping perspective, a gentle reminder to not armchair map this
data: it's not ours.

However when things get back to normal it can be used as a guide for ground
surveys.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 11:12, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> Matthew Somerville ( @dracos on Twitter), the person behind
> traintimes.org.uk and Theatricalia, and a developer for MySociety,
> has built a website to enable people to find their local parcel
> postbox, during the current emergency situation.
>
> It uses OSM:
>
>https://postboxes.dracos.co.uk/parcels/
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] "OSMUK-in-a-box"

[Paul Berry]

When you have the setup guide drafted, I'll have a go at following the
instructions to see if they're correct. I've never set up anything OSM
locally so I can be your fresh pair of eyes on it.

Thanks.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 13:17, Derry Hamilton  wrote:

> Hi Tony,
> I did something similar a while back at
> https://github.com/rasilon/osm_database so that might help you get
> started?
>
> Cheers,
> Derry
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 13:10, Tony OSM  wrote:
>
>> Absolutely Fabulous!
>>
>> Not done Docker but I'll start learning how to get it on those
>> environments.
>>
>> I'll try to support by QA and writing instructions as to how to get it
>> live.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> TonyS999
>> On 06/02/2020 12:29, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>>
>> I come from a database background, and when a question isn't easily
>> answered with Taginfo or Overpass Turbo I jump to my trusty local postgres
>> database of UK data. I have a script that downloads the British Isles from
>> Geofabrik, loads it with osm2pgsql, adds some useful indexes, and then
>> removes Eire. Thereafter I can run SQL queries across the whole database to
>> get 'UK-wide' results.
>>
>> I think that this would be useful for people on hackdays and the like and
>> would be a good service for OSMUK to provide, so have just added a new
>> github repository https://github.com/osm-uk/osmuk2pgsql
>>
>> Friendly-worded Issues are welcome, as are code contributions. I'd like
>> to put it on a Docker environment so that it works quickly-and-easily on
>> Windows, Linux, Mac, whatever.
>>
>> Comments? Thoughts?
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Jez
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Paul Berry]

Indeed, so long as you ignore https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52528295,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/134635221, etc ;)

Feel free to adjust the mapping!

Regards,
*Paul*

> By the way, there is at least one "sensibly mapped" university in
> Cambridge:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3987047
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Soild fuel

[Paul Berry]

This is exactly how I've retagged a coal merchant's near me:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/276999136

I suppose it's not a shop, per se, but it is a building and a place of
business from which fuel is sold...

Regards,
*Paul*

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 12:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> shop=fuel + fuel=coal ?
>
>
> 2 Feb 2020, 22:27 by ajrli...@gmail.com:
>
> Solid fuel; as in a coal merchants. Yes, still a few of those around,
> probably many of them in some countries.
>
> amenity=fuel / fuel=solid perhaps but that will receive a petrol pump on
> the map for your efforts.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7171642306
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> 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] Various pedestrian crossing mapping issues

[Paul Berry]

Hi Jerry,

All valid points and thanks for raising them. I really do think we should
try and find the different types of crossings on the ground (including
variations), photograph them, and put them on the relevant page on the Wiki
with tagging guidelines. I know there is a page already (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing) but it's far too busy. If
necessary, branch out to a UK-specific page. That would help steer us
towards a consensus for the UK at least. I'm pretty sure the defaults in
iD, for example, keep changing every time I map a classic zebra crossing.
We could then find crossings that don't appear to fit the categories and
flag them for resurveying, or even make it (part of) a future Quarterly
Project.

To get back to your primary concerns here, we could easily flag up where
crossings of any stripe(!) don't have a kerb tag. The vibration mode can be
determined by the presence of a small knurled wheel underneath the yellow
WAIT box; not sure what the tagging consensus is for that presently.

I've mapped island crossings as both island (if white light present) and
unmarked (if not) but that's just me.

I could do a detailed micromap of a few locations near me, with photos, and
we could start from there? If others already have, I'm sure they'll speak
up.

Regards,
*Paul*


On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 10:31, SK53  wrote:

> My father is now in his late '80s and not as nimble as he used to be. As a
> consequence I'm aware of certain things about various aspects of pedestrian
> crossings which either I'm not sure about mapping or have no idea. Most of
> these are definitely micromapping topics, but I think they are relevant in
> mapping for mobility.
>
> One of the more significant issues we've come across are sets of traffic
> lights at junctions with turning traffic. These nearly always have
> crossings marked in the sense that there are dropped kerbs & tactile
> paving, but because there is no pedestrian phase on the lights (and no
> pedestrian indicators) can be quite hazardous. Dad is now adopting routes
> which avoid these altogether.
>
> Presumably these are just crossing=traffic_lights with kerb=lowered and
> tactile_paving=yes. If so it becomes really important to add crossing_ref
> for pelican/puffin/toucan/pegasus crossings with Ampelmännchen
>  (little green men). However
> I suspect we should move towards the presence of lights being marked
> explicitly. I'm not sure if a tag exists.
>
> Secondly, even existing Pelican crossings seem to have shorter and shorter
> crossing times, to the extent that if my father doesn't set out as soon as
> the lights turn (for the traffic) he risks being marooned at the island
> half-way. We trying to talk to the council about this, but I presume it's
> an aspect of car-centric traffic planning. Presumably one could time the
> 'green man' phase which I could do for the ones we use most frequently, but
> it would get tedious to do lots. Perhaps an FOI request might yield some
> information.
>
> On a related note there are quite a lot of crossings in London with a
> countdown timer indicating seconds left for pedestrians. I first
> encountered these in Caceres in 2006, but have never known the appropriate
> tag.
>
> Thirdly, island crossings marked by a white non-flashing beacon with a
> mid-carriageway refuge, dropped kerbs and (possibly tactile paving) are
> common in parts of the country. Once again I'm not sure exactly how to map
> these as distinct from other crossing=island (e.g., with the island just
> marked with bollards).
>
> Fourthly, I think we often tag zebra-style crossings with crossing_ref
> even when these are technically not zebra crossings (no Belisha beacons, no
> zigzag no stopping zones either side, etc). Typically these will be on
> service roads in car parks or campuses (school, university, hospital etc).
> Any suggestions as to whether we should remove crossing_ref or use a
> different value.
>
> If I'm going to map some of these details I'd also like some guidance as
> to how to determine if a crossing has a vibration mode for blind/partially
> sighted people. The RNIB show a picture
> 
> of a man feeling underneath the indicator, but I don't know any more than
> that.
>
> Another thing I've noticed is that many islands on pedestrian crossings
> are rather narrow for the larger kind of mobility scooter or wheelchair.
> Again no idea of how to approach this.
>
> Has mapped any of the detailed things? Should we be more precise with
> crossing_ref?
>
> Regards,
>
> 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] Motorway junctions where the slow lane seperates from the through lanes

[Paul Berry]

Hi Mike,

Interesting points and no easy answer I fear.

I think in mapping terms the midlines of each carriageway after the diverge
will look more like a upside-down Y and I tend to do a bit of smoothing to
make it look less abrupt. I think this is what you're getting at (apologies
if not). It's not dissimilar to the situation where a single-carriageway
road splits around an island: because the way is drawn as a line—not an
area—the carriageway split is always going to look more dramatic drawn that
way compared to the smooth continuous reality of what's on the ground.

In the situation of a lane drop don't forget to keep track of the
lanes= in the keys.

It might be easier if you just go ahead and map as you see fit then post
the changeset link if you want further commentary.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 08:26, Mike Parfitt  wrote:

> The technical term is a drop lane.  This might later intersect with a
> roundabout, join with another motorway or primary road etc.  Between
> junctions, a single way for each direction is commonplace.  At junctions,
> there are ways for the through lanes and for traffic exiting and entering
> the motorway.
>
> For example, on a 3-lane motorway with 3 lanes going in one direction and
> no junction anywhere near, the way would typically be placed along the
> centre of lane 2.
>
> However, when lane 1 is designated as a drop lane, what was being mapped
> as 1 way needs to split into 2 ways.
>
> The question is where ?
>
> There are various anticipatory changes in road markings well ahead of the
> physical separation of the asphalt, together with blue and white signs,
> some of which precede the first of the changes in road markings.
>
> In the case described above, my convention is to pick the start of the
> shorter dashes between the drop lane (1) and the through lanes (2 and 3).
> From then onwards, the way for the through lanes is mapped along the longer
> dashes dividing lanes 2 and 3, while the way for the drop lane is mapped
> along the centre of lane 1.
>
> Others do it differently.
>
> See "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual;
> from where you can download "Traffic signs manual chapter 5 road markings
> (2019)" which is a PDF.  Page 82 contains figure 7.7 and text documenting
> drop lane road markings.
> ___
> 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] No Through Road Ahead

[Paul Berry]

I think it's 13 metres, according to:
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/vehicle-markings.html (these markings
replaced the old "LONG VEHICLE" plates that were mandated; I presume they
correspond to mentions of "long vehicles" on road signage too).

I wait to be corrected however.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 14:35, Peter Neale via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I can see the logic of placing the restriction on the bend, but how long
> is a "long vehicle"?
>
> Is there an official definition?
>
> Peter
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> 
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 14:30, SK53
>  wrote:
> ___
> 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] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

[Paul Berry]

This is all perfectly doable in iD (which I've used to map hundreds of
relations) so be bold.

Give it a go, mark your changeset for review if you want, and—after
publishing—make use of tools like the excellent http://ra.osmsurround.org which
will show any gaps or oddities with your relation.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 10:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/12/19 19:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > Peter Neale wrote:
> >> I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to
> >> go about it.
> > Brilliant. Thanks for taking this on!
> >
> > You can do it from iD - no particular need to use JOSM for this.
> Essentially
> > the trick is, for each way that needs to be removed from the relation,
> > select it, scroll down to the bottom of the tags panel, find where it
> says
> > 'NCN 51', and click the rubbish bin. Then, for each way that needs to be
> > added, select it, click '+' at the bottom, and start typing "NCN 51".
> Select
> > it and the route will be added.
> >
> > Don't worry about ordering... the majority of bike routes in the UK
> aren't
> > ordered. If someone desperately wants it to be ordered they can fix it
> > themselves afterwards. It's more important that the route is unambiguous,
> > i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary
> > branches and loops.
>
> It is 'nice' if it is ordered. It does show the elevation profile in
> waymarked trails well when ordered.
>
> Peter .. when your finished I'll order it and go over it for anything that
> I think might be wrong/improved.
> Feel free top disagree with my ideas .. I am not always correct!
> Just leave a message here, I should see it (eventually). Same if you have
> any questions/problems .. ask and you'll have a few answers.
>
> I'm not an iD user so cannot help there.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Parcel Post-boxes (again): national roll-out?

[Paul Berry]

We could try and arrive at a consensus now or wait for one to emerge
organically by keeping an eye on trends here:
https://osm.mathmos.net/postboxes/osm-box-type.html

Personally I'm going to opt for post_box:type=meter;parcel for the few I've
noticed appearing in Leeds.

Regards,
*Paul*



On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 18:29, jc129--- via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On 28/11/2019 14:51, SK53 wrote:
> > I've never been entirely happy with post_box:type which generally
> describes
> > form also describing function as in post_box:type=meter, and this change
> > sort of highlights the problems. Should we use post_box:type=meter;parcel
> > or post_box:type=parcel or a different tag altogether.
>
> You make a good point Jerry about form/function for these specific boxes.
> I'm not sure what the right answer is.
>
> Currently they are in the process of converting ALL c.1,400 existing meter
> boxes to accept parcels, but to quote from their blog: "Following the
> launch, Royal Mail will assess the prospect of adapting and updating
> pre-existing letterboxes to the parcel postbox format."
> Source:
> https://www.royalmailgroup.com/en/insights-innovation/innovation/parcel-postboxes-accelerating-a-parcel-s-journey-from-website-purchase-to-doorstep-delivery/
> How this would happen is anyone's guess!
>
> Jez C
>
> ___
> 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] ITO! World Tools

[Paul Berry]

>  Does anyone know the best, or suitable alternative, tool that replaces
their analysis tools for the missing road names?

http://qa.poole.ch/ is your friend and guide.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 21:12, Guy Collins via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Apologies if this has already been announced. ITO! World have stopped
> supporting their very helpful set of OpenStreetMap tools. Please see the
> announcement here:
> https://www.itoworld.com/ito-openstreetmap-tools-announcement/
>
> Does anyone know the best, or suitable alternative, tool that replaces
> their analysis tools for the missing road names? Their tools also
> highlighted road coverage by local authority which was helpful.
>
> Guy
> ___
> 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 Mill Races / Leats / Lades

[Paul Berry]

I pieced it together as best I could and came up with that, which reminds
me that we need much better (UK-specific) tagging information on the Wiki.

Nothing stopping anyone rolling their own tags though. I'd have gone for
man_made=leat which has some small precedent.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 12:25, Dan S  wrote:

> I think instead of canal=headrace you meant to write usage=headrace?
> That's what's in the wiki, and also 1000+ entries seen in taginfo.
>
> I've chatted many times to people about millraces, but the term
> "headrace" (and "tailrace") is new to me. I'll add keywords to the
> wiki to make searching easier.
>
> Best
> Dan
>
> Op do 14 nov. 2019 om 11:53 schreef Paul Berry :
> >
> > Looking at the existing guidelines it would be waterway=canal and
> canal=headrace (canal here used in the power rather than transport context)
> >
> > If this is indeed correct then it's not very obvious but it is detailed
> here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies#Headraces
> >
> > Regards,
> > Paul
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 11:16, Charlie Reid  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Can find no guidance on the Wiki about tagging mill races. I come
> across these continually while surveying.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> They are a totally distinctive water feature which don’t bear much
> relation to listed waterway types. Drain seems to be the closes value – but
> this really misrepresents  their appearance, purpose and behaviour.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Any thoughts
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Charlie Reid
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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 Mill Races / Leats / Lades

[Paul Berry]

Looking at the existing guidelines it would be waterway=canal and
canal=headrace (canal here used in the power rather than transport context)

If this is indeed correct then it's not very obvious but it is detailed
here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies#Headraces

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 11:16, Charlie Reid  wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
> Can find no guidance on the Wiki about tagging mill races. I come across
> these continually while surveying.
>
>
>
> They are a totally distinctive water feature which don’t bear much
> relation to listed waterway types. Drain seems to be the closes value – but
> this really misrepresents  their appearance, purpose and behaviour.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts
>
>
>
> Charlie Reid
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Monochrome map layers

[Paul Berry]

*Toner* by Stamen Design may well be what you need:
http://maps.stamen.com/toner/

Regards,
*Paul*

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 15:19, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_on_Paper may be useful
>
>
> 12 Nov 2019, 15:59 by m...@good-stuff.co.uk:
>
> Does anyone know of a map layer/tile set that is completely
> monochrome? I want to create some maps specifically for printing, but
> the standard Carto layer is costly to print in colour and doesn't work
> very well when printed in black and white as it uses a lot of subtle
> colour for detail.
>
> Specifically, what I want them for is to print off maps of local
> neighbourhoods and villages for use when delivering leaflets (yes,
> this is general election related!), so that people can easily see
> where they need to go and mark off, using a highlighter, the streets
> they have done.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> 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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Name Suggestion Index

[Paul Berry]

Continuing with the Hotel Chocolat example, it could well be the case that
most are tagged with shop=confectionery because that was the nearest-fit
tag that was suggested when each was initially mapped. If the more precise
tag of shop=chocolate is now available we should make adjustments so that
iD suggests this as an "upgrade" the next time someone is making an edit in
or around one of them. Some of their shops offer a cafe/restaurant service
as well, which should be suggested as a second tier of tags.

Yours chocolatey,
*Paul*

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 10:14, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> AFAIK 'The Range' has not got an entry. You can enter it in the Tag Text
> field with/without 'gb' in the Country Code on https://nsi.guide
>
> To me, the big question is: how do we adequately consult the community so
> that we feel that the GB entries are appropriate?
>
> Depending on github/dev abilities individuals can either create their own
> fork/pull request. We also have an OSMUK fork that group work could be done
> on. Or evidence could be added to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom and
> Talk-GB can be consulted...a number of things are possible. But ultimately,
> I would like "the community" to feel that the changes are ours.
>
> There are a number of minor decisions involved, e.g. is Hotel Chocolat
> a shop=confectionery or the newer shop=chocolate. Overpass Turbo says 50
> the former, 13 the latter. Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom
> says shop=confectionery so that is what the NSI says.
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:38 PM Gareth L  wrote:
>
>> Curious as to what is selected for branches of The Range. That was
>> recently highlighted as being tricky to categorise.
>>
>> Gareth
>>
>> > On 6 Nov 2019, at 07:51, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
>> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 08:24, Jez Nicholson 
>> wrote:
>> >> I was wondering how iD (and Vespucci) decides what to offer as brands
>> when I create a new feature, or when it suggests something like "Ibis looks
>> like a brand with incomplete tags". The answer is the
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name_Suggestion_Index (NSI) ...now
>> detailed on a wiki page that I created.
>> >>
>> >> The NSI is a github repository, so updates and editions can be
>> suggested. This can be done via your own fork or on the OSMUK fork. I'm not
>> sure what will work best for us yet.
>> >
>> > I stumbled across the NSI myself a couple of months ago, while looking
>> > to add brand tags to shops in my local area though iD. I've been
>> > collecting a list of missing UK brands (or at least ones that iD
>> > didn't suggest) and also some potential errors (e.g. where it's
>> > assumed all shops of a certain brand have a specific shop tag, when in
>> > reality there can be some variation in the types of outlets). What I
>> > haven't looked into yet is the mechanics of how to suggest
>> > adding/correcting entries and what other info is needed for each one.
>> > (Submitting github issues and pull requests for each individual brand
>> > seems like a lot of effort on the face of it -- but maybe that's what
>> > you need to do.)
>> >
>> > In case anyone is interested in adding these, or providing details of
>> > how to do it, here's the list of missing brands that I've collected so
>> > far (some may have been added since I started collecting):
>> >
>> >  Animal (Clothes)
>> >  Barnado's (charity)
>> >  Bill's (retaurant)
>> >  Bon Marché (clothes)
>> >  Byron (restaurant/burgers)
>> >  Café Rouge (restaurant)
>> >  Card Factory (cards)
>> >  Fred Olsen Travel (travel_agent)
>> >  Hughes (electrical goods)
>> >  Johnsons (dry_cleaning)
>> >  Jones the Bootmaker (shoes)
>> >  Mr. Shoes (shoes)
>> >  Muffin Break (Cafe)
>> >  Scrivens (optician)
>> >  Timpson (key-cutting / shoe_repair)
>> >  The Perfume Shop (perfumery)
>> >  Topman / Topshop (clothes)
>> >  TUI (travel_agency)
>> >  William H Brown (estate_agent)
>> >  YMCA (charity shop)
>> >  Yours (clothes)
>> >
>> > And here are the one I think there are problems with:
>> >
>> >  Greggs (allow amenity=cafe or shop=bakery or both)
>> >  Clintons (should recognise shop=cards as well as shop=gift when
>> > suggesting 'upgrades' in iD)
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> >
>> > Robert.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Robert Whittaker
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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] Next quarters project will be fixmes and notes

[Paul Berry]

There is also this public query, courtesy of *marczoutendijk*, that you can
use for Overpass Turbo: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ltA

Regards,
*Paul*

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 13:39, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 24/09/2019 13:24, Michael Booth wrote:
> > Fixmes can only be viewed in iD or with a QA tool, while notes can be
> > viewed on osm.org and StreetComplete which is useful for actually
> > going out and surveying them.
>
> If you're a Garmin user you can use
> https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/Notes01 from the command line to get a
> list of fixmes in a certain area.  I'm sure there are other options as
> well.
>
> 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] Thomas Cook shops

[Paul Berry]

I don't know about that but Rob is very quick off the mark with his Ghosts
tool: https://osm.mathmos.net/ghosts/thomas-cook/

Regards,
*Paul*

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 23:21, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> Anybody know of specific high st shops for Thomas Cook which have
> remained open?
>  From national/local media it appears they may have all shut.
>
> Currently 265 entities named 'Thomas Cook' mostly shop=travel_agency but
> a few office/travel_agent mixed in.
>
> 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] Is metric or imperial units system used for max weight signs in UK?

[Paul Berry]

I map the units actually signed on the ground with no manual conversion. If
both units are used, considering as a whole the advanced signage and
signage at or on the structure, I use metric.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 19:41, SK53  wrote:

> A couple of things:
>
>- Guernsey, Jersey & other Channel Islands are not part of the United
>Kingdom, or for many purposes the EU, so their laws are their own concern.
>(Confusingly they have both ISO country codes & ISO region codes as part of
>GB : depending on your usage you may wish to treat them as UK or
>independent)
>- ISO units have been used for restriction signage for a long time (as
>for maxheight, but there dual signage in feet & inches continues). As the
>metric tonne is close to the imperial ton I presume that confusion was not
>a significant issue. Most widespread limits are 3.5t, 7.5t (e.g., in
>Leicestershire to discourage goods vehicles from residential & minor
>roads), and various limits on bridges for safety/avoiding maintenance
>issues.
>
> Jerry
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 16:52, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
>
>> According to information that I found UK switched to metric system,
>> at least as far as max weight signs go - with exception of Guernsey that
>> use hundredweight
>> as a unit.
>>
>> Is this correct? Are there still traffic signs using pounds as an unit?
>>
>> I am asking as I am during implementing
>> https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/361
>> ___
>> 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] Electric vehicle charge points

[Paul Berry]

>  P.s. With this and renewable energy, is the time coming to set up an
Environmental OSM team/group/working group? Just floating the idea out
there.

Yes, as I'd like to suggest better (default) tagging for recycling centres,
or at least an exercise in refining existing data. There are so many
variations, within council areas and especially between them, in which
materials are accepted for recycling at such places it'd be great to have
these richly mapped. For example, Barnsley stopped accepting paper at their
recycling centres a few years ago (while keeping kerbside collections). Now
some in the district accept it again:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27445657

If this wasn't what you had in mind I'll park it for another time.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 23:28, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:

> Robert, all,
>
> See also: https://www.eafo.eu
>
> When I looked at EV charge maps last month, this seemed the most complete.
>
> For these "close but not close enough" third party data sets do we need a
> special tool to help us refine the data quality? E.g. an app that asks you
> to collect a GPS tagged photo of the object.
>
> P.s. With this and renewable energy, is the time coming to set up an
> Environmental OSM team/group/working group? Just floating the idea out
> there.
> ___
> 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] wiki confirmation code

[Paul Berry]

Hi Nora,

Are you seeing something like this?

Permission error



You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason:

You must confirm your email address before editing pages. Please set and
validate your email address through your user preferences
.


Regards,

*Paul*

On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 22:46,  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I'm asked to enter a confirmation code after attempting to add some
> content to my wiki profile page for the first time.
>
> Where do I get the confirmation code from?
>
> Thanks
> Nora
>
>
> ___
> 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 would tag or name this wall crossing?

[Paul Berry]

Now that I know the name for them you'll soon see that usage spread out
across the rest of West Yorkshire :)

This is one of them, hiding in Leeds:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6412833214

Regards,
*Paul*

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 18:10, Mark Goodge  wrote:

>
>
> On 27/04/2019 18:02, I wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 27/04/2019 17:52, Andy Townsend wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27/04/2019 17:50, Philip Barnes wrote:
> >>>
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dstile#Stile_details
> >>>
> >> 4000 of those:
> >>
> >> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/stile#values
> >>
> >> However also from that page I'm now wondering what "stile=hipster" (!)
> >> is?
> >
> > You can only go through it if you have a beard!
> Serious answer... generating a map of them via the Overpass Turbo link
> shows that all the instances of them are in an area around Keighley.
> And, looking at them on Google street view, they appear to be squeeze
> stiles. For example:
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/v8P8SrBYHu8BWMzZA
> https://goo.gl/maps/1h5zqHLpQDu4jUnb6
>
> So I'd hazard a guess that it's a local name for them in that neck of
> the woods.
>
> 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] Sheffield Pub Meeting June 2019

[Paul Berry]

The Rutland Arms, a short walk from the station on Brown Street, is
excellent for both food and drink.

Not sure if I'll be able to join you but in any case I thoroughly recommend
that establishment.

Regards.
*Paul*

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 00:11, SK53  wrote:

> After a discussion in the pub tonight, we are proposing to return to
> Sheffield for a notional East Midlands pub meeting in June.
>
> The date will be Tuesday 18th June, venue to be determined. We will end up
> in the Sheffield Tap at the station to enable those of us from further
> South to have clean get-aways, but as the Tap's food offerings are not very
> exciting we will meet somewhere else from around 19:30 to 21:00. All
> suggestions are welcome.
>
> One or two of us will aim to spend a fair amount of time beforehand doing
> some Sheffield mapping. I hope people can join us.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> 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] Lake District NationalPark

[Paul Berry]

Relation looks OK to me but I can't see the name at any zoom level:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/287917

Regards,
_Paul_

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, 21:13 Brian Prangle,  wrote:

> Can someone take a look at this relation? It doesn't seem to be rendering
> on the main map
>
> 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] Marking closed businesses

[Paul Berry]

Hi Jon,

Apologies if this is obvious but here goes...

I don't know whether you need to do anything other than visit these places
in person and make a judgement as to whether they are trading or not. It's
usually pretty clear with closure notices posted, etc. Then update the map
accordingly by adding the appropriate disused tag:

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

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 09:48, Jon Spriggs  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Near where I am are some mapped businesses properties which have closed,
> primarily shops, but also a couple of restaurants.
>
> I'm far from an OSM expert, and my gentle trawl of the wiki hasn't given
> me any real insight. It's got me thinking, and I'd like to improve
> information about properties in my area. How can I identify that:
>
> a) A building holds a functioning business (that isn't a shop or
> restaurant)
> b) A building holds a functioning shop
> c) A building holds a functioning restaurant
> d) A building is a former business property (ceased trading/closed/moved)
> with no new business taking it's spot
>
> As a side note, I've been using Street Complete on Android. Is it worth
> asking the Street Complete developers to add information about businesses
> to their collection data, if they aren't already?
> --
> Jon "The Nice Guy" Spriggs
> @jontheniceguy everywhere...
> https://jon.sprig.gs
> ___
> 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] We're missing changes to M1 Junction 36 which have apparently been in place for a year.

[Paul Berry]

I adjusted the map from a trace I obtained this evening:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67238911

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Paul Berry  wrote:

> I intend to take a spin around the linked roundabouts this evening and try
> to capture a trace or two...
>
> Regards,
> *Paul*
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 21:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14/02/19 03:42, Ed Loach wrote:
>> > Paul wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jerry,
>> >>
>> >> No worries. I think I'll still pop down for a survey anyway because I
>> now want to
>> >> try the GPS + car trick and see how it turns out. We'll compare
>> changesets later :)
>> > Much of Clacton was originally mapped using that method, when there was
>> no imagery covering the area.
>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/EdLoach/traces/page/79
>> > When imagery and OS opendata became available it was usually pretty
>> close. I was using (and still use) a Locosys GT-31.
>> >
>> > I have seen areas where the uploaded traces and the OSM roads seem to
>> follow the pavement in the imagery and suspect it was mapped by a walker
>> who hadn't adjusted for not walking down the middle of the road (I'm not
>> talking a constant offset here as it depended which side of the roads they
>> were walking).
>>
>> Same applies for car traces. Best to average multiple trips in both
>> directions.
>>
>> >
>> > Accuracy will depend on the receiver and signal reception.
>>
>> Yep. Multiple trips can help with everything but reception problems
>> caused by local obstructions (buildings, cliffs etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] We're missing changes to M1 Junction 36 which have apparently been in place for a year.

[Paul Berry]

I intend to take a spin around the linked roundabouts this evening and try
to capture a trace or two...

Regards,
*Paul*

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 21:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14/02/19 03:42, Ed Loach wrote:
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> >> Jerry,
> >>
> >> No worries. I think I'll still pop down for a survey anyway because I
> now want to
> >> try the GPS + car trick and see how it turns out. We'll compare
> changesets later :)
> > Much of Clacton was originally mapped using that method, when there was
> no imagery covering the area.
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/EdLoach/traces/page/79
> > When imagery and OS opendata became available it was usually pretty
> close. I was using (and still use) a Locosys GT-31.
> >
> > I have seen areas where the uploaded traces and the OSM roads seem to
> follow the pavement in the imagery and suspect it was mapped by a walker
> who hadn't adjusted for not walking down the middle of the road (I'm not
> talking a constant offset here as it depended which side of the roads they
> were walking).
>
> Same applies for car traces. Best to average multiple trips in both
> directions.
>
> >
> > Accuracy will depend on the receiver and signal reception.
>
> Yep. Multiple trips can help with everything but reception problems caused
> by local obstructions (buildings, cliffs etc.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] We're missing changes to M1 Junction 36 which have apparently been in place for a year.

[Paul Berry]

Jerry,

No worries. I think I'll still pop down for a survey anyway because I now
want to try the GPS + car trick and see how it turns out. We'll compare
changesets later :)

Regards,
*Paul*

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 13:45, SK53  wrote:

> Must say I feel a bit of a twit now; and perhaps I've saved Paul a journey.
>
> OS Local Open Data, of course, has at least some of these roads, I have
> added <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67100171> the link from
> near Cross Keys Lane to the Rockingham Roundabout using the version I
> downloaded in October.
>
> I'm obviously not the only person who forgets about these sources of open
> data. I suspect that because they are not visible in the same way as OS
> StreetView & Locator  that they get neglected. We could really do with an
> imagery layer based on OS OpenData Local.
>
> HTH,
>
> Jerry
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 11:07, Paul Berry  wrote:
>
>> OK, I'll give that a try this week and see how the GPS traces come out.
>>
>> Regards,
>> *Paul*
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:31, John Aldridge  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11-Feb-19 09:37, Paul Berry wrote:
>>> > However I'm not overly keen on attempting to map the confluence
>>> > of four major roads on foot.
>>> >
>>> > What have others done in similar circumstances?
>>> Driving round the roads with a GPSr in the car should get good enough
>>> data to be going on with.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> John
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] We're missing changes to M1 Junction 36 which have apparently been in place for a year.

[Paul Berry]

OK, I'll give that a try this week and see how the GPS traces come out.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:31, John Aldridge  wrote:

> On 11-Feb-19 09:37, Paul Berry wrote:
> > However I'm not overly keen on attempting to map the confluence
> > of four major roads on foot.
> >
> > What have others done in similar circumstances?
> Driving round the roads with a GPSr in the car should get good enough
> data to be going on with.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> John
>
> ___
> 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] We're missing changes to M1 Junction 36 which have apparently been in place for a year.

[Paul Berry]

I'm very aware of this junction (it's in my neck of the woods) but given
there's no aerial imagery the only option, currently, is a ground survey.
However I'm not overly keen on attempting to map the confluence of four
major roads on foot.

What have others done in similar circumstances?

Regards,
*Paul*

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 10:41, SK53  wrote:

> * A message on the forum points out that the roads immediately to the east
> of Junction 36 have been substantially altered:
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65350
>
> * There is a note dating back over a year too:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1221610#map=15/53.4976/-1.4580=N
>
> Aerial imagery, GPS traces, and ImproveOSM do not seem to offer any help.
> There are however traces on the Strava layers, but these are no longer
> suitable for making edits directly.
>
> I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been picked up the Amazon Logistics
> editors as I would have thought this would be relevant to them.
>
> 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] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Paul Berry]

Sorry, I only have yet more questions.

Once you get out into rural areas, it's sometimes the case that an entire
hamlet is covered by a one or two postcodes. There may be named streets but
according to RM/PAF these are ignored and such addresses take the form:
building name/number, locality, post town, postcode. The more natural fit,
following the structure prompted in the iD editor, for example, would be
building name/number, street, locality*, postcode.

*The locality suggested depends on how the area you're working in has been
mapped. Obviously when mapping you are free to override this.

HD8 8XU & HD8 8XY are a case in point. Do we map to fit the validator — in
this case, https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/HD/HD8/8 which they
have fallen foul of — or something else?

Even in villages with established streets and house numbers, there will be
outlying properties where the street names will be foregone: S36 7GG is an
example of this.

Additionally, it's not clear whether name or addr:housename (or both)
should be used when mapping anything from a a detached house to a building
split into multiple addressable units (eg terraces, flats).

Regards,
*Paul*

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 22:05, Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> I'm not quite sure what you've done with the quoting but you've attributed
> me
> as writing your reply, which evidently I didn't. :)
>
> Will Phillips wrote:
> > I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a
> > guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be becoming
> > less important, but when most people are asked for their address, they
> > will give their address as defined by Royal Mail.
> >
> > Looking at the Companies House Registered Companies data for
> > Charlbury, I find 235 addresses of which 170 include Chipping Norton.
> > I find Registered Companies data useful because the addresses appear
> > unvalidated and therefore show addresses as people actually enter them.
>
> No-one in Charlbury describes themselves as living in Chipping Norton.
> Honestly, no-one. It's a separate town.
>
> Companies House data for my company shows a registered address of 11 Market
> Street, Charlbury, Chipping Norton. That is not because I think I live in
> Chipping Norton. That is because, when you register a company, the
> Companies
> House autocomplete thing takes your postcode and fills in the Royal Mail
> post-town and other details from PAF.
>
> (TBH, I'm not entirely convinced post towns help Royal Mail in any case,
> given the amount of mail mistakenly delivered to us that is actually meant
> for Mr G--- at 11 Market Street, Chipping Norton...)
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping Driving Test Centres

[Paul Berry]

(Moment of reflection.) Sorry, you're right, of course they're not. That'll
teach me to attempt to multitask at work.

As you were.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 12:52, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 28/01/2019 12:45, Paul Berry wrote:
> > Does https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddriving_school
> > not fit the bill?
>
> Schools are closer to the poacher than the gamekeeper!  No.  I don't
> think they are equivalent.
>
> > Tag usage here:
> > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/amenity=driving_school#map
> >
>
> Says that the tag is not sufficiently used to be mappable!
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping Driving Test Centres

[Paul Berry]

Does https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddriving_school not
fit the bill?
Tag usage here:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/amenity=driving_school#map

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Mike Baggaley  wrote:

> You could also add government=transportation to office=government
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Property extents

[Paul Berry]

Is the complication anything to do with the history of the Severn Valley
Plotlands (not sure if this is its title)? From the names of the chalets on
the compulsory purchase order map we're in (or close to) that territory I
think.

https://hutters.uk/2014/07/27/plotlands-in-jonathan-meades-severn-heaven/

Regards,
*Paul*

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 12:02, Martin Wynne  wrote:

> On 14/01/2019 18:14, Andy Robinson wrote:
> > All seems rather fishy to me Martin ;-)
> >
> > Cheers
> > Andy
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> It is certainly fishy, and also very puzzling. It's clearly not an error
> in the mapping, the small areas 1E and 1H have been carefully measured
> and specifically numbered (1H is only 10 square metres).
>
> Given that they are part of the public highway, it's puzzling why the
> Environment Agency feels the need to compulsorily acquire the rights to
> pass and repass over them? And what about the rest of us? Is it usual
> for small areas of tarmac in the public highway to be privately owned?
> Should I give thanks every time I pass that way that the owners have not
> erected toll booths on each side?
>
> And what about the other half of the road? Who has the rights to use
> that bit? It's a narrow country lane, it is barely possible to use it in
> a vehicle without using both sides of it. But now that I know, I shall
> certainly do my best to avoid trespassing on the private property half.
>
> Here's the Google Streetview:
>
>   https://goo.gl/maps/uoJzoo5uf4B2
>
> 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] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

[Paul Berry]

I'd say the analogue to a ford is a level crossing: two ways of different
types, usually vertically separated but instead intersecting at the same
level, notionally at a point (though you could define an area if you want
that level of detail).

Coincidentally, some fords local to me (one which remains elusive and not
mapped) are on my radar. I'll wait for a consensus to emerge here before
seeking them out for mapping.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:42, Edward Catmur  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, 13:56 David Woolley 
>> On 07/01/2019 12:37, Mike Baggaley wrote:
>> > I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as
>> lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and
>> it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the
>> highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be
>> mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the
>> intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are
>> mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as
>> a node at the intersection of the centre lines).
>>
>> I would say that it should not be mapped as a node on the centre line.
>> If data consumers want that, they can infer it from the more detailed
>> mapping.
>>
>> I would say that fords are conceptually quite similar to bridges and
>> tunnels, and people don't generally map those as points.
>>
>
> However there is an intersection between two lines on the same level (the
> centreline and the thalweg) which is suitable for tagging as a node. It's a
> bit like mapping highway crossings. Or maybe railway level crossings - but
> do we map those as a way or area yet?
>
>
> ___
>> 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] OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data

[Paul Berry]

I've been mapping for 5 years and I still use iD 95% of the time—because it
just gets stuff done quickly and visually—so it's not just for newbies!
Snapping to nodes isn't a problem per se but the implications of doing so
can be. I've lost count of the times I've encountered roads with adjoining
landuse boundaries that go right up to the centre line of the way rather
than stopping at the kerb/pavement edge. Unpicking all those nodes is
doable in iD but it's a slow and thankless task, and that's with clear and
unambiguous boundaries, never mind administrative or other invisible ones.

(It'd be nice if there were an intermediate OSM editor sitting somewhere on
the skill/complexity curve between iD and JOSM.)

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 12:08, Edward Bainton  wrote:

> As a new mapper around just long enough to know that I've made some crass
> newbie mistakes already [point in case, just replied without editing the
> subject line... apologies!], I agree with Andy. The iD editor is the the
> go-to editor for newbies, myself included, and the snap feature is so
> apparent in the UX that I have regularly taken its steer and made new
> objects follow old nodes.
>
> Presumably it would be possible to have some 'sticky' features that aren't
> so easily modified - these boundaries would seem to be a good candidate; so
> would roads when they've been rigorously established from multiple data
> sources.
>
> And/or perhaps a warning in iD that flags the pros and cons of snapping to
> existing nodes, and/or gives the option of a bulk-undo/bulk-disconnect if
> you've done that and thought better of it.
>
> E
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 11:39,  wrote:
>
>> Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Rick Bowlby)
>>2. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Colin Smale)
>>3. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (ael)
>>4. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Mark Goodge)
>>5. Re: OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related
>>   boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data (Andy G Wood)
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Rick Bowlby 
>> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> Cc:
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 18:10:24 +
>> Subject: [Talk-GB] OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and
>> related boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data
>> Hello, I quite recently imported Ordnance Survey Boundary-Line data
>> (October 2018, OGL v3) for recently changed electoral wards in Manchester 
>> (changeset
>> 65101926 ). I hope
>> this isn't controversial - these boundaries are useful to me and
>> potentially others as well, and I understand that the OGL is compatible
>> with OSM.
>>
>> But I've now noticed that the outer boundary of the wards is not
>> coincident with the current administrative boundary for Manchester City
>> Council in OSM (relation 146656
>> ) - as far as I can see,
>> the discrepancies are up to about 5m or so. However it is consistent with
>> the city boundary in the same OS dataset. The sources for the existing OSM
>> data seem to be mixed - there are references to Ordnance Survey sources
>> (without dates), in some places the boundary ways are rivers, there are
>> also references to the "historic course" of a river and so on.
>>
>> So I'm a bit out of my depth here. As things stand in the OSM data, there
>> are slivers of land all around the periphery which are in Manchester but
>> not in any ward in Manchester, or vice versa, which can't be right. Plus
>> there are data in OSM which are labeled as sourced from OS Boundary-Line
>> but which are not consistent with the latest data from that source. The
>> problem is that there are numerous boundary relations sharing nodes
>> (neighbouring authorities, counties, "historic counties" etc) and cleaning
>> all this up - even if I was confident about where or whether the latest OS
>> data has priority - would be quite tricky, not to say time consuming.
>>
>> So would it be best to leave things as they are, inconsistencies and all?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> 

Re: [Talk-GB] How to map houses

[Paul Berry]

Hi Bart,

Glad it's of use but I can't take the credit. I learnt of this tool via JonS
 (not sure if he is on here) who,
from what I can see, has pretty much addressed all the housing in Wakefield
with it!

Regards,
*Paul*

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 19:37, BD  wrote:

> Paul,
> The Terracer plugin is absolutely great. Reason for me to pose question on
> how to best map houses was solely because I drew some outlines and couldn't
> find a good way to split the objects.
>
> JOSM and terracer are doing the job much easier (see the village I'm
> trying to map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.60681/-0.43854 )
> 
>
> Many thanks
> Bart
>
> --
> It would be useful if there was a means of splitting buildings in the
>
> editor(s).
>
> I believe the Terracer plugin for JOSM could be your friend and guide here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Terracer
>
> I've not used it myself however.
>
> Regards,
> *Paul*
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] How to map houses

[Paul Berry]

>  It would be useful if there was a means of splitting buildings in the
editor(s).

I believe the Terracer plugin for JOSM could be your friend and guide here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Terracer

I've not used it myself however.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 09:06, Lester Caine  wrote:

> On 27/11/2018 08:47, Ed Loach wrote:
> > 'We expect this "interpolation way" to be a temporary construct. In the
> > long run, OSM will have every single house mapped as a building outline,
> > and every single house will be tagged with its house number, so that
> > interpolation ways will gradually vanish. However they are good to make
> > a quick start with house numbers, and reportedly there's existing data
> > waiting to be imported that will also require interpolation.'
>
> It would be useful if there was a means of splitting buildings in the
> editor(s). Even for semi-detached houses, being able to create two
> objects from the one original outline would be helpful. A terrace of
> houses just needs to identify how many new objects to create. Where I
> have been adding buildings this has been the irritation. Mirror would
> also be useful although architects seem to like making changes between
> the two halves of a semi these days. But draw one half with all it's
> tags then mirror to create the other half, and just edit the house number.
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping Roads for the Renderer

[Paul Berry]

I've dropped DWG a note because the mapper in question has just responded
and I need to hold my tongue rather than reply.

Thanks for the tip.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 20:57, ajt1...@gmail.com  wrote:

> On 14/11/2018 19:48, Paul Berry wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Not for the first time I'm having a run-in with a user regarding
> > arbitrary mapping of road classifications in Leeds. Latest changeset
> > comments: http://osm.org/changeset/64361310
>
> In this particular case I'd drop a mail to the DWG at
> d...@osmfoundation.org as they're not unfamiliar with this mapper.
>
> >
> > Does anyone have previous experience of nipping this kind of thing in
> > the bud?
>
> Lots of locals saying "no, that's wrong - X is not a Y, it is a Z, which
> is how it was mapped before" is a good place to start.  There are
> exceptions to "A road is primary" etc. in the UK (e.g. Oxford High
> Street among others), but they are fairly rare.
>
> >
> > I don't mind manually reverting changes at some point but I'd rather
> > not do that just to start/prolong what might be an edit war.
>
> Once there's a a concensus of local mappers it's not so much an edit war
> as one person who doesn't agree with everyone else.
>
> I'd also suggest a review by locals of their changes in MK too (and
> sadly for me I'm probably more familiar with the centre of MK than the
> centre of Leeds these days).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> (from the DWG, although I wasn't directly involved in issues involving
> this mapper previously)
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping Roads for the Renderer

[Paul Berry]

Hi,

Not for the first time I'm having a run-in with a user regarding arbitrary
mapping of road classifications in Leeds. Latest changeset comments:
http://osm.org/changeset/64361310

Does anyone have previous experience of nipping this kind of thing in the
bud?

I don't mind manually reverting changes at some point but I'd rather not do
that just to start/prolong what might be an edit war.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Spam GPS traces

[Paul Berry]

It could be obfuscated Strava logs or something like that. Would explain
the deliberate lack of timestamps and a high use of footpaths/towpaths (for
those out running) rather than roads.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 17:11, Silent Spike  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I'm editing this area (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/57.17591/-2.12320) in JOSM and the
> GPS data in the area contains some traces uploaded which look like spam
> (loads of horizontal lines which seem to form the shape of the river and
> other features).
>
> I'm unsure of the extent of the data, but it looks as though they are all
> marked as recorded from 01/01/70 01:00 - 01:00.
>
> Is there somewhere to report this so that they can be removed? I had a
> look around the wiki and found the data working group, but it's not clear
> whether they deal with GPS traces and I couldn't find anywhere that
> specifically discusses them except a figure caption on the page for
> vandalism.
>
> Here's a screenshot from JOSM  since
> private traces aren't visible on the website
> ___
> 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] Postcodes

[Paul Berry]

Would the etiquette here be to tag the objects with *source=local knowledge*
if you happen to know the postcode without looking it up (or it's on
signage, etc)?

Regards,
*Paul*

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 09:38, Tom Hughes  wrote:

> On 09/11/2018 09:09, Phoenix830 wrote:
>
> > I want to add postcodes but I am aware of issues with this being
> > copyrighted material.
>
> Add them to what exactly?
>
> > I have come across https://postcodes.io which states it is from open
> > sources. I have contacted them here
> > https://ideal-postcodes-support.herokuapp.com/channel/support .
> >
> > They have confirmed that this data is released under the Open Government
> > Licence
> >
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/
>  .
>
> That data set only gives a centroid for each post code though, it
> doesn't tell you what postcode a particular building has.
>
> > I am not bulk adding these (I do not have the technical knowledge or
> > time) I am just adding postcodes to properties as I add them.
>
> So how are you working out which postcode to use? Sometimes it is
> fairly obvious from the centroid location but it often isn't.
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>
> ___
> 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] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Paul Berry]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 13:10, Mark Goodge  wrote:

> Another issue is how we tag "gateway" weight restrictions. These apply
> only to traffic in one direction, and not to an entire length of road.
> They're typically used in towns and villages that have been by-passed,
> to ensure that HGV through traffic has to use the by-pass, but, having
> accessed the town via a legitimate route, can then leave it via
> whichever is most convenient.


Surely by updating every highway's tags within the are demarcated by the
gateways? The same as is done for speed limits, etc... (That's how I'd do
it.)

And then we have interesting situations like this where, if anything, two
hgv=no gateways back onto each other: https://goo.gl/maps/dRLTKeEH1RD2

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What was the outcome of the discussion about C class roads with ref tags?

[Paul Berry]

I would have thought lists like this should be on the Wiki, even if they
don't make it to the map.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 21:34, Neil Matthews  wrote:

> > If there are tertiary ways that don't meet the above criteria they
> > should be listed in some form of text file for individual editing if
> > appropriate.
>
> Where does this text file live? Better to add notes to the map / fixmes
> to the data.
>
> 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] Churchyard gate/shelter

[Paul Berry]

HI Martin,

In the absence of a an official barrier=lych_gate tag why not use
*both* barrier=gate
and building=shelter tags, which would describe it?

Regards,
*Paul*

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 15:06, Martin Wynne  wrote:

> What is the correct tagging for this type of ornate gate often seen at
> churchyards?
>
>   https://goo.gl/maps/ffu8iQkbhw52
>
> (I'm not mapping from Google, I walked through it yesterday.)
>
> I've tried barrier=gate and building=shelter, but neither alone seems to
> adequately describe it. building=gatehouse seems far too grand.
>
> 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

[Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton

[Paul Berry]

I can't help but think this changeset is misguided for a number of reasons.
However I'm nowhere near Brighton so not really in a position to verify
other than from memory and some armchair detective work.

To wit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59687846

So, two ways: "Bartholomews" and "Avenue" or just one: "Bartholomews
Avenue"?

>From what I can tell, "Bartholomews Avenue" is actually a mapping error
from some 20th Century editions of printed maps (not 19th as the user
claims), which *hasn't* been carried through to any other sources. I don't
see why we should repeat that mistake.

Brighton & Hove City Council have these streets as "Bartholomews" and
"Avenue", as do Royal Mail, and they are signed on the ground as such
(including signwriting on shopfronts)!

Can someone in downtown Brighton double-check all this? I suspect a
reversion is on the cards...

I've only noticed because I remarked on "Avenue" when I was last there two
years ago.and took a photo of it :)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Closed software supplier ESRI creates OSM vector tile basemap

[Paul Berry]

>  Can anyone assist with a query for a new user.

Sounds like *access=customers* is the way forward here. See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

Regards,
*Paul*

On 10 July 2018 at 21:35, Simon Wetton  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Can anyone assist with a query for a new user.
>
> I want to allow limited access for a set of roads. It is a private estate
> with permission access for certain users but not general access for all but
> it does require navigation permission so it will allow a navigation app
> ability to plot a route and Ellie access. There is paid entry or free entry
> based upon your status but I don’t know how to tag the access -can you
> advise?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Simon Wetton
>
>
>
> M : 07774 960970
>
>
>
> *Confidentiality Note:THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND
> ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE RECIPIENT TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY BE
> PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT PRIVILEGE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, BE
> AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, MODIFICATION OR USE OF
> THIS E-MAIL OR ANY ATTACHMENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED
> THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY RETURN E-MAIL
> AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR COMPUTER AND SYSTEM.  ROUNDSHAW FARM
> DISCLAIMS ALL RESPONSIBILITY FROM AND ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR
> THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON ACTING OR REFRAINING FROM
> ACTING, ON ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE.*
>
>
> On 10 Jul 2018, at 21:10, Paul Norman  wrote:
>
> On 2018-07-10 12:30 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>
> I think it's a positive. One of the biggest issues with large-scale use of
> OSM is that OSM's own tile server isn't suited for high-volume use, but
> most of the alternative tile servers are rate-limited and require payment
> for larger volumes. If ESRI's tile server will, as the blog post suggests,
> be free to access, then it will be a more useful alternative for users who
> don't have the resources to host their own tile server.
>
>
> It's not the same as OpenStreetMap Carto. OpenStreetMap Carto is written
> in CartoCSS and rendered server-side, what they have uses client-side
> rendering and lots of ESRI technology.
>
> I think a more granular update schedule is unlikely to be an issue for
> most users. Even "every few weeks" is going to be a lot better than Bing
> and Google.
>
>
> Yes, every few weeks is more than fast enough for most uses. osm.org is
> different because it's part of the feedback cycle, so minutely updates
> matter. Quarterly updates are common with many maps.
>
> ___
> 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] Local names of bits of trunk roads

[Paul Berry]

Someone's had a brave go at defining that very relation:
http://osm.org/relation/2776562

Feel free to extend it, bearing in mind the Great North Road != A1 (M or
otherwise).

Regards,
*Paul*

On 25 June 2018 at 14:44, David Woolley  wrote:

> On 25/06/18 14:13, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
>
>> So how should I tag this? I want to have the correct name for the
>> sections of A1, yet I don’t know how far these extend (my data lists the
>> street names at points, not over lengths), and equally I don’t want to lose
>> the Great North Road tag - just to demote it.
>>
>>
> I would say that the name should be that which is locally sign posted, for
> which you will need an on the ground survey.
>
> I think I would agree with the discussion that suggests "Great North Road"
> for the entirety, should be a [route] relation.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Sheffield Meetup tomorrow?

[Paul Berry]

Jerry,

Unfortunately due to family commitments I won't be able to attend, which is
a shame. Perhaps another time.

Sheffield city centre is rather well mapped (compared to Leeds; I'm
trying!) but I'm sure there's plenty of spot mapping you can do.

Regards,
*Paul*


On 18 June 2018 at 14:00, SK53  wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> Yes remiss of me for not announcing earlier; https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup. Proper announcement to follow.
>
> Sheffield Tap from 19:30 onwards (I think the last safe train to
> Nottingham goes around 22:00 hours, so  close to the station is useful), or
> outside City Hall from 18:30.
>
> I plan to get to Sheffield rather earlier.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> On 18 June 2018 at 09:31, Paul Berry  wrote:
>
>> Is there a Sheffield Meetup tomorrow? I've only noticed this from
>> weeklyOSM and the Events Page on the Wiki. There's been no other mention of
>> this that I can see.
>>
>> Could someone please confirm either way.
>>
>> Regards,
>> *Paul*
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Sheffield Meetup tomorrow?

[Paul Berry]

Is there a Sheffield Meetup tomorrow? I've only noticed this from weeklyOSM
and the Events Page on the Wiki. There's been no other mention of this that
I can see.

Could someone please confirm either way.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] House of Fraser

[Paul Berry]

Feel free to use this Overpass query to highlight both fixmes and notes.
courtesy of user marczoutendijk :)

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

Regards,
*Paul*

On 9 June 2018 at 02:22, Andrew Black  wrote:

>
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2018, 01:57 Andrew Black, 
> wrote:
>
>> If you are going to do it use fixmes, much more likely to get noticed
>> than notes IMHO.
>>
>>>
>>> Apologies. Might be better stated as "there are advantages both ways".
> Round me there are LOADS of unresolved notes. Some it's not quite obvious
> where it's talking about . Don't get me started on notes created
> maps.me.
>
>
>  To the extent I have sometimes changed things and later discovered they
> were covered by notes. Hence I am loathe to worsen the situation.
> But I accept a note plonked in the middle of a soon to close House of
> Fraser is pretty unambiguous.
>
>
> Note to self (pun accidental): when making an edit check for any notes in
> that vicinity.
>
>
>>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, 21:31 Michael Booth,  wrote:
>>
>>> If you are going to do it use the notes feature, much more likely to get
>>> noticed than fixmes.
>>>
>>> On 07/06/2018 20:53, Andrew Hain wrote:
>>>
>>> House of Fraser today announced today that half their branches are to
>>> close, listing which ones. Although shops should not yet be removed does it
>>> make sense with this announcement (or others like it in the future) to put
>>> notes or fixmes in the 31 locations involved?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Paul Berry]

Perhaps appropriate when the signage is taken down from any of their former
stores en masse. In the meantime nothing stopping you mechanically adding
disused :shop
=yes
 to all instances now,
I would think.

Is there precedent on OSM for this? What are the plans for the 200 or so
Maplin stores?

Regards,
*Paul*

On 4 May 2018 at 20:10, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> When will it be  appropriate to do a mechanical edit and remove the 47
> instances of this store that can be seen in Overpass? Have they all closed
> now?  My local one is now closed and leaving a large gap on its retail  park
>
> Ditto Maplins
>
> 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] Bottle Kilns

[Paul Berry]

> Do we have precedence for handling such cases, in other types of
specialist buildings?

Not sure, but I'm now thinking about other kiln-like structures close to my
neck of the woods. Feel free to update the tagging on these accordingly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catcliffe_Glass_Cone
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/155737916

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cementation_furnace,_Sheffield
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107004890

Regards,
*Paul*

On 5 April 2018 at 15:45, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On 5 April 2018 at 13:18, Russ Phillips 
> wrote:
>
> > I'm intending to map the bottle kilns in Stoke on Trent.
>
> Don't forget that there are some in Stourbridge, too.
>
> > Based on feedback from a few people, I'm planning to use the following
> tags,
> > although I'm still open to suggestions.
>
> the rest look OK, but Ilm not sure about:
>
> > * disused=yes
>
> Since, though disused as kilns, they tend to be used for something
> else (shop, museum, etc.).
>
> Do we have precedence for handling such cases, in other types of
> specialist buildings?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] unwanted advertising in OSM in the UK

[Paul Berry]

Plenty of humans on the case already:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47688939

Regards,
*Paul*

On 8 March 2018 at 09:44, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> Interesting. The skill is in how to spot the difference between a
> description and an over-the-top SEO description. I'd love to see someone
> train an AI on this.
>
> - Jez
>
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 at 00:29 Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've identified around 60 locations in the UK that sound very much like
>> advertising in the "description" tag.
>>
>> I haven't inspected them, but more often than not such POIs don't only
>> sport marketing copy in the description tag, they also tend to lack the
>> usual shop/amenity/whatever tags that tell you what this is supposed to
>> be.
>>
>> If someone is interested in having a look:
>>
>> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/seo-uk.txt
>>
>> or as a .osm file
>>
>> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/seo-uk.osm
>>
>> (note if you want to use that in JOSM you should do "update data" first
>> in case someone else has already dealt with some)
>>
>> These likely aren't the only "spam POIs" but they're the most obvious.
>> Some of them are close calls, where the description only has a list of
>> services, or where the advertiser is a non-profit or even an over-eager
>> mapper copying from a sign. Hence I'd rather see UK mappers have a look
>> and decide what of this is worth keeping, than deciding it from the
>> comfort of my armchair.
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Paul Berry]

Hi again Rob,

If you want some more work to do... given there will always be false
positives, per Point 3 of your original email, would you be able to add a
facility so we could mark these as such inline, eg as
https://www.keepright.at does?

S36 7GG, for example, correctly spans three addressable roads.

Regards,
*Paul*


On 30 January 2018 at 15:04, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30 January 2018 at 11:40, Lester Caine  wrote:
> > On 30/01/18 10:14, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> >>
> >> (There weren't nearly as many objects in case 2 as I thought there
> >> would be here based on people's comments, so it's possible I've messed
> >> up the programming logic somewhere. If there are still any objects
> >> with a highway=* tag listed in other sections, then please let me
> >> know, and I'll see if I can fix the bug.)
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4298681 is now listed in 'highways with
> > postcodes' for WR12 7EP, but my next road which is tagged the same way
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4299405 is under 'Street Name
> Mismatches
> > in Postcode Unit' but has the same name in both columns, so I don't see
> what
> > the problem is ...
>
> Sorry about that -- it was a bug in my code -- which I think I've
> fixed now. Have another look at
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/street-warnings/WR.html --
> there's a lot more moved to the highways section now.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> 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] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Paul Berry]

>  On the other hand, sticking the full post code on a road is wrong,
because it implies that everything on that road has that post code, which
is not necessarily true, even for short roads, if there is a big user.

But on roads where that *is* true, which granted might not be many, I have
done so (and I suspect others have).

Also, in terms of address density a short urban road is equivalent to a
long rural one. My postcode maps to a road 1.5 miles long, allocated to
properties on both sides :) For every rule...

Regards,
*Paul*

On 29 January 2018 at 11:58, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 29/01/18 11:36, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that addr:postcode should be used only as part of
>> an address. So if you want to put a postcode on a street (or part of a
>>
>
> As I understand it, postal_code, in a UK context is for the outbound code,
> only, and is most useful in certain cities, where street name have the
> outbound code appended, on the name sign.
>
> On the other hand, sticking the full post code on a road is wrong, because
> it implies that everything on that road has that post code, which is not
> necessarily true, even for short roads, if there is a big user.
>
> For bigger roads, odd and even numbers may have different codes, and you
> cannot normally split the road at the right place without doing a house to
> house survey of the codes.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Paul Berry]

Hi Rob,

This is a really useful tool and I've already started making tweaks to
address data based on it.

Could I make a suggestion? I think an ampersand is a legitimate character
to see in an address or street name:
Other Odd Characters

Street names containing anything other than letters, punctuation, spaces
and numbers.
Regular expression: /[^A-Za-z0-9 '\.,:;()/\\-]/.
SectorPostcodeMappedDominant Street Name
WF1 1  WF1 1UQ 2

George␣&␣Crown␣Yard

In this example, the street they're on is given by
https://osm.org/way/252054368

Thanks again.

Regards,
*Paul*


On 29 January 2018 at 09:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29 January 2018 at 09:18, Lester Caine  wrote:
> > So it ignores a simple 'name' ? which is why a lot of my streets are
> getting
> > tagged as wrong? I don't see any reason to have to add addr:street= when
> the
> > road already has name= ... The adjacent building use addr:street= ...
>
> You're right that it doesn't look at the name=* key (except on
> associatedStreet relations). But that shouldn't be a problem, as the
> tool is only checking objects with an addr:postcode=* tag -- which
> should be houses and other addressable premises, not the roads/streets
> themselves. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my original post. (There's
> currently no check that the values in addr:street=* on premises match
> the name=* any mapped highway=* nearby.)
>
> If you're not sure what's causing anything that's flagged by the tool,
> let me know know the postcode(s) and I'll take a look.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> 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] Asda petrol station data

[Paul Berry]

Hi Rob,

If it's not too much trouble, could you run through an example of how to
validate this data? I'm only going to weigh in on the one filling station I
know in the import (Meadow Lane, Leeds) but it's not entirely clear how
this is managed via the validation tool.

Many thanks.

Regards,
*Paul*

On 26 December 2017 at 11:04, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback. This is now ready for you to validate:
>
> http://audit.osmz.ru/project/Asda-petrol-stations
>
> And noted it is a very small dataset as it's primarily a learning exercise
> for me.
>
> Thanks and Merry Christmas
> Rob
>
> On 22 Dec 2017 11:05 p.m., "Rob Nickerson" 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Following the shell petrol station data I wanted to learn more about the
>> tools that Ilya was using (the conflate script and the community validation
>> website). To do this I have downloaded the Asda petrol station data. This
>> was listed on the OSM United Kingdom wiki page as a source we have
>> permission to use and I have followed this up and checked the permission
>> details.
>>
>> It's only a small dataset but it should still be treated with care. As
>> such I will be using the community validation website but before uploading
>> the data I would like to check the following:
>>
>> 1. Each petrol station has a URL with the store details including opening
>> hours. How should we tag this? Should we use the "website" tag or the
>> "opening_hours:url" tag?
>>
>> 2. For opening hours 6am to 10pm every day of the week, what is the right
>> tag value? Is is "06:00-22:00" or "Mo-Su 06:00-22:00"?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> *Rob*
>>
>> p.s. The timing with the walmart import being discussed on the imports
>> mailing list is purely coincidental.
>>
>
> ___
> 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] OpenRailwayMap

[Paul Berry]

David,

Happily, nothing sinister. It's a url forwarder/shortener used by Twitter.
Will work on a phone browser, but may be blocked by desktop browsers.

Regards,
*Paul*

On 19 December 2017 at 12:14, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 19/12/17 10:23, Steven Abrams (Brook Street) wrote:
>
>>
>> https://twitter.com/MrTimDunn/status/942751174922555393 <
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%
>> 3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FMrTimDunn%2Fstatus%2F94275117492255539
>> 3=02%7C01%7Ca-..
>>
>
> The URL in the HTML doesn't match the displayed one at all.  At best I
> imagine it only works if you are subscribed to various services.  At worst,
> Firefox is right, and it is a scam.
>
>
> ___
> 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] OpenRailwayMap

[Paul Berry]

A nice little social media boost courtesy of Tim Dunn:
https://twitter.com/MrTimDunn/status/942751174922555393

There's an Open Railway Map of the world and the level of detail is
incredible http://www.openrailwaymap.org/  

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NatWest / RBS Branch closures

[Paul Berry]

There are still "Lloyds TSB" branches to mop up too over 4 years since
their demerger (over 600 matches based on March 2017 GB OSM extract), Are
we able to list all of these points of interest conveniently in a tool?
Overpass Turbo query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/tsq

Regards,
*Paul*

On 1 December 2017 at 12:08, Colin Spiller  wrote:

> Lloyds Banking Group will close some bank branches (listed at
> https://www.lloydsbank.com/contact-us/branch-closures.asp ) and Yorkshire
> Building Society will close more (listed at http://www.ybs.co.uk/changes/
> index.html ).
>
> It's a fairly general problem. Recording the list & annotating the OSM
> features sounds a good idea.
>
> Colin
>
>
>
> On 01/12/17 11:35, SK53 wrote:
>
> RBS are planning another massive round of branch closures (a full list
> here
> 
> ).
>
> I was wondering what the best approach might be to track these:
>
>- Notes on all relevant branches. We've done this in the past for
>smaller chains (Netto, American Apparel) and the notes do get closed
>eventually when someone re-surveys an area. Easier to spot now through
>phone apps like Vespucci & OSMAnd
>- Fixmes on the branches. As above, but a little less visible
>- A wiki page listing branches & their equivalent OSM Id
>- A umap instance
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Jerry
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> --
> Colin spillerco...@thespillers.org.uk
>
>
> ___
> 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] The OSM UK map: abandoned railways may still have bridges.

[Paul Berry]

Michael,

Yes, I stand corrected: the tracks have been lifted here but everything
else is very visible.

The old (< 2015) rendering of the Standard Layer (which was until recently
available on http://tile.openstreetmap.fr and perhaps still is elsewhere)
did show this feature.

Andy,

I'm loath to map in such a way as to favour the Standard Layer (or any
layer, view, etc) as that's against good practice (though it does happen),
and we're not in control of what the layers show anyway. But point taken :)

Regards,
*Paul*

On 2 November 2017 at 14:00, Michael Booth <boot...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Assuming you are talking about this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/
> way/201674137
>
> Nothing to do with disused=yes - it's not rendered because it's marked as
> railway=abandoned, which is the correct way to tag a former railway line
> where the tracks have been lifted but the route is still visible (which I
> presume is the case here).
>
> Though I do agree that bridge=* and railway=abandoned would be useful to
> have rendered.
>
>
> On 02/11/2017 13:43, Paul Berry wrote:
>
> Thirded.
>
> Examples abound but an egregious one, in this context, is the south side
> of Leeds City Centre where you have the Holbeck Viaduct with its 92 brick
> arches 3 stories high marching across the urban landscape. An extremely
> visible structure in reality but rendered invisible on all the main layers
> simply due to *disused=yes*.
>
> Regards,
> *Paul*
>
> On 2 November 2017 at 13:37, Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2 November 2017 13:23:53 GMT+00:00, ael <law_ence@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 01:02:13PM +, Dave F wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > o Another is railways - I'm guessing you'd want to remove the
>> >rendering
>> >> > of dismantled railways, and also possibly abandoned ones,
>> >
>> >But please render existing bridges: these are quite common in Cornwall
>> >and are highly significant particulary where they cross roads.
>> >Just because the railway is dismantled or abandoned does not mean the
>> >bridges have magically evaporated.
>> >
>> +1
>>
>> The embankments, cuttings and trackbed have not evaporated either. Their
>> presence on the map is useful for rural navigation (ROW still climb disused
>> embankments and cutting), and they are potential routes for ROW improvement
>> projects which start by staring at a map so let's make OSM useful for this
>> purpose.
>>
>> With 2026 looming we need to avoid hiding useful countryside information.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://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] The OSM UK map: abandoned railways may still have bridges.

[Paul Berry]

Thirded.

Examples abound but an egregious one, in this context, is the south side of
Leeds City Centre where you have the Holbeck Viaduct with its 92 brick
arches 3 stories high marching across the urban landscape. An extremely
visible structure in reality but rendered invisible on all the main layers
simply due to *disused=yes*.

Regards,
*Paul*

On 2 November 2017 at 13:37, Philip Barnes  wrote:

>
>
> On 2 November 2017 13:23:53 GMT+00:00, ael 
> wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 01:02:13PM +, Dave F wrote:
> >> >
> >> > o Another is railways - I'm guessing you'd want to remove the
> >rendering
> >> > of dismantled railways, and also possibly abandoned ones,
> >
> >But please render existing bridges: these are quite common in Cornwall
> >and are highly significant particulary where they cross roads.
> >Just because the railway is dismantled or abandoned does not mean the
> >bridges have magically evaporated.
> >
> +1
>
> The embankments, cuttings and trackbed have not evaporated either. Their
> presence on the map is useful for rural navigation (ROW still climb disused
> embankments and cutting), and they are potential routes for ROW improvement
> projects which start by staring at a map so let's make OSM useful for this
> purpose.
>
> With 2026 looming we need to avoid hiding useful countryside information.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ___
> 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] OSM Standard Layer

[Paul Berry]

Thanks, Phil.

I've commented on the changeset:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/5322

Regards,
*Paul*

On 26 October 2017 at 13:30, Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:

> I see it too, also this strange large building http://osm.org/5322
>
>
> Missing maps rubbish...
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 26 October 2017 13:12:02 BST, Paul Berry <pmberry2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Has there been a change to the colours on the Standard Layer or has
>> someone inadvertently turned the UK into heath/farmland in the last 24
>> hours?
>>
>> Visible at zoom level 13 only, it seems.
>>
>> Regards,
>> *Paul*
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ___
> 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 Standard Layer

[Paul Berry]

Has there been a change to the colours on the Standard Layer or has someone
inadvertently turned the UK into heath/farmland in the last 24 hours?

Visible at zoom level 13 only, it seems.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Red route attribution

[Paul Berry]

Phil wrote:

> As far as I am aware red routes only exist in that there London, so a UK
wide practice is unlikely.

> Probably equivalent to no stopping tagging combined with opening hours?

I'd go with this. While Red Routes are London and West Midlands only,
no_stopping and opening_hours tags would cover both those and the
better-known Clearways (though note the rarer *Urban Clearways* allow you
to quickly pick up or set down passengers, so they are not no_stopping
routes).

Regards,
*Paul*

On 4 October 2017 at 11:16, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> As far as I am aware red routes only exist in that there London, so a UK
> wide practice is unlikely.
>
> Probably equivalent to no stopping tagging combined with opening hours?
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 4 October 2017 10:14:33 BST, Nils Nolde  wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I´m trying to find out if there´s a common practice across the UK to
>> attribute red routes?
>>
>> I found a few examples on how people deal with them, but no best
>> practice. It seems most common to put 'red_route' for tag
>> 'restriction_designation':
>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=red_route#values
>>
>> Would it make sense to add 2 values to the 'restriction' tag:
>> 'red_route_single', 'red_route_double'? Or a 'red_route' tag? Not sure
>> about OSM policies here.. But I´m sure one could get the info at least for
>> London from Transport for London.
>>
>> Many thanks
>> Nils
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ___
> 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 "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Paul Berry]

One of the most significant shared space street schemes in the country (at
least, the one that got the most publicity) is Exhibition Road. Here's part
of it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34401602 and it's mapped as living
street even though it is not residential.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibition_Road

Should it be changed also?

Regards,
*Paul*

On 1 October 2017 at 23:17, Colin Smale  wrote:

> And here's a road that wants to be a shared space but isn't there yet...
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/NHnieuws/videos/1627424217288914/
>
> The goal of reducing the traffic speed has been achieved, apparently.
>
>
> On 2017-10-01 20:16, Richard Mann wrote:
>
> The classic shared space scheme in Haren:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.17312/6.60310
>
> has no tags that I can see.
>
> I'd go for something like shared_space=yes for the moment. It's a
> "special" type of traffic calming.
>
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> Just like in the UK, the councils here make it up as they go along; a
>> "shared space" has no special legal status, unlike a "woonerf".
>>
>> A general principle which has proved its worth is that to make things
>> safer, you remove the safety features. Like white lines and kerbs. Everyone
>> moans a bit, but in the mean time you slow down and watch out just that
>> little bit more... Hence shared spaces, an apparent free-for-all that works
>> well.
>>
>> On 2017-10-01 18:57, Andy Townsend wrote:
>>
>> Not an answer, but a suggestion where there might be a bit more info...
>>
>> The Netherlands forum https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12
>> might be worth a read, since the shared space concept was pioneered there;
>> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54843 is directly about
>> "shared_space" but a search for "woonerf" (aka "home zone") gets a whole
>> bunch more hits.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Drinking fountains, Ben Fogle, Find-A-Fountain, and Google Maps

[Paul Berry]

This example is years old but references the find-a-fountain dataset. Do we 
want to cross-reference drinking water sources in this way? 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1504407936

Sent from my HTC

- Reply message -
From: "Andy Mabbett" 
To: "OSM GB mailing list" 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Drinking fountains, Ben Fogle, Find-A-Fountain, and Google 
Maps
Date: Sat, Jul 22, 2017 17:51

On 22 July 2017 at 17:44, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> Yesterday, TV presenter Ben Fogle, who is (rightly) campaigning about
> the wasteful use of plastic bottles, asked on Twitter:
>
>I think we should make a map of all public Drinking fountains
>where we can refill bottles. Anyone willing to make a Water
>fountain app?

And I now see that

https://refill.org.uk/

have an app using OSM base data, via Leaflet. I've asked if they're
feeding new locations back into the OSM database.

___
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] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

[Paul Berry]

Quick win for this would be to tag the operator as, eg,
operator=First;Stagecoach and add a note to explain the running. Later you
could duplicate the relation, keeping all member ways, nodes, etc, intact,
but changing only the operator and opening_times for the hours of operation.

I've added this as an FAQ in the Tools section of tge UK 2017 Q3 Project
page and address it soon.

Regards,
*Paul*

On 12 July 2017 at 13:21, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> How do you add a bus route which has two bus companies operating on it,
> same route same number?  One relation with a semicolon separator for
> operator tag, or two relations one for each operator? From looking at the
> timetables it looks like one operator runs the daytime service Mo-Sa and
> the other evenings and Sundays
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> On 11 July 2017 at 16:48, David Woolley 
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/17 16:38, David Woolley wrote:
>>
>>> notices about "Withdrawal of Implied Permission", e.g.
>>> >> .177.117.97.jpg>
>>>
>>
>> This is a clearer version, both in terms of the sharpness of the image,
>> and in terms of its presentation of the actual legal status: <
>> https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0e/d2/33/c9
>> /warning-notice.jpg>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

[Paul Berry]

Similarly, there is debate as to whether the main concourse bridge at
Sheffield station is a PRoW (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/22979084).
This is partly why there are no automated ticket barriers at Sheffield
(yet).

Regards,
*Paul*

On 11 July 2017 at 12:16, SK53  wrote:

> I'd look to ask some of the people involved in the Transilien project in
> France, perhaps Florian Lainez as he's an ex Mappa Mercian. Judging by
> taginfo  they use
> railway=train_station_entrance (so much for British english in tags),
> probably in conjunction with entrance=*.
>
> SNCF even have an internal app called mapmygare for adding station
> details: there is some hope that they may open-source it.
>
> A couple of other points about station entrances:
>
>- (Obvious) accessibility info is useful
>- ticket barriers (presence or not) where these are close to or part
>of the entrance
>- opening hours for side entrances (& possibly for ticket barriers
>too, suburban stations often leave them open after staff have finished 
> work)
>- presence of an intercom (e.g., on E-side of Horsham station) to get
>someone to let you through the barrier
>- public rights of way through stations (i.e., notional places on
>stations where you don't need a ticket). Paul Sladen defended the one
> at Nottingham station.
>Here I think 'duck' tagging is the way to proceed, so entrances from the
>street should be tagged not tops of stairs from the PRoW.
>
> Please also count steps on bridges/subways etc: typically they are 10, 12
> or 16 treads to a flight. From personal experience the length a flight is
> as important as the total number of steps: one can take a breather at the
> end of each flight. So 24 steps in one run are a completely different
> matter from 2 flights of 12.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jerry
>
> Jerry
>
> On 11 July 2017 at 07:50, Jez Nicholson  wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Please be adding your snippets of knowledges, tag details, and activity
>> descriptions to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2017_Q3_Project:_B
>> us_Route_Relations_%26_Station_Entrances so that the less initiated can
>> pick a thing to do.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jez
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 at 23:35 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11-Jul-17 03:03 AM, Andy Townsend wrote:
>>> > On 10/07/2017 14:26, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
>>> >> I have also come across several styles of station tagging, even in my
>>> >> local (single line) area.
>>> >
>>> > What'd be really useful, actually, would someone pointing at a good
>>> > "example station" in an OSM diary entry or similar and explain how the
>>> > various bits are tagged (without getting into the holy wars about
>>> > public transport v1 and v2 route tagging, if possible).
>>>
>>> +1. Even a reasonable example where a 'good' example cannot be found.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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-thenorth] Alsager Town - Incorrect data

[Paul Berry]

Hi Dan,

I'm not sure why it's taken 10 days for your message to reach the
distribution list--that's another matter--but it's left enough time your
updates to be rendered. Alsager appears to be in order.

Regards,
*Paul*

On 12 June 2017 at 17:35, Dan Levin  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As of today, Alsager appears to be showing as Alsager - Domino's Pizza or
> Alsager; Domino's Pizza on a few different views of OSM. I've taken a stab
> at fixing it, but I'm uncertain if I've done so correctly - certainly if
> you search for Alsager, you still see mention of Domino's Pizza in both the
> Railway Station and the Administrative Boundary fields, so perhaps there's
> a hierachy which requires correction.
>
> Could someone please take a look?
>
> Many thanks,
> Dan
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-thenorth mailing list
> Talk-gb-thenorth@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-thenorth
>
>
___
Talk-gb-thenorth mailing list
Talk-gb-thenorth@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-thenorth

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse Farm

[Paul Berry]

Apologies, I have just found:
https://wambachers-osm.website/nofarm/#layer=OpenStreetMap.org=FFT

Regards,
*Paul*

On 16 May 2017 at 14:32, Paul Berry <pmberry2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jerry,
>
> Is there a quick way of seeing what needs fixing for a given area without
> running Overpass multiple times?
>
> Regards,
> *Paul*
>
> On 16 May 2017 at 13:30, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I just happened to notice on the Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.or
>> g/wiki/NoFarm_cleanup_efforts) that the UK is still rather high up the
>> laggards board for fixing landuse=farm to something more appropriate. Some
>> areas look good (East & West Mids), but there tend to be strong
>> concentrations of the older tag dotted around elsewhere.
>>
>> My experience is that roughly 5-10% of the polygons will be
>> landuse=farmyard, and the vast majority landuse=farmland. Watch for farm
>> buildings tagged with landuse though.
>>
>> 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] Landuse Farm

[Paul Berry]

Jerry,

Is there a quick way of seeing what needs fixing for a given area without
running Overpass multiple times?

Regards,
*Paul*

On 16 May 2017 at 13:30, SK53  wrote:

> I just happened to notice on the Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/NoFarm_cleanup_efforts) that the UK is still rather high up the
> laggards board for fixing landuse=farm to something more appropriate. Some
> areas look good (East & West Mids), but there tend to be strong
> concentrations of the older tag dotted around elsewhere.
>
> My experience is that roughly 5-10% of the polygons will be
> landuse=farmyard, and the vast majority landuse=farmland. Watch for farm
> buildings tagged with landuse though.
>
> 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] Spam/Marketing manipulation of mapping data

[Paul Berry]

Hi Andy,

I suspect that, as a marketing company, they know exactly what they're
doing (though having said that their address is 2 Wellington Place which
they have on their own website as 2 Wellington Street). However, I've left
a changeset comment with a recommendation that they map their office as a
POI instead.

I'll revert the changeset (47688939) if no action in 7 days.

Regards,
*Paul*

On 26 April 2017 at 14:17, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26/04/2017 14:08, Paul Berry wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I presume egregious additions such as http://www.openstreetmap.org/w
>> ay/40235088 can just be reverted, deleted, or otherwise reduced in
>> impact (eg converting to a POI rather than an area) without further comment
>> or is there a procedure for this?
>>
>
> Well that's clearly a rubbish edit so I'd just revert it.  If there
> actually is something visible at the address given then that might be worth
> mapping, perhaps as office=company, but if there isn't I wouldn't even do
> that (it does match their website though).
>
> The first time with these I normally "assume good faith" and comment in
> the changeset suggesting that they have accidentally renamed an area.  They
> are new to OSM - it might (just might) have been accidental.
>
> If they keep making these sort of edits then mail the DWG to get them
> blocked (or worse).
>
> 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

[Talk-GB] Spam/Marketing manipulation of mapping data

[Paul Berry]

Hi,

I presume egregious additions such as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40235088 can just be reverted, deleted, or
otherwise reduced in impact (eg converting to a POI rather than an area)
without further comment or is there a procedure for this?

Note the user seems to have been created with the express purpose of making
this edit.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering national/regional walking trails

[Paul Berry]

Hi Beth,

Roles apply to the members of relation (which are almost always ways), not
the relation itself, if that helps.

In theory a route such as this should be mapped as a parent route_master
relation with all variations of that route as child relations. In practice
this is somewhat rare:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route_master

I assume you're looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12145 ?

Regards,
*Paul*

On 21 April 2017 at 11:26, Elizabeth Oldham  wrote:

> I am trying to render the national and regional walking trails. These are
> done as relations, with tags like network=rwn so easy to pick out. When I
> render them I find there are alternative routes, as an example the Coast to
> Coast Walk splits into 3 at one point. Looking at the relation in josm I
> find they have a "role" of alternative, or main as appropriate.
>
> However, I don't seem to be able to get at the "role", and there is
> nothing else which distinguishes main from alternative routes - so I can
> render them differently.
>
> Have I missed anything obvious?
>
> Thanks
> Beth
>
> ___
> 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] Is there a problem with the standard tile rendering

[Paul Berry]

The time taken for a new tile to appear has always been proportional to the
information density of the tile and zoom level, in my experience. The more
map data, the longer it takes. I've seen city blocks not refresh for a
week, and it can then sometimes come through checkerboarded, whereas rural
areas can often be almost instant.

If you think there's definitely a problem, it might be worth a look on the
Help forum to see if there's a known issue. There's quite a few questions
about tiles, rending, etc: https://help.openstreetmap.org/tags/tiles

Regards,
*Paul*

On 1 March 2017 at 11:57, Ian Caldwell 
wrote:

> Just another experiment on an edit I did yesterday (and corrected today)
> at level 18.
>
> Did a share-download and the download was with the edits. A cache refresh
> (Ctrl refresh in Chrome) still showed the old tiles
>
> did some cache refreshes  and after about 20 minutes one of the two tiles
> had updated.
>
> As I was write this email did another cache refresh and it went back to
> the old tiles!
>
> Something funny is happening with the tile caching.
>
> Just did another refresh and the other tile is new but the one that was
> new is still old!
>
> A refresh using OruxMaps should both old.
>
> The location of this experiment is https://www.openstreetmap.
> org/#map=18/52.17178/-2.29765.
>
>
> Ian
>
> On 1 March 2017 at 10:50, Dave F  wrote:
>
>> Forcing it to the top of the stack works, but isn't really practical.
>>
>> There is definitely a longer delay than previous. Rendering times appear
>> to vary wildly (for a while It used to refresh within 30 minutes!).
>> What's quite strange is my recent edits start to update with alternate
>> tiles in a chequerboard pattern, but then mysteriously reset & don't
>> refresh for a day or so.
>>
>>  DaveF
>>
>>
>> On 01/03/2017 10:11, Ed Loach wrote:
>>
>> I /dirty ‘d a couple of tiles (at z19 and z18) and they seem to have
>> rendered OK.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ian Caldwell [mailto:ian1caldwell+...@googlemail.com
>> ]
>> *Sent:* 01 March 2017 09:22
>> *To:* Talk GB  
>> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Is there a problem with the standard tile rendering
>>
>>
>>
>> Two days ago I add some buildings at https://www.openstreetmap.o
>> rg/#map=19/52.09396/-2.33114 and they have yet to appear on the standard
>> tiles. They are on the Humanitarian tiles.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought it might be a caching problem but I have tried it on different
>> browsers, application, machines and networks.
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing 
>> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [image: Avast logo]
>> 
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com
>> 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Is there a problem with the standard tile rendering

[Paul Berry]

Hi Ian,

Another tip if you want to double-check if changes have rendered on the
Standard layer is to go to Share > Image > Set custom dimensions and select
the area you've recently updated, then click [Download]. This will force a
render so as to create the image file for download. (Images are always
taken from the Standard layer.)

Regards,
*Paul*

On 1 March 2017 at 10:11, Ed Loach  wrote:

> I /dirty ‘d a couple of tiles (at z19 and z18) and they seem to have
> rendered OK.
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> *From:* Ian Caldwell [mailto:ian1caldwell+...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* 01 March 2017 09:22
> *To:* Talk GB 
> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Is there a problem with the standard tile rendering
>
>
>
> Two days ago I add some buildings at https://www.openstreetmap.
> org/#map=19/52.09396/-2.33114 and they have yet to appear on the standard
> tiles. They are on the Humanitarian tiles.
>
>
>
> I thought it might be a caching problem but I have tried it on different
> browsers, application, machines and networks.
>
>
> Ian
>
> ___
> 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] Traditional/Historic Counties

[Paul Berry]

> Any thoughts?

If there is a way of tagging these so they're ignored by Nominatim etc so
address/location searches only show up modern counties, unless specifically
searched for, and no occlusion occurs, then yes. Otherwise, you might get
the following results:

Sheffield
South Yorkshire
West Riding of Yorkshire

or, the even worse (depending on your loyalties):

Sheffield
South Yorkshire
Derbyshire

etc

I'd very much guard against that.

Regards,
*Paul*


On 13 February 2017 at 12:23, Adam Snape  wrote:

> Thinking about points raised by a couple of respondents. Firstly, the
> thorny issue of whether to record features which no longer exist;
> secondly, whether it is actually possible to give precise boundaries to
> historic/traditional counties and, thirdly, the source(s) which could be
> used for information.
>
> 1. Whilst the administrative counties based upon the historic counties
> have been abolished or changed significantly in recent decades, successive
> governments have stated that the traditional counties have never been
> abolished and continue to exist along their ancient boundaries. Most
> recently: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eric-pickles-celebrate-
> st-george-and-englands-traditional-counties
>
> 2. The counties existed centuries before detailed maps and thus their
> boundaries are usually defined by geographic features such as rivers,
> hilltops, watersheds. The boundaries were very stable, with the only even
> vaguely significant changes being the 19th century efforts to remove
> detached parts of counties (sometimes for reasons lost in time a parish
> might notionally belong to another county). When the administrative county
> councils were created their areas sometimes differed slightly from the
> traditional county where it would cause administrative problems (usually
> where the county boundary bisected a major settlement).
>
> 3. Luckily the Historic Counties Trust has detailed a sensible standard
> definition of the historic counties and mapped their boundaries. These have
> been released for reuse as shape files: http://www.county-borders.co.uk/
> . I propose making use of the 'A Standard' shape files (the traditional
> county boundaries ignoring detached parts) which should be ideal for our
> purposes.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 10 February 2017 at 15:03, Lester Caine  wrote:
>
>> On 09/02/17 23:40, Adam Snape wrote:
>> > My view was that - like teh Irish Townlands project - there's still
>> > a cultural relevance to these historical units and I thought it a good
>> > potential use of boundary=historical, but if the consensus is that it's
>> > not a good idea then that's fine.
>>
>> Anomalies such as 'Middlesex' sort of challenge any rule especially when
>> there is no 'real' boundary to map at all. But the ability to access
>> historic material, the vast majority of which is still current remains a
>> sticking point. end_date is still the right way of handling the changes
>> that are due with the NEXT round of boundary changes, so including
>> previous historic changes in that data still makes sense while there is
>> no reliable way of archive the data to another database ...
>>
>> --
>> Lester Caine - G8HFL
>> -
>> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
>> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
>> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
>> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
>> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Fire Roads (Leeds, Nottingham, etc)

[Paul Berry]

Thanks again. I'll tag the textured paving as a barrier.

Also, in the Leeds example I've given, cycling is not permitted because
there is a No Entry sign at each end of the path. This is something that is
also picked up on here:
http://www.andypreece.co.uk/cycling/fac_leverndale.php

Further browsing has revealed Fire Paths are actually fairly common in the
Glasgow area: https://www.cyclestreets.net/photomap/tags/firepath

You learn something new every day.

Regards,
*Paul*

On 3 February 2017 at 13:54, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd think that the rows of raised-textured paving can be mapped as a
> barrier, with access=emergency too.
>
> I'm glad that the photos I added to the wiki confirm my memory that "fire
> path" is the word used on the signs. Was wondering where I got it from.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jerry
>
> On 3 February 2017 at 12:20, Paul Berry <pmberry2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Jerry. I thought the Nottingham features would get your attention
>> :)
>>
>> I'm surprised I missed the Fire Path page on the Wiki, but thanks for the
>> confirmation that fire_path=yes is the way to go.
>>
>> As for the textured paving, I'm not sure anything surface=
>> or traffic_calming= matches it, so I'll not tag it.
>>
>> (Out of interest, this Aberdeen one used to be a Fire Path, but the
>> emergency/access tags have not been updated accordingly:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/124065409)
>>
>> Regards,
>> *Paul*
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3 February 2017 at 11:17, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like a documented on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
>>> /wiki/Fire_Path
>>>
>>> On 3 February 2017 at 11:15, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The tag that I have used for such things is fire_path=yes.
>>>>
>>>> There are 4 uses of the tag in Nottingham and 2 in Aberdeen. There are
>>>> several others not tagged (including the two recent ones you mention), for
>>>> instance this one <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43328389> where
>>>> Suez Street joins North Gate outside Port Said Villas (I wonder when these
>>>> streets were built).
>>>>
>>>> The structures involved may be as illustrated by Paul. The older
>>>> Nottingham ones tend to have a zone of the wavy block paving which is
>>>> 10-15ft long and thus not a normal road in any sense. Other fire paths I've
>>>> seen involve two locked boom gates.
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>> On 2 February 2017 at 22:20, Paul Berry <pmberry2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> Fire roads are an uncommon sight in the UK. They're sometimes signed
>>>>> as "fire lanes," but they're nothing to do with the designation in the US
>>>>> (and elsewhere) which is a parking restriction: https://wiki.open
>>>>> streetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane and we're also not talking about
>>>>> the wide tracks in managed forests that act as a firebreak.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean restricted highways like this one:
>>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240007969 (whose source links to
>>>>> photo evidence).
>>>>>
>>>>> How do we map these? I assume service=emergency_access?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, how is the embedded roughly-textured paving in that photo best
>>>>> represented?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are some similar ones in Nottingham, notably at Addington Road
>>>>> and Wimbourne Road there, though they're not mapped as such.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your advice and guidance gratefully received.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> *Paul*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Fire Roads (Leeds, Nottingham, etc)

[Paul Berry]

Thanks, Jerry. I thought the Nottingham features would get your attention :)

I'm surprised I missed the Fire Path page on the Wiki, but thanks for the
confirmation that fire_path=yes is the way to go.

As for the textured paving, I'm not sure anything surface=
or traffic_calming= matches it, so I'll not tag it.

(Out of interest, this Aberdeen one used to be a Fire Path, but the
emergency/access tags have not been updated accordingly:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/124065409)

Regards,
*Paul*



On 3 February 2017 at 11:17, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks like a documented on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Fire_Path
>
> On 3 February 2017 at 11:15, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The tag that I have used for such things is fire_path=yes.
>>
>> There are 4 uses of the tag in Nottingham and 2 in Aberdeen. There are
>> several others not tagged (including the two recent ones you mention), for
>> instance this one <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43328389> where
>> Suez Street joins North Gate outside Port Said Villas (I wonder when these
>> streets were built).
>>
>> The structures involved may be as illustrated by Paul. The older
>> Nottingham ones tend to have a zone of the wavy block paving which is
>> 10-15ft long and thus not a normal road in any sense. Other fire paths I've
>> seen involve two locked boom gates.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> On 2 February 2017 at 22:20, Paul Berry <pmberry2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Fire roads are an uncommon sight in the UK. They're sometimes signed as
>>> "fire lanes," but they're nothing to do with the designation in the US (and
>>> elsewhere) which is a parking restriction: https://wiki.open
>>> streetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane and we're also not talking about
>>> the wide tracks in managed forests that act as a firebreak.
>>>
>>> I mean restricted highways like this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/w
>>> ay/240007969 (whose source links to photo evidence).
>>>
>>> How do we map these? I assume service=emergency_access?
>>>
>>> Also, how is the embedded roughly-textured paving in that photo best
>>> represented?
>>>
>>> There are some similar ones in Nottingham, notably at Addington Road and
>>> Wimbourne Road there, though they're not mapped as such.
>>>
>>> Your advice and guidance gratefully received.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> *Paul*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Fire Roads (Leeds, Nottingham, etc)

[Paul Berry]

Hi everyone,

Fire roads are an uncommon sight in the UK. They're sometimes signed as
"fire lanes," but they're nothing to do with the designation in the US (and
elsewhere) which is a parking restriction:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane and we're also not
talking about the wide tracks in managed forests that act as a firebreak.

I mean restricted highways like this one:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240007969 (whose source links to photo
evidence).

How do we map these? I assume service=emergency_access?

Also, how is the embedded roughly-textured paving in that photo best
represented?

There are some similar ones in Nottingham, notably at Addington Road and
Wimbourne Road there, though they're not mapped as such.

Your advice and guidance gratefully received.

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

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

[Paul Berry]

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*

On 11 January 2017 at 12:23, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> Baldwin Street in New Zealand has been named the World's steepest
> residential street at 35%. John Murray from Murray Data caused a bit of a
> stir by claiming St Marys Hill, Chester was steeper at 36%
> http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-
> news/chester-mocked-kiwi-cousins-over-12414920 but was beaten down
> because it is no longer open to traffic.
>
> Now the Beeb are looking for a challenger http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
> england-38568889
>
> "the road must be open to the public through pedestrians and motorised
> traffic"
>
> Anyone going to have a go?
>
> Regards,
>  Jez
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

[Paul Berry]

So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change *ref* to
*prow_ref* on this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797

Regards,
*Paul*

On 10 January 2017 at 11:05, Dave F  wrote:

> This thread:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html
>
> Specifically this point by Andy R.:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html
>
> As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always good to be
> specific as possible.
>
> DaveF
>
>
> On 10/01/2017 10:39, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:
>
>
> FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was felt
> there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good to be
> specific.
>
> Where was that discussed/agreed?
>
> The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
>
> //colin
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo]
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
> 
>
>
> ___
> 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] Brighton water (quarterly project)

[Paul Berry]

An idle thought, but I wonder how much of this could or should be mapped?

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/b/brighton_sewers/index.shtml
https://www.southernwater.co.uk/brighton-sewer-tours

Regards,
*Paul*

On 5 January 2017 at 09:38, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> I use the quarterly projects to focus my attention on different aspects of
> the city I live in. Factlets that i've unearthed so far are:
>
> * I'm going to have to be creative for water in Brighton & Hove as most of
> it is in the water table.
>
> * Water influenced the shape of the city, as it did for many in the UK.
>
> * There are (almost) no buildings to the north of the A27 (now the South
> Downs National Park) as it is the rainfall catchment area for water
> extracted at Patcham.
>
> * Patcham, the village by the first roundabout just as you get to Brighton
> on the A23, was absorbed as part of Brighton in 1924 so that the water
> table could be protected from building development.
>
> * There used to be many shack dwellings on the outskirts of the city,
> often owned by soldiers back from the war. These were stopped because they
> had no sewerage and were polluting the water table.
>
> * The Wellesbourne 'river' was where groundwater surfaces at Patcham and
> all the way down London Road to the eponymous 'pool' of Pool Valley (now
> the coach station near to the Palace Pier).
>
> * The Wellesbourne hardly ever appears now that water is extracted, but
> following persistent rain groundwater can appear in the basements of
> houses, etc.
>
> I'm building a groundwater flood forecasting system as part of my day job
> so know a bit.
>
> ___
> 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] Local Authority rights of way information

[Paul Berry]

Thanks everyone for the rapid influx of comments. I've clearly mined a deep
vein here.

In my locale, the council's records are overlays onto OS mapping, so this
is what I'm taking away from the conversation:

You should not copy from these maps, but they are useful to get an idea
>
of what is missing and can then be surveyed.



>
> Another reason not to copy is that they are not 100% accurate and we
> should map what is on the ground


Regards,
*Paul*


On 21 December 2016 at 10:59, Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 10:39 +, Paul Berry wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an up-to-
> > date copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then
> > be incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of
> > public but copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a
> > rural right of way blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area
> > and have had the need to get very familiar with my local footpaths...
> >
> In most cases it cannot be simply incorporated into OSM. The definitive
> maps were drawn onto OS maps, and all I have seen are overlayed onto OS
> maps with the words Crown Copyright.
>
> You should not copy from these maps, but they are useful to get an idea
> of what is missing and can then be surveyed.
>
> Another reason not to copy is that they are not 100% accurate and we
> should map what is on the ground. The maps were originally drawn by
> parish councils, and not always accurately. For example here in
> Shropshire a path is shown passing through a house, built on a right of
> way? No, the house was built in the 1500s, and the pen must have
> slipped.
>
> The other advantage of surveying is that we can map the barriers, this
> is when OSM can beat OS as a walking map. When you survey the paths,
> please map the stiles, kissing_gates, gates etc. That is important
> information for many walkers.
>
> 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

[Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Paul Berry]

Hi everyone,

As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an up-to-date
copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then be
incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of public but
copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a rural right of way
blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area and have had the need to
get very familiar with my local footpaths...

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

Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] This is an auto-generated note from MAPS.ME application:

[Paul Berry]

That's a definite usability issue in their application (to say nothing of
an annoyance to OSM mappers downstream). Is it possible to raise it with
them as a bug?

Regards,
*Paul*

On 19 December 2016 at 13:28, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 12:54 +, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> > On 9 December 2016 at 11:49, Dave F 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Peter%20Mount/notes
> > >
> > > They are all for the same entity.
> > >
> > > How can we stop this annoying repetition? Can it be blocked at
> > > OSM's end,
> > > contact individual users or, better still, get it blocked at
> > > source? Does
> > > anyone have a contact at Map.me?
> >
> > I wonder if this could be down to a simple misunderstanding of the
> > Map.me UI. As far as the user is concerned he's stated that an object
> > on the map no longer exists. He may not be aware this his action is
> > adding a note rather than deleting the object immediately. So when
> > the
> > object stays on the map, he assumes his action has failed for
> > technical reasons, and so tries again.
> >
> I found out for my self that duplicate notes are easy to create on
> Saturday. I was in Bridgnorth for a few beers with my mate, and before
> that had had a walk around doing some mapping.
>
> I managed to create 4 notes instead of one due to the interface.
> Initially I had wanted to add a category to a building, in this case a
> theatre. Maps.me didn't allow that so I added a note.
>
> Touching the tick had apparently no effect (no animation or screen
> change), so I assumed it hadn't registered and tried again. It was only
> when I looked at the IRC channel and saw the 4 notes I realised what I
> had done.
>
> 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] HS2 phase 2a preferred route

[Paul Berry]

I'm not sufficiently up on (read: have not had time to study) what is
firmly planned and what is still under consideration, to be honest, but I
believe you're referring to:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-plan-and-profile-maps-woodall-to-conisbrough

If you know previous route mapping has changed in areas, and remains as
certain as can be for something not on the ground, then map away.

Regards,
*Paul*

On 7 December 2016 at 10:27, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 07/12/2016 08:25, Paul Berry wrote:
>
>> I We don't know if it's going to take a city centre route or spur from
>> the Don Valley route yet so unless things change the current relation still
>> stands: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4124756
>>
>
> I thought that, at least here:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4124756#map=11/53.4723/-1.3166
>
> a decision had been made to move east, so that relation is one that does
> need changing, because what's in OSM is no longer the planned route?
> Whether the best thing (until final approval post acts of parliament) is to
> have nothing in OSM and have the data externally somewhere or to have it as
> e.g. "state=proposed" in OSM I could be persuaded either way, but we
> shouldn't have something in OSM that we know to be wrong, as we have at the
> moment.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 phase 2a preferred route

[Paul Berry]

I would say don't plot it if the route's not at all certain. You might even
meet mapping vandalism if you laid down routes in Sheffield: it's an
extremely touchy subject there. We don't know if it's going to take a city
centre route or spur from the Don Valley route yet so unless things change
the current relation still stands:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4124756

Regards,
*Paul*

On 6 December 2016 at 22:15, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 29/11/2016 19:19, Andy Robinson wrote:
>
>> As it happens the Phase 2b shape files are available. Just rather buried
>> under an obscure filename.
>>
>> I'll post again once I've made the route updates for 2b (Manchester &
>> Leeds)
>>
>
> Which routes do the 2b updates have for north and south of Sheffield?
> North of Sheffield I suspect things are fairly nailed down; south of
> Sheffield not so much - there's a broad-brush recommendation in
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2b-summ
> ary-of-route-refinements , but I've not seen detailed plans of that yet
> and the "consultation" is open until next year (though the previous
> "options report" https://www.gov.uk/government/
> publications/hs2-sheffield-and-south-yorkshire-report-2016 gave a pretty
> clear steer towards one option - but again, no detailed route plan yet).
>
> In answer to Dave and Dan - I'd be the first person to say "don't map
> stuff that doesn't exist yet and may not exist", but in the case of a lot
> of the HS2 route it is (a) very likely to happen and (b) quite clear where
> it will happen.  However where plans have been overtaken by politics and
> where (a) and (b) are not necessarily the case I don't think it does make
> sense to have it in OSM.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy (a different one)
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Ideas for quarterly projects

[Paul Berry]

I'd vote for the pubs one, spurred on by the poor dataset that maths team
used to find the pub crawl: it missed about 10 pubs near me, all long
established. Now if they'd used OSM for the dataset and the mapping...

Regards,
*Paul*

On 6 December 2016 at 19:32, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> I'd like to float the following ideas for quarterly projects, and see what
> folk think.
>
> * GLAMs - Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. As with schools we
> could turn points into ploygons, add names, URLs, street addresses,
> Wikidata items, and other info.
>
> * Blue lights - police, fire and ambulance stations, and associated
> infrastructure. Including fire hydrants!
>
> * Public art - location, artist, material; also Wikidata - could be
> combined with http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/public-art-wikipedia/
>
> * Shops - even where mapped, these soon fall out-of-date.
>
> * Vets - maybe not enough to do on their own. Combine with shops?
> * Pubs, bars & other licensed premises - see https://www.theguardian.com/
> travel/2016/oct/21/worlds-longest-pub-crawl-maths-team-
> plots-route-between-every-pub-in-uk for inspiration. Also breweries.
>
> * Public toilets - follows nicely from the previous suggestion! Maybe in
> collaboration with https://greatbritishpublictoiletmap.rca.ac.uk/
>
> * FixMe & Notes - let's clear the backlog!
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Relation: Street

[Paul Berry]

I understood the general rule of thumb was to map to the data and not to
the renderer (which is an unknown quantity). If you're concerned about,
say, OSM Standard layer, then I'm sure some kind of look-ahead could be
employed when preparing a street for rendering:

"If a way shares a start or end node with another way of the same type and
name, treat as a single way when writing the name."

Sticking with OSM Standard layer, there's also an issue at the other end of
the scale where the name /isn't/ repeated, and where doing so would improve
readability.

Contrast...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/22733502
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/236297998
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/236297987

...which actually need coalescing into a single way, but the point stands,
and...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150134209

...where (depending on zoom level) you have to read along and up from the
B-road to find the street name.

Thoughts?

Regards,
*Paul*


On 21 November 2016 at 20:55, Simon Poole  wrote:

>
> Brian was referring to "street" relations, not "associatedStreet" which
> is something very different.
>
> In any case, I believe the support for street relations approaches
> roughly zero, and that really the repeated street names is something the
> renderer needs to fix (and it can be done).
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 21.11.2016 um 21:02 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> > An associatedStreet has no impact at all on the renderer.
> > Nominated uses it to a certain degree to match houses with streets (in
> > case the addr:street does not match the name of a street in the
> > proximity).
> > There are some tools from the French community that uses this relation
> > as well. The French typically place some reference information into
> > the relation.
> >
> > I think the street relation is used / supported even less.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > m
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Brian Prangle 
> wrote:
> >> Hi everyone
> >>
> >> Road ways are becoming increasingly chopped up into smaller pieces as
> more
> >> data is added ( speedlimits, bus routes, cycle routes, lane counts,
> lane
> >> types and  lane turns; restrictions etc.) and the name becomes similarly
> >> repeated.
> >>
> >> I'm hesitant to use the relation street and shift the name  to the
> relation
> >> as the wiki says this relation is not supported and I'm also not sure
> how it
> >> will render, but it does seem as it would cure the problem. (Does anyone
> >> else actually see it as a problem?)
> >>
> >> Has anyone used this relation successfully?
> >>
> >> 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
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Chesterfield Pay Scale Area (former NaPTAN Plusbus zone)

[Paul Berry]

I say delete it but, in any case, shouldn't it be a relation and not a way?

Regards,
*Paul*

On 8 November 2016 at 19:50, Dave F  wrote:

> I discussed the ones local to me a few years ago on here, proposing they
> be removed as they were inaccurate (they passed through houses!) The data
> really should be on the bus stop nodes. Even the person who first added
> them thought they were redundant.
>
> DaveF
>
>
> On 08/11/2016 18:46, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
>> I've just noticed that Chesterfield Pay Scale Area matches neither the
>> current Plusbus zone, nor the "Day Rider" zone, nor the "Day Rider Plus"
>> zone.  It matches what used to be the "Day Rider" zone, which predates
>> Plusbus and was reorganised some time ago.
>>
>> I'm proposing to delete it, but am mentioning it here first in case (a)
>> anyone really doesn't want me to and (b) it prompts anyone else to look at
>> the validity of OSM Plusbus data where they are.
>>
>> For info see:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public%20transport=
>> pay%20scale%20area?uselang=en-GB
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38387628
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> 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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcodes

[Paul Berry]

> Dealing with postcodes is done by Nominatim. Perhaps people might like to
consider contributing to the code base to make this possible (see for
instance <https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/issues/541>).

Thanks for the pointer. I didn't realise it was an open issue with them.

Regards,
*Paul*

On 4 October 2016 at 13:22, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dealing with postcodes is done by Nominatim. Perhaps people might like to
> consider contributing to the code base to make this possible (see for
> instance <https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/issues/541>).
>
> The Irish community run their own Nominatim instance which:
>
> a) is easier to maintain as the dataset is smaller
> and b) is used to check broken polygon objects (through reporting those
> which change in size considerably between updates).
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> On 4 October 2016 at 12:52, Paul Berry <pmberry2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In the light of recent talk about postcode coverage, I've started mapping
>> with postal_code the highways that front groups of buildings known to have
>> the same postcode. However, that's in turn led me to notice that OSM still
>> uses NPEMap as a reference for postcode searches. Given that NPEMap
>> themselves declare this data as no longer being updated (since October 2015
>> from what I can gather) why does OSM still link there?
>>
>> Also, shouldn't OSM be looking inwards to its own data first (or some
>> aggregator service that provides this), then falling back to next-best
>> services like NPEMap for secondary results?
>>
>> The upshot is none of the postcodes I've added (as addr:postcode and
>> postal_code) in nearly three years of edits to OSM show up in a search,
>> other than the best-guessing of AB12 3## format, which is a bit
>> discouraging.
>>
>> Is there a plan to resolve this or am I missing something?
>>
>> Regards,
>> *Paul*
>>
>>
>> On 26 September 2016 at 14:29, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I just re-read a post
>>> <http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/british-postcodes-on-openstreetmap.html>
>>> I wrote nearly 3 years ago. I think a lot of it holds true today, so I've
>>> copied the main points here :
>>>
>>>
>>>1. The simplest, but not necessarily the easiest target, is to map
>>>at least one postcode in each postcode sector. This is harder than it
>>>appears because obvious things to map in sparsely populated rural areas 
>>> may
>>>require surveys. For instance FHRS data has two B in Port Wemyss on
>>>Islay, but the names are not shown on the OS Open Data StreetView.
>>>Similarly a degree of caution must be exercised on farms in the Rhinns of
>>>Islay and on the Oa because individual farmsteads may include two or 
>>> three
>>>properties (perhaps all owned by the same extended family, but 
>>> nonetheless
>>>distinct.
>>>
>>>2. Achieve 5% completion. This reflects a DOUBLING of current
>>>postcode data, and therefore must be regarded as ambitious. This is
>>>however, the minimum condition for breaking the back of the postcode
>>>problem. I believe with a concerted effort we could achieve this in 3
>>>months, using conventional crowd-sourcing techniques.
>>>
>>>3. Achieve 10% completion. A second doubling will probably require
>>>more tool based support. The obvious targets are semi-automated matching 
>>> of
>>>FHRS & Land Registry data, and semi-automated identification of single
>>>postcode streets.
>>>
>>>4. Postcodes along major roads (A & B roads). These may require some
>>>survey work, but again because many retail outlets are along such roads
>>>there is already a decent amount of information available from FHRS.
>>>
>>> This was December 2013, so perhaps 5% and 10% should be nearer 10% and
>>> 20%. I don't have up-to-date figures but back in May 2015 we had 73,372
>>> full well-formed postcodes for GB (not whole of UK) which is still under
>>> 5%. These were located in just under 8000 postcode sectors (out of a total
>>> of 12,300 or so, with another 1000 populated in the last year). FHRS data
>>> has information on nearly 250k postcodes (inc NI) and 10k distinct postcode
>>> sectors. All these figures are based on raw strings, i.e., not checked if
>>> valid or in the right place. We still have thousands of schools mapped
>>> without postcode (eve

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcodes

[Paul Berry]

In the light of recent talk about postcode coverage, I've started mapping
with postal_code the highways that front groups of buildings known to have
the same postcode. However, that's in turn led me to notice that OSM still
uses NPEMap as a reference for postcode searches. Given that NPEMap
themselves declare this data as no longer being updated (since October 2015
from what I can gather) why does OSM still link there?

Also, shouldn't OSM be looking inwards to its own data first (or some
aggregator service that provides this), then falling back to next-best
services like NPEMap for secondary results?

The upshot is none of the postcodes I've added (as addr:postcode and
postal_code) in nearly three years of edits to OSM show up in a search,
other than the best-guessing of AB12 3## format, which is a bit
discouraging.

Is there a plan to resolve this or am I missing something?

Regards,
*Paul*


On 26 September 2016 at 14:29, SK53  wrote:

> I just re-read a post
> 
> I wrote nearly 3 years ago. I think a lot of it holds true today, so I've
> copied the main points here :
>
>
>1. The simplest, but not necessarily the easiest target, is to map at
>least one postcode in each postcode sector. This is harder than it appears
>because obvious things to map in sparsely populated rural areas may require
>surveys. For instance FHRS data has two B in Port Wemyss on Islay, but
>the names are not shown on the OS Open Data StreetView. Similarly a degree
>of caution must be exercised on farms in the Rhinns of Islay and on the Oa
>because individual farmsteads may include two or three properties (perhaps
>all owned by the same extended family, but nonetheless distinct.
>
>2. Achieve 5% completion. This reflects a DOUBLING of current postcode
>data, and therefore must be regarded as ambitious. This is however, the
>minimum condition for breaking the back of the postcode problem. I believe
>with a concerted effort we could achieve this in 3 months, using
>conventional crowd-sourcing techniques.
>
>3. Achieve 10% completion. A second doubling will probably require
>more tool based support. The obvious targets are semi-automated matching of
>FHRS & Land Registry data, and semi-automated identification of single
>postcode streets.
>
>4. Postcodes along major roads (A & B roads). These may require some
>survey work, but again because many retail outlets are along such roads
>there is already a decent amount of information available from FHRS.
>
> This was December 2013, so perhaps 5% and 10% should be nearer 10% and
> 20%. I don't have up-to-date figures but back in May 2015 we had 73,372
> full well-formed postcodes for GB (not whole of UK) which is still under
> 5%. These were located in just under 8000 postcode sectors (out of a total
> of 12,300 or so, with another 1000 populated in the last year). FHRS data
> has information on nearly 250k postcodes (inc NI) and 10k distinct postcode
> sectors. All these figures are based on raw strings, i.e., not checked if
> valid or in the right place. We still have thousands of schools mapped
> without postcode (even some where ref_edubase was added) so this is another
> fairly easy target.
>
> The big difference from 3 years ago is that we have more people interested
> in creating tools to assist these processes: something where the 3 month
> timescale is better than a shorter one.
>
> We have needed to get more address data for some, but on its own it's not
> a very strong motivator. My hopes for making big progress with Land
> Registry data were dashed once OpenAddresses and Owen Boswara clarified the
> 3rd party content in the data, and similarly the OpenAddresses project
> finished without having much in the way of additional data to offer us. (I
> still believe that there's scope in their approach and they built some
> interesting tools, but it was predicated on already having a decent amount
> of usable open data). When one looks at the formidable success of BANO in
> France there must be scope for something similar in the UK.
>
> I'm going to try & update my PC completion maps for the UK. I have some
> now but I know I have lost data from filtering the gb file.
>
> Jerry
>
>
> On 26 September 2016 at 11:44, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>
>> It looks like the next UK Quarterly Project will be based on improving
>> address data for town centres using the food hygiene dataset. Why don't we
>> have a push generally on postcodes too, not limiting it to town centres?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 26 September 2016 at 11:25, David Woolley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/09/16 10:19, Owen Boswarva wrote:
>>>
 That could be done but it's not straightforward; you'll get a lot of
 overlapping postcode sectors and sectors with non-contiguous parts.
 GeoLytix 

Re: [Talk-GB] Summer quarterly project

[Paul Berry]

+1 for the town centre blitzing. Even well-mapped city centres change all
the time (shops opening and closing for one) and there are plenty of
examples of places you'd think would have more detail than they actually do
(eg Leeds is still pretty poorly mapped for POI and businesses, despite my
best efforts). This is of course largely a reflection on how strong the
local mapping community is. London, Cambridge and Nottingham spring to mind
as exceptionally detailed urban areas.

I think it'd have a bigger impact on the OSM people actually use. But, even
if we don't go for this for the next Quarterly, it's always there as a
"background" mapping task for all.

Regards,
*Paul*

On 13 September 2016 at 15:46, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> The idea of adding opening hours and lots of fhrs data to existing OSM
> data is not one I personally find attractive.  But I do like Jerry's idea
> of blitzing town centres that are poorly mapped. Our own experience in
> mappamercia recently in Kidderminster where we had  a summer Saturday
> mapping meetup shows that a handful of mappers  with photo surveys can
> completely transform the map. Add that to frhs data and we can have an even
> better map with address data. It will also get us out to new areas for
> mapping and increase the opportunity for community-building amongst
> ourselves eg "I'm going to xyz this Sat - anyone care to join me";
> contacting local mappers to see if they want to join in; contacting the
> local chamber of commerce etc.
>
> I also like the idea of improving the road network generally - road
> alignment(very poor in some areas) speed limits, lane counts,turn and
> destination lanes information etc. - gets us back to the basics and
> possibly impacts more data users
>
> On balance I prefer the town centre blitz approach as it offers more scope
> for community building
>
> regards
>
> Brian
>
> On 13 September 2016 at 12:32, SK53  wrote:
>
>> My comments on both suggestions:
>>
>>
>>- Speed Limits: a little bit boring, *BUT *there are some relatively
>>achievable targets. For instance getting all primary & trunk roads with
>>speed limits. There are areas of the country where none of these roads 
>> have
>>limits, but even in well mapped places there is a considerable amount of
>>simple tidying up (missing speed limits on roundabouts or short sections)
>>which can be done. A further advantage is that major roads are also more
>>likely to have Mapillary/OpenStreetView coverage. Additionally things like
>>number of lanes, availability of pavements etc can be added as well whilst
>>reviewing speed limits. I noticed this a few weeks ago because back in
>>September last year I drove to Bewdley & waypointed changes of speed 
>> limits
>>on the A456 from Hagley to Kidderminster.
>>
>>One additional caveat is that speed limits on the narrower roads are
>>changing a lot: national speed limits to 50, 50 mph down to 40 mph, etc.
>>I've noticed this particularly along the A606 as travel this by bus about
>>once a year when I take more mapping notes.
>>
>>I have put a map based on this 
>>Overpass-turbo query on Flickr  for trunk
>>roads missing speed limits, and one for primary roads in the East Midlands
>>here . The latter query
>> returns too much data for the whole
>>of the country but can be tailored by changing the area part of the query.
>>
>>
>>- Food Hygiene data. This would be in two forms: enrichment of
>>existing OSM data (primarily with addresses); and surveying areas which
>>have lots of FHRS data but little in OSM.
>>
>>The former is a valuable, but not particularly gripping activity.
>>IIRC the FHRS data covers somewhere between 10-15% of total postcodes, and
>>just having one address in a postcode can help resolve many adjacent ones.
>>Two addresses and one can infer properties of how addresses are allocated
>>on a road.
>>
>>Last year Peter Reed wrote a long series of blog posts
>>
>> 
>>about retail data and used Super Output Areas to predict volumes of 
>> missing
>>data from OSM. Last year I targeted Melton Mowbray, Coalville, Havant and
>>Chichester for mapping of the town centres based on this data. More
>>recently I've done Hoylake & New Brighton. I'd hoped to have a look at
>>Hyde, Tameside at the weekend, but was too tired by the end of the field
>>meeting. Most towns in Greater Manchester are ripe for this kind of
>>mapping: Oldham, Rochdale, Hyde, Denton, Ashton-under-Lyme and many 
>> others.
>>In the past I have used a set of postcode centroids denoting places with
>>missing data to help target the mapping. More recently I have munged the
>>FHRS data